Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 153, Mars 1976

Cas no 719 (Colombie) - Date de la plainte: 19-AOÛT -72 - Clos

1. 146. This case was last examined by the Committee at its session in May 1973 when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report (contained in paragraphs 55 to 73 of its 138th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 190th Session in June 1973).
2. 147. The Committee recalls that, when it last examined the case, it had reached certain conclusions on the basis of the original complaints submitted by the four complainant organisations, but that it had not at that time received the observations of the Government on additional information supplied by the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) and the National Union of Workers of Avianca (SINTRAVA) in two communications dated 9 and 23 April 1973.
3. 148. Colombia has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 149. The additional information supplied by the complainants referred to above, on which the Government had not submitted any observations, concerned the alleged failure of the management of the Colombian National Airline Company (AVIANCA) to reinstate 15 trade union leaders who had been dismissed on account of their participation in the strike which had taken place on 15 August 1972. A list of a further 643 workers, dismissed for the same reason, had also been supplied by the complainants who stated that in order to find other employment these workers required a reference from Avianca and the references that were provided stated that the workers concerned had participated in the strike in 1972. The effect of this, the complainants added, was to make it impossible for the workers to find other employment.
2. 150. In a communication dated 26 June 1973 the Government indicated that the National Labour Inspectorate was carrying out an inquiry into the alleged collective dismissals by Avianca but that since Avianca employed 7,000 workers throughout the country there would be some delay in carrying out the investigations. In a further communication, dated 11 February 1974, the Government stated that the tension which existed between the unions and the Avianca undertaking had eased and that labour relations in it were at that time harmonious. The Government added that because of a new agreement which had been signed on 22 November 1973 the workers who frequently came to the offices of the labour inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour found no reason to return despite invitations to do so.
3. 151. In view of this latter information the Committee decided, at its session in May 1974, to adjourn its examination of the case and to request the Director-General to ask the complainant organisations for their observations regarding the statements made by the Government in its latest communication.
4. 152. In two communications, dated 17 April 1975 and 12 June 1975, the International Transport Workers' Federation stated that leaders of the Colombian Association of Aircraft Mechanics (ACMA), and of the Association of Flight Auxiliaries (ACAV), and, in particular, Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo, former President of the ACAV, and Jaime Torres Reinoso, former General Secretary of that union, had still not been reinstated in the positions they held with the Avianca Airlines before their dismissal and that the Minister of Labour had not yet intervened to bring about any results despite promises to do so. The ITF stated that these persons had worked 18 and 12 years respectively for Avianca, that neither had even belonged to any political movement and had never given Avianca cause to complain about the way they carried out their duties in the company. The clear implication, asserted the ITF was that their dismissal and the failure to reinstate them had arisen purely from their trade union activities. The ITF added, however, that it was glad to concede that there had been a marked improvement in the industrial situation within the company, which made it all the more a pity that the question of reinstatement had not been resolved.
5. 153. These communications were transmitted to the Government, which in a further letter, dated 25 September 1975, stated that Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo and Jaime Torres Reinoso had been dismissed in accordance with the Resolution issued by the Minister of Labour whereby the strike mentioned above had been declared illegal. The matter was before the Labour Court and as soon as the decision of the Labour Court was known it would be communicated to the ILO.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 154. With regard to general labour relations in Avianca, the Committee notes with interest that there has been a marked improvement in the situation. The Committee considers, however, that this situation could be further improved if the company would give serious consideration to the reinstatement, as far as possible, of the trade union leaders and the workers who were dismissed following the strike in 1972. Indications were given by the Government that an inquiry was being made into the dismissals, but so far no information has been supplied by the Government concerning the results of this inquiry.
2. 155. As regards the situation of Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo and Jaime Torres Reinoso, the Committee notes that their cases are now before the Labour court and that the Government will transmit the judgments of the Court as soon as these have been rendered.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 156. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (i) to draw the attention of the Government to the considerations set forth in paragraph 154 above;
   • (ii) to transmit, as soon as they have been rendered, the judgments of the Labour Court in the cases concerning Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo and Jaime Torres Reinoso; and
   • (iii) to take note of this interim report, it being understood that the Committee will submit a further report as soon as it has received the information requested in subparagraph (ii) above.