Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 370, October 2013

Case No 3006 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 11-DEC-12 - Follow-up

Allegations: The complainant alleges the dismissal of 25 members of the Unitary Trade Union of Graphic Arts and Similar and Connected Workers of the Federal District and Miranda State (SUTAGSC) by the enterprises Visión de Hoy Comunicaciones C.A. and C.A. Editorial Diario Vea, and the labour inspectorate’s failure to act

1. 740. The complaint is contained in a communication from the National Union of Press Workers (SNTP) dated 11 December 2012.
2. 741. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 11 December 2012.
3. 742. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 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. 743. In a communication dated 11 December 2012, the SNTP alleges that two enterprises, Visión de Hoy Comunicaciones C.A. and C.A. Editorial Diario Vea, committed serious and repeated violations of Convention No. 87 by dismissing 25 of its workers on 29 October 2010 because of their membership of the Unitary Trade Union of Graphic Arts and Similar and Connected Workers of the Federal District and Miranda State (SUTAGSC), and that the failure of the “Pedro Ortega Díaz” labour inspectorate, which is attached to the People’s Ministry for Labour and Social Security, to take action has rendered the application of the provisions of Convention No. 87 null and void.
2. 744. The complainant states that both enterprises operate from the same building; both develop, print and distribute publishing products; and the dismissed workers worked in both enterprises. The employees who were later dismissed had on 27 August 2010 notified the Trade Union Department of the Labour Inspectorate of Libertador Municipality, Capital District, of the appointment of two SUTAGSC delegates. On 16 September 2010, they submitted the forms authorizing the deduction of union dues, and on 14 October 2010 they sent a communication to the president of Visión de Hoy Comunicaciones C.A. stating that they wished to continue their union membership. On 28 October 2010, the workers sent a written communication to the Labour Inspectorate of Libertador Municipality, Capital District, in which they stated that the two enterprises would not recognize SUTAGSC union membership or the appointment of union delegates.
3. 745. On 29 October 2010, both enterprises unjustly terminated the employment of 25 employees; on 5 November 2010, the dismissed workers submitted an application to the “Pedro Ortega Díaz” labour inspectorate for reinstatement and payment of lost wages. On 8 November 2010, the Labour Inspectorate ordered the dismissed workers’ reinstatement and payment of the lost wages as a “preventive measure”, with a view to reaching an agreement or acknowledgement of fault through conciliation. However, when visiting the premises of Visión de Hoy Comunicaciones C.A on 12 November 2010 and C.A. Editorial Diario Vea on 17 November 2010, the Special Commissioner of the Labour Inspectorate noted that the two enterprises had failed to comply with the preventive measure. The employers’ non-compliance should have triggered administrative proceedings culminating in the issuance of an administrative ruling by the labour inspector; however, more than two years have passed and no ruling has been issued.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 746. In its communication dated 24 May 2013, the Government states that the “Pedro Ortega Díaz” labour inspectorate, which is attached to the People’s Ministry for Labour and Social Security, complied fully with Convention No. 87 by issuing the corresponding administrative decisions ordering the reinstatement of the following citizens and payment of lost wages and other benefits which they had stopped receiving: Any del Carmen Charama Panacual, Jorge Gerardo Sanz, Robert Jose Migua Vargas, Wandit Rafael Charaya Panacual, Jorge Gerardo Marrero, Jesús Francisco Rodríguez Bustamante, César Augusto Charama Pascual, Edgar Alberto Rastran Sánchez, Rudy Marcano, Alexander Rafael Guete Hernández, Jose Antonio Aguilera and Alberto José Rodríguez Yánez, and also Henry Landaeta Freddy Gómez, Jesús Alberto Pérez, Pablo César Gamboa Castellano, Jose Ricardo Moreno, Juan Carlos Gamboa, Gerardo Cerone Ruvo, Jose Vidal Vásquez, Carlos Roman Corro, Henry González Quintero, Jean Carlos Vega, Adelso Vegas, Ernesto-José Rodríguez Rodríguez and Adolfo Antonio Castañeda González.
2. 747. The Government adds that the administrative rulings which were executed by the aforementioned inspectorate were not observed by Visión de Hoy Comunicaciones C.A. and C.A. Editorial Diario Vea, whose legal representative stated that the workers would not be reinstated, since negotiations were under way before the Ombudsman concerning the payment of social benefits. In view of the aforementioned enterprises’ refusal to reinstate the workers, the “Pedro Ortega Díaz” labour inspectorate proceeded, in accordance with the provisions of articles 531 and 538 of the Organic Labour Act, to initiate the corresponding sanctions proceedings. The administrative channels are thereby exhausted; however, the workers who consider themselves affected may seek recourse through the labour courts.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 748. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations of the anti-union dismissal of 25 workers by the enterprises Visión de Hoy Comunicaciones C.A. and C.A. Editorial Diario Vea as a result of the workers’ membership of the complainant trade union; the appointment of two trade union delegates in October 2010; and the labour inspectorate’s lack of action by having failed at the time of the complaint (almost two years after the fact) to issue the administrative decisions provided for under the law.
2. 749. The Committee notes that the Government states in its reply of 11 December 2012 that the “Pedro Ortega Díaz” labour inspectorate, which is attached to the People’s Ministry for Labour and Social Security, issued, in strict compliance with Convention No. 87, the corresponding administrative decisions ordering that the 25 citizens to which the complainant refers be reinstated and paid for lost wages and other benefits which they had stopped receiving.
3. 750. The Committee further notes that the Government states that the two enterprises failed to comply with the administrative decisions and that their legal representative stated that the workers would not be reinstated, since negotiations were under way before the Ombudsman concerning the payment of social benefits. The Government adds that in view of the enterprises’ refusal to reinstate the workers, the “Pedro Ortega Díaz” labour inspectorate initiated the corresponding sanctions proceedings; and that workers who consider themselves affected may seek recourse through the labour courts.
4. 751. The Committee recalls that no person shall be prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, whether past or present [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 770] and, since the labour inspectorate found the dismissals in this case to be unlawful, requests the Government to take the steps within its power to ensure compliance with the labour laws and in particular the reinstatement of the dismissed workers which was ordered by the inspectors. At the same time, the Committee requests the Government to advise whether the dismissed workers have taken legal action and to inform it of the outcome of the administrative sanctions proceedings.
5. 752. Lastly, the Committee observes that the complainant trade union draws its attention to delays in the authorities’ handling of its case. The Committee notes that the dismissals occurred in October 2010 and that it appears in any event that the administrative sanctions proceedings have not yet been concluded. The Committee regrets this delay and requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the proceedings in question are concluded more expeditiously.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 753. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) Since the labour inspectorate found the dismissals to be unlawful, the Committee requests it to take the steps within its power to ensure compliance with the labour laws and in particular the reinstatement of the 25 workers which was ordered by the labour inspectorate.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to advise whether the dismissed workers have taken legal action in the labour courts and to inform it of the outcome of the administrative sanctions proceedings.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to solicit information from the relevant national employers’ organization, with a view to having at its disposal the views of the enterprises concerned.