Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 412, November 2025

Case No 3010 (Paraguay) - Complaint date: 31-OCT-12 - Closed

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

1. 54. The Committee last examined this case, concerning allegations of anti-union dismissals and acts of persecution against striking workers by a company in the security sector, as well as its refusal to negotiate a collective agreement on working conditions, at its June 2015 meeting [see 375th Report, paras 438–459]. On that occasion, the Committee:
   • observed with regret that the Government’s reply did not address the allegations made concerning the dismissal of four founding members of the trade union when the company Prosegur Paraguay, SA (hereinafter the company) was informed of the establishment thereof and firmly urged the Government once again to keep it informed of the urgent steps that it requested the Government to take to ensure that an investigation is conducted into the allegations of dismissal and, if these prove to be true, that the necessary remedial measures are taken.
   • With regard to the alleged dismissals of five trade union members during the negotiations for the collective agreement on conditions of work, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the administrative procedure referred to above and to send a copy of any decision taken.
   • With regard to the alleged termination of the employment contracts of 230 workers who took part in the strike, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these judicial proceedings (the court action brought by Mr Mario Arturo Lomaquiz Godoy and others) and to send a copy of any ruling issued.
   • The Committee also urged the Government to carry out an administrative investigation into the allegations of persecutions against striking workers without delay and, in the event that acts of anti-union discrimination have occurred, to impose the sanctions provided by legislation.
2. 55. In communications dated 7 September 2016, 23 September 2022 and 6 September 2023, the Government sent its observations and forwarded the information provided by the company.
3. 56. With regard to recommendation (a) concerning the alleged dismissal of four founding members of the trade union when the company was informed of its establishment, in the information provided by the Government, the company states that: (i) although it was aware that Mr Esteban González was the trade union’s press and public relations secretary, the termination of his employment contract was formalised by mutual agreement on 18 October 2012; Mr González requested voluntary retirement, informed the Labour Administrative Authority (AAT) of this, and the company accepted it; (ii) the company was never informed that the workers Mr Victor Fretes, Mr Pío Antonio Hermosa, Mr Carlos Denis and Mr Esteban González enjoyed union stability because they were founders of a union in formation; their employment was terminated without cause, and they were paid all the compensation required by law; and (iii) from the moment the dismissals were communicated, the company did not receive any formal complaint, either judicial or extrajudicial, and any type of legal action was time-barred.
4. 57. With regard to recommendation (b) concerning the alleged dismissal of five trade unionists during the negotiation of the collective agreement on working conditions, in the information provided by the Government, the company indicates that: (i) Mr José Antonio Robledo González was dismissed without cause in 2012, having received all the legally applicable compensation, and together with others, he initiated legal action against the company for reinstatement, to which the company opposed an exception of prescription, which was successful; (ii) Messrs Hermenegildo Areco, Victor Martinez and José Heriberto Ortiz were dismissed without cause in 2012, received all compensation due to them and did not file any judicial or extrajudicial claims; and (iii) Mr Alfredo Sanchez Ramirez was dismissed with cause in 2012 for having committed crimes against the company’s assets, having received all the compensation to which he was legally entitled in such a case, after which he brought legal action against the company and the claim was abandoned by the claimant after the case had lapsed.
5. 58. With regard to recommendation (c) concerning the alleged dismissal of 230 workers in the context of a strike, in the information provided by the Government, the company indicates that the strike was called off by decision of the union assembly on 27 July 2012, as recorded in the minutes of that meeting, and that on that occasion, the members of the union’s negotiating committee informed their members about the discussions held with the company, mentioning that: (i) those who wished to do so could continue with the industrial action; and (ii) those who did not agree to continue with the strike were free to accept the settlements offered by the company, provided that they were in accordance with the law. The company indicates that some workers decided to continue working for the company and that 175 workers chose to terminate their employment relationships by voluntarily accepting the settlement of their assets, with settlements made by the AAT.
6. 59. The Government also indicates that in 2016, the Third Labour Court of First Instance rejected the claim filed by Mr Mario Arturo Lomaquiz Godoy and others, and that in 2018, the Court of Appeal issued judgment No. 108 confirming the previous judgment. In the ruling, a copy of which was sent by the Government, the Court of Appeal indicated, among other things, that: (i) the appellant argued that the fact that the employer had paid severance pay to the workers meant that their dismissal had been at the unilateral will of the company, i.e. that it was a dismissal disguised as an agreement; (ii) it was, however, a voluntary retirement with compensation, a formula for spontaneous reconciliation of interests that was reached in the context of a conflict of interests between the parties as a way of settling the opposition between their two positions; and (iii) the workers did not object to the amounts of the settlements received and did not demonstrate the alleged defects, so the agreements are in accordance with the law and the spontaneous agreement reached by the parties is fully valid.
7. 60. Finally, the Government indicates that, according to the General Secretariat of the Vice-Ministry of Labour, there is currently no collective agreement on working conditions relating to the company. The Government also indicates that the Directorate-General for Labour Inspection and Enforcement reported in a note dated 1 September 2023 that, from 16 August 2018 to date, no inspection orders had been issued to the company and, consequently, no grounds had been established for the initiation of administrative proceedings.
8. 61. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government. The Committee recalls that the present case concerns a complaint lodged in 2012 by the company’s workers’ union (SITEPROPASA) and UNI Global Union. It also recalls that the case concerns a series of related acts that allegedly took place between the end of 2011 and mid-2012, including the dismissal of founding members of SITEPROPASA when the company was informed of its formation; the dismissal of workers during the negotiation of a collective agreement on working conditions; the replacement of striking workers and acts of intimidation against the strikers; the dismissal of hundreds of trade unionists (who accepted compensation) who participated in the strike, after informing them that the strike would be declared illegal and that they would be unemployed and without any form of payment; and the submission of a list of striking workers to other companies in the sector, preventing them from accessing work.
9. 62. The Committee recalls that in its previous examinations of the case, it requested the Government to conduct administrative investigations into the matter and, if the allegations were proven to be true, to take the necessary measures of redress. It also requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the pending administrative and/or judicial proceedings. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in this regard, from which it appears that the claims for reinstatement have not been upheld and that the period for initiating any further action has expired. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, there is currently no collective agreement on working conditions relating to the company and that no inspection orders were issued to the company between 2018 and 2023. While taking due note of this information, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided information on the conduct of the investigations requested in previous examinations of the case.
10. 63. The Committee further notes that, according to information published by UNI Global Union, one of the complainant organizations in this case, the aforementioned events, which gave rise to the complaint, led to the dissolution of SITEPROPASA in 2012, the year in which the complaint that resulted in the opening of this case was filed.
11. 64. The Committee recalls that, in the context of other cases concerning Paraguay (see Cases Nos 3019 and 3242), it has requested the Government to consult with the social partners on the establishment of mechanisms to ensure effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, including rapid and impartial procedures, with provision for appeals and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee has also urged the Government to ensure that the aforementioned effective mechanisms for protection against anti-union discrimination take due account of the situation of trade unions in the establishment and registration stages. Emphasizing the importance of the above and taking into account the long-standing comments of the CEACR on the need to strengthen the legal framework for protection against anti-union discrimination in Paraguay, the Committee refers this legislative aspect of the case to the CEACR. On the basis of the above and noting that the complainant organizations have not provided any new information on this case since 2012, the Committee considers that this case is closed and does not require further examination.