Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 368, June 2013

Case No 2959 (Guatemala) - Complaint date: 01-JUN-12 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges anti-union practices, violation of the provisions of a collective agreement and dangers to the safety of the members of two trade unions at the Property Registry

1. 497. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Trade Union Confederation of Guatemala (UNSITRAGUA) dated 1 June 2012.
2. 498. The Government sent observations in a communication dated 27 November 2012.
3. 499. Guatemala 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. 500. In a communication dated 1 June 2012, the complainant alleges that the Property Registry Workers’ Union (STRGP) and the Property Registry Administrative Workers’ Union (STARP) have been subjected by the new Registrar, who was appointed in January 2012, to various anti-union practices, including transfers, recruitment and dismissals in violation of the current collective agreement, the loss of union membership by a worker, Ms Ana María Hernández, in return for a managerial post involving a pay rise, statements in the media by the Registrar likely to endanger registry workers in general and trade union officials in particular, and obstruction of national police action relating to the implementation of security measures requested by both trade unions. The complainant indicates that the STRGP filed complaints between 20 April and 4 May 2012 with the Ministry of Labour and the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office and that it instituted legal proceedings to seek nullification of the appointments made by the Registrar in violation of the provisions of the collective agreement.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 501. In its reply dated 27 November 2012, the Government states that since July 2012 there has been direct conciliatory dialogue between the new management of the Property Registry and the STRGP and STARP which has enabled the issues under dispute to be resolved. A forum for dialogue, set up under the auspices of the labour inspectorate, completed its work on 9 August 2012, when the inspectorate established a protocol which was signed by the parties. This contained a list of agreements which had been concluded, particularly those relating to the free exercise of freedom of association at the Property Registry and to observance of the collective agreement relating to employment stability, transfers, appointments and creation of posts. In the protocol drawn up by the inspectorate, the trade unions and the employers indicated that relations are now harmonious between the parties and that any other issues arising between the unions and the management will be resolved directly through dialogue between the parties.
2. 502. The Government also sends a copy of a communication dated 26 October 2012 whereby the STRGP informed the Labour and Social Welfare Court that, because of the agreement reached with the respondent, it was dropping its legal action calling for nullification of the appointments made by the Registrar. Lastly, the Government indicates that the STRGP decided to withdraw its complaints relating to the alleged dangers caused to the safety of its members, the notice of withdrawal was about to be submitted to the respective court and a copy would be forwarded once it had been submitted.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 503. The Committee observes that the present case refers to allegations of anti-union practices, violations of the collective agreement and dangers to the safety of the members of two trade unions at the Property Registry.
2. 504. The Committee notes the Government’s observations concerning the resolution of the issues under dispute between the management of the Property Registry and the STRGP and STARP trade unions through a forum for dialogue facilitated by the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes the protocol established by the labour inspectorate on 9 August 2012 and signed by the parties containing a list of concluded agreements and indicating that relations are now harmonious between the parties and that any other issues arising between the unions and the management will be resolved directly through dialogue between the parties. The Committee also observes that the STRGP dropped its legal action for nullification instituted in the Labour and Social Welfare Court.
3. 505. The Committee notes the Government’s statements to the effect that the STRGP also decided to withdraw its complaints relating to the alleged dangers caused to the safety of its members. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 44]. The Committee takes note with interest of the formal commitment made by the Government, through the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 26 March 2013 by the Government of Guatemala and the Workers’ group of the ILO Governing Body, to guarantee the safety of workers, and through effective protection measures, that of trade union officials and leaders against violence and threats so that they can carry out their trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government and the complainant to keep it informed of any follow-up action taken with regard to the complaints initially filed by the STRGP concerning alleged dangers caused to the safety of its members.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 506. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
   • The Committee requests the Government and the complainant to keep it informed of any follow-up action taken with regard to the complaints initially filed by the STRGP concerning alleged dangers caused to the safety of its members.