Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 112, 1969

Cas no 546 (Colombie) - Date de la plainte: 20-JANV.-68 - Clos

1. 37. This complaint presented by the Trade Union Movement of Cundinamarca (Asicun) is set forth in two communications, one of them dated 20 January, the other 2 March 1968. The first of these alleges " anti-union discrimination taken against workers employed by the undertaking Mercados y Almacenes Caravana " and police interference with a strike held in that undertaking. The second alleges " anti-union discrimination " in the San Diego Hospital.
2. 38. At its session in February 1969 the Committee reached its final conclusions on the first series of allegations; these conclusions appear in paragraphs 66 to 82, and 85 (1) of its 111th Report, which will be submitted to the Governing Body for approval at the latter's 175th Session.
3. 39. As regards the second series, the Government had not yet submitted any observations at the time when the Committee was considering this case at its session in February 1969. It has, however, since done so in a communication to the ILO, dated 24 April 1969.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 40. In their communication dated 2 March 1968, the complainants alleged that an organisation known as " Analferaux " (which they said represented the nurses) had handed in a set of claims to the management of the San Diego Hospital. The management had thereupon dismissed twenty-three members of the organisation. A complaint having been lodged against these dismissals, on the ground that they constituted " anti-union discrimination ", the Ministry of Labour had ordered an inquiry, which had not, however, produced any results. Moreover, the management of the hospital had forced the nurses to give up their membership of " Analferaux " and to sign an agreement with regard to which that organisation was not consulted.
2. 41. The Government in its observations presents these matters in the following manner. On 3 April 1967 the National Association of Assistant Nurses (Analferaux) had presented the management of the San Diego Hospital with a set of claims on behalf of the nurses, whom it claimed to represent. The manager questioned whether his nurses were in fact members of this organisation. The Ministry of Labour made an inquiry and, on 10 May 1967, came to the conclusion that the nurses in that hospital were not in fact members of the Association, although the latter had made claims on their behalf.
3. 42. Furthermore, the Government continues, the Ministry despatched one of its officials to make inquiries on the spot, so that he could see for himself what working conditions were like and assess the relations between management and employees.
4. 43. The Government affirms that there are no grounds at all for the accusation of " antiunion discrimination ". It is untrue, the Government asserts, that twenty-three people bad been dismissed. It adds that on the national level Analferaux has made no complaint concerning " persecution " or dismissals; the only complaint it had made concerned the fact that the manager of the hospital in question had declined to consider the claims made until such time as the ministerial inquiry had ascertained whether or not the nurses whom the Association claimed to represent were in fact members.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 44. From the information available, it seems that what happened, in essence, is this: a set of claims were presented to an employer by a certain organisation claiming to represent the workers in that undertaking; an official inquiry by the Ministry of Labour concluded that the organisation was not in fact entitled to act on their behalf, and the employer refused to consider the claims in question until such time as the inquiry had revealed what the position was.
2. 45. Furthermore, it would seem, in the light of the Government's statement, that the complainants did not see fit to lodge a complaint about " anti-union persecution " and dismissals with the national authorities, and that their accusations were unfounded. Having taken note of the Government's explanations, and of the fact that with regard to these two points the complainants have failed to supply any definite information (such as the names of those dismissed or " persecuted "), the Committee considers that the veracity of the allegations made has not been adequately proved.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 46. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.