Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 348, Novembre 2007

Cas no 2237 (Colombie) - Date de la plainte: 20-NOV. -02 - Clos

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

1. 73. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2006 meeting [see 343rd Report, paras 56–58]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government: (a) to send a copy of the certificate signed by the company’s auditor confirming that the wage increase of 7.49 per cent awarded by RIOTEX SA was for all the company’s workers, as well as a copy of the communication signed by the Coordinator of the Prevention, Inspection, Monitoring and Control Group of Antioquia Territorial Directorate certifying that no complaint had been filed by workers against the enterprise; and (b) to send its observations concerning the disparity in wages paid to different workers at the Hilazas Vanylon SA enterprise and any legislative measures adopted with regard to the conclusion of service contracts with workers’ cooperatives in several enterprises, thereby obstructing freedom of association, the right to present lists of demands and the right to strike.
2. 74. The Committee takes note of the Government’s communication dated 21 March 2007 with which it also sends a copy of the certificate of the RIOTEX auditor confirming that the company awarded a wage increase of 7.49 per cent to both the unionized workers and those who were not union members, with effect from 16 July 2003. The Committee also takes note of the copy of the certificate from the Coordinator of the Prevention, Inspection, Monitoring and Control Group of Antioquia Territorial Directorate confirming that there is no pending inquiry into the company.
3. 75. As regards the disparity in wages paid to different workers at the Hilazas Vanylon SA enterprise, the Committee notes the Government’s information that the Atlántico Territorial Directorate issued resolution No. 001575 of 12 December 2006 which leaves it to the parties concerned to apply to the ordinary labour authority. As regards legislative measures concerning service contracts with workers’ cooperatives in different undertakings, obstructing freedom of association, the right to present lists of demands and the right to strike, the Government states that members of cooperatives do not have the right to join trade unions, and that the Government is not obliged to apply the Promotion of Cooperatives Recommendation, 2002 (No. 193), because it is not binding. The Committee notes also that according to the Government, workers in cooperatives enjoy freedom of association and collective bargaining as long as they comply with the relevant conditions.
4. 76. The Committee takes note of this information. The Committee recalls as it has underlined on several occasions that, although cooperatives represent one particular way of organizing production methods, it cannot cease consideration of the special situation of workers with regard to cooperatives, in particular as concerns the protection of their labour interests and considers that such workers should enjoy the right to join or form trade unions in order to defend those interests [see 336th Report, Case No. 2239, para. 353, and 337th Report, Case No. 2362, para. 757]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that cooperatives are not used as a means of preventing workers from exercising trade union rights, in particular by publicizing among both members and workers of cooperatives the rights and obligations of both.