Display in: French - Spanish
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body- 29. The Committee last examined this case, concerning the alleged refusal by the company Bancolombia SA (the company) to bargain collectively with the Union of Workers of Financial Entities (SINTRAENFI) and also alleged acts of anti-union persecution against that organization, at its meeting in October–November 2015 [see 376th Report, paragraphs 301–320]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to: (a) keep it informed of the decision taken on the appeal for annulment lodged by the company against the arbitration ruling issued [in 2014] at the initiative of SINTRAENFI, as well as of the outcome of the complaint brought [in 2014] by SINTRAENFI, before the labour inspectorate for alleged breach of the rules of collective labour law (recommendation (a)), and, (b) send full observations concerning the legal cases brought in response to the creation of three subsections of SINTRAENFI; the Committee also requests the complainant organizations and the company to provide more details in this regard and, where appropriate, information on the outcome of such cases (recommendation (b)).
- 30. In relation to its recommendation (a), the Committee notes that in communications dated 25 July and 22 December 2016, the Government states that: (i) in June 2016, the Supreme Court of Justice settled the appeal for annulment lodged by the company against the 2014 arbitration ruling and that its judgment partially upheld the issues raised by the company and annulled certain clauses of the arbitration ruling in question: it also indicated that the company has implemented the mentioned Supreme Court of Justice ruling; and (ii) in October 2015, the Ministry of Labour confirmed, through the second-instance administrative authority, the decision to take no further action regarding the complaint filed in 2014 by SINTRAENFI before the labour inspectorate for a presumed violation of the rules governing collective labour law, in order to avoid rulings on the same subject possibly being duplicated, as the appeal for annulment was currently pending settlement by the Supreme Court. The Committee observes that the judicial and administrative proceedings instituted in relation to the alleged refusal by the company to bargain collectively with SINTRAENFI have finally been settled at the national level. In this context, the Committee will not pursue further the examination of these allegations.
- 31. As regards its recommendation (b), the Committee notes that in communications of 24 and 26 May 2016, the complainant organizations deny that the creation of three subsections (in Itagüí, Chía and Soacha) of SINTRAENFI constituted an abuse of rights or violated current legislation. The Committee also notes that in a communication of 25 July 2016, the Government forwards its observations relating to the status of the aforementioned requests, together with information provided by the company on the same requests. In that regard, the Committee notes that in rulings issued in April 2014, and April and May 2015, the Supreme Court declared the election of the members of the three subsections of SINTRAENFI to be null and void, and ordered the Ministry of Labour to annul their registration. In this context, the Committee will not pursue further the examination of these allegations.
- 32. Having duly noted the information supplied by the Government and the complainant organizations, the Committee considers that the case is closed and will not pursue further its examination.
