Definitive Report - Report No 391, October 2019

Case No 3259 (Brazil) - Complaint date: 09-JUN-16 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organizations allege anti-union practices on the part of Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense, including the dismissal of several union officials and the violation of applicable collective instruments

1. 84. The complaint is contained in initial communications from the Union of Workers in Sports Clubs and Sports Federations of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (SECEFERGS) and the State Federation of Workers in Physical Culture Establishments of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (FETECFERGS) of 19 May 2016 and from the General Union of Workers (UGT) of 9 June 2016. The SECEFERGS sent further communications on 13 April and 6 June 2017. The UGT and SECEFERGS jointly sent another communication on 1 June 2018.
2. 85. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 25 March 2019.
3. 86. Brazil has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 87. In their initial communications, the complainant organizations allege that, under the management of its new president, Mr Romildo Bolzam Júnior, Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense (hereinafter the football club) has engaged in anti-union practices since 2015, including the dismissal of several union officials and the violation of the provisions of a collective agreement. The complainant organizations specifically allege that: (i) four union officials were dismissed without cause, namely: Mr Arci Da Silva Caetano, member of the union’s supervisory board and deputy director of FETECFERGS; Ms Tania Marilda de Freitas, deputy member of the federation’s supervisory board; Mr Virlei Reis Gonçalves, deputy member of the supervisory board of SECEFERGS and deputy director of FETECFERGS; and Mr Silvio Vargas de Oliveira, member of the supervisory board of SECEFERGS and deputy director of FETECFERGS; (ii) SECEFERGS and FETECFERGS lodged appeals against the above-mentioned dismissals, with a preliminary decision ordering reinstatement being obtained in the case of Ms de Freitas, and the corresponding decisions still pending in respect of the other cases; (iii) on 8 June 2016, Mr Andrade Osório Brittes Pacheco Prates, an employee of the football club and deputy director of SECEFERGS who was under a significant amount of stress, died; and (iv) since May 2015, the wages of the football club’s employees have not been reviewed, in violation of the collective standards applicable in the enterprise.
2. 88. In a communication of 13 April 2017, SECEFERGS provides the following additional information: (i) the Regional Labour Court of the Fourth Region ordered the reinstatement of Mr Arci Da Silva Caetano; (ii) the preliminary decision to reinstate Ms Tania Marilda de Freitas was upheld by the Regional Labour Court of the Fourth Region; (iii) Mr Virlei Reis Gonçalves first obtained a preliminary decision ordering his reinstatement, which was then upheld by the Regional Labour Court of the Fourth Region; (iv) the president of the football club initiated legal proceedings against SECEFERGS and its president, Mr Miguel Salaberry Filho; and (v) in turn, SECEFERGS initiated legal proceedings against the football club for violating the collective standards applicable in the enterprise. In a communication of 6 June 2017, SECEFERGS alleges that the above-mentioned violations are still ongoing, including the dismissal on 30 May 2017 of a fifth union official, Mr Mauro Roberto Rosito.
3. 89. In a communication of 1 June 2018, the UGT and SECEFERGS indicate that, in two decisions handed down by the Regional Labour Court of the Fourth Region, the football club was ordered to reinstate Mr Mauro Roberto Rosito and to comply with several provisions of the collective agreement of 2016–18 applicable to the sector.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 90. In a communication of 25 March 2019, the Government sent its reply to the complainants’ allegations. The Government states that the initial decisions of the Regional Labour Court of the Fourth Region, partially granting the petitions filed by the workers, demonstrate that a legal framework and protection mechanisms are in place to safeguard workers against any potentially anti-union acts. The Government considers that, in the light of the foregoing, there is no indication in the present case of any shortcomings by the Government of Brazil in respect of the protection of workers against anti-union acts, and it therefore requests that the case be closed.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 91. The Committee notes that the present case refers to allegations of anti-union practices on the part of a football club, including the unfair dismissal of five union officials in 2016 and 2017, and the violation, since 2015, of several provisions of the collective instruments applicable to the football club in question, especially with regard to wage reviews. The Committee also notes that the complainant organizations mention that a union official who was allegedly under a significant amount of stress died in 2016 as a result of a heart attack.
2. 92. The Committee notes that, for its part, the Government states that the decisions of the Regional Labour Court of the Fourth Region, partially granting the petitions filed by the workers of the football club, show that a legal framework and protection mechanisms are in place to safeguard workers against any potentially anti-union acts, demonstrating, in the present case, the absence of any shortcomings in respect of the protection of freedom of association by the Government of Brazil.
3. 93. The Committee observes that both the complainant organizations and the Government refer to several decisions of the Regional Labour Court of the Fourth Region relating to the allegations made within the framework of the present case. In particular, the Committee notes that, according to the information and the accompanying documents provided by the complainant organizations: (i) the dismissal on 16 May 2016 of four union officials (Mr Da Silva Caetano, Ms de Freitas, Mr Reis Gonçalves and Mr Vargas de Oliveira) resulted in court decisions being handed down between June and October 2016 ordering their reinstatement on the grounds that special protection is afforded by law to persons who have a trade union mandate; (ii) the dismissal on 30 May 2017 of a fifth union official, Mr Mauro Roberto Rosito, resulted in a court decision ordering his reinstatement, in the absence of serious misconduct; and (iii) the allegations of non-compliance with the provisions of the collective instruments applicable to the football club in respect of wage reviews resulted in two court decisions of March and June 2018, partially granting the petitions filed by the union. The Committee further observes that the complainant organizations have neither challenged the above-mentioned court decisions nor referred to any failure to comply with the reinstatement orders.
4. 94. The Committee notes that it is apparent from the foregoing that the two main allegations of the complainant organizations have resulted in swift court decisions, which have led, first, to the reinstatement of the five dismissed union officials and, second, to the football club being required to apply several provisions of the collective instruments in force. Trusting that the above-mentioned court decisions will contribute to ensuring full compliance in the future with the principles of freedom of association in the football club, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.

The Committee’s recommendation

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