Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 373, Octobre 2014

Cas no 2708 (Guatemala) - Date de la plainte: 20-AVR. -09 - Clos

Allegations: Interference by the authorities in the internal affairs of the Guatemalan Workers’ Trade Union (UNSITRAGUA)

1. 324. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2013 meeting when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 367th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 317th Session (March 2013), paras 766–773].
2. 325. The Government sent partial replies to the requested information in a communication of 12 May 2014.
3. 326. Guatemala has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 327. In its March 2013 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 367th Report, para. 773]:
   • (a) The Committee urges the Government to communicate its detailed observations with regard to the alleged interference of the Government in the internal affairs of UNSITRAGUA (the original organization). Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to send the court rulings relating to the legal proceedings launched by Daniel Eduardo Vásquez Cisnero without delay.
   • (b) With regard to the split within UNSITRAGUA, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the situation relating to the registration of UNSITRAGUA (the original organization) and to ensure that this organization is promptly registered without let or hindrance.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 328. In a communication of 12 May 2014, the Government reports that: (i) the Minister of Labour held two meetings, on 27 February 2012 and 23 January 2013, with UNSITRAGUA (file No. 10-2009) in which the trade union members indicated their concern at the rejection of their registration due to the existence of another federation already registered under the name UNSITRAGUA; (ii) as a result of these meetings, the Minister of Labour suggested that the union leaders could change the name under which their federation would be registered to UNSITRAGUA (the original organization), as it is known in practice; (iii) despite the union leaders’ agreement to this proposal, since then, the Ministry of Labour has received no further documentation from UNSITRAGUA (the original organization), which prevents the labour administration from taking any steps as it cannot intervene at its own initiative.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 329. The Committee recalls that the complainant organization in this case had alleged the interference of the authorities in the internal affairs of the Guatemalan Workers’ Trade Union, showing favouritism towards one of the blocs produced by a split within the organization in 2008. The complainant organization’s allegations concerned in particular: (i) the Ministry of Labour’s encouragement of the registration of a parallel trade union organization; (ii) the subsequent denial to register UNSITRAGUA-histórica; and (iii ) the measures to deliberately freeze the organization’s accounts.
2. 330. In its first examination of the case [see 362nd Report, November 2011, paras 1098– 1122], the Committee took note of the Government indications that it had given priority to the first application for registration and that the request from UNSITRAGUA-histórica contained legal defects which needed to be addressed, including with respect to the name of the organization. The Committee also noted that the Government did not respond to the allegations regarding interference and additionally noted that the follow-up mission to the conclusions of the International Labour Conference Committee on the Application of Standards observed in May 2011 that the complainant organization had been excluded from all the social dialogue forums despite its representative nature and noted the presence of other organizations that had not been registered in such decision-making bodies. In its second examination of the case [see 367th Report, March 2013, paras 766–773], the Committee was informed of the inclusion of UNSITRAGUA-histórica in the National Tripartite Commission but still had not received information regarding its registration requested in 2009 and regarding the allegations of interference in its internal affairs.
3. 331. The Committee takes note of the Government’s latest observations which indicate that the refusal to register UNSITRAGUA (the original organization) is due to the fact that another federation has already been registered under the same name (UNSITRAGUA), that the solution proposed by the labour administration, in two meetings in February 2012 and January 2013, was to change the name under which the federation would be registered (UNSITRAGUA (the original organization) instead of UNSITRAGUA) but that, despite the union leaders’ agreement at that time, the labour administration has not received any new request to enable it to proceed with the registration process. In the light of the above, the Committee requests UNSITRAGUA (the original organization) to keep it informed of any developments in the processing of its registration request and, in particular, of any new initiatives taken by the organization to finalize its registration under its new name.
4. 332. Furthermore, recalling that the right to official recognition through legal registration is an essential facet of the right to organize since that is the first step that workers’ or employers’ organizations must take in order to be able to function efficiently, and represent their members adequately [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 295], the Committee expects the Government to ensure that the registration of UNSITRAGUA (the original organization) is processed rapidly and without let or hindrance, as soon as the organization renews its request.
5. 333. The Committee regrets that, despite its repeated requests, the Government has not sent detailed observations in relation to the allegations of interference by the Government in the internal affairs of UNSITRAGUA (the original organization) in 2008 and 2009. Recalling that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that the public authorities exercise great restraint in relation to intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions [see Digest, op. cit., para. 859], the Committee expects the Government in future to fully respect the principle of non-interference in trade union affairs and to keep it informed of any court rulings relating to the legal proceedings launched by Mr Vásquez Cisneros.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 334. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests UNSITRAGUA (the original organization) to keep it informed of any developments in the processing of its registration request and, in particular, of any new initiatives taken by the organization to finalize its registration under its new name.
   • (b) Recalling that the right to official recognition through legal registration is an essential facet of the right to organize since that is the first step that workers’ or employers’ organizations must take in order to be able to function efficiently, and represent their members adequately, the Committee expects the Government to ensure that the registration of UNSITRAGUA (the original organization) is processed rapidly and without let or hindrance, as soon as the organization renews its request.
   • (c) Recalling that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that the public authorities exercise great restraint in relation to intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions, the Committee expects the Government in future to fully respect the principle of non-interference in trade union affairs and to keep it informed of the court rulings relating to the legal proceedings launched by Mr Vásquez Cisneros.