Definitive Report - Report No 392, October 2020

Case No 3230 (Colombia) - Complaint date: 27-MAY-16 - Closed

Allegations: the complainant organizations denounce a series of anti-trade union acts against members of the SINTRAVELOTAX trade union organization carried out by a transport cooperative

1. 512. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 27 May 2016 from the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Union of Velotax Cooperative Transport Workers (SINTRAVELOTAX).
2. 513. The Government sent its observations in communications received on 23 October 2017 and 2 September 2020.
3. 514. Colombia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), 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. 515. In a communication dated 27 May 2016, the complainant organizations denounce that, following the rotation of the members of the board of the SINTRAVELOTAX trade union, the union’s members and directors, including its recently elected President, Mr Carlos Julio Rodríguez Rojas, were subjected to anti-trade union persecution by the management board and directors of Velotax Transport Cooperative Ltd (hereafter the “Transport Cooperative”), and by the previous President of SINTRAVELOTAX, Mr Luis Alfonso Peñuela. In that connection, the complainants indicate that leaders and members had resigned from the union in question following threats or false promises of better pay and increased job security from the directors of the Transport Cooperative, that some members had been dismissed, while others had been invited by the previous President of SINTRAVELOTAX to join another union in the Transport Cooperative.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 516. In its communications received on 23 October 2017 and 2 September 2020, the Government indicates that, following preliminary investigations led by the Ministry of Labour into the allegations of anti-trade union persecution, on 30 June 2016 Mr Carlos Julio Rodríguez Rojas, representing the SINTRAVELOTAX trade union, presented to the labour inspectorate an express and irrevocable withdrawal of all administrative labour complaints made against the Transport Cooperative, in which he stated emphatically that there had been no anti-trade union persecution and that all wages and benefits had been paid in accordance with the law. The Government states that, via resolution No. 00236 of 29 July 2016, the coordinator of the group for prevention, inspection, monitoring, control and resolution of conflicts of the Ministry of Labour formally recorded the express withdrawal effected by the above mentioned trade union leader and that, on 6 October 2017, in accordance with article 18 of Law No. 1437 of 2011, the complaints submitted by the President of SINTRAVELOTAX were definitively closed.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 517. The Committee notes in this case that the complainant organizations allege a series of acts of anti-trade union persecution, in particular dismissals, carried out by a transport cooperative against members of the SINTRAVELOTAX trade union organization. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that the complainant organization, SINTRAVELOTAX, represented by Mr Carlos Julio Rodríguez Rojas, on 29 June 2016 submitted to the labour inspectorate its express and irrevocable withdrawal of all complaints and rights of petition filed against the Transport Cooperative. The Committee observes from the above-mentioned communication submitted by the Government that the President of SINTRAVELOTAX states that the resignation of workers from his trade union organization was in compliance with the free exercise of the right to freedom of association and that there was not, nor had there been, anti-trade union persecution by the Transport Cooperative. In light of the foregoing, and observing that the complainant organizations have communicated no additional information since the presentation of the complaint in May 2016, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of this case.

The Committee’s recommendation

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