Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 408, October 2024

Case No 3374 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 03-DEC-19 - Follow-up

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body

1. 71. The Committee last examined this case, concerning allegations of anti-union persecution of leaders of the Trade Union of the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (SUNOFUTRAJUP–MPPRE), as well as obstruction of an election process and collective bargaining, at its meeting in October 2021 [see 396th Report, paras 596–616]. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations:
   • The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of anti-union discrimination against the union leaders, Mr José Patines Guanique, Mr Jesús Serrano and Ms Besse Mouzo, that were raised in the complaint, with a view to ensuring due respect for their freedom of expression and to protest in the exercise of freedom of association. In the event that anti-union acts are established, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to reinstate and compensate the workers concerned and to keep the Committee informed of the outcome.
   • The Committee refers to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry concerning electoral abeyance and the rules and procedures governing trade union elections, and requests the Government to keep it informed of the development of collective bargaining between the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs and the organization or organizations representing the workers in the Ministry.
2. 72. By communications dated 2 February 2022 and 26 April 2023, the Government indicates, in relation to recommendation (a) of the Committee, that, as it has indicated in communications prior to the examination of the case, all the formalities of the law have been complied with for the Labour Inspectorate to declare admissible the requests for the removal of trade union immunity of the three leaders, the respective authorization for the dismissal of Mr Patines Guanique and the initiation of the administrative disciplinary procedures for the withdrawal of the respective civil service careers of Mr Jesús Serrano and Ms Besse Mouzo. The Government indicates that, although the Labour Inspectorate classified the three workers’ offences as serious and proceeded to remove their union immunity, the employer could only dismiss one of them at that time, Mr Patines, because the other two were additionally protected by union immunity, due to their status as career civil servants (administrative and foreign service, respectively) which establish specific procedures for dismissal from office, which were subsequently followed.
3. 73. The Government points out that the three trade union leaders have lodged judicial appeals for annulment of the decisions of the Labour Inspectorate concerning the dismissal of Mr Patines Guanique, and the withdrawal of Mr Jesús Serrano and Ms Besse Mouzo from their respective civil service careers. The Government forwarded copies of the judgments handed down in these legal proceedings.
4. 2. In relation to Mr José Patines, on 14 March 2023, the First Superior Labour Court of Caracas dismissed the appeal lodged against the decision of 21 September 2022 which had dismissed the contentious administrative annulment action filed against the 2019 administrative decision of the Labour Inspectorate which had authorized and declared the MPPRE’s dismissal authorization application admissible.
5. 3. In relation to Ms Besse Mouzo, on 8 March 2023, the Ninth Superior Labour Court of Caracas dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of 21 March 2022 and confirmed the judgment that had dismissed the administrative complaint filed against the ruling of the Labour Inspectorate that had declared the request for the dismissal of the trade union requested by the MPPRE to be admissible.
6. 4. In relation to Mr Jesús Serrano, on 16 November 2022, the Third Court of First Instance of Caracas dismissed the administrative annulment action against the administrative decision issued in 2019 by the Labour Inspectorate which had declared the request for the dismissal of the trade union requested by the MPPRE to be admissible.
7. 74. All three judgments concluded that the Labour Administration’s actions had not violated either due process or the right to defence.
8. 75. With regard to recommendation (b), in its communications dated 2 February 2022 and 26 April 2023, the Government indicates that: (i) the Organic Law on Labour, Workers and Women Workers provides that a trade union organization whose board of directors’ term has expired may not amend its statutes to extend the term of the board of directors; and (ii) this prohibition does not prevent trade union organizations from carrying out their election processes autonomously, provided that they respect the formalities established in their statutes and in the legislation. On the status of collective bargaining between the MPPRE and the organization(s) representing the Ministry’s workers, the Government indicates that: (i) the draft collective agreement of SUTRABMRE, submitted to the Ministry of People’s Power for Planning and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic in 2011, is awaiting the final report of the said Ministry; (ii) the draft collective agreement presented by the SUNEP–MRE was closed due to withdrawal by the union; and (iii) the SUNOFUTRAJUP–MPPRE, the complainant organization in this case, has not remedied the observations made by the Ministry of People’s Power for Planning and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic.
9. 76. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government.
10. 77. With regard to recommendation (a), which called for an independent inquiry into the allegations of anti-union discrimination against the leaders Messrs Patines Guanique and Serrano and Ms Mouzo, with a view to ensuring due respect for their freedom of expression and to protest in the exercise of freedom of association and that, in the event that anti-union acts are established, the necessary measures to reinstate and compensate the workers concerned, the Committee notes that, the Government indicates that: (i) the three trade union leaders, who were dismissed from their jobs, lodged appeals for annulment against the decisions of the Labour Inspectorate which had authorized the application for authorization to dismiss them from the MPPRE and (ii) the judgments of first instance and on appeal upheld the actions of the Labour Inspectorate and concluded that these had not violated due process or the right to a defence.
11. 78. The Committee takes note of the text of the judgments annexed by the Government and observes that in both the first instance and appeal complaints, the leaders argued that the administrative decisions had not indicated the facts which would have led to their dismissal or removal from office; that they used imprecise terms, without any evidence; and that the administrative officials considered facts not alleged to be proven, in violation of the right to a defence and due process. In their appeals, the leaders argued that the first instance judgments overlooked all of the above.
12. 79. The Committee recalls that the safeguards of normal judicial procedure should not only be embodied in the law, but also applied in practice [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 172] and expects that this has taken place in the cases at issue.
13. 80. With regard to recommendation (b), concerning the alleged refusal of the MPPRE to negotiate with the MPPRE unions because of the electoral abeyance (the unions had not been able to renew their leadership due to the many requirements and obstacles imposed by the National Electoral Council (CNE)), the Committee notes that the Government indicates that the complainant organization has not remedied the observations that the Ministry of People’s Power for Planning and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic had made to the draft collective agreement; the draft collective agreement submitted by another trade union (SUTRABMRE) has been awaiting the Ministry’s final report since 2011, and a third draft collective agreement, submitted by another trade union, has been closed due to its withdrawal.
14. 81. The Committee notes that it has no information on the type of observations that the Ministry of Planning and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic made in relation to the draft collective agreement submitted by the complainant organization, nor the date on which such observations were made. Not knowing also whether or not the issue of the electoral abeyance may or may not have had an impact on this issue, the Committee refers to the recommendations made in the previous examination of the case, which referred to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry concerning the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which recommended the elimination of electoral abeyance and the reform of the rules and procedures governing trade union elections, so that the intervention of the National Electoral Committee is really optional, does not constitute a mechanism for interference in the life of organizations, the pre-eminence of trade union independence is guaranteed in election processes and delays are avoided in the exercise of the rights and activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations. Recalling the importance of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the content of the observations made on the draft collective agreement submitted by the complainant organization, and especially on the possible impact that the electoral abeyance may have had in this respect. Furthermore, the Committee regrets to note that the draft collective agreement of SUTRABMRE, which was submitted to the Ministry of People’s Power for Planning and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic more than a decade ago, is still awaiting the final report of the Ministry of People’s Power for Planning and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. The Committee also requests the Government to inform on the decision taken on the draft collective agreement, as well as on the development of collective bargaining between the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs and the representative workers’ organizations in that Ministry.