Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 309, March 1998

Case No 1925 (Colombia) - Complaint date: 31-MAR-97 - Closed

Allegations: Acts of anti-union discrimination

1. 106. The complaint in the present case is contained in a communication dated 31 March 1997 from the National Union of Employees of Avianca (SINTRAVA). The Government sent its observations in communications dated 23 June, 23 September and 23 December 1997.
2. 107. Colombia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 108. In its communication dated 31 March 1997, the National Union of Employees of Avianca (SINTRAVA) alleges the existence of a campaign by the senior management of the company Avianca-Sam-Helicol against the trade union in question. Specifically, the complainant organization alleges the following: (1) the suspension of a trade union licence granted to the union's subsidiary office in Cundinamarca in accordance with a collective agreement; (2) the dismissal of trade union officers (the officers in question being Euclides Arandia, José Angel Cupita, Rubén Darío Leal, José Córdoba and Rosalía Delgado) from the union's Cundinamarca subsidiary office; (3) the withdrawal of recognition of SINTRAVA representatives from the members of the union's National Council on 7 November 1995; (4) the dismissal of union officers from the union's Barranquilla section (Luis Cruz and Gabriel San Juan); (5) the dismissal of 16 union members from the operations area at Eldorado Airport in Bogotá for refusing to accept a settlement with the company; (6) a campaign by the company Avianca-Sam-Helicol, following the conclusion of a collective agreement, obliging employees covered by the collective agreement to accept conditions of employment set out in a so-called "non-unionization" statute; (7) failure to deduct SINTRAVA union dues from the wages of 280 union members after 15 December 1996, and in some cases, the illegal withholding by the company of dues which had been deducted; and (8) the selective application of article 140 of the Substantive Labour Code concerning payment of wages without work.

B. The Government's reply

1. 109. In its communication of 23 June 1997, the Government states that on 10 February 1997, an administrative inquiry into various questions included in the present case began and on 12 February, instructions were given for the submission of evidence. The Government adds that as part of the inquiry, instructions were also given to list the inquiries into these facts in the different workplaces. Finally, the administrative authorities invited the parties to the dispute to attend a conciliation meeting on 6 June 1997.
2. 110. In its communication of 23 September 1997, the Government states that the conciliation meeting took place on 17 July 1997 and that, since the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the company requested that evidence be submitted and the trade union reaffirmed the terms of its complaint. The Government states in this connection that the evidence has been received and that, once it has been examined, a decision will be made.
3. 111. Lastly, in its communication of 23 December 1997, the Government states that the administrative authorities are beginning investigations into allegations of non-compliance with the terms of the relevant collective agreement and in connection with the selective application of article 140 of the Substantive Labour Code to some of the company's workers. In addition, the Government states that the company has been fined a sum equivalent to 80 times the legal minimum wage following an investigation into the implementation by the company of a "non-unionization" statute.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 112. The Committee observes that in the present case, the allegations refer to several distinct acts of anti-union discrimination that are alleged to have occurred in the company Avianca-Sam-Helicol. Specifically, the complainant organization alleges the following: the suspension of a trade union licence granted in accordance with a collective agreement; the dismissal of trade union officers and members; the derecognition of SINTRAVA representatives from the members of the National Council of a campaign to force workers covered by the collective agreement to accept conditions of employment set out in a so-called "non-unionization" statute; failure to deduct trade union dues from wages and the illegal withholding of dues that had been deducted; and the selective application to union leaders and members of article 140 of the Substantive Labour Code (concerning remuneration without work).
2. 113. The Committee takes note of the fact that the Government in its reply maintains that: (i) administrative investigations have begun into the case in question; (ii) the administrative authorities invited the parties to attend a conciliation meeting but the parties did not reach an agreement; (iii) since no agreement was reached, evidence will be submitted to allow a decision to be taken; (iv) the company has been fined a sum equivalent to 80 times the legal minimum wage following an investigation into the implementation of a so-called "non-unionization" statute; and (v) investigations have started into allegations of non-compliance by the company with the relevant collective agreement and into the selective application to some workers of article 140 of the Substantive Labour Code (concerning remuneration without work).
3. 114. The Committee requests the Government to transmit the decision concerning the fine imposed on the company Avianca-Sam-Helicol and to confirm that this type of anti-union discrimination practice has ceased in this company. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the investigations concerning the violation of section 140 of the Labour Code and hopes that these investigations will be concluded very soon.
4. 115. The Committee regrets that the Government in its reply did not refer specifically to the other allegations presented concerning anti-union dismissals, the failure to deduct union dues, the non-recognition of trade union leaders and the suspension of time off for trade union activities, which it examines below.
5. 116. As regards the dismissal of union officers at the trade union's Cundinamarca subsidiary office (the officers in question being Euclides Arandia, José Angel Cupita, Rubén Darío Leal, José Córdoba and Rosalía Delgado), of union officers at the union's Barranquilla section (Luis Cruz and Gabriel San Juan) and of 16 union members of the operations area at Eldorado Airport in Bogotá, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that "No person should be dismissed or prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment". (See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th (revised) edition, 1996, para. 696.) Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary steps forthwith to begin an investigation into this matter, and, if it is found that trade union officers and members were dismissed on grounds of their trade union activities, because of their position as union officers or members, or for anti-union motives, to reinstate them in their posts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the inquiry.
6. 117. With regard to the company's failure after 15 December 1996 to deduct union dues from the wages of 280 union members on behalf of the complainant, and in some cases the illegal withholding by the company of dues that had been deducted, the Committee, noting the absence of any comments by the Government on this allegation, emphasizes that in considering similar allegations, it has previously recalled that "non-payment of union dues can result in serious financial difficulties for trade union organizations" (see 307th Report of the Committee, Case No. 1889 (Argentina), para. 85), and asks the Government to ensure that the company guarantees the deduction and transfer of union dues in the manner provided under section 400 of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this connection.
7. 118. Lastly, as regards the allegations concerning the suspension of a permanent licence granted to the union's subsidiary office at Cundinamarca and the withdrawal on 7 November 1995 of recognition as representatives of the National Union of Employees of Avianca (SINTRAVA) from the members of the union's National Council, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to carry out an investigation into the matter and, if the allegations are found to be true, to take any necessary steps to ensure that the relevant terms of the collective agreement are enforced. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this connection.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 119. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to transmit the decision concerning the fine imposed upon the company Avianca-Sam-Helicol for having applied a status of "not unionized" to the workers and to confirm that this type of anti-union discrimination practice has ceased. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of the investigations into violations of section 140 of the Labour Code and hopes that these investigations will be concluded very soon.
   • (b) As regards the dismissal of trade union officers from the union's subsidiary office at Cundinamarca (Euclides Arandia, José Angel Cupita, Rubén Darío Leal, José Córdoba and Rosalía Delgado), of union officers at the union's Barranquilla section (Luis Cruz and Gabriel San Juan) and of 16 union members from the operations area at Eldorado Airport in Bogotá, the Committee requests the Government to take all steps forthwith to begin an investigation into the matter and, if it is found that the union officers and members in question were dismissed on grounds of their trade union activities, because of their position as union officers or members, or for anti-union motives, to reinstate them in their posts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this investigation.
   • (c) As regards the failure after 15 December 1996 to deduct trade union dues from the wages of 280 union members on behalf of the complainant, and in some cases the illegal withholding by the company of dues that had been deducted, the Committee, noting the absence of any comments by the Government on this allegation, emphasizes that in considering similar allegations, it has previously recalled that non-payment of union dues can result in serious financial difficulties for trade union organizations and requests the Government to ensure that the company guarantees the deduction and transfer of union dues in the manner provided under section 400 of the substantive Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this connection.
     • (d ) As regards the allegations concerning the suspension of a permanent trade union licence granted to the union's subsidiary office at Cundinamarca in accordance with a collective agreement, and the withdrawal on 7 November 1995 of recognition as SINTRAVA representatives from members of the union's National Council, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that an investigation is conducted into the matter and, if the allegations are found to be true, to take any necessary steps to ensure that the relevant terms of the collective agreement are enforced. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this connection.