Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 1991, Publication : 78ème session CIT (1991)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Honduras (Ratification: 1956)

A Government representative, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, expressed appreciation for the excellent work done by the Committee of Experts. After mentioning the different points made by the Committee of Experts concerning the divergences between the Labour Code and some articles of Convention No. 87, he said that the social partners and the Government had set up a special commission which had been institutionalised by Executive Decree as the "Council for Social Cooperation" to replace the ad hoc committee set up on 20 August 1990 in accordance with the commitment made by the Minister of Labour and Social Security to the previous Conference. The Goverment, private enterprise and the workers, represented by the two main confederations in the country, were currently working towards reforming the Labour Code and social legislation to bring them into line with the socio-economic realities of Honduras and its international labour commitments. The two labour unions (CTH and GGT) and the United Workers' Federation had prepared a draft revised Labour Code which constituted an invaluable contribution to the legal effort. In Honduras, social cooperation between the Government, private enterprise and workers aimed to improve labour legislation in order to secure peace on the solid foundation of social justice, as called for by the ILO.

The Workers' members said that the Committee of Experts had repeated its previous comments because it had not received a report from the Government on the application of the Convention. Those comments referred to important points of the Labour code which were not in accordance with the Convention, and the Committee of Experts had stressed that the Government should take the necessary measures to rectify that situation. Furthermore, the Committee on Freedom of Association had recently received a complaint against the Government of Honduras (Case No. 1538) denouncing acts of violence against trade unionists. It was necessary to have good legislation but it was essential to put into practice the principles of freedom of association. The Government intended to change the legislation and had established a tripartite commission to that end, which was now engaged in discussing the relevant matters. Because the situation regarding both law and practice was very worrying, the Government should take rapid measures to speed up changing the legislation.

The Employers' members noted the goodwill expressed by the Minister of Labour but recalled that the present Committee had discussed the case in 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986. Following the 1985 discussion, the Government had accepted a direct contacts mission which had led to several legislative changes. The present Committee had noted those changes in 1986 but had indicated that important problems still remained in relation to the application of the Convention. Those problems remained the same. The Employers' members noted their reservation on the definition of essential services applied by the Committee of Experts in the case of Honduras. Although the Minister of Labour had stated that the tripartite commission for the reform of the Labour Code had been established the previous year, the report of the present Committee stated that a tripartite commission had been set up in 1986. It appeared that nothing had happened during those five years. Had meetings been held? Notwithstanding the statements of the Government, the Committee should note with regret that those long standing problems had not been resolved. Perhaps the ILO might provide technical assistance in drawing up the draft Labour Code.

The Minister of Labour and Social Security stated that the acts of violence referred to by the Workers' members, of which there had been some cases, were not the fault of the Government. The policy of the present Government was to reform the Labour Code and labour legislation within the framework of national cooperation between the social partners and of dialogue with the President of the Republic and the Minister of Labour. Trade union rights, the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike were guaranteed. Article 18 of the draft new Labour Code provided that ILO Conventions and Recommendations should be applied as labour law in cases not covered by the legislation. The Government intended to accompany structural reforms of the economy wth immediate measures to meet the needs of workers; in that context, article 71 of the draft Labour Code allowed workers to request a wage review when economic changes took place in the country. The Government intended to establish new models to resolve the economic crisis and the other social problems.

The Committee took note of the information communicated by the Government and, in particular, the establishment ot a tripartite commission to study the comments of the committee of Experts. Bearing in mind the many important divergences between national legislation and the provisions of the Convention, which had been pointed out by the Committee of Experts for many years, and that the report of the Government to the Committee of Experts had contained nothing new, the Committee could not but express the hope that the Government would make every effort to adopt, in the near future, the appropriate measures to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted, so that next year it would be possible to record substantial progress both in law and in practice.