Informe provisional - Informe núm. 334, Junio 2004

Caso núm. 2249 (Venezuela (República Bolivariana de)) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 20-FEB-03 - Cerrado

Allegations: Murder of a trade unionist; refusal to register a trade union; hostile statements by the authorities against the CTV; detention order against the CTV president; promotion of a parallel confederation by the authorities; obstruction of collective bargaining in the oil industry; detention orders and criminal proceedings against trade union officials; dismissal of more than 19,000 workers because of their trade union activities; non-compliance with collective agreements; interference by the authorities and by the Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) enterprise, and anti-union acts; delays in proceedings concerning violations of trade union rights; negotiation with minority public employee organizations in disregard of the most representative ones; and action by the authorities to divide trade unions

1. 827. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2004 meeting [see 333rd Report, paras. 1037-1140, approved by the Governing Body at its 289th Session (March 2004)]. Additional information was sent by UNAPETROL with the support of CTV in a communication dated 20 April 2004.
2. 828. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 11 and 23 March 2004 and a communication dated 26 May 2004, received while the Committee was meeting.
3. 829. Venezuela has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 830. At its session in March 2004, having examined the allegations in the present case, the Committee formulated the following recommendations [see 333rd Report, para. 1140]:
   • (a) The Committee deeply deplores the murder of the trade unionist Numar Ricardo Herrera, member of the Federation of Construction Workers, on 1 May 2003, emphasizing that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings relating to the murder. The Committee requests the Government to indicate clearly whether other workers were injured in the march that took place on 1 May 2003, as asserted by the ICFTU, and if so, what legal action was taken.
   • (b) With respect to the alleged acts of violence by the military on 17 January 2003 against a group of workers from the Panamco de Venezuela S.A. enterprise, leaders of the Beverage Industry Union of the State of Carabobo, for protesting against the raid on the enterprise and the confiscation of its goods, which represented a threat to their jobs, the Committee deplores the acts of violence which occurred during the raid on the Panamco enterprise and urges the Government to institute an independent investigation without delay into the instances of detention and torture claimed by the CTV to have been suffered by workers Faustino Villamediana, Jorge Gregorio Flores Gallardo, Jhonathan Magdaleno Rivas, Juan Carlos Zavala and Ramón Díaz. The Committee urges the Government to keep it informed of the results.
   • (c) As regards the allegation concerning the detention order against Mr. Carlos Ortega, president of the CTV, for the presumed perpetration of political offences during the "national civic work stoppage" ("treason", "incitement to crime" and "criminal damage") without the guarantees of due process in view of a judge’s lack of impartiality, and the allegations that the President of the Republic refuses to recognize the CTV leaders, promotes the establishment of a workers’ confederation supportive of his party and makes hostile public statements against the CTV and its leaders in the context of the "national civic work stoppage" which began on 2 December 2002, the Committee notes that the Government has sent its observations, received one day before its meeting. The Committee regrets the delay in the sending of that reply, which it intends to examine at its meeting in May-June 2004.
     • Allegations by UNAPETROL
   • (d) With respect to the allegation concerning the Ministry of Labour’s refusal to register UNAPETROL despite the fact that the relevant documentation was submitted on 3 July 2002, and regarding the Ministry’s request to the state enterprise PDVSA to describe the duties performed by the promoters of UNAPETROL, the Committee deplores the fact that the Ministry of Labour informed PDVSA of the names of the UNAPETROL members in order to determine who belonged to the management staff and who did not, as well as the fact that the administrative process has been delayed for so many months partly because of a judicial appeal by UNAPETROL but largely owing to delays in administrative proceedings and because it was not clearly stated what specific steps should be taken by UNAPETROL in order to be registered (for example, suggesting that the representative role of the managers be eliminated or, conversely, that that of the non-managers be eliminated). The Committee hopes that in future the procedure for trade union registration will be more rapid and more transparent and requests the Government to inform it of the steps it plans to take in this respect and initiate direct contact with the members of UNAPETROL in order to find a solution to the problem of registering the union. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
   • (e) With regard to the alleged dismissal of more than 18,000 workers from PDVSA and its subsidiaries, including the members of UNAPETROL, since the start of the "national civic work stoppage" in December 2002, the Committee deplores these mass dismissals, of a hasty and disproportionate nature, which affected 18,000 workers, and emphasizes the fact that mass penalties for trade union actions are tantamount to abuses and destroy labour relations. It requests the Government to inform it of the result of the legal action taken by the dismissed workers and to initiate negotiations with the most representative trade union confederations in order to find a solution to the mass dismissals which took place at PDVSA and its subsidiaries as a consequence of the "national civic work stoppage", and in particular with regard to the UNAPETROL members, to whom, moreover, article 94 of the Constitution should be applied, which states that the promoters and members of the executive committees of trade unions shall enjoy irremovability for the duration of, and under the conditions necessary for, the performance of their duties. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect and that it send its observations on the alleged failure to observe legal standards and the standards of the collective agreement concerning the dismissal procedure. The Committee firmly urges the Government to examine together with the trade unions the evictions affecting hundreds of former workers of PDVSA and its subsidiaries in the State of Falcón and in the San Tomé and Anaco oilfields with a view to finding a solution to the problem and to keep it informed in this respect.
   • (f) The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the supposed offers of dialogue in the petroleum sector to which the document refers, as well as on the corresponding evidence.
   • (g) Regarding the alleged anti-union reprisal in the form of PDVSA’s written request to its subsidiaries and a Cypriot company not to hire the dismissed workers, the Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to these allegations. The Committee requests the Government to institute an independent investigation into this matter without delay and, if the allegations are found to be true, ensure that the workers affected are paid appropriate compensation.
   • (h) As regards the detention orders of 26 February 2003 issued against the UNAPETROL president and labour management secretary, Mr. Horacio Medina and Mr. Edgar Quijano, respectively, at the request of the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Venezuela, by a penal court for presumed acts of sabotage and damage to installations belonging to the PDVSA enterprise (alleged discontinuation of electricity or gas supplies), as well as presumed political offences, and as regards similar actions taken with respect to other UNAPETROL members (Juan Fernandez, Lino Carrillo, Mireya Ripanti de Amaya, Gonzalo Feijoo and Juan Luis Santana, former company directors), the Committee regrets that the Government has not replied specifically to these allegations and urges it to send its observations in this respect as a matter of urgency.
   • (i) With respect to the alleged systematic harassment of oil workers by the PDVSA loss prevention and control management and by a new pro-government workers’ organization called the Association of Oil Workers (ASOPETROLEROS) (verbal and written threats via e-mail and Intranet; transfers of trained staff for political reasons; persecutions and espionage; arbitrary decisions concerning the structure and functioning of PDVSA and its subsidiaries having a direct effect on the workers), the Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to these allegations and urges it to do so fully and without delay.
     • Allegations by FEDEUNEP
   • (j) As regards the alleged obstruction by the labour inspectorate of the draft fourth collective agreement submitted by FEDEUNEP, imposing demands that go beyond the law or are impossible to fulfil in practice within the prescribed deadline and subsequently rejecting the draft, as well as acceptance of a new draft (which was converted into a collective agreement) originating from six of the 17 FEDEUNEP leaders who formed a federation (FENTRASEP) approved by the government authorities and the Ministry of Labour, the Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to these allegations and urges it to send its observations fully and without delay.
   • (k) As regards the alleged initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Gustavo Silva, SINTRAFORP general secretary, and Ms. Cecilia Palma, president of the FEDEUNEP disciplinary tribunal, the Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to these allegations and urges it to do so without delay.
   • (l) Finally, the Committee would underline that it remains seriously concerned about the situation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in Venezuela and urges the Government to implement all its recommendations without delay.

B. New allegations

1. 831. In its communication of 17 February 2004, the National Union of Oil, Gas, Petrochemical and Refinery Workers (UNAPETROL), supported by the CTV, alleged that the President of the Republic, Hugo Chávez Frías, in his message to the nation on 15 January 2004 to mark the fifth year of his Government, made statements amounting to an admission of the extremely serious fact of having intentionally and treacherously provoked the crisis in the national oil industry and the consequences which he, together with his collaborators and perpetrators, had designed in order to implement the threat that he himself had made in his radio and television programme "Aló, Presidente" of 7 April 2002, when, with a referee’s whistle between his lips, he announced the dismissal of Eddie Ramirez, Juan Fernandez, Horacio Medina, Gonzalo Feijoo, Edgar Quijano, Alfredo Gomez and Carmen Elisa Hernandez. In addition to this, he also "swore" to dismiss all the workers if necessary. Such behaviour amounts to serious misconduct on the part of the employer or his representatives, which is why the complainant organization went before the employment stability tribunals to seek the restoration of the workers’ labour rights in the form of the return to work of all those unjustifiably dismissed.
2. 832. The complainant organization adds that the workers of INTEVEP, S.A., a subsidiary of the Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) company, were unjustifiably dismissed en masse. This particular occurrence comes within the framework of dismissals previously reported. According to the complainant organization, on 10 February 2003, seven workers acting on their own behalf and in their capacity as workers having been dismissed from the INTEVEP S.A. trading company, located on the Santa Rosa estate, El Tambor sector, Los Teques, State of Miranda, presented to the labour inspectorate of the municipality of Guaicaipuro, State of Miranda, pursuant to the provisions of articles 63 et seq. of the regulations of Venezuela’s Organic Labour Act, a request for the opening of proceedings to suspend the mass dismissals, since INTEVEP had given notice of dismissal to 881 employees effective 31 January 2003, amounting to a mass dismissal since on one single day and in one single act it dismissed over 50 per cent of its paid workforce (article 34 of Venezuela’s Organic Labour Act), which, at 31 January 2003, amounted to some 1,650 workers.
3. 833. On 11 February 2003, the labour inspector of the municipality of Guaicaipuro, State of Miranda, accepted the request without comment and notified the representation of the INTEVEP company, in accordance with the provisions of article 63 of the regulations of the Organic Labour Act. At the request of the employer, the inspector issued a decision agreeing to open the probatory period of eight working days provided for in article 64 of the regulations of the Organic Labour Act. On 13 March 2003, the illegally dismissed workers confirmed the accusation of mass dismissal, and INTEVEP informed the labour inspector of a further decision on its part to notify the dismissal, on 6 March 2003, of 88 workers, in addition to the 881 already dismissed, thereby increasing the number of dismissals with respect to the company’s paid workforce. The complainant organization states that on 13 May 2003 the labour inspector produced his report on the allegation of mass dismissal by the company INTEVEP S.A., asserting there to be no substance on which to make a pronouncement and no grounds for giving effect to the provisions of article 67 of the Organic Labour Act. The complainant points out that the dismissed workers were denied access to the case file.
4. 834. On 1 July 2003, the dismissed workers lodged with the Ministry of Labour a hierarchical appeal against the report by the labour inspector of the municipality of Guaicaipuro, State of Miranda. The irregularities referred to included: (1) violation of the right of defence and of due process, as provided for in article 49 of the national Constitution; (2) violation of the right of defence, of due process and of petition, as provided for in articles 49 and 51 of the national Constitution and articles 2 and 22 of the Organic Act on Administrative Procedures, inasmuch as in his report corresponding to the culmination of the administrative procedure the labour inspector states that "... the quantitative requirement laid down in the legislation has not been met ..." since "... it is clear to anyone examining the current procedure that the only formal complainants regarding the alleged mass dismissal are the seven petitioners previously identified, there being no documentary evidence of any wish on the part of the remaining 874 workers to lodge the said complaint ..."; in other words, the official considers it necessary to have an application on the part of all of the dismissed workers in order to request the opening of a procedure to suspend a mass dismissal, despite there being no such provision in the legislation; (3) incorrect appreciation of the law, the labour inspector having produced a number of inconsistencies and errors of interpretation of the labour legislation in force when he issued an administrative decision based on the content of a provision that does not apply to the case in question, namely article 34 of the Organic Labour Act, when he should have applied article 65 of the regulations of that same Act; (4) misuse and abuse of power, the labour inspector having distorted the understanding of labour regulations invoked as a legal foundation or basis. Finally, the complainant organization states that the Minister of Labour and other administrative officials directly involved with the field of labour repeatedly, publicly, in a discriminatory and biased manner and through the imposition of formalities not provided for in the legislation, repeatedly adopted, for the sole purpose of unduly delaying the administration of justice, a biased and condemnatory stance vis-à-vis the workers who had been dismissed from the national oil industry. The impartiality that is due from the Ministry of Labour with respect to the reported mass dismissal is seriously compromised inasmuch as the author of the mass dismissals is the Government of Venezuela, and inasmuch as the government body responsible under the law for defending the rights of workers, namely the Ministry of Labour, is acting in accordance with directives issued by the National Executive and has, through its highest representative, expressed an opinion with respect to the dismissed oil workers. The Minister of Labour, by resolution No. 3002, rejected the appeal that had been lodged, stating there to be no socially beneficial grounds in favour of suspending the mass dismissal of the workers of the INTEVEP company, a subsidiary of PDVSA. On the contrary, the shut-down of the oil, gas and petrochemical industry by its workers, including those of INTEVEP, disrupted the quality of life in all areas of Venezuelan society.
5. 835. As regards the violation of the trade union immunity of Mr. Diesbalo Osbardo Espinoza Ortega, general secretary of the Union of Workers, Oil Employees and Associated of Carabobo State (SOEPC), the complainant organization states that, following the initiation of the procedure provided for in articles 453 et seq. of the Organic Labour Act for the "examination of the grounds of the dismissal" of the leaders of that trade union, including Mr. Diesbalo Osbardo Espinoza Ramírez, general secretary of the union, the owner of the company PDVSA Petróleo S.A. requested the labour inspector to order the precautionary measure of barring the union leaders from having access to the company premises, on the grounds that those union leaders had allegedly generated a strike in December 2002. That measure was agreed to, in addition to which the owner suspended the payment of salaries to the union leaders.
6. 836. As regards the persecution of UNAPETROL leaders, warrants for the arrest of whom had been issued, the complainant organization states that on 25 June 2003, by a decision of the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, all of the litigation in the criminal proceedings under way was cancelled. Nevertheless, the process of persecution of the aforementioned union leaders and oil workers was reinitiated by the Office of the Attorney-General, with new writs being served on 1 and 2 March 2004.
7. 837. The complainant organization goes on to describe the current situation with regard to the unjustified dismissals of workers from Petróleos de Venezuela. It states that, out of a total of some 41,000 workers, 20,000 were dismissed as from 13 December 2002. This was accompanied by 3,000 unjustified dismissals from the INTESA company, in which PDVSA had a shareholding of 40 per cent and SAIC of 60 per cent, the workers in question having been engaged in the process of incorporation into the PDVSA workforce prior to the national civic work stoppage of 2 December 2002.
8. 838. The complainant affirms that UNAPETROL was established as a national trade union in an assembly of workers on 10 June 2002, with a total of 459 founder members, only 150 founders being necessary under the labour legislation in force, and with no requirements over and above those indicated in the legislation, no administrative body, in this case the Ministry of Labour, having any powers to prevent its registration beyond those provided for under the legislation to permit the registration of any trade union organization, which of course may not contravene constitutional provisions or the provisions of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 on freedom of association and the right to organize, both of which have been ratified by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The staff members who, under the statutes, may become members of UNAPETROL are those at the senior and middle management levels, these being terms defined internally by the PDVSA and which are not defined in the labour legislation in force in Venezuela. Over 95 per cent of these staff members do not perform managerial functions. The so-called senior and middle management find in UNAPETROL the body which represents and defends them in the absence of any representative organization for these workers, and these workers have working conditions that are specified in their individual contracts of employment and PDVSA’s internal regulations. Only those workers belonging to the so-called lower levels of the workforce have, since 1940, had representative trade unions, which negotiate collective agreements with PDVSA. All these workers, apart from those indicated as being on the board of directors of PDVSA and a small number of others who, under the labour legislation, are characterized as human resources managers, have the constitutional right to establish free trade unions, as provided for in article 95 of the national Constitution adopted on 15 December 1999.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 839. In its communication of 3 March 2004, the Government refers to the allegations presented by the Venezuelan Workers’ Confederation (CTV) relating to the trade union’s hostile treatment by the Government, using as an additional pretext CTV’s participation in the "national civic work stoppage", the refusal to recognize its leaders, the promotion of a pro-government workers’ confederation, and the use of state power to deprive the CTV president of his liberty (on 19 February 2003, an order was issued for the detention of Carlos Ortega).
2. 840. The Government denies that it reserved hostile treatment to CTV or any trade union. The Government reaffirms, nonetheless, that it recognizes the institutional nature of the CTV, but has been provided with no factual or legal arguments for recognizing a so-called executive committee which has been challenged by other trade union sectors since the holding of the CTV elections in 2001. The Government insists that it is not a question of interference on the part of the Venezuelan State, but that on the contrary the State, as represented by the President of the Republic, is extremely concerned and responds politically to those who, politically on behalf of the CTV, take actions that run counter to the actions of trade union and trade association leaders and systematically promote a strictly political agenda that violates the Constitution of the Republic and is thus anti-democratic. That is the hostile treatment of which the CTV is complaining.
3. 841. The Government adds that the CTV’s intention is to discredit the Head of State. Indeed, the self-styled members of CTV’s executive committee have turned aside from the fundamental objective of any workers’ organization and have devoted themselves solely to political proselytism, systematically accusing the President of the Republic of being a dictator, it being clear from the subversive practices of the self-styled members of the CTV executive committee that their intention is to destabilize the State institutions, impose a dictatorship and take power by force, just as they did together with the employers’ organization FEDECAMARAS for a short period on 12 and 13 April 2002. The Government underlines that one of the principal architects of the country’s political, economic and social destabilization is Mr. Carlos Ortega, who claims to be the president of the CTV. Indeed, Mr. Pedro Carmona Estanga, the self-proclaimed President of the Republic and the then (April 2002) president of the employers’ organization FEDECAMARAS, said, in statements made to a local newspaper one year after mounting the coup d’état, that the self-styled president of the CTV, Mr. Carlos Ortega, had endorsed a part of the de facto cabinet at the time.
4. 842. According to the Government, a few months after Mr. Carlos Ortega and other self-styled leaders of the CTV executive committee had proclaimed themselves members of that committee, with the systematic backing of private operators, owners of communication media and opposition parties involved in the conspiracy against a Government that had been legally established by popular vote, the self-styled CTV executive committee began to foster an attitude of ongoing conspiracy against Venezuelan democracy and its legitimately established authorities. Mr. Ortega dedicated himself systematically and solely, together with the other self-styled members of the CTV executive committee, to a succession of subversive actions, fostering hatred, intolerance and the sabotaging of the Venezuelan economy with clear political intentions having nothing to do with the Constitution, law or democracy, even though paradoxically he "spoke" in the name of democracy, until ultimately Mr. Ortega took part in the planning and implementation of the so-called "civic work stoppage" of 21 October and subsequently the whole of December 2002 and January 2003, aided and abetted by, and in association with, the representation of FEDECAMARAS. There can be no denying the lack of respect and climate of aggression that has been fostered by the self-styled representation of the CTV, together with the employers’ organization FEDECAMARAS, whose former president signed, on 12 April 2002, the deed of constitution of the transitional Government, thereby seeking to justify the coup d’état that had been mounted by a minority portion of civil society.
5. 843. The Government once again insists on its position of non-interference vis-à-vis the institution CTV and those who claim to be its representatives, who have still not been capable of demonstrating in a transparent, legal and convincing manner that they have been legitimately elected; nor have they ever presented the corresponding communication, certified and signed by CTV’s electoral board, following the holding of an election by those affiliated to the confederation, as was the commitment at the request of the CTV’s union management board, that commitment having been secured with the authorities of the National Electoral Council prior to the confederation’s elections in October 2001.
6. 844. As regards the alleged promotion of the establishment of a workers’ confederation supportive of its party, the Government points out that the free establishment of a trade union, federation or confederation is perfectly normal on Venezuelan territory, just as it is strictly right and proper for the national Government not to interfere administratively in workers’ affairs. In actual fact, it is the affiliated workers themselves who are settling and resolving their differences. Indeed, if the members of the CTV establish a new trade union which brings them together in the form of a confederation and which complies with the requirements laid down under the law and the ILO Conventions, the Government is bound to register it.
7. 845. As regards the allegation that the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is using the full weight of the State’s power to deprive the president of the Confederation of his liberty, giving effect to his intention by having had issued, on 19 February 2003, a detention order against Carlos Ortega, the Government states that the judicial procedure was carried out by the competent authorities of the judiciary, and that the National Executive acted solely as a subsidiary body to the courts and through the Intelligence and Prevention Services Directorate, attached to the Justice and Interior Ministry. ILO Convention No. 87 requires trade union leaders to abide by the law. The Constitution specifies the manner in which the country’s public authorities are divided, assigning to each branch the corresponding competencies and powers. The judicial detention order issued by the relevant court against Mr. Carlos Ortega has absolutely nothing to do with any interference on the part of the national Government. Nor was it the consequence of the exercise of trade union activities, which means that the State’s action was in accordance with the law, since the holder(s) of trade union office do not, by virtue of their position, have the right to transgress legal provisions in force, all the more so where those provisions have to do with the rights of persons, essentially the most vulnerable, who have been the most affected by incidents led by individuals who systematically deprived our population of essential public services, which they interrupted without any legality whatsoever, thereby putting in danger the lives, health and safety of the citizens.
8. 846. The Government recalls that where ignorance of the law on the part of employers’ or workers’ trade associations is concerned, the Committee on Freedom of Association has clearly stated its opinion that "political matters which do not impair the exercise of freedom of association are outside the competence of the Committee. The Committee is not competent to deal with a complaint that is based on subversive acts, and it is likewise incompetent to deal with political matters that may be referred to in a government’s reply" [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, para. 201], and that "In the interests of the normal development of the trade union movement, it would be desirable to have regard to the principles enunciated in the resolution on the independence of the trade union movement adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 35th Session (1952) that the fundamental and permanent mission of the trade union movement is the economic and social advancement of the workers and that when trade unions, in accordance with the national law and practice of their respective countries and at the decision of their members, decide to establish relations with a political party or to undertake constitutional political action as a means towards the advancement of their economic and social objectives, such political relations or actions should not be of such a nature as to compromise the continuance of the trade union movement or its social or economic functions, irrespective of political changes in the country."
9. 847. The Committee has likewise stated that "Trade union organizations should not over-indulge in political activities and go beyond their true functions by promoting essentially political interests" [see Digest, op. cit., para. 355]. "It is only in so far as trade union organizations do not allow their occupational demands to assume a clearly political aspect that they can legitimately claim that there should be no interference in their activities. On the other hand, it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between what is political and what is, properly speaking, trade union in character. These two notions overlap and it is inevitable, and sometimes usual, for trade union publications to take a stand on questions having political aspects as well as on strictly economic and social questions" [see Digest, op. cit., 1985, para. 359].
10. 848. The Government once again underlines the political, subversive and illegal character assumed by the self-styled executive committee of the CTV and of the person claiming to be its president, Mr. Carlos Ortega, as well as by the former president of the employers’ organization FEDECAMARAS. These persons are seeking to conceal their strictly subversive and political activities, alleging that their "status as trade unionists" as established in ILO Convention No. 87 is being violated or disregarded. The Government urges the honourable Committee on Freedom of Association not to fall into this trap, since Mr. Ortega did not act in pursuit of the "promotion and defence of the economic and social interests of the workers".
11. 849. The complaint lodged with the Committee on Freedom of Association provides particularly clear proof of a union of sectors that are historically different, the self-styled representatives of the workers (CTV) and of the employers (FEDECAMARAS) having clearly joined forces, just as they did in order to conspire and systematically disown the constitutional State as from the latter part of 2001, with the anti-democratic participation, moreover, of former executives and other officials who held senior positions in the state company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), high-, middle- and low-ranking military personnel, totally outside the Constitution, and leaders of political parties from the opposition grouped together in the so-called "democratic coordination", who, claiming to be acting in support of the people and with the undue utilization and complicity of communication media belonging to private radio, television, electronic and press enterprises, issued military communiqués to the population and directly urged the inhabitants of the Republic to disown the democratic and legitimate Government chosen by the Venezuelan people.
12. 850. The Government illustrates the authoritarian, political and anti-democratic involvement of Mr. Carlos Ortega with newspaper articles that demonstrate the illegal activities fostered by him and which had nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of struggle relating to claims of a union, labour, economic or social nature but resulted in legal proceedings under Venezuelan law, in full respect for the human rights of both of those charged, those legal proceedings having been initiated in accordance with the regulations in force in our country by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic and the respective courts for the following offences: treason, conspiracy, incitement to crime, civil rebellion and criminal damage.
13. 851. Mr. Ortega never placed himself at the disposal of the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic or of Control Court 34, becoming instead a fugitive from Venezuelan justice. Later, on 20 March 2003, Mr. Ortega took refuge in the Republic of Costa Rica.
14. 852. The Government states that the so-called "civic work stoppage" and the sabotage promoted by the conspirators Carlos Ortega and Carlos Fernández destroyed 760,846 jobs (unemployment rose by 5 percentage points). Also significant is the economy’s recovery in terms of the generation of jobs, there having been a fundamental recovery in this regard in the second half of 2003, with the jobs lost on account of the economic sabotage and so-called "civic work stoppage" fostered and led by Mr. Carlos Ortega in the name of the CTV, democracy and human rights, having been recovered. The "civic work stoppage" led, moreover, to a sharp rise in inflation owing to the paralysis of the main industry and the lack of foreign currency earnings, not to mention the capital outflow, cost speculation and the distribution chain. Even more crushing was the way in which the so-called "civic work stoppage" almost devastated the Venezuelan economy through the drop in GDP, something in which Mr. Carlos Ortega and Mr. Carlos Fernández, as president of FEDECAMARAS and on behalf of that employers’ institution, played a direct part. Following the devastating drop in the level of GDP in the first three-quarters of the year, it began once again to rise in the last quarter, and this, together with the recovery of the oil industry and other factors, served to restore investor confidence.
15. 853. The Government states that in a communication it was able to intercept between Mr. Ortega and the current president of the CTV, Mr. Ortega made anti-democratic statements in which he spoke of the setting up of a dictatorship. Recently, in a fresh conspiracy against the Government, Mr. Carlos Ortega, on 10 February 2004, made a number of public statements from Costa Rica in which he falsely and recklessly claimed that "President Hugo Chávez ... is preparing to launch a self-coup (autogolpe) sometime this week", the context for this supposed self-coup d’état being the non-acceptance of a decision by Venezuela’s electoral branch regarding a possible referendum on revoking the mandate of the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, an action permitted under the Constitution of the Republic and which is being implemented and supervised by the National Electoral Council, with a large number of observers from the Organization of American States (OAS), the Carter Center, as well as observers from the parties concerned. The views expressed by Mr. Ortega, referred to in the previous paragraph, prompted a written warning from the authorities of the Republic of Costa Rica.
16. 854. As regards the allegations made by FEDEUNEP, the Government states in its communication of 23 March 2003 that, on 17 September 2002, the National Single Federation of Public Employees (FEDEUNEP) presented to the National Inspectorate and Collective Labour Affairs Department (Public Sector) a draft collective agreement entitled "draft fourth collective labour agreement for public administration employees". On 18 September 2002, the National Labour Inspector requested FEDEUNEP to make corrections that were necessary for reasons of legality pursuant to the provisions of article 517 of the Organic Labour Act in force, giving it a period of 15 days to make the required corrections in accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the Organic Act on Administrative Procedures, all of which was notified to it on 19 September 2002. The official acted in accordance with the law and in the exercise of his duties and competencies, there having thus been no violation of freedom of association.
17. 855. The Government adds that, on 14 October 2002, FEDEUNEP sent a communication to the National Labour Inspector stating that it was not going to comply with the request and that it did not recognize the competence of the National Labour Inspector. On 16 October 2002, the National Labour Inspector stated that he is indeed the competent official, that the stated requirements had to be complied with since they had to do with public order, and that the labour administration is obliged to monitor the observance of legal provisions not complied with by the Federation, declaring the procedure to be terminated. This decision can be appealed against through administrative channels. The case file contains no mention of any appeal being lodged against this decision, and the decision, considered thus to have been accepted by FEDEUNEP, therefore stands. It is clear from the foregoing that the termination of the said procedure and its legal consequences can be attributed to the lack of due diligence on the part of those who initiated it, in consequence of which the actions of the labour administration does not constitute disregard of union rights, interference or abuse of authority.
18. 856. Subsequently, on 23 October 2002, the labour inspector received another draft collective agreement, entitled "fourth framework collective agreement for public administration employees, pensioners and retirees", presented by a number of citizens stating themselves to be FEDEUNEP executives. On the same date, it was recorded in the minutes that the supporting documents were received without any decision being taken, and the minutes were signed both by those claiming to be representatives of FEDEUNEP and by the leaders of the first-level trade unions supporting the agreement, whether or not affiliated to the Federation. On 8 November 2002, further signatures were received in support of the request by FEDEUNEP. On 27 December 2002, negotiations began on the draft collective agreement, not only with those claiming to belong to the Federation but also with the representatives of the first-level trade unions.
19. 857. On 7 March 2003, the First Administrative Court notified the labour inspector that another group of citizens claiming to represent FEDEUNEP had lodged an appeal for the declaration of nullity of an administrative action together with a claim for the enforcement of their constitutional rights (amparo constitucional). On 11 April 2003, the Court made a precautionary ruling allowing the appeal, declaring the precautionary amparo to be in order and, additionally, ordering the suspension of the administrative proceedings being pursued by the Director of the National Inspectorate and Collective Labour Affairs Department (Public Sector) of the Ministry of Labour in relation to the draft "fourth framework collective agreement for public administration employees, pensioners and retirees" presented on 23 October 2002; it also required the office to refer the case in the framework of the ongoing administrative annulment proceedings, thereby surmising as to a latent intra-union problem regarding which the labour administration is not competent.
20. 858. In view of the precautionary ruling issued by the First Administrative Court, on 7 May 2003, collective bargaining having previously been suspended by that court order, the Director of the National Inspectorate and Collective Labour Affairs Department (Public Sector) of the Ministry of Labour presented a written objection to the effect that the ruling contained a large number of inconsistencies and fundamental errors which invalidated it and, in particular, stated that a dispute relating to trade union elections or a conflict within a given union could not be resolved by the administrative authority, that the ruling could not be made on the basis of the evidence contained in the case file, and that evidence could not be based on an opinion expressed by the labour inspector. The precautionary ruling should have been limited to determining the status of the persons in question and should not have brought the collective bargaining to a halt, especially when it involved not only the Federation but also the first-level trade unions, these being the direct and immediate beneficiaries of the right to voluntary collective bargaining. He advanced the view that the acceptance of the draft collective agreement that had been in process did not in any way imply the recognition of the representatives involved; that by 23 October 2002 nothing was known of the legitimacy or otherwise of the citizens claiming to be FEDEUNEP executives, inasmuch as the supporting documentation relating to personal status with which they were acting was never presented either by the requesting party or by the employer in accordance with the law, there being no mandatory requirement that the administration should inquire as to that situation; that the draft was not presented solely by the alleged representatives of FEDEUNEP but, on the contrary, by a number of trade unions not affiliated to it; and that for this reason the Director of the National Inspectorate and Collective Labour Affairs Department (Public Sector) of the Ministry of Labour was not in a position to refuse to process the draft presented. Finally, it was requested that the precautionary ruling be revoked on the grounds that it was the status of the FEDEUNEP representatives that was under discussion and not that of the first-level unions, and that it amounted to judicial interference in the freedom of association of the aforementioned Federation. He points out that a number of citizens objected to the precautionary measure on a third-party basis, affirming that the reported violations cannot be imputed to the director in question inasmuch as the lack of representativity or status of the trade union constitute, in the course of the negotiations, elements that the employer can use to his favour which cannot be opposed by the labour entity; and that matters were weighed up incorrectly inasmuch as an outrage was committed against the collective interests of more than 500,000 public sector workers who were prevented from engaging in collective bargaining for the purpose of improving their working conditions.
21. 859. The First Administrative Court decided, by a ruling made on 14 August 2003, to declare the discontinuation of the appeal for declaration of nullity together with the precautionary decision to suspend the effect of the administrative proceedings instituted by the representatives of FEDEUNEP, considering the provisions of article 125 of the Organic Act of the Supreme Court of Justice to be applicable on account of the loss of interest on the part of the Federation and the consequent acceptance of all the actions of the labour administration. In other words, the inactivity and lack of diligence on the part of the complainants had resulted in the filing of the case, in consequence of which the conduct was deemed appropriate.
22. 860. On 30 May 2003, the National Executive Coordination of the National Federation of Public Sector Workers (FENTRASEP) put before the Ministry of Labour a draft collective agreement for public administration employees, pensioners and retirees; it did so with the support of those first-level unions that were disaffiliated from FEDEUNEP, this having been placed on record when the draft was introduced, it being noted that no remarks of a legal nature were made concerning the draft. During the discussions, other unions expressed their support, both for the collective agreement and for FENTRASEP.
23. 861. On 5 June 2003, other persons stating themselves to be FEDEUNEP leaders - the same persons who lodged the appeal without awaiting the ruling of the First Administrative Court - once again presented a draft collective agreement for discussion, that draft being received by the labour administration despite its having previously accepted a draft collective agreement presented by FENTRASEP. On 12 June 2003, pursuant to the provisions of article 517 of the Organic Labour Act, the presumed executive committee of FEDEUNEP was requested to make corrections that were necessary for reasons of legality, being given a period of 15 days to make the required corrections in accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the Organic Act on Administrative Procedures. FEDEUNEP refused to comply with that request, stating that the national inspector lacked jurisdiction. On 17 July 2003, the national inspector issued an administrative ruling declaring the conclusion of the procedure. The case file contains no record of any administrative appeal or administrative challenge against that ruling, which was thus accepted.
24. 862. On 25 August 2003, once the discussions and voluntary negotiations had been completed between the public administration, the National Federation of Public Sector Workers (FENTRASEP) and the first-level unions disaffiliated from FEDEUNEP, and other unions having duly expressed their support both for the collective agreement and for FENTRASEP, the collective agreement for national public administration employees and officials, which benefits over 500,000 workers, was signed.
25. 863. As regards the complaint lodged by FEDEUNEP regarding the dismissal of Cecilia Palma from the nominal post she occupied at the National Nutrition Institute (INN), the Government points out that the corresponding disciplinary proceedings were pursued against the aforementioned citizen, leading to a sufficiently well-substantiated administrative ruling on 6 November 2002 by which the aforementioned official was dismissed from her post of Attorney I, there having been sufficient grounds for such dismissal under article 62(2) of the Administrative Service Act. It should be noted that, in response to this, citizen Palma lodged an appeal for declaration of nullity of an administrative action, it being finally concluded by Higher Administrative Court No. 7 , on 1 September 2003, that "the attorney Cecilia de Lourdes Palma Maita displayed an extremely serious lack of integrity vis-à-vis the institution with which she was employed and her colleagues, entering into an irregular situation in which she took advantage of the situation the country was experiencing at the time, such behaviour on the part of the complainant being inexcusable. The judge notes that the misconduct with which the complainant was charged cannot be excused since her actions resulted in damages to the National Nutrition Institute". As can be seen, the judge dismissed the appeal for annulment of the administrative ruling, thereby establishing that the actions of the employer institution constituted neither a political retaliation to the events of 11, 12 and 13 April 2002, nor a violation of the citizen’s right to exercise her union activities, nor anti-union discrimination, but rather that a punishment was imposed in response to the fact that her actions fell within one of the scenarios which the internal regulations punish by means of the disciplinary action taken.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 864. The Committee notes the Government’s observations. The Committee observes that the Government refers to events which occurred in April 2002, i.e. on dates that are different from those of the allegations presented which do not form part of the present complaints. For this reason, the Committee will not refer to those events.
2. 865. As regards the allegations relating to the detention order served against Mr. Carlos Ortega, president of the Venezuelan Workers’ Confederation (CTV), the Committee notes the Government’s statements according to which: (1) the apparent trade union office of Mr. Ortega does not confer upon him an immunity that allows him to transgress the legal provisions in force; (2) Mr. Ortega has devoted himself, in addition to union activities, to conspiring through subversive activities including participation in the planning and implementation of the so-called "civic work stoppage" of 21 October, and in the one carried out in the months of December 2002 and January 2003, in complicity and association with the representation of FEDECAMARAS, inciting hatred, intolerance and sabotage with clear political intentions; (3) the detention order against Mr. Ortega was issued by the judiciary, fully independently, in accordance with the system of division of powers, and the Executive confined itself to complying with the judicial arrest warrant, which is not motivated by any anti-union considerations.
3. 866. The Committee observes, in respect of the civic work stoppages of October and December 2002, and January 2003, that the Government identifies the organization of, and participation in, those stoppages as subversive activities (in addition to having resulted in a 5 per cent increase in the level of unemployment and the devastation of the Venezuelan economy), and that, in short, it is on account of those activities that the arrest warrant was issued against Mr. Ortega, with the accusation of treason, incitement to crime and criminal damage. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in its previous examination of the case it had expressed the view that "the national civic work stoppage convened by the CTV, inter alia, and comprising a set of labour claims, can be likened to a general strike, and therefore to a trade union activity and that the detention of leaders of workers’ and employers’ organizations for activities connected with the exercise of their right to organize is contrary to the principles of freedom of association" [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 4th edition, 1996, para. 69]. The Committee recalls that hundreds of thousands of persons participated in the civic work stoppages, and that although the principal objective of the stoppages was to secure the departure from office of the President of the Republic or the holding of a recall referendum, they did not result in any coup d’état, what lay behind the demands having more to do with a clear protest against the Government’s economic and social policy and its consequences, and against the failure to recognize the executive board of the CTV.
4. 867. As regards the warrant for the arrest of Mr. Ortega, the Committee regrets to observe that the Government has not replied in full to the allegations to the effect that the arrest warrant was issued within the framework of a procedure without guarantees of due process, by a judge who lacked impartiality. The Committee observes that according to the Government, the civic work stoppage was the scene of sabotage and acts of violence resulting in physical injuries to a number of people, with numerous violations of human rights.
5. 868. The Committee observes that although the Government considers Mr. Ortega and the president of FEDECAMARAS to have instigated a major part of the aforementioned offences, reference is made only to generic charges highlighting the very serious consequences of the civic work stoppages for the economy and level of employment, without any enumeration of the specific actions attributable to Mr. Ortega and which gave rise to the accusations. The Government has provided a chronological list of statements made by Mr. Ortega, in which verbal excesses are to be seen, but it cannot be deduced from those statements that there was any call for violence, nor can one justify the existence of a causal link between the statements made by Mr. Ortega and any offences committed during the civic work stoppages. The Committee emphasizes, moreover, that Mr. Ortega has taken refuge in another country. Finally, the Committee would underline that only Mr. Ortega, president of the CTV, which is the most representative trade union confederation in Venezuela, and the president of FEDECAMARAS were the subject of detention orders, despite the fact that other political sectors and parties took part in the civic work stoppage.
6. 869. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the purpose of the detention order against Mr. Ortega was to neutralize or take reprisals against this union leader for his activities in defence of workers’ interests, and it therefore strongly urges the Government to take steps to vacate the detention order against Mr. Ortega and guarantee that he may return to the country so as to be able to perform the trade union functions corresponding to his post of president, without being subject to reprisals.
7. 870. With respect to the failure to recognize the executive committee of the CTV, including its president Mr. Ortega, the Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that those who claim to be its representatives have thus far been unable to demonstrate in a transparent, legal and convincing manner that they have been legitimately elected, and have not presented the communication, certified and signed by CTV’s own electoral board, following the holding of an election by those affiliated to this Confederation, as was the commitment with the authorities of the national electoral council prior to the Confederation’s elections in October 2001, at the request of the CTV’s union management board; furthermore, that executive committee is being challenged by other union elements who participated in the CTV’s electoral process. The Committee observes that this question was already examined in another case (see Case No. 2067, 330th Report, para. 173), repeats it previous observations and recommendations, and therefore once again urges the Government to recognize the executive committee of the CTV. The Committee recalls that the supervision of trade union elections should be carried out through judicial channels and that the various ILO supervisory bodies have pointed out that the national electoral council’s intervention in the elections is not in conformity with Convention No. 87.
8. 871. As regards the promotion of the establishment of a workers’ confederation supportive of the party of the President of the Republic and the hostile statements towards the CTV, the Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that: (1) the free establishment of a trade union, federation or confederation is perfectly normal on Venezuelan territory, just as it is strictly right and proper for the Government not to interfere in workers’ affairs; it is the affiliated workers themselves who are settling and resolving their differences, and if the members of the CTV establish a new trade union which brings them together in the form of a confederation and which complies with the requirements laid down under the law and the ILO Conventions, the Government is bound to register it; (2) as regards the Government’s hostile statements in regard to the CTV and its leaders, the Government denies treating the CTV or any other trade union with hostility, pointing out, nevertheless, that it is extremely concerned at the internal situation of the CTV, political responsibility for which lies with those who, politically, on behalf of the CTV, engage in actions that run counter to the conduct and actions of trade union leaders and systematically promote a strictly political agenda that violates the Constitution of the Republic and is hence anti-democratic. The Committee recalls that "on more than one occasion, it has examined cases in which allegations were made that the public authorities had, by their attitude, favoured or discriminated against one or more trade union organizations: (i) pressure exerted on workers by means of public statements made by the authorities; (ii) refusal to recognize the leaders of certain organizations in the performance of their legitimate activities; discrimination by such methods, or by others, may be an informal way of influencing the trade union membership of workers; they are, therefore, sometimes difficult to prove. The fact, nevertheless, remains that any discrimination of this kind jeopardizes the right of workers set out in Convention No. 87, Article 2, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing" [see Digest, op. cit., para. 306]. The Committee notes that the CTV and ICFTU have referred to specific hostile statements being directed at the CTV by the authorities and requests the Government to abstain from making statements in CTV’s regard which could express hostility towards that trade union, as well as to abstain from promoting the establishment of other trade unions or confederations.
9. 872. As regards the alleged obstruction by the labour inspectorate of the draft fourth collective agreement submitted by FEDEUNEP, imposing demands that go beyond the law or are impossible to fulfil in practice within the prescribed deadline and subsequently rejecting the draft, as well as acceptance of a new draft (which was converted into a collective agreement) originating from six of the 17 FEDEUNEP leaders who formed a federation (FENTRASEP) approved by the government authorities and the Ministry of Labour, the Committee notes the Government’s observations to the effect that the draft fourth collective agreement submitted on 17 September 2002 by FEDEUNEP was observed by the labour inspectorate, pursuant to article 517 of the Organic Labour Act, not to be in compliance with the legal requirements (supplying of the FEDEUNEP statutes, correction of the record of the assembly of FEDEUNEP’s national executive committee, supplying of an up-to-date list of the member unions or associations, supplying of an up-to-date list of the workers affiliated to each of the unions, presentation of the rank and file union membership’s authorization for submitting the draft, among other things), the trade union having been given a period of 15 days within which to make the corrections, this having not been done by the union, which saw the labour inspectorate as lacking the competence to make the aforementioned observations. The Committee likewise notes that according to the Government, a number of FEDEUNEP officials subsequently submitted a new draft collective agreement which led to the commencement of negotiations on 27 December 2002, but was contested by another sector of the Federation through an appeal for annulment submitted to the First Administrative Court, that appeal being ultimately declared withdrawn. Finally, the Committee notes that on 30 May 2003, the national executive coordination of the National Federation of Public Sector Workers (FENTRASEP), supported by a group of first-level unions disaffiliated from FEDEUNEP, submitted a new draft collective agreement which drew no observations of a legal nature from the labour inspectorate. On 25 August 2003, the collective agreement was signed despite the fact that once again a sector of FEDEUNEP submitted a new draft which gave rise to new observations by the inspectorate. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether FEDEUNEP has lodged any judicial appeal against the collective agreement concluded between the public administration and FENTRASEP.
10. 873. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent the observations and information requested regarding the other recommendations made in the context of the previous examination of the case and which are reproduced at the end. It therefore reiterates those recommendations while at the same time requesting the Government to send such observations and information without delay.
11. 874. The Committee requests the complainant organizations to send their comments on the Government’s declarations concerning the dismissal of FEDEUNEP official Cecilia Palma.
12. 875. The Committee also observes that the Government has not sent its observations regarding the allegations presented by UNAPETROL on 17 February 2004, relating to the mass dismissals at the PDVSA oil company and its subsidiaries, the violation of the trade union immunity of Mr. Diesbalo Osbardo Espinoza Ortega, general secretary of the Union of Workers, Oil Employees and Associated of the State of Carabobo (SOEPC), and the persecution of UNAPETROL officials in respect of whom arrest warrants had been issued, and requests it to do so without delay. The Committee also requests the Government to send without delay its observations with regard to the additional information sent by UNAPETROL with the support of CTV in a communication dated 20 April 2004.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 876. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) With respect to the warrant for the arrest of Mr. Ortega, the Committee strongly urges the Government to take steps to vacate the detention order against Mr. Ortega and to guarantee that he may return to the country so as to be able to perform the trade union functions corresponding to his post of president, without being subject to reprisals.
   • (b) With respect to the failure to recognize the executive committee of the CTV, including its president, Mr. Ortega, the Committee observes that this question was already examined in another case [see Case No. 2067, 330th Report, para. 173], repeats its previous observations and recommendations formulated within the framework of Case No. 2067, and therefore once again urges the Government to recognize the executive committee of the CTV.
   • (c) With respect to the promotion of the establishment of a workers’ confederation supportive of the party of the President of the Republic and the hostile statements towards the CTV, the Committee requests the Government to abstain from making statements in the CTV’s regard which could express hostility towards that trade union, as well as to abstain from promoting the establishment of other trade unions or confederations.
   • (d) As regards the alleged obstruction by the labour inspectorate of the draft fourth collective agreement submitted by FEDEUNEP, imposing demands that go beyond the law or are impossible to fulfil in practice within the prescribed deadline and subsequently rejecting the draft, as well as acceptance of a new draft (which was converted into a collective agreement) originating from six of the 17 FEDEUNEP leaders who formed a federation (FENTRASEP) approved by the government authorities and the Ministry of Labour, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether FEDEUNEP has lodged any judicial appeal against the collective agreement concluded between the public administration and FENTRASEP.
   • (e) The Committee observes that the Government has not sent the observations and information requested regarding the other recommendations made in the context of the previous examination of the case and therefore reiterates those recommendations and requests the Government to send its observations and information without delay. These recommendations relate to the following issues:
     • - information on whether other workers were injured in the march that took place on 1 May 2003, as asserted by the ICFTU, and if so, what legal action was taken;
     • - the alleged acts of violence by the military on 17 January 2003 against a group of workers from the Panamco de Venezuela S.A. enterprise, leaders of the Beverage Industry Union of the State of Carabobo; the need to institute an independent investigation without delay into the instances of detention and torture claimed by the CTV to have been suffered by workers Faustino Villamediana, Jorge Gregorio Flores Gallardo, Jhonathan Magdaleno Rivas, Juan Carlos Zavala and Ramón Díaz;
     • - the Ministry of Labour’s refusal to register UNAPETROL and the Ministry’s request to the state enterprise PDVSA to describe the duties performed by the promoters of UNAPETROL;
     • - the dismissal of more than 18,000 workers from PDVSA and its subsidiaries, including the members of UNAPETROL, since the start of the "national civic work stoppage" in December 2002; the result of the legal action taken by the dismissed workers and negotiations with the most representative trade union confederations in order to find a solution; the observations on the alleged failure to observe legal standards and the standards of the collective agreement concerning the dismissal procedure; the examination, together with the trade unions, of the evictions affecting hundreds of former workers of PDVSA and its subsidiaries in the State of Falcón and in the San Tomé and Anaco oilfields with a view to finding a solution to the problem;
     • - information on the supposed offers of dialogue in the petroleum sector to which the Government referred, as well as the corresponding evidence;
     • - the alleged anti-union reprisal in the form of PDVSA’s written request to its subsidiaries and a Cypriot company not to hire the dismissed workers, the need to institute an independent investigation into this matter without delay and, if the allegations are found to be true, ensure that the workers affected are paid appropriate compensation;
     • - the detention orders of 26 February 2003 issued against the UNAPETROL president and labour management secretary, Mr. Horacio Medina and Mr. Edgar Quijano, respectively, and as regards similar actions taken with respect to other UNAPETROL members (Juan Fernandez, Lino Carrillo, Mireya Ripanti de Amaya, Gonzalo Feijoo and Juan Luis Santana, former company directors);
     • - the alleged systematic harassment of oil workers by the PDVSA loss prevention and control management and by a new pro-government workers’ organization called the Association of Oil Workers (ASOPETROLEROS);
     • - allegations presented by UNAPETROL on 17 February 2004 relating to the mass dismissals at the PDVSA oil company and its subsidiaries, the violation of the trade union immunity of Mr Diesbalo Osbardo Espinoza Ortega, general secretary of the Union of Workers, Oil Employees and Associated of the State of Carabobo (SOEPC), and the persecution of UNAPETROL officials in respect of whom arrest warrants had been issued;
     • - the alleged initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Gustavo Silva, SINTRAFORP general secretary.
   • (f) The Committee requests the complainant organizations to send their comments on the Government’s declarations concerning the dismissal of FEDEUNEP official Cecilia Palma.
   • (g) The Committee requests the Government to send without delay its observations concerning the additional information sent by UNAPETROL with the support of CTV in a communication dated 20 April 2004.
   • (h) The Committee would underline that it remains seriously concerned about the situation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in Venezuela and once again urges the Government to implement all its recommendations without delay.
   • (i) The Committee will examine the communication dated 26 May 2004, received while it was meeting, and which refers to the assassination of the trade unionist Mr. Numar Ricardo Herrera when it next examines the case.