Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1995, publiée 82ème session CIT (1995)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Colombie (Ratification: 1976)

The Committee notes the Government's report and recalls that its previous comments concerned:

- restrictions on the right to strike of organizations other than works unions (industrial unions, branch unions, and a ban on strikes by federations and confederations), laid down by section 376, supplemented by section 51 of Act No. 50 and section 417 of the Labour Code.

The Committee regrets to note that the Government has not answered its previous comment and asks it to adopt the necessary measures to enable unions other than works unions to exercise the right to strike, should they so wish.

With reference to section 389 of the Code which provides that neither members representing the employer before his workers nor members of the top management of an enterprise can be members of the executive of a trade union, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the scope of this provision since, according to the federations, employers unilaterally determine who shall represent them and this has given rise to abuse.

The Committee observes that section 429 of the Code defines a strike as the temporary and peaceful collective suspension of work, by the workers of an establishment or enterprise, for economic and occupational reasons; under section 450(1)(b), a strike is deemed to be unlawful when it pursues purposes other than occupational or economic ones; and section 450(1)(g) establishes that a strike is unlawful when it is called for the purpose of demanding that the authorities carry out an action which is at the latter's discretion.

The Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that organizations responsible for defending the social, economic and occupational interests of workers should, as a rule, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 165).

In this connection, the Committee asks the Government to state whether, under sections 429 and 450(1)(b) and (g), unions may strike against the Government's economic and social policy, and engage in sympathy strikes.

The Committee also observes that section 444(2), replaced by section 61 of Act No. 50, requires an absolute majority of the workers of the enterprise or the general assembly of the members of the union or unions which account for more than half those workers in order to call a strike or refer the dispute to arbitration. The Committee considers that such a requirement might undermine the possibility that the workers should have of organizing strike action. In the Committee's view, the majority required to call a strike should be limited to a simple majority of the votes, excluding those who did not take part in the vote. The Committee asks the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the percentage required in order to call a strike be so reduced.

The Committee expresses the hope that in its next report the Government will provide information on the above matters.