Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 337, June 2005

Case No 2088 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 01-MAY-00 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 167. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in March 2004 and on that occasion requested the Government to intercede with the parties with a view to obtaining the reinstatement of trade union officials, Oscar Rafael Romero Machado and Isidro Ríos, and to keep it informed in this respect [see 333rd Report, para. 1036, approved by the Governing Body at its 289th Session (March 2004)].
2. 168. The Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) in its communication of 25 May 2004 states that the trade union officials, María de la Esperanza Hermida and Luis Martín Galvis, have not been notified of the closure of disciplinary proceedings instigated against them because of the strike in 1999, and that indeed the employer’s anti-union moves in the courts continued in 2001. The Ministry of Labour suspended talks on a second collective agreement with a view to combining the text presented by the National Organized Single Trade Union of Court and Council of the Judicature Workers (SUONTRAJ) with that presented by the recently established organization SINTRAT. The CLAT also claims that the right of assembly and of unrestricted access to the headquarters of SUONTRAJ was blatantly violated between 1999 and 2004, despite the fact that the requirement of prior notice to ensure the safety of persons on these premises was satisfied. The union SUONTRAJ applied to the Labour Inspectorate of Maracaibo, in Zulia State, to refer the application for the reinstatement of trade union official Isidro Ríos and payment of his wage arrears, but there has been no ruling on this by the Ministry of Labour. Lastly, the CLAT claims that the arguments put forward by the Government concerning union official Oscar Romero are dubious, and the administrative labour authority which, more than four years ago ordered his reinstatement, now claims not to recognize his trade union immunity.
3. 169. The SUONTRAJ, in its communication of 10 May 2004, states that the union officials, María de la Esperanza Hermida and Luis Martín Galvis, have not been notified of the closure of disciplinary proceedings against them following the strike in 1999, and that indeed new proceedings began before the Labour Inspectorate in response to an application to have them dismissed as a result of the strike carried out on 31 July and 14 August 2001. The union official, Pablo Emilio Salgado Cuevas, was also included in these proceedings. The SUONTRAJ also alleges that the Ministry of Labour suspended talks on a second collective agreement, ostensibly in order to combine the text with the one presented in November 2003 by the recently established organization SINTRAT. Referring to the Government’s statements in the previous examination of the case, SUONTRAJ claims that the union official Oscar Rafael Romero Machado was detained arbitrarily on 17 February 2000. On 2 March 2004, he was detained again (on that occasion for 36 hours) while on union business. The union also complains of anti-union practices specifically against Ms. Marjoris Méndez, who was given a warning on 26 February 2006 for organizing a trade union meeting. In March 2003, threats were made against the job security of court workers of the Miranda State criminal circuit courts, despite the fact that a list of demands had been presented with a view to discussions on the second collective agreement. The SUONTRAJ adds that Judge Hilda Zamora threatened the union official, Mario Naspe, with death for having interceded to safeguard the employment security and the personal and physical safety of a number of officials who belonged to SUONTRAJ.
4. 170. The Government, in its communications of 5 November and 27 December 2004 and 18 and 23 February 2005, states that the Executive Directorate of the Judiciary (Supreme Court of Justice) agreed to the discontinuation of the dismissal proceedings initiated by the Labour Inspectorate of the Capital District against María de la Esperanza Hermida, Luis Martín Galvis and Pablo Emilo Salgado Cuevas.
5. 171. As regards the situation of the official, Marjoris Méndez, the judicial authorities quashed the appeal and upheld the warning on the grounds that the official had acted rudely and arrogantly and displayed a lack of respect towards her superior, mocking her and calling for “applause for this great president of ours”, according to statements (sent by the Government in an attachment) by presiding Judge Mirla Malave Saez of the Criminal Circuit Court in Delta Amacuro State. These documents show that the penalty was not imposed because the official in question had organized a trade union meeting.
6. 172. As regards the suspension of talks on the draft collective agreement, the Government states that negotiations on working conditions of officials of the Executive Directorate of the Judiciary began again on 4 June 2004, and indicates that the parties have concluded a new collective agreement, according to an official document dated 22 December 2004 (sent as an attachment).
7. 173. As regards the allegation that judiciary workers of Miranda State criminal circuit courts were threatened with the loss of their employment security, despite the fact that a list of demands had been presented with a view to discussions on the second collective labour agreement, the Government states that judges cannot in any way threaten judiciary workers of a given circuit with dismissal, as the law gives them no authority whatsoever to impose any disciplinary sanction, let alone sanctions that would result in indefinite removal of a worker from his or her post. The Government sends documents originating from the complainant union which show that the alleged acts are not linked to the exercise of trade union rights but relate to a security problem which, according to the security service, prevented some individuals from entering the Palace of Justice and led to an altercation.
8. 174. As regards the removal of Isidro Ríos from his post, the Government reiterates what it has stated on previous occasions and indicates that, if Mr. Ríos considered that the disciplinary proceedings against him were flawed or in any way infringed his legal or constitutional rights, he could have appealed to the courts to overturn the administrative decision and obtain suitable compensation. Mr. Ríos did not, however, apply to the competent court with a view to obtaining such a ruling and being reinstated.
9. 175. As regards the complaint concerning the trade unionist, Oscar Romero Machado, the Government rejects the complainants’ account of events leading to his dismissal (in 1999), and maintains that Mr. Romero was subsequently sentenced by the court on 2 March 2004 to 36 hours’ detention for his disrespectful and insulting behaviour towards Judges Ever Contreras and Iván Harting – shouting, speaking in an arrogant manner, accusing the judges of corruption and abuses of power, using obscene language, making threatening gestures at Dr. Iván Harting, failing even to show proper respect to the security and National Guard personnel, and threatening to strike Judge Harting when he came out of his chambers, according to documents from the Tenth Court of First Instance of the Caracas civil court circuit (a copy is provided by the Government). Mr. Romero did not apply to the courts for reinstatement.
10. 176. As regards the threats by Judge Hilda Zamora against the trade union official Mario Naspe, the Government states that no stoppage ever took place for any reason, let alone for alleged verbal abuse or threats against job security, as the members of SUONTRAJ claim.
11. 177. The Committee takes note of the Government’s observations, according to which:
    • (a) the authorities have abandoned the dismissal proceedings initiated by the Labour Inspectorate of the Capital District against María de la Esperanza Hermida, Luis Martín Galvis and Pablo Emilio Salgado Cuevas;
    • (b) talks on conditions of employment of employees of the Executive Directorate of the Judiciary began again on 4 June 2004 and the parties concluded a new collective agreement;
    • (c) the Government rejects the allegation that threats were made against workers’ employment security during the collective bargaining;
    • (d) the trade unionist, Oscar Romero Machado, was held under arrest for a period of 36 hours by order of the judicial authority on 2 March 2004, for disrespectful and insulting behaviour described in detail in the Government’s reply. The trade unionists, Isidro Ríos and Oscar Romero Machado, did not appeal to the competent judicial authority against the decisions to dismiss them and obtain reinstatement;
    • (e) the Government sends documents on the trade unionist, Marjoris Méndez, employed by the judicial authority, specifically regarding the reasons for the warning for rude, arrogant and sarcastic behaviour towards a superior in the presence of others, and categorically denies that the warning had anything to do with the fact that she had organized a trade union meeting.
12. 178. As regards the death threats allegedly made against the trade union official, Mario Naspe, by Judge Hilda Zamora, when interceding to safeguard the employment security stability and physical security of a number of members of the complainant organization, the Committee notes that the Government in its reply does not refer to the death threats but to threats against employment stability. The Committee requests the Government to send observations relating specifically to alleged death threats.
13. 179. As regards the dismissal of Mr. Ríos and Mr. Romero, the Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous observations and adds that they did not appeal to the competent judicial authority to overturn the decisions to dismiss them and obtain reinstatement. The Committee regrets that the Government has not interceded with the parties to bring about the reinstatement of the trade union officials, Rafael Romero Machado and Isidro Ríos, as it had requested in its previous examination of the case, and reiterates that recommendation.