Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2019, Publication: 108th ILC session (2019)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Honduras (Ratification: 1956)



Written information provided by the Government

The Government of Honduras is providing its observations in accordance with the 2019 report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, which in accordance with the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received by the ILO on 1 September 2018. Those observations refer to issues examined by the Committee and specifically on the Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 107th Session, May–June 2018).

The Government’s observations are presented in the same order followed in the report and, in order to facilitate understanding, are divided into four parts:

Part I. Trade union rights and civil liberties

Part II. Legislative issues: Reforms to the Labour Code

Part III. 2017 amendment to section 335 of the Penal Code

Part IV. Application of the Convention in practice (registration of new trade unions)

Part I. Trade union rights and civil liberties

The Government reports that, through the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT), a number of actions have been taken with officials in the judicial system, and in particular:

Supreme Court of Justice:

(a) On 28 February 2019, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (STSS) sent an official communication to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court requesting it to:

– appoint a representative of the Court (Labour Chamber) as a liaison officer and point of contact for the MEPCOIT;

– instruct those responsible to give priority to these cases, expediting the process in accordance with the law;

– instruct those responsible to prepare a report, to be sent to the ILO, of the progress made in cases before the courts as set out in the attached table by 13 of March;

(b) On 19 March 2019, the Ministry received official communication PCSJ No. 89-2019 from the President of the Judiciary, Mr Rolando Edgardo Argueta Pérez, containing the following information:

– Regarding point 1 of the request, I am happy to inform you that Mr Edgardo Cáceres Castellanos, a judge of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court, has been appointed as the point of contact for this institution.

– Regarding point 2, communication has been established with the competent authorities in order that, within their areas of competence, they can expedite the process in accordance with the law.

– Regarding point 3, attached are reports from the courts that are reviewing the cases

Public Prosecutor’s Office:

(a) On 28 February 2019, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security sent an official communication to the Public Prosecutor, Mr Oscar Chinchilla, requesting him to:

– appoint a representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office as a liaison officer and contact for the MEPCOIT;

– instruct those responsible to give priority to these cases, expediting the investigation process and/or appointing a special team for that purpose;

– instruct those responsible to prepare a report, to be sent to the ILO, of the progress made in the cases set out in the attached table by 13 March.

(b) As a result of this request, and following the appointment as liaison officer and contact of the Vice Director-General of Prosecutors, Ms Loany Patricia Alvarado Sorto, the following meetings were held:

– On 29 March, a meeting was held with the MEPCOIT and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr José M. Salgado, with the aim of establishing institutional cooperation mechanisms. At the meeting, the appointment of Ms Alvarado as liaison officer for the Sectoral Committee was approved.

– On 26 April, a second working meeting was held with tripartite representation in which it was decided that priority should be given to the investigations and, to that effect, the Public Prosecutor’s Office proposed to publish a national communication with a view to updating the cases and to disaggregate the list of cases by type of crime and those for which no action could be taken as no complaint had been made by the victims.

– On 9 May, a third meeting was held with the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Government and employer representatives. Worker representatives were not present. During the meeting, the Public Prosecutor, reviewing the 22 cases, indicated that seven cases were under investigation, five cases were before the courts, there were no records of five cases (charges had not been brought for the crimes that were the subject of the complaints), and the remaining cases had been dismissed or closed. They also committed to producing an overview of the progress made in the cases as soon as possible. In the final part of the meeting it was decided that anti-union violence could not be established as the motive for the crimes until the investigations were concluded in each case. However, the investigations would take into consideration the possible anti-union nature of the crimes.

The Government states that, in order to provide prompt and effective protection for all trade union leaders and members in a situation of risk, an Act and mechanism are in place, regarding which a tripartite workshop on the National Protection System was held within the framework of the MEPCOIT, aimed at coordinating actions and in which the following aspects of its operation were highlighted:

(1) The State recognizes the right to defend human rights.

(2) Honduras adopted the Act on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Journalists, Social Communicators and Justice Officials (Decree No. 34-2015) of 16 April 2015, published in the Official Bulletin on 15 May 2015.

(3) The General Regulations to the Act on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Journalists, Social Communicators and Justice Officials was adopted by Agreement No. 059-2016, published on 20 August 2016.

(4) The purpose of the protection mechanism is to recognize, promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, contained in the Constitution of the Republic and international law instruments, of all natural or legal persons dedicated to the promotion and defence of human rights, freedom of expression and jurisdictional tasks, at risk because of their activity.

(5) Emphasis is placed on the duty to provide special protection for rights defenders (obligation to respect and prevent).

(6) The population benefiting from or targeted by the Act is all persons who exercise the right, individual or collective, to promote and strive for protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels, which includes environmental activists and those who preserve natural resources.

(7) Risk and imminent risk are defined as follows:

– Risk: the probability of the occurrence of a threat or attack to which a person, group or community is exposed, as a direct consequence of the performance of their activities or functions.

– Imminent risk: the existence of threats or attacks that represent the impending materialization of such threats or a new attack that may seriously affect life, physical integrity or personal freedom (extraordinary procedure through which urgent protection measures are implemented).

(8) Types of protection measures:

– Protection measures: evacuation, temporary relocation, escorts, home security guards, panic buttons, installation of cameras, locks and lights or other security measures, bulletproof vests, metal detectors, armoured vehicles and anything else required.

– Preventive measures: defence and self-defence instructions and handbooks, self-defence classes, recognition by the departmental/municipal authorities of the work carried out by these people, support for human rights observers and journalists, opportunity to alert the authorities.

(9) Measures to respond to extensive risk:

– Preventive and protection measures for the close family of the person receiving protection shall be determined on the basis of a risk assessment conducted among the people requesting or receiving protection to establish whether the risk extends to the spouses, cohabitees, ascendants, descendants and dependants of persons requesting or receiving protection. The same criteria shall apply to persons who participate in the same activities, organization, group or social movement as the person receiving protection.

(10) 2018 statistics:

Since 2015, 427 requests for protection measures have been processed, of which, as at 28 February 2019, 210 fall under the responsibility of the Directorate-General of the Protection System, classified by target population under the Act as follows:

– 134 human rights defenders;

– 28 journalists;

– 27 social communicators;

– 21 justice officials;

(11) Current cases involving trade unionists under the National Protection System.

There are currently four reports submitted by trade unionists under the protection of the National Protection System, containing information provided as follow-up to the inter-institutional round table held within the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 26 April 2019.

The persons benefiting from these protection measures are:

– Miguel Ángel López: resident of the city of Tocoa, departament of Colon;

– Moisés Sánchez: resident of the city of Choluteca;

– Nelson Geovanny Núñez: currently outside of the country;

– Martha Patricia Riera: case closed.

The Government reports the following administrative fines imposed under Decree No. 178-2016, as well as the following judicial proceedings resulting from or related to the proceedings set out in the Decree:

(1) Fines imposed following inspections in 2018:

– For obstruction: 17,750,000.00;

– For freedom of association: 8,286,209.28;

– Others: 240,512,050.84;

– Total amount collected in favour of workers: 1,100,000,000.00 Honduran lempira (L).

[Chart not included]

(2) Inspections carried out in 2019: 7,306.

– Cases referred to the Attorney General’s Office in 2018, 95 Cases; L6,964,467.03.

– 212 fines totalling L266,548,260.12 in Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Ceiba, Choluteca.

– 22 businesses fined a total of L2,549,115.00 in 2019.

– 12 complaints made to human resources inspectors so far in 2019.

The Government has taken due note of the indication by the Committee on the Application of Standards that it should use the MEPCOIT forum to establish a channel for the exchange of information between the authorities and the trade union movement with regard to anti-union violence. In this regard, the Government reports that it has taken all necessary measures to ensure that:

(a) all the competent authorities, especially the police force, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judiciary, take coordinated and priority action to address the violence suffered by members of the trade union movement;

(b) the Public Prosecutor’s Office has been requested, when planning and conducting investigations, to take full and systematic account of the possible anti-union nature of murders of members of the trade union movement and the possible links between the murders of members of the same trade union, and to ensure that the investigations target both the perpetrators and the instigators of the crimes;

(c) information exchange between the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the trade union movement is being strengthened through the MEPCOIT;

(d) resources are being allocated for both investigations into acts of anti-union violence and protection schemes for members of the trade union movement.

The Government indicates that it is investigating the allegations of the ITUC regarding police violence and arrest warrants. Official communication SEDS–DDHH-911-2019 of the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Security establishes the following:

(a) The relevant request for information was sent to the Police Investigation Department (DPI) which, in response, indicated in official communication D-DPI-N-0766-2019 of 15 May 2019 that its database only contains data related to various persons with the same first and family name as the person who is sought, which is why it suggests providing more specific data, such as an identity or passport number, to enable the search criteria to be tailored to the right person.

(b) With regard to the alleged police repression, we can report that this Department carried out a search in the Online Police System (SEPOL), a digital platform into which police information is entered daily at the national level on all operations carried out by members of the police. As of 9 March 2018, there are no updates in the SEPOL platform pertaining to the dissolution of demonstrations which refer to the transnational agricultural enterprise. As the information attached to your request is vague with regard to particulars such as the place of the alleged acts and the names of the persons involved in the acts, which makes it difficult to find the specific information required, we suggest that you provide specific information on the alleged acts so that we can reply in a precise manner.

(c) Nevertheless, the Ministry of Security wishes to emphasize its commitment and interest in guaranteeing the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic, which establishes the basic principles that must underpin the work and functions of the Honduran National Police, namely: to safeguard the security of people and property, to maintain public order, to prevent and combat crime, to assist other justice system officials and implement the legal provisions issued by the competent authority as well as other activities likely to be required with respect to crimes committed, all in strict conformity with human rights.

The Government indicates that the Directorate-General of the Protection System, according to investigation file DGSP-2018-012/D, initiated legal proceedings in the case of the president and vice-president of the Union of Workers of Star (SintraStar). The above-mentioned document indicates that the decision was taken, in a meeting of the technical committee, to suspend the protection measures assigned to Mr Lino Rosa Hernández Garmendia as he is out of the country and his date of return is unknown.

Part II. Legislative issues : Reform of the Labour Code

Articles 2 et seq. of the Convention relating to the establishment, autonomy and activities of trade unions

Current situation

(a) The Government of Honduras reaffirms its political will to take action for the adoption of reforms to the Labour Code that is in force in order to bring it into conformity with ratified ILO Conventions. This process has been carried out gradually through social dialogue and tripartite collaboration in the Economic and Social Council (CES), as occurred with chapter III of the Labour Code in relation to the new Act on Labour Inspection, Decree No. 178-2016, of 23 January 2017, published in La Gaceta.

(b) With regard to the pending reforms to achieve conformity with Convention No. 87, and recalling the events of 2014, when the trade union confederations expressed their reservations, as the ILO is already aware, the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security prepared a new proposal taking up again the provisions left in suspense in 2014 to serve as a basis for the discussions.

(c) Through communication STSS-416-18, dated 9 August 2018, the Government proposal for amendments to the Labour Code was sent to the social partners for their analysis and discussion in the CES, and was communicated to the MEPCOIT, the tripartite technical body responsible for providing the necessary forum for the parties involved in labour disputes arising out of failure to comply with ILO Conventions, so that they can enter into dialogue and reach agreements to resolve their differences.

(d) The MEPCOIT began functioning in September 2018, setting as a priority the technical review of the proposed amendments to the Labour Code, and taking as a basic document for the discussions the proposal made by the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security.

(e) The proposal to bring the Labour Code into harmony with ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, put forward by the Government, includes amendments to 14 sections, namely sections 2, 472, 475, 495, 510, 511, 534, 536, 537, 541, 554, 555, 558 and 563.

(f) Nevertheless, the subsequent sessions of the MEPCOIT were devoted to the establishment of a framework to guide its functioning and the determination of a short- and medium-term work plan.

(g) The work plan emphasized the need to strengthen the capacities of the members of the MEPCOIT in relation to freedom of association, among other subjects, as a basis for the subsequent process of dialogue on the reforms referred to above.

(h) Accordingly, it was decided to hold the first day of training in January 2019 with a view to undertaking a comparative analysis to enable the participants to understand the lack of compliance between Convention No. 87 and the Labour Code of Honduras. The day of training was held, with the technical assistance requested by the CES from the ILO Regional Office in San José, Costa Rica.

(i) Subsequently, in a meeting held with the preparatory mission for the direct contacts mission, the MEPCOIT emphasized the need to continue receiving ILO technical support to assist in the process of dialogue on the reforms, principally because the worker representatives indicated reservations concerning the implications of the subject for the trade union movement, in anticipation of a period of in-depth reflection by workers’ organizations, while evaluating the importance of holding the dialogue process in the CES.

(j) In 2019, the subject of the reform of the Labour Code was taken up again by the MEPCOIT, with the initial commitment of the social partners to provide the technical secretariat of the CES with their respective comments and proposals rapidly concerning the amendments proposed by the Government with a view to facilitating the exchange of information and the commencement of discussions.

(k) In further meetings planned to address the same subject, the workers’ representatives shared their vision of undertaking a comprehensive revision of the Labour Code, and not being confined to the specific points raised in the conclusions of the Conference Committee, and noted the danger of only proposing these amendments to the National Congress in view of the difficulties experienced in the past. Similarly, the employer representatives indicated their readiness to enter into dialogue on amendments to the Labour Code, strictly confined to sections 2, 472, 475, 510 and 541, in accordance with the guidance contained in the conclusions of the report of the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 107th Session of the Conference.

(l) We trust that the social partners at the highest level will continue to give priority to dialogue and will make additional efforts to make further progress so that substantial progress can be achieved in the short term.

Part III. 2017 amendment to section 335 of the Penal Code

The Government indicates that the repeal of section 335-B of the Penal Code, known as the “Mordaza Act”, was published by Decree No. 49-2018 in La Gaceta on 14 September 2018, further to its approval by the Executive.

Section 335-B provided that “any person who publicly, or using communication or dissemination media intended for the public, excuses, upholds or justifies the crime of terrorism and any person who has participated in its execution, or who incites another or others to engage in terrorism or its financing, shall be liable to a penalty of between four and eight years of imprisonment”.

Part IV. Application of the Convention in practice (registration of new trade unions)

Trade union registrations 2014–19

The Government of Honduras indicates that various applications have been made for the granting of legal status, with a total of 39 registered between 2014 and March 2019, as indicated below:

– in 2014, five organizations with legal status were registered, all in the private sector;

– in 2015, six organizations with legal status were registered, all in the private sector;

– in 2016, eight organizations were granted legal status, six in the private sector and two in the public sector:

– in 2017, seven organizations were granted legal status, three in the public sector and four in the private sector;

– in 2018, eight organizations were granted legal status, seven in the private sector and one in the public sector;

– between January and March 2019, five organizations were granted legal status, all in the private sector:

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative – The Government of Honduras has the honour of appearing once again before this Committee, as has been the custom in recent years, considering that this body offers a unique opportunity for the ILO to deliver results in terms of policies, laws, standards and new social dialogue bodies. In this respect, today we will provide information in relation to the observations of the Committee of Experts on the Convention and the principal areas in which progress has been made in compliance with the Convention.

The Government recalls that the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards in May 2018, on the case of Honduras in relation to Convention No. 87, urged the Government, among other matters, to accept a direct contacts mission before the next session of the International Labour Conference in 2019.

The mission was carried out exactly three weeks ago, prior to the present Conference, between 20 and 24 May 2019, and was chaired by Rolando Murgas Torraza, to whom, following the completion of the mission, the Government, through the Secretary of Labour and Social Security, Carlos Madero, delivered a detailed report following the order of the report of the Committee of Experts on page 89. The report was also sent to Worker and Employer representatives and the supervisory bodies. It is currently published by this Committee on the ILO website, where it can be accessed to note the progress made up to now.

In view of the above and the fact that the case of Honduras is a case of progress, and as all the progress is set out in the report, which is now in the public domain, as the Government we will confine ourselves to emphasizing the tripartite agreement concluded at the end of the direct contacts mission in the Economic and Social Council (CES), which I will read out in full:

Tripartite agreement seeking mechanisms for the correct and effective application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)

In the presence of the members of the direct contacts mission of the International Labour Organization, and recognizing its importance for the strengthening of effective social dialogue, respect for and the promotion of freedom of association, the Government and the representatives of employers and workers of Honduras, represented by the Secretariat of State on the premises of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security; the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP); and the trade union confederations, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), the Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CTH) and the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH), respectively, conclude on the twenty-fourth day of the month of May 2019 the present agreement intended to seek mechanisms for the correct and effective application of Convention No. 87, ratified by Honduras in 1956.

Anti-union violence

Aware that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate free of violence, pressure and threats of any kind and that protection against anti-union violence is an integral aspect of the policy for the defence of human rights, the parties agree on:

- The urgent creation of a commission on anti-union violence composed, on the one hand, of the authorities of the Secretariat for the General Coordination of the Government (SCGG), the Secretariat of State in the Human Rights Office, the Secretariat of State in the Labour and Social Security Offices; and, on the other, by workers represented by the CGT, CTH and CUTH; and employers represented by the COHEP. The Committee will invite those responsible for justice in the country to join.

The Commission shall be established thirty days after the signature of the present agreement, and the parties shall formally accredit their representatives in the offices of Labour and Social Security.

The Commission on Anti-Union Violence shall have the following functions:

(a) establish a mechanism for direct communication between trade unions and the State authorities;

(b) support flexibility in the application of protection measures for members of the trade union movement who are at risk;

(c) ensure effective support for investigations of cases of anti-union violence for the expeditious clarification of such cases;

(d) inform every six months the workers’ confederations, COHEP, the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security (STSS) and the ILO of the results achieved and the action taken to follow up the complaints received;

(e) raise awareness of the protection mechanisms for human rights defenders.

- Ensure the participation of the representatives of the trade union movement in the national mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders.

- The State of Honduras through the STSS shall urge the Public Prosecutor’s Office to take the necessary measures and action to investigate as a priority complaints of acts of anti-union violence against trade unionists which are currently presented and which may be made in future.

- The Commission on Anti-Union Violence shall submit to the CES a report on the situation at the latest sixty days after the date of its constitution.

Legislative reforms

Within the framework of the CES and based on the respective comments of the ILO supervisory bodies, the STSS and representatives of employers, through the COHEP; and of workers, through the CGT, CTH and CUTH, agree to engage in a broad process of discussion and tripartite consensus which, with the existence of adequate conditions, will result in the harmonization of the labour legislation with ILO Convention No. 87.

Strengthening of the Economic and Social Council (CES), in relation to freedom of association

Recognizing the key role of the CES in the development of social dialogue and the need to continue consolidating trust between the parties for the promotion of freedom of association, the parties agree to:

- Approve the rules of procedure of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT), with a view to supporting its effective operation as a body for the resolution of industrial relations disputes that may arise, without prejudice to the right of each organization to make any complaint to the ILO through the established machinery.

- Recognize as a good practice the experience of the Bipartite Commission for the Maquila Sector and promote insofar as possible this good practice in the various sectors of the national economy.

- Request ILO technical assistance in all relevant areas for the promotion of social dialogue.

- Validity: two months

The parties are aware that the effect given in good faith to the present tripartite agreement will be examined by the supervisory bodies of the ILO within the framework of the regular supervision of the application of Convention No. 87.

And this is followed by the signatures of the representatives of rural workers, employers and the Government and, as honorary witness, of Rolando Murgas, Chairperson of the direct contacts mission.

All the commitments made in this agreement have been assumed for their gradual and tripartite implementation in a context of social dialogue, for which as of now we request ILO support and assistance.

Finally, the Government of Honduras wishes to reaffirm its political will, respect and compliance with Conventions and the labour legislation in force, and particularly with this Convention.

Worker members – We are once again before this Committee due to the fact that the Government of Honduras has not been able to protect or respect the right to organize and freedom of association in law or in practice. Last year, the Committee of Experts singled this case out for a double footnote in view of the high level of anti-union violence, the almost total impunity of the perpetrators and the lack of effective protection for trade unionists under threat of violence. Sadly, the situation has not improved over the past year. The Government has not taken measures in practice to ensure that its labour legislation is in conformity with the Convention, nor to ensure effective compliance with the laws that are already on the statute books.

Indeed, the Government of Honduras has not complied with even one of the conclusions adopted by the Committee last year. Just a few days before the beginning of this Conference, the Government deployed armed troops armed with tear gas and live ammunition to put down protests by teachers and doctors who had taken to the streets to denounce the privatization reforms that would undermine public education and health services.

Education and medical care have been subject to severe cuts and multiple corruption scandals under the current Government, with both sectors being faced by severe shortages of personnel and basic equipment, with the result that both systems are on the verge of collapse.

It is to be expected that the final report of the ILO direct contacts mission, which visited the country at the beginning of this month, will confirm what we already know: that workers and unions throughout the country continue to be beset by insurmountable obstacles in the exercise of their fundamental right of freedom of association and organization.

The Network against Anti-Union Violence has independently confirmed 109 acts of anti-union violence in Honduras between January 2015 and February 2019. In 2018 alone, a total of 38 acts of violence against trade unionists were recorded, 11 of which were death threats and, as noted by the Committee of Experts, the Government has not provided information of any progress in the investigation of these death threats, or any previous threats.

In general terms, the Government has not made efforts to resolve anti-union crimes, thereby creating a climate of impunity. As reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts, the Government has made almost no progress in bringing to justice those responsible for the murders of trade unionists. The Committee of Experts refers in its report to a single case of a conviction, and the conviction is under appeal. We agree with the Committee of Experts when it urges the Government to “intensify its efforts” and to “investigate all acts of violence against trade union leaders and members, with the aim of identifying those responsible and punishing both the perpetrators and the instigators of these crimes”. Even though the Government reports the recent establishment of the MEPCOIT, there have not yet been any results.

Moreover, the trade unions inform us that the Attorney General’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office have done nothing to formalize mutual cooperation with a view to ensuring that these cases are dealt with, taking fully into account the possible anti-union nature of the murders of members of the trade union movement. This is an essential element for the appropriate investigation and processing of these cases. In the same way as the Committee of Experts, we therefore demand action to “provide prompt and effective protection to at-risk trade union leaders and members”.

Today, we note with special concern that the trade unions of Honduras do not have confidence in the system. This is due in part to the fact that they are not represented on the National Human Rights Commission, which is the body responsible for developing national policies for prevention and the protection of the life and safety of at-risk population groups, including trade unionists. Their absence impedes the adoption of measures that meet the needs of at-risk trade union leaders and activists.

Honduran trade unions consider it necessary for the Government to establish a body specifically dedicated to the crimes committed against trade unionists, with the representation of the most representative organizations of workers.

Workers throughout the country have suffered constant violations of their right to freedom of association and to organize. In some cases, unions have already requested the intervention of the Committee on Freedom of Association, and the conclusions issued support their claims and urge the Government of Honduras to respect their right to freedom of association and to organize, Nevertheless, in case after case, the Government has not given effect to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

For example, in Case No. 3287, the Union of Agroindustrial and Allied Workers (STAS) lodged a complaint against its employer, a palm oil company, which had dismissed and harassed trade union leaders with the intention of undermining the local union. The employer lodged a complaint against the notification by the union, received on 9 February 2016, which required the enterprise to engage in collective bargaining with the union. On 27 September 2017, the Ministry of Labour of Honduras invalidated the local union in violation of the law and immediately recognized two employer dominated unions. Two of the leaders were also brutally attacked with machetes. Despite the clear conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in relation to these violations, none of them have been resolved.

In general, the unions continue to suffer serious anti-union reprisals without any solution being found. In one case, a union had been fighting for recognition by the employer and requested the intervention of the Ministry of Labour on various occasions. In practice, as soon as the union notified the employer of its establishment, the enterprise dismissed six different executive bodies of the union.

The Ministry has six cases that are open against the enterprise, yet, up to now, no measures have been taken for the reinstatement of any of these union leaders. The case has even been raised in an international complaint under the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States, but there has still not been any progress.

According to the CAFTA follow-up report of January 2019, the labour inspection services carried out a total of 25,549 inspections in 2018 throughout the country through their various regional offices. In these inspections, 212 violations were identified, all focused on freedom of association and collective bargaining. In global terms, the total fines for these violations amounted to 266,548,260.12 lempiras, or around US$10,901,769. Nevertheless, according to the information provided by the Attorney General’s Office, only five enterprises paid the fines in 2018, to an amount of 100,000 lempiras, or US$4,089.

In almost all cases, the employer has lodged an appeal without any grounds, which sets in motion a procedure that lasts a minimum of one year, the sole purpose of which is to avoid paying the fine.

There is no sign of any effort being made by the Government to ensure that these companies pay the fines that they owe, or to provide the necessary remedies for workers whose rights have been violated. We know for a fact that there is not a single dismissed unionized worker protected by trade union rights or under the protection of the State who has been reinstated by the employer. Worse still, labour inspectors indicate that they are afraid to propose the reinstatement of unionized workers, as employers now systematically lodge complaints against inspectors on various pretexts, including impartiality.

We have been informed that the Ministry of Labour has even actively encouraged employers to use complaint procedures against inspectors who report violations of the national legislation. The complaints procedure was established precisely to correct deficiencies by inspectors in the discharge of their duties, but now they are being used for exactly the opposite purpose. And the internal procedures are not followed, and due process is not respected, resulting in the expulsion of the best inspectors merely for trying to ensure compliance with the law.

In addition to the concerns of the Committee of Experts in relation to the ambiguity of the terminology respecting anti-terrorism contained in section 335, we note that in the publication of the Penal Code issued on 10 May 2019, the text includes for the first time the criminal responsibility of legal persons, including unions, for offences such as public disorder. If used incorrectly, which is a real possibility, unions could be liable to penalties ranging from fines to the prohibition of negotiating collective agreements with state enterprises, the closure of their headquarters and dissolution.

Finally, there are many important gaps in the national legislation which deny workers their right to freedom of association and organization. For over 30 years, the Committee of Experts has been commenting on the need to amend the Labour Code. Nevertheless, even when the Honduran unions call for the reform of the Labour Code, they see that there is currently a total lack of effective social dialogue in the country through which tripartite consensus could be reached on the recommended reforms. Accordingly, the unions are worried about commencing an amendment process of this type, as the resulting Labour Code could be even worse.

Moreover, even when it is possible to reach tripartite consensus, the unions reasonably, based on past experience, fear that the Congress will not respect the consensus and will introduce amendments that are detrimental to workers. The Government must therefore, as we urge it to do, work to recover the confidence of the unions so that they can participate in social dialogue in good faith and so that the procedure respects the priorities of workers and the principles of freedom of association and the right to organize.

Chairperson, as you will have the opportunity to hear from the Honduran workers and their colleagues in the Workers’ group, the situation in Honduras is serious and is not improving. In my final remarks, I will make recommendations concerning the measures that we propose should be taken by the Government and the ILO.

Employer members – We thank the Government of the Republic of Honduras for the information provided on compliance with the Convention. For the second successive year, we are reviewing the case of Honduras in this room in relation to its compliance with the Convention, and we wish to indicate our discomfort with this decision in view of the large number of measures that have been taken since then with a view to giving effect to the observations made by the Committee last year, which I will describe in detail over the next few minutes.

It is important that the criteria for the selection of the cases of countries for examination are objective, clear and transparent so as to reinforce the confidence of all the social partners in the ILO supervisory machinery, including the Committee on the Application of Standards.

A second preliminary issue that we wish to raise relates to the persistence of the Committee of Experts in making reference to and interpretations on the right to strike in circumstances in which the Employers’ group and a large number of member States of the ILO have categorically indicated that it is a right that is not contained in any ILO Convention, and that each country regulates in the manner that is most appropriate to its national context.

Accordingly, in this case, we will not make any reference to the comments that have been made by the Committee of Experts, which is not competent to do so, on the right to strike.

With regard to the country context, the Employers express concern at the insecurity and impunity that are still experienced in Honduras, and which in certain cases take the form of acts of violence against the safety of persons, including workers and employers. As indicated by the Government, violence and insecurity are very deep-rooted problems with serious consequences for Honduras. And although there has been a fall in the murder rate, it continues to be a matter of great concern for all Hondurans.

Inspired by the resolution on civil liberties and the comments of the Committee on Freedom of Association, we consider that freedom of association and the right to organize can only be exercised fully by workers and employers in a climate free of violence, pressure or threats and in which human rights are respected, and that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure respect for these principles.

With reference to the recommendations made by the Committee at the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference, we wish to emphasize the presentation made by the COHEP in July 2018 to the Assembly of the CES, the tripartite dialogue body, in its report on the case of Honduras, in which it expressed concern at the subject of alleged anti-union violence and the reform of sections 2, 472, 475, 510 and 541 of the Labour Code, and proactively proposed the following measures:

(a) the Government of Honduras should seek the collaboration and support of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Supreme Court of Justice so that they can give priority to cases of alleged anti-union violence that are the subject of complaints to the ILO, and provide a detailed report solely on these cases, with a view to clarifying the situation; and

(b) the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security should request ILO technical assistance for the establishment of a tripartite technical forum within the CES for the previous examination of possible complaints to the ILO, with a view to preventing social conflict in the county, and to facilitate compliance with the provisions commented on by the Committee in its 2018 conclusions on the case of Honduras.

With regard to the recommendations made by the COHEP to the CES, it is important to place emphasis on the tripartite commitment illustrated by:

(a) the establishment of the MEPCOIT, as noted by the Committee of Experts in its 2018 observations. This forum started operating in the month of September 2018, and once it had been established invited representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Secretariat for Human Rights to be ex officio members of the Committee so that they can report on progress and submit reports on the cases covered by complaints to the ILO;

(b) among the first actions taken by the MEPCOIT, a framework of rules was proposed for its operation, which are still under discussion by the tripartite partners, and which was also communicated to the preparatory mission for the direct contacts mission, which visited Honduras from 23 to 26 October 2018. It was agreed that it was necessary to request ILO technical assistance to give effect to the harmonization of the Labour Code with the provisions of the Convention;

(c) as part of the efforts made by the MEPCOIT and the action taken as from 2019, three meetings were held with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in which information was provided on the progress achieved and reports were submitted on complaints of alleged anti-union violence which, in the view of the COHEP, represents significant progress in clarifying the cases denounced to the ILO.

The employers of Honduras have indicated on various occasions that they cannot comment individually on the cases of the 21 persons referred to in the report of the Committee of Experts, as it is the responsibility of the State of Honduras to address and resolve those cases through the public authorities and the judicial system. However, Honduran employers reiterate their firm commitment to guaranteeing full respect for freedom of association, and deplore any anti-union action that directly or indirectly jeopardizes the independence of the trade union movement, and the physical safety of trade union leaders.

It is important to indicate that Honduran employers have always been ready to participate and contribute to discussions of laws and regulations relating to economic and social subjects in the country, and particularly to contribute on labour matters. For example, between 1992 and 1995, private employers, represented by the COHEP, participated in tripartite discussions for the preparation of the Labour Code, with ILO assistance. On that occasion, the intention was to ensure the harmonization of the Labour Code with the ILO Conventions in force in the country. The employers supported those discussions and proposed reforms because they were comprehensive and, in addition to guaranteeing the security of investments, offered full guarantees of workers’ rights.

In this way, I wish to emphasize that Honduran employers have always been ready to participate in reform processes that lead to the strengthening of legal security in relation to compliance with international labour standards.

COHEP has publicly expressed its firm commitment to workers’ rights, in the sense of them being able to participate freely in organizations of their own choosing, with the quorum that they wish in each enterprise and institution, without any type of discrimination or restriction over and above those established voluntarily in their own statutes. For that reason, it expressed its agreement, support and readiness to give effect to the conclusions adopted by the Committee at the 107th Session of the Conference in relation to the reform of the following sections of the Labour Code:

– section 2, in relation to the exclusion of agricultural and stock-raising enterprises with ten or fewer workers from the application of the Labour Code;

– section 472, which prohibits the establishment of more than one trade union in the case of enterprise or first-level unions, in violation of the right to freedom of association and prohibiting trade union pluralism;

– section 475, which establishes the requirement of at least 30 workers to establish a trade union which, as indicated by the Committee of Experts, is too high a number and needs to be revised; and

– sections 510 and 541, which set out the requirements for being members of the executive bodies of trade unions, federations and confederations, and require Honduran nationality and being able to read and write, and to be engaged permanently in the enterprise.

This has been set out in official communications sent by COHEP this year to the Committee of Experts, as well as in the note communicated by COHEP to the direct contacts mission, in which it also asked to be provided with the conclusions and recommendations of the direct contacts mission as soon as possible, but which have not yet been provided.

Finally, following the official visit of the ILO direct contacts mission from 20 to 24 May this year, the tripartite partners concluded an agreement, entitled “Tripartite agreement seeking mechanisms for the correct and effective application of the Convention in Honduras”, in which agreement was reached on the following:

(1) the urgent creation of a commission on anti-union violence composed, on the one hand, of the authorities of the Secretariat for the General Coordination of the Government (SCGG), the Secretariat of State in the Human Rights Office, the Secretariat of State in the Labour and Social Security offices; and, on the other, by workers represented by the CGT, CTH and CUTH; and employers represented by the COHEP. The Committee will invite those responsible for justice in the country, including the Supreme Court of Justice and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, to join. The Commission shall be established thirty days after the signature of the agreement, which was concluded on 24 May of this year, and should therefore be established shortly to give effect to the agreement;

(2) the partners undertake to engage in a broad process of discussion and tripartite consensus with a view to the harmonization of the labour legislation with the Convention, taking as a reference the conclusions adopted by the Committee at the 107th Session of the Conference; and

(3) strengthening the CES, in recognition of its key role in developing social dialogue; strengthening the MEPCOIT and approving its rules of procedure; and requesting ILO technical assistance where necessary, within two months of the signature of the tripartite agreement.

The Employers’ group considers it important to place emphasis on the case of Honduras as a case of progress, in which the various measures taken to give effect to the recommendations and conclusions of the ILO supervisory bodies demonstrate the commitment of the social partners to implementing the provisions of the Convention.

Finally, we reiterate that we do not understand, and therefore do not support, the criteria for the selection of cases that were taken into account this year by the Committee for the inclusion of Honduras in its list of cases. As we did last year, we recall that the right to strike is not regulated by the Convention, or by any other ILO Convention, and that there is therefore no legal basis for discussing the comments of the Committee of Experts on this subject, and we therefore hope that the conclusions on this case will not make reference to the right to strike.

In this regard, we recall the joint statement by the Workers’ and Employers’ groups, and of Governments (both dated 23 February 2015), with the latter statement indicating that “[t]he scope and conditions of this right are regulated at the national level”. In this regard, any request by the Committee of Experts for governments to align their law and practice with its own rules on the right to strike is not binding.

Worker member, Honduras – Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and, together with the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike, is essential for the existence of trade unionism in the world.

In recent years, trade union organization and collective bargaining in the public and private sectors, and in decentralized and local state institutions in Honduras, have suffered from restrictions and obstacles, resulting in: (1) the elimination of trade unions; (2) attempts to undermine employment stability; (3) massive anti-union dismissals; (4) the murder and persecution of trade union leaders (anti-union violence); (5) impunity and the absence of labour justice; (6) the removal of protection for workers’ organizations and the violation of their trade union autonomy; (7) the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of tripartite dialogue; (8) parallel unions and unfair control by certain organizations controlled by employers; and (9) precarious employment and subcontracting, which impede unionization (including temporary work on an hourly basis), with serious deficits in terms of labour inspection and administration in a context of growing vulnerability for fundamental rights at work.

The recently established MEPCOIT has up to now not achieved results as it is recent, and has not resolved any cases.

With reference to anti-union violence, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has done nothing to: formalize the desirable mutual cooperation to ensure that, in the design and implementation of investigations, full consideration is systematically given to the possible anti-union nature of the murders of members of trade union movements, the possible links that exist between the murders of members of the same union, and investigations covering both the perpetrators and instigators of such crimes. This often results in an obstacle for denunciations by victims as they are not considered credible and are not trusted.

There has been no progress in the adoption of measures to ensure that investigations are carried out promptly into murders and to determine those responsible, and to punish those guilty of such crimes. There are many deficiencies in the provision of rapid and effective protection to trade union leaders and members who are under threat. The climate of violence is unchanged and is preventing workers from being able to exercise their right to freedom of association free from fear of violence. For example, of the 14 murders of leaders and members of the trade union movement denounced to the Committee of Experts, which occurred between 2010 and 2016, in only one case has there so far been a conviction, which is currently under appeal.

It is also important to emphasize that, while certain leaders have had recourse to the protection system of the Ministry of Human Rights, victims indicate that these measures are not effective, prompt or expeditious. Over the past four years, over 109 cases of anti-union violence have been duly reported by the trade union movement.

Political will, transparency and the institutional commitment of the Government and the National Congress, and of employers’ organizations, are essential factors for the development of a legal reform which allows the true exercise of trade union freedoms and fundamental rights, which has not existed in practice.

In the current circumstances in the country, the political and institutional conditions do not exist to ensure that a draft reform of the Labour Code which enjoys tripartite consensus will be respected by the legislative authorities of the National Congress. What will certainly happen, as on other occasions which have been noted, is that the Congress will not respect tripartism and will make arbitrary changes under the influence of various biased interests to the proposals that are agreed through dialogue. The absence of effective social dialogue that achieves results means that there cannot be even a minimum of confidence in public institutions to leave such a vital reform process in their hands.

This is compounded by the fact that the new Labour Code, published on 10 May 2019, which will enter into force as of next November, provides for the first time for the establishment of criminal liability for legal entities and sets out the treatment of certain types of crimes, such as usurping office, offences such as public disorder and certain types of terrorism, among others. This rings a real alarm bell for the trade union movement as, under this law, unions with legal status will be considered criminally liable, that is liable to the imposition of penalties ranging from fines, the prohibition to negotiate collective contracts with state enterprises, the closure of their premises, and even including dissolution.

With regard to the recognition of trade unions, it is necessary to report that there are serious obstacles for trade unions when they seek their respective legal status, and we are capable of proving this, when the protection mechanisms consider this relevant.

With reference to collective bargaining, it is important to indicate that some employers take advantage of the time when lists of claims are submitted to present an employer’s counter list proposing to undermine and reduce rights that have been acquired. Despite this, the Secretariat of Labour accepts them, thereby failing in its duty of vigilance and as the guarantor of compliance with collective contracts, and compounds this by delaying the process of mediation and conciliation, for which appointments by the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security may take between six months and one year, with the result that collective bargaining may last for two or three years.

A platform has recently been created, which emerged in April 2019, for the defence of public education and health as an organizational response to the imminent privatization of public education and health in the country. The platform is ready to engage in dialogue to make specific proposals to resolve the situation, for which purpose it has proposed to the Government eight preconditions for dialogue, but they have not been accepted.

Human rights organizations denounce the occurrence during the protests of at least the following violations: four deaths in the context of the protests, three acts constituting torture, 33 persons injured, 36 persons beaten, 48 illegal detentions, 32 death threats, one person criminally charged for political reasons, five human rights defenders affected, 18 journalists affected, three communities placed under military control and 143 individual victims.

It should also be noted that four organizations that are members of the platform have been placed under surveillance and their leaders have been the victims of surveillance and persecution. We also take this opportunity to report that anti-riot police (“cobras”) entered the premises of the National Autonomous University of Honduras, and specifically the Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, without a warrant, to fire shots and detain students, breaking through glass doors, injuring various students and intoxicating them with tear gas grenades.

Finally, we condemn the attitude of the Ministry of Labour which, from Geneva, declared illegal the strike by health and education workers against the privatization of these fundamental services for the population as a whole.

Employer member, Honduras – The Convention was ratified by the State of Honduras in 1956. The application of this Convention has been examined on four previous occasions by this Committee, in 1987, 1991, 1992 and 2018. Since 1998, the Committee of Experts has made over 20 observations on the application of the Convention. In the report in 2017, the case of Honduras was given a double footnote in view of the concern of the Committee of Experts at the alleged anti-union violence in the country, deriving from the denunciation to this Organization of alleged anti-union crimes and death threats between 2010 and 2014.

As very well indicated by the Employer spokesperson for this case, we employers in Honduras have indicated that we are against any crime or act of violence against trade union leaders of employers in relation to the exercise of the fundamental right of association and organization, and we therefore consider it to be of great importance to give effect on an urgent basis to the establishment of the Commission on Anti-Union Violence agreed upon in the so-called “Tripartite agreement seeking mechanisms for the correct and effective application of Convention No. 87 in Honduras”, which was concluded on the occasion of the direct contacts mission that visited Honduras from 20 to 24 May 2019.

Today, we are emphasizing the tripartite efforts that have been made to give effect to the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2018. We recognize the efforts of the social partners in Honduras to take action to guarantee the fundamental principles of the Convention.

The concern at the subject of violence is generalized throughout the country and has affected all sectors, for which reason we urge the Government of Honduras, and the various institutions in the justice system, to continue working to combat criminality, but in particular to adopt effective strategies to ensure that impunity in Honduras does not continue to be one of our principal problems, and accordingly to resolve expeditiously the cases of alleged anti-union violence that are today before this Committee.

As employers of Honduras, we have been responsible for proposing measures to give effect in practice to the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2018. We welcome the tripartite initiatives, such as the establishment of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO, with a view to allowing employer and worker representatives, through a national voluntary body, to seek solutions to the social problems that may arise in relation to the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining, for which we hope that the Government will receive the required ILO technical assistance.

Moreover, as the most representative employers’ organization in Honduras, we have been ready to engage in tripartite discussions of proposed legislative reforms to the Labour Code, in a context of consultation and dialogue in the CES. We are certain that this will be achieved, although it is necessary to ensure a full process of discussion.

As we explained in our comments on the reports provided in previous years, we believe it is important to note that the reform of the Labour Code must emphasize the following aspects:

– employers in Honduras believe in the principles of freedom of association and respect for the independence of workers and employers;

– we note with concern that the observations of the Committee of Experts refer to a number of legislative issues relating to the right to strike and, in that regard, we reiterate what was said by our spokesperson and the position of the Employers’ group, which considers that the right to strike is not regulated by the Convention and that there is therefore no basis for its discussion by this Committee; and

– the conclusions in this case should not refer to the right to strike and the Government is not required to follow the recommendations of the Committee of Experts in this matter, as it is the responsibility of each State to regulate this subject in its national legislation.

In this respect, we once again remind the Committee that the joint statement of the Employers’ group, the Workers’ group and the Government group of March 2015 indicates that the scope and conditions for the exercise of the right to strike are regulated at the national level.

In this regard, we consider that any request made by the Committee of Experts to the Government of Honduras and to any State relating to the right to strike is not binding and is outside the scope of the ILO supervisory bodies.

As employer representatives, we believe in the democratization of employers’ and workers’ organizations, in which the majority should take decisions in conditions of equality, freedom and independence, without any interference.

The Labour Code of Honduras was adopted in 1959 in a totally different context to that in which Honduran society currently lives and for this reason, since 1992, the employer representatives have taken the decision to support a general reform of the Labour Code, for which agreement is needed with the social partners. We are prepared to support not only reforms relating to freedom of association, but in general terms to promote and generate employment in Honduras, and to guarantee the economic right to the exercise of free enterprise, seeking the necessary guarantees for enterprise sustainability.

Finally, we believe that to achieve an effective reform and adaptation of Honduran labour legislation to the Conventions, the technical support of the ILO is necessary, through the Office for Central America, Haiti, Panama and the Dominican Republic, which should collaborate in strengthening dialogue through the CES, with the objective of ensuring the sound functioning of the MEPCOIT, and the Commission on Anti-Union Violence.

We trust that the report of the direct contacts mission will be issued as soon as possible and that it will be one more input to assist in giving effect to the conclusions of the Committee adopted in 2018. We consider this to be a case of progress, in view of the efforts made by the social partners in Honduras, which can undoubtedly be seen since June 2018 up to the present.

We therefore consider that the case of Honduras should not have been examined by this Committee this year. It is important and urgent for the criteria for the selection of country cases for examination to be revised as they must correspond to objective, clear and transparent criteria that reinforce the trust of all ILO constituents, based on technical aspects.

Government member, Brazil – I am making this intervention on behalf of the significant majority of the States of Latin America and the Caribbean. We warmly welcome the representatives of the Government of Honduras, who have provided updated information to the Committee, as set out in document C.App./D/Honduras-C.87, dated 29 May 2019.

In this respect, we thank the Government of Honduras for its report on the significant progress in giving effect to the conclusions of the Committee, adopted at the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference in 2018, relating to the application of the Convention. We see as a positive development the establishment of the MEPCOIT in September 2018, which is a tripartite body within the CES for the exchange of information on cases of trade union leaders and protection in relation to freedom of association, and which also has a mandate for the revision of the labour legislation.

We also welcome the initiative of the Government of Honduras in drawing up a new draft of pending amendments to the Labour Code, in conformity with the Convention, and the expectation that, through the MEPCOIT, the results and tripartite discussion of this new proposal will be accompanied by the technical assistance that has already been requested from the ILO Office and will be agreed through social dialogue.

We emphasize the commitment shown by the Government of Honduras and its agreement to receive the ILO direct contacts mission, which visited Tegucigalpa from 20 to 24 May 2019, and which was requested by an official request from the Government of Honduras in October 2018, beginning with the preparatory mission for the direct contacts mission this year.

In the context of the ILO direct contacts mission to Honduras, we welcome the recent signature of the tripartite agreement to seek mechanisms for the correct and effective application of the Convention, which has resulted in the establishment of a Commission on Anti-Union Violence with the principal objective of the adoption of tripartite mechanisms to combat anti-union violence, reforms to the labour legislation and the strengthening of the CES.

The direct contacts mission was able to note significant progress by the Government of Honduras at the time, and we therefore trust that the tripartite agreement will provide the basis for the road map that is to follow, and we encourage the Government of Honduras to continue renewing its efforts to make progress in this case.

We wish to reiterate very categorically our concern at the criteria for the selection of cases in this Committee. We consider it inappropriate to place a country so rapidly before the expectation of immediate and total results when a government has received an ILO direct contacts mission less than a month before and has recently made progress in a process for the tripartite resolution of the case, as has happened in the present case. Based on this observation, we reiterate that this system is far from adopting the best practices of the multilateral system. It is not transparent, impartial or objective. It is not tripartite in the home of tripartism. It does not promote social dialogue in the home of social dialogue.

Government member, Romania – I am speaking on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, aligns itself with this statement. We attach great importance to the respect of human rights, including freedom of association of workers and employers and protection of the right to organize, and recognize the important role played by the ILO in developing, promoting and supervising international labour standards.

We wish to recall the commitment undertaken by Honduras under the “Trade and Sustainable Development” chapter of the EU Central America Association Agreement, to effectively implement in law and practice the fundamental ILO Conventions.

We note with deep regret that Honduras was already discussed last year in this Committee as a most serious case. As a result of the CAS discussion, the Government was requested to undertake a certain number of measures:

- ensure proper investigations into murders of trade unionists and prosecution of perpetrators, as well as provide adequate protection of trade union leaders and members;

- conduct investigations into acts of anti-union violence and prosecute the perpetrators;

- create an environment free of violence for workers and where they can exercise their right of freedom of association; finally

- amend certain provisions of the Labour Code which are not in conformity with the Convention in consultation with the social partners.

We note that the report welcomes the initiatives undertaken by the Government to tackle the general situation of violence and impunity. But there are still concerns over the lack of progress in investigating cases of violence and threats against trade unionists and in taking specific actions focusing on anti-union violence. Moreover, despite repeated requests from this Committee, there has not been any progress in amending the Labour Code.

We also express deep concern over recent acts of repression of strikes, as well as threats and acts of violence against trade unionists, including International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) allegations of a violent police crackdown that ended a strike organized by workers of a transnational agriculture enterprise, leading to the torture of several trade union members and 34 arrest warrants.

We welcome the ILO direct contacts mission recently held in the country and that a tripartite agreement could be reached on this occasion. We expect that this agreement will be swiftly implemented, including the setting up of the Commission on violence against trade unions.

We would like to recall that freedom of association and collective bargaining is not only a right, but also a critical tool to ensure social stability and economic development in a country as well as to resolve economic and social disputes. We therefore reiterate our requests made to the Government last year:

First, ensure that proper investigation and prosecutions of perpetrators and instigators of crimes against trade unionists are carried out promptly. As trade union representatives constitute a group vulnerable to violence, we also request the Government to take measures so as to ensure that this group is duly protected. Fighting impunity should remain a priority of the Government. Strengthening and ensuring impartiality of national police and judicial institutions is critical to achieve this goal.

Second, amend the Labour Code in consultation with social partners and in particular the restrictions to the right to establish a trade union regarding: (i) prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise; (ii) requirement of more than 30 workers to establish a trade union; (iii) nationality requirement for officers of a trade union; and (iv) exclusion of workers’ organizations in agricultural and stock-raising enterprises not permanently employing more than ten workers.

Third, the Labour Code should also be amended with regard to the right to organize. We urge the Government to ensure that the right to strike is respected for all workers.

We call on the Government to submit a draft bill on these two aspects to the Congress shortly. We encourage Honduras to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this process.

We urge the Government to ensure that the right of peaceful strike is respected for all workers in practice. In this regard, we request the Government to ensure that the application of new amendments of the Penal Code does not restrict the right of trade unions to strike and protest in a peaceful manner.

We acknowledge that Honduras is currently going through a complex and challenging social, economic and political situation. We also take note that during some strikes, serious violence erupted. Therefore, we call on all parties in the country to facilitate national dialogue in a constructive spirit. We will continue to monitor closely the situation in Honduras and to support the Government in its efforts to comply with ILO Conventions.

Employer member, Spain – In contrast with the other follow-up cases examined by this Committee, the case of Honduras that we are examining concerning compliance with the Convention demonstrates the utility of the ILO supervisory machinery.

As a result of the conclusions adopted last year by the Committee, the MEPCOIT was established in the month of August last year as a tripartite body responsible for facilitating dialogue so that the parties involved can resolve their labour differences derived from failure to comply with ILO Conventions.

This tripartite body promoted by the CES has been entrusted with the important task of commencing the work of the harmonization of the Labour Code with Convention No. 87 and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), specifically through the amendment of sections 2, 472, 475, 510 and 551, thereby giving effect to the conclusions of the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts.

In addition, as a result of the direct contacts mission which visited the Central American country in May this year, in accordance with one of the recommendations of the Committee on the Application of Standards, an agreement was signed establishing the basis for work on the reform of the Labour Code, while at the same time a body was established with the dual objective of receiving reports on anti-union violence and following up court cases, in coordination with the Government of Honduras.

This is a case of progress to which the COHEP is contributing significantly through its full support for the process of open tripartite consultations to give effect to the conclusions of the Committee, and its full involvement in the work for the reform of the Labour Code and to shed light on acts of anti-union violence.

In light of the above, we encourage the Committee to continue the support provided to the Government of Honduras, and to employers and workers in their efforts to give effect to the conclusions of the Committee.

Worker member, Spain – I would like to begin by saying that, as a founder organization of the ILO, we are alarmed by the questioning and the constant attacks over the past few days in this room on the standards supervisory system and against the Committee of Experts.

In this regard, international society and the workers are observing with concern and anxiety the continuation of violence in Honduras, the continued police repression of trade union demonstrations, including through torture, and the threats against and murder of trade union members, in violation of public liberties in general and trade union rights in particular.

This context of institutionalized anti-union violence which is occurring throughout the country is particularly crude in the African palm oil sector, of which Honduras is the eighth biggest world producer, and which is sold to major food multinationals and European biofuel companies, and which are therefore also responsible for this situation and deserving of the most severe criticism.

Men and women workers in the African palm oil sector receive indecent wages, have to handle toxic herbicides and are exposed to serious injury. And when they join a union to fight against these precarious conditions, injustice and inequality, they are seriously repressed.

The same happens to the trade unions which represent men and women palm oil plantation workers. Their members and trade union leaders are forced into unjust and arbitrary court cases; they are placed under surveillance, threatened and persecuted; they are repeatedly harassed, illegally detained, attacked, disappeared and even murdered.

The army, the police, the security guards of property owners and paramilitary groups are responsible for this terror campaign which:

– targets men and women workers, preventing their membership of unions and dissuading them from lodging complaints; and

– prevents trade union organization in plantations, repressing the establishment and development of unions and undermining unionized labour.

The Government of Honduras, in the regions where palm oil is grown industrially, has not taken appropriate specific and effective measures to protect workers who join a union, to investigate anti-union threats and violence, or to protect the safety of trade unionists and their families. But measures have been taken to recognize unions established and controlled by enterprises.

The latest information provided by the Government of Honduras illustrates its low level of interest in complying immediately and effectively with the provisions of the Convention and addressing the serious problem of the violation of human rights through intimidation, violence and the murder of men and women trade union members throughout the country, and particularly those who defend palm oil workers. This lack of action and indifference of the Government of Honduras is deserving of the most severe criticism and the highest penalty that the Committee can apply.

Finally, I wish to reiterate our call for an end to the attacks on the standards supervisory system, which guarantees the fundamental principles of this Organization.

Employer member, Chile – This case of Honduras is of interest as it relates to a fundamental subject for this Organization, as it concerns the subject of freedom of association, set out in the Convention.

Last year, the Committee called on the Government of Honduras to make urgent efforts to investigate all acts of violence which had threatened the life and safety of many union leaders (over 60, including 13 murders without convictions since 2014), and to provide rapid and effective protection measures for all leaders who were at risk.

The existing information shows that these workers have not only suffered high levels of insecurity, inequality and poverty, but also extraordinary levels of anti-union violence.

We recall that this Committee informed the Government of the need to amend certain provisions of the law to eliminate various restrictions on freedom of association and to bring the 1959 Labour Code into conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

It should be emphasized that Honduran employers have stated that they believe in the principle of the right to organize and the democratization of workers’ organizations, and the need to reform the Labour Code, which has become outdated, with the objective of promoting and generating employment in the country.

Indeed, solid and sustainable labour relations, and social dialogue carried out in conditions of confidence and security, are one of the key factors for the sustainable development of an economy.

We note with concern that, despite the efforts of the Government to combat violence, the action taken still appears to be inadequate, and the situation continues to be very serious. Impunity is a serious problem and acts as a dangerous incentive for violence and insecurity. The Government should increase the human and material resources necessary to guarantee the life and safety of the population.

In light of the above, we respectfully request the Government of Honduras, without delay, to accelerate the processes of the investigation of acts of anti-union violence so that they can be completed and lead to those responsible being brought to justice and convicted.

We also respectfully urge the Government to proceed with the reform of the Labour Code, not only to bring it into conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, but also to include the new forms of work that are being promoted by current development trends.

Government member, India – We thank the delegation of the Government of Honduras for providing the latest comprehensive update on this issue. India appreciates the political will and commitment of the Government of Honduras to fulfil its international labour obligations, including those related to the Convention.

We take positive note of the steps being taken by the Government of Honduras, including the response to the observations of the Committee of Experts, for creating a conducive environment and establishing institutional mechanisms for social dialogue and appropriate working arrangements with the judicial authority, where necessary.

The following measures of the Government of Honduras are noteworthy: firstly, the national protection system to provide prompt and effective protection to all trade union leaders and members in a situational risk. Secondly, the efforts of the Government through social dialogue and tripartite collaboration, to stem anti-union violence, strengthen the capacity of the social partners, and undertake labour court reforms to achieve conformity, with the ratified ILO Conventions, including the Convention. Thirdly, the willingness of the Government to seek technical assistance of, and constructively work with, the ILO.

We encourage the social partners in Honduras to continue to cooperate and collaborate with the Government to carry the process forward and to ensure its success. In fulfilling its labour related obligations, we request the ILO and its constituents to fully support and assist the Government of Honduras. We take this opportunity to wish the Government of Honduras all success in its endeavours.

Employer member, El Salvador – The Convention is undoubtedly fundamental for harmonious labour relations in any country. The recognition and exercise of the right of freedom of association by workers and employers makes it possible to establish and maintain strong social organizations that are capable of engaging in dialogue and concluding sustainable agreements.

We listened carefully to the information provided by the Government of Honduras and the view of the workers and employers in this country. We support the view expressed by the Employer representative of Honduras. We are examining a case in which progress has been made, of which we wish to emphasize the following aspects. First, we welcome the establishment in 2018 of the MEPCOIT, with the objective of providing the country with a national body to avoid this type of complaint and strengthen dialogue on subjects related to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The positive experience of this type of body in other countries, such as Colombia, makes us think that Honduras has taken a good decision. Second, it is good news that the Government has submitted to Congress reforms of various legislative texts to adapt its legislation to the conclusions adopted by the Committee last year. Although it is a step in the right direction, we hope that the Government, together with the social partners, will continue to make efforts for its approval. Third, we understand that the report of the recent direct contacts mission is still not available, and we hope that its recommendations will help the Government of Honduras to take the right decisions.

In this case, reference has been made to the deaths of persons. Life is what is most valuable to all of us and therefore, irrespective of the causes of these crimes, the least that we can do is to respectfully request the Government of Honduras to investigate these deaths and punish those responsible. Impunity cannot and must not be allowed in our countries.

We trust that a fraternal country, such as Honduras, under the leadership of its Government, will have the capacity to resolve and comply in full with the provisions of the Convention and the conclusions adopted by the Committee last year, as well as those agreed upon this year, and the recommendations of the direct contacts mission.

Worker member, United States – Canadian workers join our statement. Our comments focus on the failure of Honduras to comply in practice with the Convention in spite of long documented violations by employers in the maquila sector.

With Honduran unions, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) filed a complaint seeking investigation of abuses of labour rights under the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2012.

The agreement requires Honduras to comply with its national laws and the ILO standards that this Committee supervises, specifically the agreement requires Honduras and the United States to respect “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.” Unfortunately, the US Government took nearly three years to respond, but they did agree that the overwhelming majority of allegations of violations were true. While the US and Honduran Governments produced a plan to monitor and take action regarding violations, most specific violations confirmed by the US Government response to the complaint continue in impunity. These failures are especially acute in key export sectors. In the maquila sector, we will focus on the auto-parts industry, a major traded global supply chain.

In this sector, workers report ongoing anti-union practices, anti-union dismissals and slow and ineffective proceedings dealing with complaints of these practices and non-compliance with court orders to reinstate trade unionists for the last ten years. As the cases in the CAFTA petition and follow-up demonstrate, the same violations and impunity continue to today with illegal repression of workers attempting to claim these rights.

An auto-parts manufacturer where approximately 4,000 workers produce for export, has steadfastly refused to recognize the union for at least eight years even though the workers legally formed their union and presented proposals in compliance with the law in 2011. Seven times, this employer has fired elected workplace leaders. Rather than respond to the duly presented union registration and bargaining proposal, the employer refused to receive notice of the union’s registration and illegally fired all the original elected leaders. In the following years, workers reorganized, held elections and six more times the company has violated the law and fired each new set of leaders. The Government has consistently not enforced laws to reinstate these fired union leaders. After years of refusing entry to the workplace by inspectors, only after the US Government report confirmed workers’ allegations, the company finally allowed inspectors into the workplace. Still, the employer has steadfastly refused to pay any of the fines levied or recognize the legally registered union. Meanwhile, the employer has repeatedly tried to set up company-dominated unions and threatened both workers and the Government that the company would close the plant because of the existence of the union.

The intransigence of this employer, Kyunshin–Lear, a joint venture between Korean and US companies in the sector, has been documented for over eight years but the Government has failed to enforce national laws or compliance with the ILO Conventions. Yet Honduras and the company continue to enjoy trade benefits. During the ILO mission last month that resulted from last year’s case in this Committee, a tripartite committee was created to discuss the case. It may meet for the first time in July, but there is little reason to expect this latest round of promises to yield results. Meanwhile the company, its buyers in auto assembly and the Government of Honduras receive the benefits of the trade agreement. We thank the Committee of experts for its continued focus on the case that does not represent progress but paralysis.

Government member, Nicaragua – My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the distinguished delegation of Brazil on behalf of the vast majority of Latin America and Caribbean States. We also thank the delegation of Honduras for the presentation of its progress report.

We welcome the consultations held by the Government with the social partners and the establishment of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes in September last year. We emphasize the efforts made by the Government and its readiness to work with the ILO. We encourage the Organization to continue working with the Government and providing all the cooperation and technical assistance necessary to achieve tangible progress in the country. We take positive note of the tripartite agreement signed in Honduras and trust that this agreement will provide the fundamental basis for a road map to be followed. We encourage the Government to continue renewing its efforts to make progress in this case. We urge the Government, our sister country Honduras, to continue making all possible efforts for the effective and comprehensive implementation of the Convention.

Employer member, Costa Rica – On behalf of the employers of Costa Rica, I wish to support the intervention made by the Employer representative of Honduras, particularly on the following points:

- The criteria that the Committee takes into account for the selection of the cases to be discussed at the International Labour Conference must be objective, clear and transparent. This will give security to the process and ensure that the social partners trust the supervisory bodies of the Organization. We believe that this case should not have been examined by this Committee, as it is a case of progress, in which there is evidence of progress in relation to the 2018 conclusions.

- While freedom of association is essential because it allows groups to be established to pursue a common purpose, it is important to emphasize that no right is higher than any other. All rights are subject to restrictions and must be exercised in an environment of mutual respect. We therefore agree with the position of the employers of Honduras and support their proactive action to ensure compliance with the Convention.

- We would like the Committee to take into account the efforts made by the parties in Honduras to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts.

- The employers of Honduras have shown an attitude of collaboration and have proposed solutions in favour of workers’ rights and legal security with a view to complying with international labour standards. There is a commitment to defend freedom of association and strengthen the key mechanisms for the development of social dialogue.

- Lastly, I would like to emphasize, in the same way as the Employer representative of Honduras, that the Committee of Experts continues to refer to and to make interpretations of the right to strike despite the fact that it is not explicitly set out in any ILO Conventions. Every country is sovereign in regulating this right, which we do not dismiss, but which we believe must be regulated in the most appropriate manner in accordance with the national context. As a result, we call for the conclusions not to include any reference to the right to strike.

Worker member, Guatemala – The workers of Nicaragua align themselves with our statement. We are concerned that, despite the fact that the Committee has for many years been asking the Government to take measures to amend the Labour Code, and despite the many requests and observations made by the Committee of Experts, these amendments have not been made.

The prohibition on more than one trade union in a single enterprise is not in accordance with freedom of association. It is different when the legislation recognizes a trade union as the most representative, as this has been declared legitimate by the Committee on Freedom of Association. However, the prohibition referred to above is incompatible with the Convention and undermines the right to organize.

The ILO supervisory bodies have commented repeatedly on the requirement for more than 30 workers to establish a trade union. Paragraph 285 of the Digest of Decisions of 2006 provides that: “Even though the minimum number of 30 workers would be acceptable in the case of sectoral trade unions, this minimum number should be reduced in the case of works councils so as not to hinder the establishment of such bodies, particularly when it is taken into account that the country has a very large proportion of small enterprises and that the trade union structure is based on enterprise unions.”

Another factor is the requirement to be of Honduran nationality to hold trade union office, which amounts to blatant discrimination on grounds of nationality. Not only is it in violation of the Convention, but also of other international instruments ratified by Honduras. The requirement to belong to the corresponding occupation has been found to be discriminatory by the supervisory bodies, and is in any case a matter to be regulated by trade union statutes, not the law. Similarly, the requirement to be able to read and write constitutes discrimination on grounds of illiteracy, which is not only in violation of the Convention, but also of rules on discrimination and equal treatment.

These observations have been made repeatedly for many years, yet the Government has failed to bring the Labour Code into conformity with the observations of this Committee. No progress at all has been made in taking measures to guarantee that reforms are adopted promptly. We strongly believe that the Government is permanently putting off the amendments as a means of reaffirming its clear anti-trade union policy.

We must recall that, as in the case of Guatemala, this Committee asked the Government of Honduras in 2018 to investigate the murders of trade union leaders, punish those responsible, provide protection to trade union leaders and members, and investigate acts of anti-trade union violence.

As a result, we call on the government authorities to ensure that these conclusions and recommendations are given effect in an expeditious, serious and responsible manner in order to safeguard the right to life, and thereby guarantee that freedom of association and collective bargaining can be exercised freely in full and effective compliance with the Convention.

Government member, Panama – Panama aligns itself with the statement made by GRULAC on behalf of a significant majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries.

We thank the distinguished delegate of the Government of Honduras, Mario Villanueva, for the valuable information provided. I would like to highlight some fundamental points in relation to this case which, in the view of Panama, is a case that is in the interests not only of the Government, but also of the Employers’ and Workers’ groups, through the adoption of specific measures that, most importantly, progressively give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, as well as the observations of the most representative organizations of the social partners, for the proper implementation of the Convention.

I raise the following question. Already last week, many of those here who made interventions in the Committee expressed doubt and a reflection. Was it not important for this Committee, on the occasion of the ILO’s Centenary, to be open and innovative, thereby sending a clear message to the world of work and showing through our efforts, only of Governments, but also as a result of tripartism, the important role played by the supervisory bodies and the valuable assistance provided to countries by the Office, as well as by presenting specific cases of positive progress in the application of international labour standards?

Honduras is a case with very positive aspects, but in which action is still required. We are certain that appropriate follow-up measures are being taken. Let us remember one thing: the longest journeys begin with a single step.

Indeed, there is proof of many steps being taken: the establishment of the MEPCOIT, the draft labour reforms to ensure compliance with the Convention and the recent direct contacts mission which, proudly for my country, included the participation of Dr Rolando Murgas Torraza, chair of the tripartite round tables in our country. These steps show that national bodies are becoming increasingly more useful and valuable in resolving conflicts and addressing labour matters, so that they do not have to be examined by this Committee.

There are many cases of progress in Latin America of more effective application and the harmonization of labour systems with the standards set out in international labour instruments.

Employer member, Guatemala – This case was discussed extensively at our meeting last year. The conclusions referred to two fundamental subjects: acts of violence that could be of an anti-trade union nature, and the failure to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

With regard to the first subject, we know that countries in our region are facing a common climate of violence which, unfortunately, affects the whole population, including workers and employers. We therefore support the calls for the Government to thoroughly investigate each and every one of the cases of violence affecting workers.

In this regard, we congratulate the social partners and the Government for the establishment of the Commission on Anti-Union Violence. We hope that the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the courts will give their full support to this Commission and trust that the results of these efforts will soon be visible.

We believe that the establishment of the MEPCOIT within the CES is also a very important step in the right direction for the management of labour disputes in Honduras. We welcome this tripartite effort. We are convinced that these types of solutions generate trust between the parties and strengthen social dialogue. All of the above lays the groundwork for good governance.

With regard to the requested legislative reforms, we look favourably upon tripartite consultations as a means of making progress with the proposed amendments on the issues identified by the Committee of Experts in its report. We call on the social partners of Honduras to enter into dialogue without preconceived ideas or conditioning, and with the intention of reaching consensus. We are certain that our colleagues from COHEP will adopt this approach, as they have done so far. In any case, if consensus is not possible, and good faith consultations cannot make progress, the Government will have to take the necessary decisions and send draft legislation to the legislature.

The specific action taken by the Government to resolve the problems highlighted by the Committee of Experts on the basis of social dialogue are an indication that progress has been made. This should be highlighted in the conclusions of this case.

Worker member, Argentina – On behalf of the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA Autonomous), we wish to say that the right to strike is a dynamic aspect of freedom of association and, together with collective bargaining, is a fundamental right set out in the 1998 Declaration. Second- and third-level trade unions cannot be deprived of this right because, not only is that in violation of the Convention, but it also prevents workers from formulating their programmes and organizing their activities as they deem appropriate.

For example, the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Cases Nos 2528, 2562 and 2566, recognized the right to strike as a legitimate right to which workers and their organizations may have recourse to defend their economic and social rights.

The prohibition on strikes called by federations and confederations is not compatible with the Convention. With regard to the requirement for a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union to call a strike (sections 495 and 562 of the Labour Code), it should be recalled that the imposition of special majorities or any type of requirement imposed by law to limit or interfere in the ability of trade unions to freely determine and exercise this fundamental right must be understood as a violation of the Convention, as it restricts their right to organize their programmes, as set out in Cases Nos 2698 and 2988 of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

In relation to the majority required by law to call a strike, namely two-thirds of the total membership, the Conference Committee recalled the comments of the Committee of Experts that this legal provision is a form of intervention by the public authorities in trade union activities which restricts the rights of these organizations.

Another issue is the requirement for government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558). The imposition of excessive time limits on the requirement to give notice to the authorities is in violation of the Convention, as it prevents the free exercise of a fundamental right.

With regard to referral to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years) in relation to collective disputes in public services that are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826), the Committee on Freedom of Association has repeatedly stated that compulsory arbitration undermines the right to strike in the sense that it impedes the free exercise of that right. It also undermines the right to organize by preventing unions from organizing their activities in full freedom and can only be justified in the public service in essential services.

The Committee recalled in its previous comments that it regretted the fact that the country had not consolidated the progress made in 2014 with regard to the discussion and adoption of draft legislation to bring the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention.

Lastly, we therefore call for a commission of inquiry to prepare a report on violations of human rights, the right to life, the right to safety and freedom of association in their various forms.

Government member, Canada – Canada thanks the Government of Honduras for the information provided today, as well as the detailed information provided in writing to the Committee before the start of today’s discussion. Canada has expressed its deep concerns about ongoing violations of the Convention in Honduras during several previous sittings of this Committee. We regret that we are doing so again this year.

We recognize that the Government of Honduras has made efforts over the past year to address the issues of concern previously discussed in this Committee. In particular, we welcome the efforts to strengthen institutional capacity to deal with violent crime, including increased investments in the criminal investigation police, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judiciary. Canada also welcomes the recent resumption of tripartite consultations on labour law reforms, and is pleased that an ILO direct contacts mission was successfully completed in recent weeks.

While acknowledging that some progress has been made, it is evident that much more remains to be done. Serious problems still exist in Honduras, including pervasive violence against trade unionists and minimal progress on investigating anti-union crimes and bringing perpetrators to justice. Freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind, and it is for governments to ensure that these principles are respected.

Canada therefore urges the Government of Honduras to further intensify efforts to: investigate all acts of violence against trade unionists, identify those responsible, and ensure perpetrators and instigators are brought to justice in accordance with the rule of law and due process; ensure prompt and coordinated protection to at-risk trade union leaders and members; and protect the right of persons to engage in peaceful protest. We also urge the Government to move forward, without delay, with necessary labour law reforms identified by the Committee of Experts, ensuring that all reforms are consistent with international labour standards and the result of genuine and effective tripartite dialogue. Finally, we encourage the Government to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

Canada sincerely hopes that the Government’s next report to the Committee of Experts will highlight positive developments in all these aspects, and we wish the Government success as it moves forward.

Employer member, Panama – The case of Honduras in relation to this Convention is a case that is progressing.

At the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference, the Committee on the Application of Standards examined the same case and there was a broad discussion concerning violations of the Convention, which focused on two subjects: anti-union violence, in which emphasis was placed on 22 cases of alleged anti-union violence; and the need to reform the labour legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

In the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards, a direct contacts mission was proposed, which visited Honduras prior to the 108th Session of the Conference, that is this Conference.

Before, during and since the direct contacts mission, private enterprise in Honduras has affirmed its recognition that social peace is the greatest guarantee for development and investment, for which reason it refutes violence in any form. It is totally in agreement with the reform of the labour legislation, and particularly sections 2, 472, 475, 510 and 541, based on an exercise of concerted tripartite dialogue and, if necessary, a reform of the Labour Code to make the country more competitive and productive.

In September 2018, the MEPCOIT was established as a tripartite dialogue mechanism, and in the MEPCOIT information was provided on the cases of alleged anti-union violence, clarifying those which were already in the judicial system, those on which there had been no action of any type by the workers, and those that are pending (there were 14 awaiting judicial action).

As a result of the mission, an agreement was signed which was read out by the Government and by the representative of the Employers.

However, it is totally clear that this is a case of progress in which the necessary measures have been taken, and that incentives are still required to promote dialogue. In this sense, it must therefore be considered a case of progress.

Observer, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) – As some of you may recall, in 2015, the CAS received a report entitled, Giving a voice to rural workers which documented “dismal living and working conditions in the rural sector”. The report identified obstacles to the establishment, growth and functioning of rural workers’ organizations, including the severe imbalance of power between workers and employers, which renders many workers vulnerable and marginalized, the particular disadvantage experienced by women, and insanitary, unstable and isolated living conditions. These are precisely the conditions faced by our affiliate STAS in Honduras which, for several years, has been struggling to win the right to represent women, men and workers so that they can organize and bargain to improve their living and working conditions. Deficiencies in Honduran labour law which does not conform to Conventions Nos 87 and 98 have posed systematic obstacles to the establishment and functioning of STAS whose situation is emblematic of the difficulties facing rural workers in Honduras generally.

Additionally, workers struggled to exercise their right against a background of violence, impunity which has been well documented. STAS has also experienced similar problems in the palm oil sector where violations of fundamental rights are routine.

We call on the Government of Honduras to lift any obstacles to functioning of the trade union STAS and registration of its subsections.

Worker member, Colombia – On behalf of the workers of Colombia, we wish to intervene in this Committee with reference to the new call made to Honduras concerning its systematic failure to comply with the Convention, on the basis of the facts examined by the Committee of Experts and this Committee in recent years, which are indicators of the persistence in Honduras of a grave social crisis that is directly affecting the trade union movement, which is the victim of all types of threats, abductions and even murders, with the health and education sectors being especially affected.

The ILO supervisory bodies have repeatedly drawn the Government’s attention to the continued attacks, the lack of effective protection for trade unionists and the minimum level of action by the judicial system. Shamefully, this situation still persists in my country.

As freedom of association is the primary international labour principle set out in the treaty that established the ILO, it is devastating that, as we celebrate its 100 years of existence, there are countries such as Honduras in which, since 2011, several trade unionists have lost their lives through violence, hundreds have been threatened for being trade unionists or have been detained, as also happens in our country. In addition to the gravity of the violations of the right to life and to safety suffered by trade union and women leaders, what is remarkable in Honduras is that in a certain manner this situation persists with the connivance of the Government due to the failure to investigate the related crimes, the refusal to recognize their anti-union nature and the failure to impose exemplary sentences. All of these passive attitudes have their roots in State complicity to allow the space for the continuation of crimes against trade union leaders. We are in an authoritative position to speak of this, as it continues to be very common in our country.

The Government of Honduras is showing a mask of false respect for the ILO, but has been ignoring for years the recommendations of its supervisory bodies which are united in setting out an agenda of legislative reforms that would in practice involve a substantial change in the situation of non-compliance with the Convention. The views expressed by the supervisory bodies, which are the expression of the authority vested in them by the constituents, must be accorded the greatest respect by governments and national public authorities, which represent the member States in this Organization, and on this we are in agreement with the Employers.

Worker member, Uruguay – I am speaking on behalf of the Workers’ National Convention of Uruguay (PIT-CNT). We will be referring to the point entitled legislative issues in the report of the Committee of Experts relating to the Convention and the legislation of Honduras.

The issue here is the non-conformity of the domestic legislation with the Convention. A prerequisite in this regard is that, in accordance with article 19, paragraph 8, of the Constitution of the ILO, in no case shall the adoption of any Convention by the Conference, or the ratification of any Convention by any Member, be deemed to affect any law, award, custom or agreement which ensures more favourable conditions to the workers concerned than those provided for in the Convention.

On the contrary, this must be interpreted as meaning that no domestic provision, irrespective of its rank or hierarchy, may affect a more favourable international labour Convention, especially when the Convention is included in the list of fundamental Conventions.

Based on this specification, it is necessary to pass on to what we and the Honduran trade unions consider to be a violation of the Convention, which is related to: the legislative provisions that exclude certain workers from trade union rights and guarantees, point (a); the restriction of freedom of association, points (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f); compulsory arbitration, point (e); the power of the competent ministry to end disputes in oil industry services, point (g); and the requirement of government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension of work in public services, point (h), as indicated in the report of the Committee of Experts, page 91. These legal provisions are in violation of the principles of trade union autonomy and activities set out in the Convention, and particularly in Articles 2, 3 and 6. Article 2 provides that workers shall have the right to establish organizations without previous authorization.

In short, the Government of Honduras is requested to set in motion immediately and without further ado the operation of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO, a tripartite body, with a view to the adoption of the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention. And, in particular, it is requested to take the necessary action to guarantee the full exercise of the rights inherent in freedom of association, and to provide effective protection for the life and safety of trade unionists.

Finally, this is not a question of competitivity or productivity. It is a matter of dignity. Trade union rights are inherent in human rights, and it is therefore a question of human dignity, without which it is not possible to speak of either democracy or freedom of association.

Government representative – The Government of Honduras has taken due note of each and every comment made in our Organization today. In particular, we refer to the indication by the Committee that the MEPCOIT is used to establish an information channel between the authorities and the trade union movement in relation to anti-union violence. In this respect, it should be noted that all the necessary measures have been taken so that:

(a) All the competent authorities, and particularly the police force, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judicial authorities address in a coordinated manner and as a matter of priority the violence affecting members of the trade union movement.

(b) The Public Prosecutor’s Office has been requested, in the design and development of investigations, to take fully and systematically into consideration the possible anti-union nature of the murders of members of the trade union movement, the possible links existing between murders of members of the same trade union, and to investigate both the perpetrators and instigators of such acts.

(c) Through the MEPCOIT, the exchange of information is being strengthened between the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the trade union movement.

(d) By tripartite agreement, a Commission on Anti-Union Violence is being established as a channel for direct communication between workers and the state authorities, and we hope for the determined participation of workers in this body.

(e) Budgetary resources are being allocated for both investigations into acts of anti-union violence and protection schemes for members of the trade union movement.

Chairperson, with reference to the pending reforms of the Labour Code, within the framework of the Economic and Social Council (CES) and on the basis of the relevant comments of the ILO supervisory bodies, the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security (STSS), the representatives of employers through the COHEP, and workers’ representatives, through the CGT, CTH and CUTH, have agreed to engage in a broad process of discussion and tripartite consensus which, with the existence of appropriate conditions, will allow the harmonization of the labour legislation with the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

The Government encourages employers and workers to accredit their representatives as rapidly as possible to the Commission on Anti-Union Violence established through the tripartite agreement. The Government awaits with optimism the conclusions and recommendations of the direct contacts mission so as to give effect to them within the framework of social dialogue and tripartism.

Finally, Honduras continues to be a State that respects human rights. In this respect, we reaffirm that respect for and the protection and promotion of human rights are central to all State action. We are participants in common causes with the ILO, as we share values and interests with a view to making a significant contribution to the achievement of the international objectives of social justice with equity and a better working environment.

Employer members – We wish to thank the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Honduras for the information provided, and the information provided by the Workers’ group, which we have listened to with great attention and noted.

Clearly, as a group, we also empathize with the difficulties experienced in Honduras in relation to insecurity and violence, which in practice affect us all as workers, employers and the whole population of Honduras. This would appear to be a subject that is important for everyone and we hope that greater efforts will be made to ensure greater security, more tranquillity and more social peace.

With regard to trade union rights and public liberties, the Government’s efforts are welcome to reinforce the institutions of public security so that they can combat criminality in Honduras.

We recognize that substantial efforts have been made, but it is necessary to go further by seeking the help of those operating in the judicial system to resolve the cases that have been denounced to the ILO, to facilitate investigations and bring those responsible to justice, with the imposition of the respective penalties.

With reference to Article 2 et seq. of the Convention respecting the establishment, independence and activities of trade unions, it is fundamental to reform the Labour Code, not only to bring it into conformity with the Convention, but also to new forms of work.

The pluralistic efforts to conclude agreements that have been made by all the social partners in Honduras through social dialogue need to be recognized by the Committee, and will certainly be noted and explained in the report of the direct contacts mission that recently visited Honduras.

We urge the Government of Honduras without delay to proceed with the establishment of the Commission on Anti-Union Violence so that information can be sought through it on the cases that are currently being investigated, so as to determine and clarify the causes and motives of the cases denounced here, with the workers and employers of Honduras being kept duly informed.

We also urge the Government of Honduras without delay to request ILO technical assistance with a view to the approval of the rules of procedure of the MEPCOIT and, through this body, to engage in the necessary consultations for the adoption of the pending modifications to the Labour Code so as to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the ILO Convention.

We recognize that tripartite dialogue must be carried out in good faith and with a view to reaching agreement, although without necessarily achieving consensus. We therefore urge both the representatives of workers and those of the Government to honour public tripartite pronouncements and, through social dialogue, to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, particularly in relation to the adoption of modifications to the Labour Code so that its provisions are brought into conformity with the Convention.

At the same time, we call on the Committee to consider the present case as a case of progress in light of the existence of significant progress giving effect to the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2018, taking into consideration the fact that we still do not have the report of the direct contacts mission which recently visited Honduras.

With regard to the possible doubts that may be entertained by Honduran trade unions concerning potential legislative reforms, these can only be overcome though dialogue with trade union leaders. Such dialogue can continue to be strengthened with the technical collaboration of the ILO and the observations of the ILO supervisory bodies.

We reiterate, as Employer representatives, that sincere and transparent dialogue is the tool for the achievement of social peace, when the parties think of the common good and act in good faith.

Finally, in the ILO’s Centenary year, we have the opportunity to do things differently to achieve better results. Over and above any mistrust that may be felt concerning the outcome of legislative debates, it is fundamental to work on agreements with the social partners in an attempt to address the interests that we validly represent.

Worker members – With reference to the comments made by various Employer members concerning the inclusion of Honduras on the list of individual cases, it is necessary to recall that the list was decided upon by agreement. The Employers agreed that this discussion should be held on Honduras, and we therefore consider that such comments are, to say the least, inappropriate. We repeat that the list is agreed upon by the Workers and Employers.

Moreover, secondly, although we did not refer to the right to strike in our initial remarks, it would appear that it is necessary for the Employers’ group to raise the issue and comment on it. We are therefore bound, as the Workers’ group, to indicate and confirm once again that our position on the right to strike remains firm. The right to strike is fully contained in the Convention and the comments of the Committee of Experts on strikes are therefore absolutely appropriate. The Committee of Experts must therefore continue to examine all matters relating to freedom of association and the right to strike.

For many years, we have witnessed constant and severe violations of trade union rights in Honduras. Serious situations exist, and we call on the Government to resolve them. The scourge of corruption in the public administration, endemic violence and impunity, including against trade unionists and the leaders of civil society, and the general absence of the rule of law mean that Honduran workers and its people cannot hold out hope for the future.

Honduras must take immediate and serious measures to address these systematic failings. Otherwise, it is to be feared, which we do not want, that social order will continue to worsen, as we have seen this very month, and as has been recognized at this meeting. Sadly, it can be seen that Hondurans may be forced to take the decision to leave their homes and emigrate elsewhere in search of a better life for them and their families.

The Workers urge the Government of Honduras to take immediate and effective measures to protect the existence and physical safety of all trade union leaders and activists, and to accelerate investigations into anti-union crimes and punish those responsible for such crimes. We also hope that the Government of Honduras will protect and respect the exercise of the right to freedom of association and organization, and will work to gain the confidence of the unions in social dialogue, which is required to bring the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention. It is to be hoped that such social dialogue with workers and employers will be successful in achieving a Labour Code that is effective in practice and in accordance with our Convention.

As we said before, once again the Government of Honduras has not succeeded in protecting or respecting the right to freedom of association and organization, and we therefore reiterate the conclusions of this Committee in 2018 and we urge the Government of Honduras to take immediate measures to give effect to these conclusions, as well as the recommendations of the recent ILO direct contacts mission. We emphasize that it is the responsibility of the Government itself to bring an immediate end to all acts of violence against trade unionists, which are undermining any effort to engage in social dialogue.

It is time for the Government to adopt immediately the necessary legislative amendments and to take appropriate measures to provide a global response to all the problems and failures of compliance that are raised year after year in this Committee and which are today denying freedom of association and organization. We have heard the explanations of the Government of Honduras, but we need urgent, rapid and effective measures, because murders are continuing.

With everything that has been heard during this session, it is impossible to consider this to be a case of progress. We take note of the signature of the tripartite agreement as a result of the direct contacts mission that visited the country, and we hope that this agreement will finally result in real measures being taken to address the urgency of the situation. We repeat that we hope that definitive and urgent responses will be adopted in practice. We request the Government to report to the Committee of Experts at its next meeting on the measures that have been taken to give effect to the Convention, and that the Committee of Experts will ensure the focused and specific follow-up of this case. We also consider and urge the Government of Honduras to accept ILO technical assistance with a view to complying with the commitments made in the tripartite agreement.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral statement made by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with serious concern the allegations of acts of anti-union violence, including the allegations of physical aggression and murders, and the prevalent climate of impunity.

In addition, the Committee noted the ILO direct contacts mission that took place in May 2019 and the resulting Tripartite Agreement.

The Committee calls for the Government to apply the Tripartite Agreement, including with respect to the:

- establishment of a national-level committee by June 2019 to combat anti-union violence;

- establishment of a direct line of communication between trade unions and relevant public authorities;

- provision of prompt and effective protection to at-risk trade union leaders and members;

- prompt investigation of anti-union violence with a view to arresting and charging those responsible, including the instigators;

- transparency of the complaints received through biannual reporting;

- need for awareness-raising in relation to protective measures available to trade unionists and human rights defenders;

- reform of the legislative framework, and in particular the Labour Code and the Penal Code, in order to ensure compliance with the Convention; and finally

- adoption of the operating regulations of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT) without prejudice to the complainants’ right to file complaints with the ILO supervisory bodies.

Taking note of the commitments under the Tripartite Agreement, the Committee calls on the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in order to implement the Agreement in collaboration with the ILO, and to elaborate a report in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations on progress achieved in the implementation of Convention No. 87 in law and practice to the Committee of Experts before its next sitting in November 2019.

Government representative – The Government of Honduras has noted the conclusions in our case and reiterates its political will and commitment to give effect to them, and particularly the tripartite agreement, for which we will request ILO technical assistance.