Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 355, Novembre 2009

Cas no 2497 (Colombie) - Date de la plainte: 31-MARS -06 - Clos

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

1. 47. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2008 meeting [see 351st Report, paras 31 and 32]. The Committee recalls that the allegations concern the suspension, from 1998 onwards, by Pereira Waste Management SA, Pereira Telecommunications SA, Pereira Electricity SA (ESP) and Pereira Water and Sanitation SA, successor companies to Pereira Public Enterprises, of the payment of a pension benefit established in the collective agreement concluded in 1963 and confirmed in subsequent collective agreements. The complainants launched legal action to obtain payment of the pension benefit, but the judicial authority rejected the claim on the grounds that after the benefit in question had been established, Law No. 4 of 1976 was approved, providing for the payment of one additional month, which was confirmed by section 50 of Law No. 100 of 1993. According to the judicial authority, under the terms of section 16, clause 2, of the Labour Code, where a law provides for a benefit already recognized in an agreement or arbitration award, the benefit that is more favourable for the worker is paid. The Committee recalls that when it examined the substance of this case, it requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the workers in question would receive the pension benefits established in the collective agreements concluded after the approval of the new legislation, for the period during which those agreements were in force, while ensuring that the same benefit was not paid twice.
2. 48. In communications dated 24 June, from the Association of Pensioners of Pereira Public Enterprises, and 20 September, from the Single Confederation of Workers, the complainants reiterate the allegations examined in relation to the suspension of payment of the pension benefit established in successive collective agreements, a benefit which in their view is still payable in addition to the benefit established subsequently through the adoption of Law No. 100 of 1993.
3. 49. In a communication dated 15 May 2009, the Government indicates that the companies apply the relevant laws and regulations in force (Law No. 4 of 1976, Law No. 100 of 1993, and section 49 of Law No. 6 of 1945) and that, in accordance with the principle that the more favourable benefit is payable, they are not required to recognize both the benefits payable under the terms of agreements and that provided for by legislation. The Government states that the additional benefits which were approved on a six-month basis by the Public Enterprises of Pereira and which continued to be paid by the public service companies are equivalent to those due to the retired workers in June and December under the terms of sections 50 and 142 of Law No. 142 of 1993. In this regard the Government states that according to the ruling of the Second Labour Court of Pereira district of 14 February 2002, “there are no grounds for accumulating benefits payable under agreements and legislation in the same context, and this chamber takes the view that the aim of claiming additional monthly benefits paid to retired workers following the entry into force of Law No. 100 of 1993 is simply to claim, for this group of individuals, payment of the Christmas and six-monthly benefits no longer paid to those still working”.
4. 50. The Committee takes note of this information, and observes that the new communications presented by the complainant organizations contain no new factual information and does not refer to the initiation of any new judicial action. Under these circumstances, the Committee draws attention to the fact that it has already formulated definitive conclusions on these questions, and those conclusions remain valid.