Definitive Report - Report No 318, November 1999

Case No 2016 (Brazil) - Complaint date: 04-MAR-99 - Closed

Allegations: Refusal to deduct trade union dues

1. 93. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 4 March 1999 from the Single Central Organization of Workers (CUT). The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 19 May 1999.
2. 94. Brazil has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 95. In its communication of 4 March 1999, the Single Central Organization of Workers (CUT) states that, following the adoption of the 1988 Constitution, which guarantees the right to form unions in the public sector, most of the existing civil associations in that sector became trade unions. The complainant states that since the beginning of 1998, the government of the State of Paraná has been carrying out anti-union acts. During January and February 1998, the Government stopped deducting trade union dues for members of the Union of Teachers in the State and Municipal Public Systems and that from October of that year onwards, in retaliation for the union's protests against the reforms undertaken by the state government of Paraná, deduction of the union dues of 43,000 unionized teachers in this state was stopped. From late 1998 onwards, the state government extended this anti-union measure to the other public service unions. The complainant points out that this conduct on the part of the Paraná state government violates the country's Constitution, national legislation and international conventions.

B. The Government's reply

1. 96. In its communication of 5 May 1999, the Government states that the union dues claimed by the unions are those referred to in section 548(b) of the Consolidated Labour Laws, under the terms of which trade union organizations are to be funded from members' contributions in the form established in union statutes or at the unions' general meetings. Such contributions are voluntary in nature, depend on the consent of each union member and are paid monthly. They are not compulsory, and the State of Paraná cannot be asked to deduct trade union dues at source, since it might be asked by officials to return large sums of money deducted by mistake.
2. 97. The Government stresses that payment of the monthly trade union dues depends on the agreement of each member and that, in this regard, the Higher Labour Court has stated that the collective arrangement by which union dues are deducted from professional workers' salaries, whether or not they are union members, without their prior consent, is not compatible with Brazilian law. The Government states that as a result of this, it cannot continue to deduct union dues if it is not shown that the public servants in question are union members and, in particular, that they have given their express authorization for the deductions. Lastly, the Government states that the Court of Justice of the State of Paraná has acknowledged that there is no obligation on the part of the state to deduct union dues from salaries.
3. 98. The Government states that the secretariat of the Paraná state government previously deducted voluntary trade union contributions from employees' salaries. Following the enactment of State Decree No. 3062/97 in January 1998, this practice was stopped since, under the terms of the Decree, deductions other than compulsory deductions are allowed only with the express authorization of the officials concerned. In the light of this measure, the Union of Teachers in the State and Municipal Public Systems and the union representing public servants employed by departments of the State of Paraná initiated protection (amparo) proceedings in the Paraná State Court of Justice in order to obtain recognition of the right to have members' union dues deducted at source on a compulsory basis. The Government has supplied copies of the Court of Justice rulings which indicate that the requests for such protection have been rejected.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 99. The Committee notes that in the present case, the complainant alleges that from January 1998 onwards, the government of the State of Paraná stopped deducting the trade union dues of members of the Union of Teachers in the State and Municipal Public Systems and that starting in October of that year, in retaliation for the union's protests against the reforms undertaken by the state government, they stopped deducting the union dues of 43,000 unionized teachers in the state. This measure was extended to the other public service unions from late 1998 onwards.
2. 100. The Committee notes that the complainant and the Government agree that the State of Paraná had previously deducted trade union dues for members of the public sector unions and, starting in 1998, stopped doing so. However, the versions of the two parties are mutually contradictory in terms of the reasons given for discontinuing the practice. While the complainant alleges that it was done as an anti-union measure in retaliation for the union's protests against the reforms undertaken by the government of the State of Paraná, the Government states that it had previously deducted the union dues on a voluntary basis, but that under the terms of State Decree No. 3062/97 (according to which non-compulsory deductions are allowed only with the express authorization of the officials concerned), it could not continue to withhold deductions without such authorization, which has also been demanded by the Higher Labour Court and by a number of court rulings in the State of Paraná.
3. 101. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes that the requirement for the express authorization of a union's members for employers to be allowed to deduct trade union dues from wages is not at variance with the principles of freedom of association. However, the Committee considers that in the present case, abruptly stopping these deductions for a number of months could have caused serious economic damage to the trade unions in this sector. The Committee emphasizes that the withdrawal of the check-off facility, which could lead to financial difficulties for trade union organizations, is not conducive to the development of harmonious industrial relations and should therefore be avoided (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 435). The Committee deeply deplores that the government of the State of Paraná did not adopt transition measures in order to prevent damage to the trade union organizations (for example, by informing the unions of the need to have the express authorization of the members and allowing a certain period for them to submit such authorization). Under these circumstances, the Committee hopes that in future such measures, which could seriously affect the finances of the unions concerned, will not be taken, and requests the Government, as soon as the trade unions present proof of their members' authorization for the deduction of trade union dues, to take the necessary measures to make those deductions and ensure that they are promptly transferred to the trade unions.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 102. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
   • Recalling that the withdrawal of the check-off facility, which could lead to financial difficulties for trade union organizations, is not conducive to the development of harmonious industrial relations, the Committee requests the Government, as soon as the trade unions concerned present proof of their members' authorization for the deduction of trade union dues, to take the necessary measures to make those deductions and ensure that they are promptly transferred to the trade unions.