Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 1992, Publicación: 79ª reunión CIT (1992)

Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (núm. 87) - Honduras (Ratificación : 1956)

The Government supplied the following information:

The Government is aware of the need to reform its Labour Code with a view to bringing it into conformity with ratified Conventions and social developments in this field. The Government's will as concerns these changes has been expressed by the President of the Republic on different occasions; this interest has been translated into the creation of a Special Commission, in which the Government's will to make these changes as well as all those which arise on a tripartite level to the extent possible, with the intent to secure agreement of all the interested sectors. The Government has at the same time implemented a project entitled "Modernisation and institutional reinforcement of the labour administration in support of the economic reorganisation programme", of which this Special Commission has knowledge. The objectives of this project correspond with those of the Special Commission. The Government nevertheless understands the Committee of Experts' preoccupation with the period of time - many years - which has elapsed since the Committee's first observation without the necessary amendments having been accomplished. The Government will continue to regularly inform the Committee of Experts on the progress which it has achieved.

In addition, a Government representative, the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, referred to the enormous and serious problems faced by his country in all areas. He indicated that his Government generally encouraged dialogue and consultations in all sectors. Referring to the observations of the Committee of Experts he pointed out some contradictions that existed between certain articles of the Labour Code and the provisions of the Convention even though these contradictions might only relate to minor points. For example, it was a requirement to obtain the consent of a certain percentage of workers or, in some public enterprises, the approval of certain authorities before calling a strike. However, the right to strike was not prohibited. The Government has decided that the adoption of a new Labour Code or the substantial reform of the existing one should be based on and the product of consultations in the country as it was useless to legislate arbitrarily or adopt idealistic standards. In doing this it was necessary to take into account the suggestions of the Committee of Experts as well as the assistance offered by the ILO. Two very productive seminars, which helped bring out the initial cooperation required from the different sectors, were conducted. A tripartite committee chaired by the Deputy Minister of Labour has been established in order to change the structures of Honduran labour legislation and to follow up the comments of the Committee of Experts and its results would be seen in the course of this year. Finally, he indicated that the Government would be sending its observations along with conclusive evidence on the complaints pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association and expressed the desire to cooperate with the ILO as requested.

The Workers' members welcomed the information provided by the Minister concerning the setting up of a tripartite committee to advise on the changes that need to be made to the Labour Code to put it into full conformity with the Convention. They also welcomed the information about the Government's consultations with the ILO on these questions. While all these were encouraging developments, they recalled that the Committee of Experts had been making its comments on this question for many years now and no legislative measures have yet been adopted to amend the Labour Code. Referring to the strong language used by the Committee of Experts in its report, they emphasised to the Government the need for it to examine these comments, including the seven specific areas in which the Committee of Experts found the existing Labour Code to require amendments to bring it into line with the provisions of the Convention. In view of past long delays in this case, they strongly urged the Government to do its utmost to adopt legislative texts to amend the Labour Code as soon as possible as well as to ensure their full application in practice.

The Employers' members considered that the seven points figuring in the Committee of Experts' comments did not have the same weight. The ban on workers employed in small agricultural undertakings and stock-raising enterprises from joining a union, the ban on more than one union per enterprise, or the requirement that trade union leaders be engaged in the occupation or profession represented by the union for more than six months violated the very text of the Convention. The Employers' members were therefore in agreement with the comments made on these points by the Experts and considered, like them, that the Government should take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention. They also expressed the hope that the Government would amend the legislation in the near future. However, the other points criticised by the Committee of Experts could not be directly based on the Convention. When the Convention was drawn up in 1948, the question of introducing the right to strike, for example, had not been retained in the text. The comments of the Committee of Experts on national legislation in relation to essential services and other aspects of the right to strike were not therefore founded on the Convention itself. As regards the legal requirement of a two-thirds majority of a union's general assembly for calling a strike, the Employers' members noted that, in many countries, the majority required for calling a strike was governed by legislation or through trade union statutes, and that in any case, when trade union statutes were silent on this point, it was for the State to determine the parameters since every strike involved some disruption. The definition of the required majority was a national question which had to be settled by the law and practice of the country. In the light of these considerations, the Employers' members did not share the Experts' opinion that the requirement of a two-thirds majority of a union's general assembly for calling a strike constituted a violation of a Convention.

The Workers' member of Honduras confirmed that a tripartite commission for the revision of the Labour Code had in fact been designated for bringing the Code into conformity with the Convention, along the lines of the comments of the Committee of Experts, but with one exception: the recommendation that more than one enterprise union be allowed to exist in the same enterprise, institution or establishment. In fact, compliance with this recommendation would open the doors in Honduras to the serious phenomenon of solidarist organisations, which some employers were trying to introduce to take over the activities belonging to trade union organisations. He indicated that, in 1991, the Confederation of Honduran Workers had signed a document with the President of the Republic in search of an immediate process for the revision of the Code so as to prevent the rise of solidarism. Subsequently, the employers' and workers' organisations had presented amendments along these lines to the competent authorities. Finally, he stressed that a final date should be fixed for completion of consultations on the various revisions of the Labour Code and stated that, if cooperation did not succeed, the Government would have to take the appropriate decisions.

The Government representative stated that the Government saw no problems with submitting the Committee of Experts' recommendations to Congress. He repeated his earlier statements on the need for cooperation which would lead to the processing of the reforms, because the contents of some of them could be subject to controversy between workers and employers.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government. It welcomed the progress which was being made, in particular in relation to the reform of the Labour Code which was being prepared. However, it recalled that the Committee of Experts had been drawing the Government's attention to the legislative provisions requiring revision and yet until now such revision had not occurred. Consequently, the Committee expressed the hope that the Government would very rapidly be able to have the necessary reforms adopted and that it would send the relevant texts to the ILO.