Interim Report - Report No 407, June 2024

Case No 3445 (El Salvador) - Complaint date: 29-MAR-23 - Active

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges the dismissal of members and leaders of the Trade Union of Workers of the Legislative Assembly (SITRAL) without due process

1. 172. The complaint is contained in a communication from the National Confederation of Salvadoran Workers (CNTS) dated 29 March 2023. The CNTS sent additional information in a communication dated 26 May 2023.
2. 173. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 7 March 2024.
3. 174. El Salvador 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), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 175. In its communication dated 29 March 2023, the CNTS alleges that “on 1 May 2021, Legislative Assembly workers affiliated with the Trade Union of Workers of the Legislative Assembly (SITRAL) were suddenly dismissed without due process”. The CNTS indicates that SITRAL is a union of public servants that was established in 2010 and that in the light of events, the union had attempted to urgently meet with the President and Board of Directors of the country’s Legislative Assembly to find a solution and even requested a meeting with the President of the Republic, but they had not responded to requests to address the case of the dismissed workers.
2. 176. The CNTS alleges that the National Assembly dismissed not only members but also the following leaders of SITRAL:
   • (i) Mr Luis Ernesto Rodríguez Segovia, Social Assistance Secretary of SITRAL, who worked as a Legislative Assembly driver for the Office of the Department of Santa Ana, was dismissed on 20 July 2021, without just cause or due process.
   • (ii) Ms Claudia Isabel Romero Ramos, International and National Relations Secretary of SITRAL, was dismissed on 17 September 2021. It is alleged that when she arrived at work, her supervisor called her immediately and told her that she was fired.
   • (iii) Ms Blanca del Carmen Sosa Hernández, Disputes First Secretary of SITRAL, was dismissed on 21 September 2021. It is alleged that on her way to work, she was approached by a member of the national police who told her to leave because she had been fired and had no right to be there.
   • (iv) Ms Ingryd Adriana Escobar Campos, Disputes Second Secretary of SITRAL, was dismissed on 28 October 2021. It is alleged that she was asked to report to Human Resources and that when she asked whether the General Secretary of SITRAL could accompany her, the request was refused by six members of the Legislative Assembly’s institutional security. As a result, she decided to go to the office of the Head of Human Resources by herself, whereupon she was told that she was fired. The complainant has enclosed a copy of the letter that was sent to her by the Head of Human Resources, informing her that by means of Decision No. 1113 of 3 May 2021 of the Office of the President of the Legislative Assembly, it had been decided to remove her from her post, cancelling her appointment and terminating her employment with the Legislative Assembly. The complainant has also enclosed a copy of this Decision of the Office of the President, which, inter alia, indicates that a technical study had been conducted and found that there were too many staff in various units of the Legislature and that certain jobs gravely affected the State’s finances and were unnecessary; the Legislative Assembly thus considered it appropriate to terminate employment while respecting labour rights related to severance pay.
   • (v) Mr Ismael Soriano Gómez, Disputes First Secretary of SITRAL, was dismissed on 29 July 2022. It is alleged that Human Resources at the Legislative Assembly called him and told him that he was fired. The complainant has enclosed a copy of the letter that was sent to him by the Head of Human Resources, informing him that by means of Decision No. 1794 of 15 July 2022 of the Office of the President of the Legislative Assembly, it had been decided to remove him from his post, cancelling his appointment and terminating his employment with the Legislative Assembly. The complainant has also enclosed a copy of this Decision of the Office of the President, the contents of which are identical to the Decision regarding Ms Escobar Campos.
   • (vi) Ms Sara Beatriz Alfare Ramírez, Women’s Secretary, was dismissed on 4 November 2022. It is alleged that she was summoned to Human Resources at the Legislative Assembly, where she was told that she was fired. The complainant has enclosed a copy of the letter that was sent to her by the Head of Human Resources, informing her that by means of Decision No. 1955 of 17 October 2022 of the Office of the President of the Legislative Assembly, it had been decided to remove her from her post, cancelling her appointment and terminating her employment with the Legislative Assembly. The complainant has also enclosed a copy of this Decision of the Office of the President, the contents of which are identical to the Decisions regarding Mr Soriano Gómez and Ms Escobar Campos.
3. 177. The complainant alleges that these individuals were dismissed from the Legislative Assembly because they were union leaders and that they were not effectively protected against prejudicial acts. The complainant encloses several documents showing that appeals concerning the dismissal of Mr Luis Ernesto Rodríguez Segovia (filed on 15 October 2021), Mr Ismael Soriano Gómez (filed on 30 August 2022) and Ms Claudia Isabel Romero Ramos were filed before the Administrative Dispute Chamber.
4. 178. In a communication dated 26 May 2023, the complainant indicates that the judicial proceedings regarding the appeals for dismissal without cause filed by Ms Sara Beatriz Alfaro Ramírez, Ms Ingryd Adriana Escobar Campo, Ms Claudia Isabel Romero Ramos and Mr Ismael Soriano Gómez before the Civil Service Tribunal are still under way and that judgments have not been handed down.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 179. In its communication of 7 March 2024, the Government indicates that the Labour Code does not apply in this case and that, as section 32(j) of the Civil Service Act states that “direct or indirect discrimination against public servants on the basis of unionization and retaliation against them on this basis” are prohibited vis-à-vis officials and municipal or public employees, section 6 of the Act provides for the establishment of “the Civil Service Commissions and the Civil Service Tribunal … as the competent bodies for the enforcement of this Act”.
2. 180. The Government indicates that although, in this context, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare may intervene at the request of the one of the parties involved and provide mediation services, since 2021, the Directorate-General of Labour has received only two documents from the relevant trade union organizations: the first was sent in 2021 by Mr Luis Ortega, General Secretary of SITRAL at the time, requesting unscheduled inspections, and the second was sent in January 2022, in which Mr Roberto Gómez shared with the Directorate-General of Labour a request for permission for representatives of SITRAL to attend the ILO International Labour Conference addressed to the President of the Legislative Assembly.
3. 181. The Government emphasizes that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has not received a request for mediation from any of the parties and that the Government remains committed to freedom of association, respect for human rights and social justice, and will therefore follow up on the case and make the necessary enquiries into its status in the Civil Service Commissions and the Civil Service Tribunal referred to in the Act.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 182. The Committee notes that the present case concerns the alleged dismissal of members and leaders of SITRAL, which was established in 2010. The Committee notes that the complainant alleges that: (i) on 1 May 2021, the Legislatively Assembly suddenly dismissed members of SITRAL without following due process; and (ii) six leaders of SITRAL, Mr Luis Ernesto Rodríguez Segovia, Ms Claudia Isabel Romero Ramos, Ms Blanca del Carmen Sosa Hernández, Ms Ingryd Adriana Escobar Campos, Mr Ismael Soriano Gómez and Ms Sara Beatriz Alfare Ramírez were dismissed for being union leaders, between July 2021 and November 2022, without due process.
2. 183. With regard to the alleged dismissal of members of SITRAL, the Committee notes that, although the complainant indicates that the union tried to meet with various authorities to find a solution to the matter and the authorities did not respond to its requests, the complainant does not indicate exactly how many members have allegedly been dismissed or provide any other information. The Committee notes that while it has enclosed two documents from the Office of the Ombudsperson for Human Rights from May and June 2021, indicating, inter alia, that the President of the Legislative Assembly had announced the dismissal of more than 1,000 workers, it does not provide any more information that would allow the Committee to examine the allegations in question. The Committee requests the complainant to provide further details on the possible anti-union nature of the alleged dismissal of members of SITRAL and to indicate the outcome of any judicial or administrative actions filed in this regard. In the absence of such information, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of these allegations.
3. 184. As to the alleged dismissal of six union leaders, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, these individuals were dismissed because they were union leaders and were not effectively protected against prejudicial acts. The Committee notes that, according to the enclosed documents, three of the six leaders received a letter from the Head of Human Resources, informing them that Office of the President of the Legislative Assembly had decided to remove them from their posts, cancelling their appointments and terminating their employment with the Legislative Assembly. The Committee notes that the text of the Decisions of the Office of the President regarding the three leaders is identical and indicates that: (i) there were too many staff in the Legislative Assembly, which affected its finances, and some jobs were deemed unnecessary; (ii) there is a severance pay scheme within the secondary legal system for the termination of employment of public servants in the civil service; and (iii) the budget was able to cover the cost of severance pay. The Committee notes that the enclosed Decisions of the Office of the President do not mention that the workers were union leaders.
4. 185. The Committee also notes that, according to the complainant, five of the six leaders filed appeals for dismissal without cause before the Civil Service Tribunal and that the proceedings have not concluded (the submitted documentation only shows the date on which two of the five appeals were filed).
5. 186. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in this regard that: (i) the Civil Service Act prohibits any discrimination against public servants on the basis of unionization and retaliation against them on this basis and that the competent bodies are the Civil Service Commissions and the Civil Service Tribunal; (ii) the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare may intervene only at the request of one of the parties involved and provide mediation services, but in this case, it has not received a mediation request from any of the parties; and (iii) the Government will follow up on the case and make the necessary enquiries through the Civil Service Commissions and the Civil Service Tribunal.
6. 187. The Committee regrets that, to date, the Government has not been able to make such enquiries and requests it to gather information as soon as possible on the allegations of the present case from the competent civil service institutions and to transmit this information as soon as possible. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. Noting that the dismissals reported in the present case date back to 2021 and 2022 and the relevant actions before the Civil Service Tribunal appear not to have been resolved yet, the Committee recalls that no person should be prejudiced in employment by reason of legitimate trade union activities and cases of anti-union discrimination should be dealt with promptly and effectively by the competent institutions [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1077]. In the light of the above, the Committee firmly expects that the Civil Service Tribunal will rule without delay on the validity of the dismissals of the union leaders and that it will take due account of the criteria set out above for protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 188. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the complainant to provide further details on the possible anti-union nature of the alleged dismissal of members of the Trade Union of Workers of the Legislative Assembly (SITRAL) in May 2021 and to indicate the outcome of any judicial or administrative actions filed in this regard. In the absence of such information, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of these allegations.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to gather information as soon as possible on the allegations in the present case from the competent civil service institutions and to transmit this information as soon as possible. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (c) The Committee firmly expects that the Civil Service Tribunal will rule without delay on the validity of the dismissals of the leaders of SITRAL and that it will take due account of the criteria set out in the conclusions of the present case for protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.