Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 411, Junio 2025

Caso núm. 2719 (Colombia) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 03-FEB-09 - Cerrado

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

1. 28. The Committee examined this case, relating to allegations of anti-union acts by an agri-food company (hereafter the company) at its June 2010 meeting [see 357th Report, paras 301–345]. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations:
   • (a) With respect to the allegations concerning Nestlé’s refusal to grant the leaders of the trade union organization free access to the plants, recalling that governments should guarantee the access of trade union representatives to workplaces, with due respect for the company’s rights of property and management, so that trade unions can communicate with workers in order to apprise them of the potential advantages of unionization, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the company fully respects this principle and that the workers can communicate freely with union representatives, and without the presence of a representative of the enterprise.
   • (b) As to the allegations concerning the company’s refusal to negotiate with SINALTRAINAL at the Valledupar plant, and its conclusion of a collective agreement with another trade union organization, the Committee requests the Government to keep it apprised of the final outcome of the appeal against the administrative decision of the Ministry for Social Protection in favour of the company, and to send a copy of the collective agreement that the Government states was eventually signed with SINALTRAINAL in 2006.
   • (c) As to the allegations concerning the request for the suspension of the trade union immunity of union leader Mr Luis Eduardo Lúquez Castilla, from the Bugalagrande plant, the Committee requests the Government to keep it apprised of the final outcome of the appeals procedure against the ruling ordering the suspension of immunity in question.
   • (d) With respect to the dismissal, in 2002, of 12 workers from the Bugalagrande plant for having participated in a protest, noting that these allegations date back to 2002 and that it is difficult for the Government to present its observations on the matter without further information, the Committee requests the complainant organization to provide further information on the circumstances of the dismissals and indicate whether, and before which court, relevant legal proceedings have been instituted. If the complainant organization does not provide additional information in this respect, the Committee will not pursue the examination of this allegation.
   • (e) As to the allegations concerning the company’s dismissal without just cause, in 2006, of Mr Héctor Marino Lasso, Mr Leonardo Gómez and Mr Luis Fernández Arbeláez in violation of the collective agreement in force, the Committee requests the Government to keep it apprised of the final outcome of the pending legal proceedings.
   • (f) With regard to the allegations concerning the dismissal of four workers (Ms Edna Lucía Fernández, Mr Diego Lozano, Mr Hebert González and Mr Ignacio Millán) in 2007, in violation of the collective agreement, the Committee requests SINALTRAINAL to inform the Government of which courts are handling the legal proceedings instituted by the dismissed workers, and requests the Government to keep it informed of the relevant court rulings.
2. 29. In communications dated 16 March 2011 and 3 May 2023, the Government submitted the company’s observations regarding some of the Committee’s recommendations. With regard to the allegations concerning the request for the suspension of the trade union immunity of union leader Mr Luis Eduardo Lúquez Castilla (recommendation (c)), the company maintains that there is no evidence that it had any employment relationship with Mr Lúquez Castilla, therefore it cannot provide any information in that regard.
3. 30. As for the alleged dismissals without just cause of Mr Héctor Marino Lasso, Mr Leonardo Gómez and Mr Luis Fernández Arbeláez (recommendation (e)), the company reiterates that Mr Marino Lasso was compensated on 30 June 2006. It also indicates that Mr Gómez and Mr Fernández Arbeláez filed an application for legal protection (tutela) before the mixed municipal court of Bugalagrande, which declared the claims inadmissible in a ruling dated 11 August 2006, and that this decision was upheld in second instance in a ruling dated 13 September 2006, handed down by the First Civil Court of the Tuluá Circuit.
4. 31. With regard to the alleged dismissals of Ms Edna Lucía Fernández, Mr Diego Lozano, Mr Hebert González and Mr Ignacio Millán in 2007 in violation of the collective agreement in force at the Bugalagrande plant (recommendation (f)), the company informs that an application for legal protection (tutela) submitted by the National Union of Food Industry Workers (SINALTRAINAL) relating to these dismissals was declared inadmissible by the mixed municipal court of Bugalagrande – Valle del Cauca, on 11 August 2006. It also indicates that it paid compensation to the four workers between May and June 2007.
5. 32. The Committee takes due note of the company’s observations, provided by the Government. With regard to recommendation (c), the Committee notes that the company denies the existence of any employment relationship with Mr Lúquez Castilla. While noting that this statement contradicts the information previously provided by the Government and that the requested information on the final outcome of the appeals procedure against the ruling that ordered the suspension of the trade union immunity of Mr Lúquez Castilla has not been provided, the Committee observes that it has not received new information from the complainant regarding the situation of Mr Lúquez Castilla.
6. 33. With regard to recommendation (e), the Committee takes due note of the legal rulings issued in the company’s favour by the mixed municipal court of Bugalagrande and the First Civil Court of the Tuluá Circuit with respect to the dismissals of Mr Gómez and Mr Fernández Arbeláez, and of the compensation paid by the company to Mr Marino Lasso following his dismissal.
7. 34. With regard to recommendation (f), the Committee notes the rejection of an application for legal protection (tutela) submitted in relation to the dismissals of Ms Edna Lucía Fernández and Mr Diego Lozano, Mr Hebert González and Mr Ignacio Millán by the mixed municipal court of Bugalagrande – Valle del Cauca, and of the compensation paid to the four workers by the company. The Committee also observes that neither the complainant nor the Government has provided information about the courts to which the aforementioned workers had submitted legal actions stemming from their dismissals that were alleged to have violated the aforementioned collective agreement.
8. 35. The Committee also notes that the Government has not provided information about the company’s alleged refusal to grant the leaders of SINALTRAINAL free access to the plants (recommendation (a)). In this regard, the Committee recalls that workers’ representatives should be granted access to all workplaces in the undertaking where such access is necessary to enable them to carry out their representation function [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1591]. Observing with interest that, according to publicly available information, in March 2025 the company and SINALTRAINAL signed collective agreements applicable to the company’s various plants in the country, the Committee trusts that the parties were able to reach a negotiated settlement regarding the access of the leaders of SINALTRAINAL to the company’s plants.
9. 36. With regard to the company’s alleged refusal to negotiate with SINALTRAINAL at the Valledupar plant (recommendation (b)), while noting that it has not received the requested information about the final outcome of the appeal against the administrative decision of the Ministry for Social Protection that acquitted the company of its refusal to enter into negotiations, or a copy of the collective agreement that, according to the Government, was signed with SINALTRAINAL in 2006, the Committee also observes that, according to publicly available information, the collective agreements reached in March 2025 between SINALTRAINAL and the company include the Valledupar plant. The Committee duly notes this information.
10. 37. Lastly, the Committee observes that the complainant has not provided the further information it had requested on the circumstances of the alleged dismissals of 12 workers from the Bugalagrande plant for having participated in a protest in 2002 and the potential initiation of legal proceedings in the matter (recommendation (d)). In these circumstances, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination and is closed.