Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 396, Octobre 2021

Cas no 2960 (Colombie) - Date de la plainte: 05-JUIN -12 - Clos

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

1. 25. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2015 meeting [see 374th report, paras 258 to 268] concerning allegations of acts of anti-union harassment and refusal to negotiate a list of demands within an enterprise in the solidarity economy sector. On that occasion, the Committee: (a) requested the complainant organizations to provide details in relation to the allegations of anti-union harassment in order to continue with the examination of these allegations, and (b) urged the Government to take the necessary measures to expedite the resolution of complaints of anti-union discrimination and workplace harassment presented to the Ministry of Labour and the National Office of the Attorney-General and to keep it informed of the outcome.
2. 26. The Committee notes that it has received additional information from the complainant organization in a communication of 13 June 2017. The Committee observes that, in said communication, the complainant organization denounces: (i) the process of liquidating the enterprise, which is alleged to have profoundly affected its workers’ labour rights; (ii) the Ministry of Labour’s failure to take into consideration the administrative disputes presented by the union organizations in relation to the liquidation, and (iii) the impact of the liquidation on the enjoyment of freedom of association by the enterprise group workers. In this respect, the Committee recalls that it is only able to give an opinion on allegations concerning programmes and processes of restructuring or economic rationalization, whether or not they entail staff reductions or the transfer of companies or services from the public to the private sector, if they give rise to acts of discrimination or anti-union interference [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 42]. Noting that the complainant organization’s communication does not contain reference to specific instances of anti-union discrimination or interference, the Committee will not continue with the examination of this new allegation.
3. 27. In relation to its recommendation (a), the Committee notes that it has not received the additional information requested from the complainant organizations concerning the allegations of anti-union harassment.
4. 28. As regards its recommendation (b), concerning how to expedite the resolution of complaints of anti-union discrimination and workplace harassment filed and the outcome thereof, the Committee notes the Government’s communications of 27 October 2015, 2 August 2018 and 1 February 2019. The Government states that the Bogotá Regional Department of the Ministry of Labour carried out the administrative investigation following the anti-union harassment complaint filed by the CGT in support of UNITRACOOP and specifically indicates that : (i) in a resolution of 26 January 2016, the Coordinator of the Dispute Settlement and Conciliation Group of the Bogotá Regional Department decided to absolve the enterprise of responsibility for acts infringing the right to freedom of association; (ii) on 16 March 2017, the Regional Department settled the appeal lodged by UNITRACOOP, confirming the 2016 decision to absolve the enterprise; and (iii) on 22 June 2018, the Coordinator of the Dispute Settlement and Conciliation Group of the Bogotá Regional Department observed that the 2016 absolution decision had remained legally binding and had been enforced, and closed the case. The Committee duly notes this information relating to the labour administration absolving the enterprise. While it notes that it did not receive information on the treatment given to the complaint filed with the National Office of the Attorney-General, the Committee observes that nor has it received the requested details from the complainant organization concerning its allegations of anti-union harassment. Based on the aforementioned elements, the Committee considers that the case is closed and will not continue with its examination.