Definitive Report - Report No 384, March 2018

Case No 3187 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 05-NOV-15 - Closed

Allegations: Persecution, detention and criminal prosecution of three steel workers in retaliation for their trade union activities

1. 565. The complaint is contained in communications dated 5 November 2015 and 11 April 2016 from the United Trade Union of Workers in the Steel and Allied Industries of the State of Bolívar (SUTISS) and the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE).
2. 566. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 2 September 2016.
3. 567. 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. 568. In its communications of 5 November 2015 and 11 April 2016, the complainant organizations allege the persecution, detention and criminal prosecution of workers Mr Leinys Yeleida Quijada Jiménez, Mr Rederick Julia Leiba Guzmán and Mr Heberto Tadeo Bastardo Morao because of their participation in a workers’ protest at the state-owned Orinoco steel corporation (SIDOR, hereinafter “the steel company”) over its failure to comply with the 2014–16 collective agreement.
2. 569. The complainants allege that: (i) the workers in question were initially targeted by the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) through activities such as surveillance of their family homes and the planting of weapons so as to bring charges against them; (ii) on 19 September 2014, they were illegally detained after being falsely accused following an alleged anonymous complaint made to SEBIN; (iii) SEBIN claimed that it had found the workers in possession of a firearm, but the weapon had been planted by SEBIN, whose records refer to two anonymous witnesses who the defence was unable to verify; (iv) as a result of these actions, the three workers have remained in detention since 19 September 2014; (v) on 7 November 2014 (two days after the established deadline), the Public Prosecutor’s Office brought formal charges against the three workers as the co-perpetrators of the criminal offences of illicit trafficking in arms and criminal conspiracy; and (vi) the defence filed a number of actions and appeals to end their detention but these efforts were unsuccessful (on the date the complaint was filed, the outcome was still awaited of the appeal lodged with the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of Justice against the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the application for a writ of amparo to seek the release of the workers was inadmissible).

B. The Government’s reply

1. 570. In its communication dated 2 September 2016, the Government provides its observations and refutes the complainants’ allegations. The Government states that the workers Mr Leinys Yeleida Quijada Jiménez, Mr Rederick Julia Leiba Guzmán and Mr Heberto Tadeo Bastardo Morao have been released and have not been subjected to any form of persecution. The Government reports that, according to the judicial authorities, an investigation was conducted into the alleged commission of the criminal offences of illicit trafficking in firearms and criminal conspiracy, at the request of the Attorney-General’s Office. However, the Government emphasizes that the judicial authorities confirmed that the citizens in question are not being held in detention.
2. 571. Furthermore, the Government has sent a communication signed by the three workers concerned, as well as by the organization secretary of their union (the complainant organization SUTISS), in which they: (i) deny that they were detained or persecuted for trade union activities by the Government; (ii) claim that they did not feel represented by the president of SUTISS (who signed the complaint) or by UNETE (the other complainant organization); (iii) consider the situation to be related to an intra-union dispute; and (iv) state that they do not wish this dispute to be considered by the Committee on Freedom of Association and request it not to pursue its examination of the complaint. The Government also reports that the steel company’s president confirmed that the citizens concerned are workers in the company and that there is an internal dispute within their trade union (SUTISS). The Government considers that the case in question involves an intra-union dispute, in which the Government has not intervened in any way, fully complying with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Government therefore requests that, in line with previous decisions of the Committee relating to intra-union disputes, it does not pursue its examination of this case.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 572. The Committee observes that the complaint concerns allegations of anti-union discrimination involving the persecution, detention and criminal prosecution of three workers (Mr Leinys Yeleida Quijada Jiménez, Mr Rederick Julia Leiba Guzmán and Mr Heberto Tadeo Bastardo Morao) from the steel company. The Committee notes that, on the one hand, the complainants allege that the authorities detained these workers after they were falsely accused of criminal offences relating to the possession of weapons, in retaliation for their participation in a protest against the failure to comply with a collective agreement. On the other hand, the Committee notes that the Government states that, according to information from the judicial authorities, the workers concerned are not detained and were simply investigated for the alleged commission of criminal offences unrelated to trade union activities. In addition, the Committee notes the communication provided by the Government in which the workers concerned and an official of one of the complainant organizations deny that the trade union had been persecuted by the Government, state that they are not held in detention, consider that the complaint had arisen from an intra-union dispute, and request the Committee not to pursue its examination of the case.
2. 573. The Committee observes that, beyond stating that these workers participated in a protest against the failure to comply with a collective agreement, the complainants provide no further evidence of the alleged anti-union motives. Moreover, from the Government’s reply and the statements of the workers affected submitted by the Government, these workers are not currently detained nor have been subjected to any form of persecution for their trade union activities and they do not support this complaint. On the understanding that none of the criminal proceedings referred to in the complaint are still ongoing and given that no additional information has been received from the complainants in the past two years, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the case.

The Committee’s recommendation

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