Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 342, June 2006

Case No 2142 (Colombia) - Complaint date: 25-MAY-01 - Closed

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

1. 74. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in March 2003 [see 330th Report, paras. 56-58]. On that occasion, the Committee requested, with respect to the alleged dismissal of 22 workers from Inca Metal S.A. in 1999, that the Government recommend to the company, should it anticipate hiring new workers, to make every effort to re-hire as many as possible of the 22 workers who had been dismissed for economic and restructuring reasons.
2. 75. The Antioquia branch of the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia, in communications dated 1 March and 6 June 2005, and the National Trade Union of Metal Workers, Metallurgists, Steel Workers, Miners and Electrical and Electronic Workers (SINTRAMETAL), in communications dated 31 August 2005 and 17 March 2006, stated that the company had hired temporary workers without giving any consideration to the 22 dismissed workers. The trade union therefore presented an application for judicial protection, which was rejected both by the Higher Tribunal of Medellín and by the Supreme Court of Justice. SINTRAMETAL adds that the company imposed a non-union collective accord for 2001-03 on the non-unionized workers and that several workers were dismissed for not agreeing to it. At the same time a collective agreement for January 2000 to May 2002 was negotiated, but its implementation was prevented by the existence of the earlier collective accord. The trade union states that, on 1 October 2004, the company was sanctioned by the Ministry of Social Welfare for failing to respect the collective agreement.
3. 76. Regarding the alleged collective dismissal of 22 workers while Inca Metal S.A. was being restructured in 1999 and the subsequent hiring of temporary staff without giving consideration to the workers who had been collectively dismissed, as the Committee had suggested, the Government, in its communications dated 4 May 2005 and 3 February 2006, again describe the circumstances that had led to the collective dismissal in 1999. As to the subsequent recruitment of workers through temporary employment services, the Government states that, under the country’s Constitution, employers benefit from economic freedom, and are thus entitled to offer such temporary contracts. The Committee notes this information and, while recognizing the freedom of the company to offer contracts, deplores the fact that, in offering the new contracts, it gave no consideration to any of the 22 dismissed workers, as the Committee had suggested in its previous examination of the case.
4. 77. Regarding the imposition of a non-union collective accord, the Government states that under domestic legislation it is possible for such collective accords and collective agreements to coexist within an enterprise and refers to a decision of the Constitutional Court which, in one of its paragraphs, states that employers are entitled to conclude non-union collective accords with non-unionized workers, which may coexist with collective labour agreements. There is, however, an exception to this general rule in section 70 of Act No. 50 of 1990, which stipulates that “when a trade union or trade unions comprise more than a third of the workers in an enterprise, the enterprise shall not enter into collective contracts or extend those that are in force”. The Committee notes this information and the sanction imposed on the company in 2004 for failing to respect the collective agreement. The Committee requests the Government to guarantee that resorting to non-union collective accords does not impinge upon the right of the trade union organization to bargain collectively.