Definitive Report - Report No 368, June 2013

Case No 2935 (Colombia) - Complaint date: 31-MAR-12 - Closed

Allegations: the complainant organizations allege anti-union dismissals following the presentation of a list of demands in the municipality of Yondo, as well as dismissals and other anti-union actions in the National Health Supervisory Body

1. 281. The complaints are contained in a communication from the Trade Union of Workers and Employees in Public and Autonomous Services and Decentralized and Territorial Institutions of Colombia (SINTRAEMSDES) of March 2012 and the National Trade Union of Social Protection Workers and Public Servants (SINALTRAEMPROS) of August 2012. The Single Confederation of Workers (CUT) supported the complaint presented by SINTRAEMSDES in a communication dated 16 March 2012.
2. 282. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 21 October 2012 and February 2013.
3. 283. 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. 284. In its communication of March 2012, SINTRAEMSDES reports that on 30 August 2002 the trade union presented a list of demands to the municipality of Yondo. The complainant alleges that following the presentation of the list of demands, the municipality dismissed 19 unionized workers (listed by name) between 5 February 2003 and 12 May 2004. The complainant further reports that as a result of collective bargaining, a collective agreement was signed on 12 October 2006. Lastly, SINTRAEMSDES reports that the dismissed workers filed legal proceedings before the national courts claiming that the dismissals happened during the period of the collective dispute, but that the courts ruled against the workers.
2. 285. In its communication of August 2012, SINALTRAEMPROS reports that on 19 November 2011, more than 25 public servants of the National Health Supervisory Body met in Zipaquirá to form a trade union, thus creating the first trade union branch committee of the Supervisory Body. The complainants indicate that the director of the Supervisory Body was notified of the creation of the union branch committee on 29 December 2011. The complainant organization alleges that as of the creation of the branch committee, the administration began a smear, intimidation and workplace harassment campaign against the trade union leaders and that, in that context, Mr Arcesio Rodríguez Bonilla and Ms Ana María Gaitán Parra were dismissed, workplace harassment was used to force Mr Jesús Alberto Gutiérrez Torres and Ms Francy Leny Cuenca to give up their union activities, and Ms Vivian Marcela Delapena filed a complaint claiming workplace harassment and anti-union persecution.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 286. In its communication of 21 October 2012, the Government reports, with regard to the allegations presented by SINTRAEMSDES, that the mayor of the municipality of Yondo indicated that the contracts of the workers listed in the complaint were terminated in an administrative restructuring process carried out in 2003 and that, in keeping with labour standards, all the dismissed workers were awarded compensation. It further indicates that all the workers filed complaints before the labour courts but that the courts ruled in favour of the municipality. Lastly, the Government indicates that freedom of association was not violated and that the restructuring process was pursued in the general interests of the municipality.
2. 287. In its communication of February 2013, the Government indicates that, thanks to the pursuit of consensus and dialogue, the parties to this case have succeeded in reaching an important agreement in the framework of the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts referred to the ILO (CETCOIT). The Government supplies a copy of the signed agreement according to which it was decided: (i) to establish a platform of direct and permanent dialogue between the union leaders and the representatives of the National Health Supervisory Body; (ii) that the individual complaints of judicial nature would be resolved by judges and in full compliance with the right to due process of the parties concerned; (iii) that the CETCOIT will remain at the disposal of the parties to find solutions promoting understanding and overcoming any differences that might arise; and (iv) that the complaint presented to the ILO is considered resolved and will be withdrawn.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 288. The Committee notes that in this case the Trade Union of Workers and Employees in Public and Autonomous Services and Decentralized and Territorial Institutions of Colombia (SINTRAEMSDES) reports the dismissal of 19 unionized workers. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government reports that the mayor of the municipality of Yondo indicated that: (1) the contracts of the workers in question were terminated in an administrative restructuring process carried out in 2003 and that, in keeping with labour standards, all the dismissed workers were awarded compensation; (2) all the workers in question filed complaints before the labour courts but the courts ruled in favour of the municipality. In these circumstances, while taking note of this information, in view of the time elapsed (from six months to a year) between the presentation of the list of demands (August 2002) and the dates on which the workers started being dismissed, and the fact that the courts rejected all the complaints filed by the workers in question, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of these allegations.
2. 289. The Committee also observes that SINALTRAEMPROS alleges that as of the creation of the trade union branch committee in the National Health Supervisory Body, the administration began a smear, intimidation and workplace harassment campaign against the union leaders and that in that context Mr Arcesio Rodríguez Bonilla and Ms Ana María Gaitán Parra were dismissed, and Mr Jesús Alberto Gutiérrez Torres and Ms Francy Leny Cuenca were forced to give up their union activities. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (1) thanks to the pursuit of consensus and dialogue, the parties to this case have succeeded in reaching an important agreement in the framework of the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts referred to the ILO (CETCOIT); and (2) according to the signed agreement, it was decided: (i) to establish a platform of direct and permanent dialogue between the union leaders and the representatives of the National Health Supervisory Body; (ii) that the individual complaints of judicial nature would be resolved by judges and in full compliance with the right to due process of the parties concerned; (iii) that the CETCOIT will remain at the disposal of the parties to find solutions promoting understanding and overcoming any differences that might arise; and (iv) that the complaint presented to the ILO is considered resolved and will be withdrawn. The Committee notes this information with interest and, in these circumstances, will not pursue its examination of the allegations.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 290. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that the present case does not call for further examination.