Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 340, Mars 2006

Cas no 1955 (Colombie) - Date de la plainte: 02-MARS -98 - Clos

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

1. 56. The Committee notes that, in a communication dated 8 June 2005, the Trade Union of Workers of the Bogotá Telecommunications Enterprise (SINTRATELEFONOS) presented new allegations as a part of the follow-up to the present case which was first examined in June 2003 [see 331st Report, paras. 15-19].
2. 57. The complainant organization alleges that it was opposed to the Government’s privatization policies, in particular the plan to float the Telecommunications Enterprise of Bogotá on the Stock Exchange, implemented between 12 and 20 May 2003. The complainant organization adds that, in solidarity with the workers of TELECOM, which went into liquidation on 12 June 2003, the workers of SINTRATELEFONOS took part in various types of protest. The complainant organization states that the enterprise investigated and identified those workers having participated in the protests and proceeded, on 13 August 2003, to terminate the employment contracts of 35 trade union activists belonging to SINTRATELEFONOS.
3. 58. The complainant organization also alleges that the Government turned down the registration request lodged by the Union of Workers of the Public Domestic and Telecommunications Services Economic Sector (UNITRASTEL) on 14 August 2003.
4. 59. In its communication of 8 November 2005, the Government states that trade union organizations may freely express their opinions and dissent against sate public policies. As to the democratization of shares, referred to by the complainant organization as floatation on the stock exchange, the Government states that this process was carried out strictly within the rules laid down. The Government adds that privatization does not per se restrict the right and freedom of association, as its purpose is to offer the community an improved service.
5. 60. As to the allegations concerning the repression of the protest carried out in solidarity with the TELECOM workers, the Government reiterates that the Political Constitution of the Colombian State protects the right to protest, whenever such protests do not affect public order, the physical and moral well-being of persons, or the activities of enterprises or establishments.
6. 61. As to the allegations that the enterprise gathered detailed information on the names of SINTRATELEFONOS members who had participated in the various protests held in solidarity with TELECOM, the Government states that, according to the enterprise, it has no record of any such surveillance activity having been undertaken during the protest against the privatization of TELECOM with a view to establishing whether any of its workers participated.
7. 62. As to the allegations concerning the unilateral termination of 35 workers’ employment contracts by the enterprise, the Government states that the decision was based on the power conferred by the law upon the employer to unilaterally terminate employment contracts, as stated in article 64 of the Substantive Labour Code, as amended by article 28 of Law No. 789 of 2002 and clause 19 of the collective labour agreement. The Government adds that the tutela (protection) appeals lodged by the workers were rejected in the first and second instances but that the Constitutional Court, through ruling T-764 of 22 July 2005, overturned the aforementioned decisions, accepted the right to tutela and ordered that the workers be reinstated, an order with which the enterprise complied. In effect, 33 workers were reinstated and the other two taken back on,as of May 2004, following a separate agreement (the Government provides copies of the abovementioned decisions and of the communications concerning the reinstatements). As to wages and social benefits for the time period between dismissal and compliance with the tutela judgement, the Government states that these issues are a matter for the ordinary labour courts.
8. 63. As to the refusal by the Ministry of Social Protection to include the trade union organization UNITRASTEL in the trade union register, the Government states that this refusal was based on the fact that the organization did not fulfil the requirements for registration as it was made up of employees and workers from different branches of the state and private sectors. The ruling refusing registration was challenged and, as a result, the decision not to register the trade union was upheld.
9. 64. The Committee notes the new allegations concerning the dismissal of 35 workers of the Telecommunications Enterprise of Bogotá due to their participation in a protest in solidarity with those affected by the privatization of TELECOM and the Government’s observations stating that these workers had been reinstated following a ruling of the Constitutional Court.
10. 65. As to the refusal to register UNITRASTEL, a trade union organization of an industrial nature, owing to the fact that it was made up of employees and workers from different branches of the state and private sectors, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 2 of Convention No. 87, workers have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee recalls that, although it is admissible for first-level organizations of public servants to be limited to that category of workers, this restriction should not be extended to cover higher level trade union organizations. The Committee thus requests the Government to take measures to guarantee the full application of this principle by proceeding to recognize UNITRASTEL.