Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
