GB.271/9 - Governing Body

Case No. 1945 (Chile): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Chile presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1787 (Colombia): Interim report

Complaint against the Government of Colombia presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) and the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1916 (Colombia): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Colombia presented by the Trade Union of workers of Medellín Municipal Enterprises (EEVVMM)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1925 (Colombia): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Colombia presented by the National Union of Employees of Avianca (SINTRAVA)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1865 (Republic of Korea): Interim report

Complaint against the Government of the Republic of Korea presented by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), the Korean Automobile Workers' Federation (KAWF) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1938 (Croatia): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Croatia presented by the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (UATUC)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1933 (Denmark): Definitive report

Complaint against the Government of Denmark presented by the Association of Drivers in Århus

The Committee's conclusions

Cases Nos. 1851 and 1922 (Djibouti): Interim report

Complaint against the Government of Djibouti presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the Djibouti Inter-Trade Union Association of Labour/General Union of Djibouti Workers (UDT/UGTD), the Organization of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU), Education International (EI), the Secondary Teachers' Union (SYNESED) and the Primary Teachers' Union (SEP)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1876 (Guatemala): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Guatemala presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations (IUF)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1936 (Guatemala): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Guatemala presented by the Trade Union of Workers of the National Electrification Institute (STINDE)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1940 (Mauritius): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Mauritius presented by the Mauritius Labour Congress (MLC)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1913 (Panama): Definitive report

Complaint against the Government of Panama presented by the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1852 (United Kingdom): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of the United Kingdom presented by the Trades Union Congress (TUC)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1912 (United Kingdom/Isle of Man): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of the United Kingdom (Isle of Man) presented by the Isle of Man Trades Council

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1843 (Sudan): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Sudan presented by the (legitimate) Federation of Workers' Trade Unions of Sudan (FSTS)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1812 (Venezuela): Interim report

Complaint against the Government of Venezuela presented by the International Secretariat of Arts, Communications and Maintenance Trade Unions/International Federation of Audiovisual Workers (ISETU/FISTAV)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1828 (Venezuela): Definitive report

Complaint against the Government of Venezuela presented by the Federation of Professional Pilots Trade Unions of Venezuela (FESPAVEN)

The Committee's conclusions

Case No. 1937 (Zimbabwe): Report in which the Committee requests to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Zimbabwe presented by the International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees (FIET)

The Committee's conclusions

Introduction

1. The Committee on Freedom of Association, set up by the Governing Body at its 117th Session (November 1951), met at the International Labour Office, Geneva, on 12, 13 and 19 March 1998, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

2. The members of Argentinian, Panamanian and Zimbabwean nationalities were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Argentina (Case No. 1924), Panama (Case No. 1913) and Zimbabwe (Case No. 1937), respectively.

* * *

3. Currently, there are 55 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 20 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 15 cases and interim conclusions in five cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

4. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the examination of the following cases: Nos. 1943 (Canada/Ontario), 1944 (Peru), 1947 (Argentina), 1948 (Colombia), 1949 (Bahrain), 1950 (Denmark), 1951 (Canada/Ontario), 1952 (Venezuela), 1953 (Argentina), 1954 (Côte d'Ivoire), 1955 (Colombia) and 1956 (Guinea-Bissau) because it is awaiting information and observations from the Governments concerned. All these cases relate to complaints submitted since the last meeting of the Committee.

Observations requested from governments

5. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the Governments concerned in the following cases: Nos. 1869 (Latvia), 1873 (Barbados) and 1942 (China/Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong).

Partial information received from governments

6. In Cases Nos. 1835 (Czech Republic), 1927 (Mexico), 1934 (Cambodia) and 1939 (Argentina) the Governments have sent partial information on the allegations made. The Committee requests all of these Governments to send the remaining information without delay so that it can examine these cases in full knowledge of all the facts.

Observations received from governments

7. As regards Cases Nos. 1773 (Indonesia), 1867 and 1887 (Argentina), 1880 and 1906 (Peru), 1888 (Ethiopia), 1914 (Philippines), 1928 (Canada/Manitoba), 1929 (French Guyana), 1930 (China), 1931 and 1932 (Panama), 1941 and 1946 (Chile), the Committee has very recently received the Governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting.

Urgent appeals

8. As regards Cases Nos. 1884 (Swaziland) and 1935 (Nigeria), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the submission of these complaints or the last examination of these cases, it has not received observations from the Governments concerned. The Committee draws the attention of the Governments in question to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of these cases, if their observations or information have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests these Governments to transmit their observations or information as a matter of urgency.

Serious and urgent cases which the Committee especially
draws to the attention of the Governing Body

9. The Committee considered that it should especially draw the Governing Body's attention to certain cases due to the seriousness and urgency of the issues raised in them. These cases concern the following countries: Colombia (Case No. 1787), Nigeria (Case No. 1793) and Sudan (Case No. 1843).

* * *

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

10. The Committee draws the legislative aspects of the following cases to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: Sudan (Case No. 1843), United Kingdom/Isle of Man (Case No. 1912).

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

Case No. 1900 (Canada)

11. During its last examination of this case at its meeting in November 1997, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers, architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors all enjoyed the protection necessary to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and called upon the Government to re-certify those organizations which were decertified under Bill 7. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that the right to strike not be denied to agricultural and horticultural workers, domestic workers, architects, land surveyors and lawyers, and to ensure adequate compensatory guarantees where this right may be restricted in respect of the medical profession. The Committee also called upon the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee access for all the above-mentioned workers to machinery and procedures which facilitate collective bargaining, and to revalidate the collective agreements which had been annulled under Bill 7. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the right to organize and collective bargaining rights are adequately protected in building services and to keep it informed in this regard. [See 308th Report, para. 194.]

12. In a communication dated 30 January 1998, the Government indicates that a decision was rendered on 9 December 1997 by the Ontario Court with respect to an appeal made on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) to have Bill 7 declared unconstitutional on the ground that it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its repeal of the Agricultural Labour Relations Act, 1994. This judgement concludes that the exclusion of agricultural workers from Ontario's statutory labour relations scheme does not violate their freedom of association, or their right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law, guaranteed by the Charter. The UFCW has appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the Government indicates that it will keep the Committee informed of further developments in this case.

13. The Government reiterates that the unique characteristics of, and the nature of employment in, the agricultural sector are such as to raise serious questions as to the suitability and propriety of the regime of collective bargaining contemplated by the Labour Relations Act, in particular the dispute resolution mechanisms upon which collective bargaining depends, namely the right to strike and lock-out, and compulsory arbitration. Agriculture in Ontario is overwhelmingly dominated by family farms, and the agricultural sector is characterized by extremely low-profit margins and unstructured, highly personal working relationships. Moreover, employers in this sector are dependent on climatic conditions and seasonal variations and produce highly perishable products. Accordingly, the Government indicates that it does not intend to amend legislation to remove the exclusion of agricultural workers from any statutory labour relations scheme.

14. In conclusion, the Government reiterates its strong commitment to free collective bargaining both in the public and private sectors of Ontario. Bill 7 has established the appropriate balance of power between unions and employers and has facilitated productive collective bargaining, which the Government views as an important component of its strategy to strengthen the economy and create jobs.

15. The Committee notes this information with regret. It must reiterate the conclusions made in this case concerning agricultural workers in its 270th Report and the corresponding recommendations. Furthermore, the Committee notes with concern that the Government has only provided information in reply to its recommendations as they concern agricultural workers, but has not made any indication as to the measures taken to ensure the right to organize, the right to strike (or relevant compensatory guarantees) and the right to bargain collectively with respect to domestic workers, architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in respect of these categories of workers and to indicate whether any measures are envisaged to ensure the rights of agricultural workers either through the Labour Relations Act or through other appropriate means.

Case No. 1910 (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

16. At its June 1997 meeting, the Committee, when examining allegations concerning the Government's interference in the process of collective bargaining at the Marsavco-Zaire enterprise, stressed the importance it attached to respect for Article 4 of Convention No. 98 and requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the negotiations in the enterprise concerned [see 307th report, para. 176(b)]. In a communication dated 8 October 1997, the Government informs the Committee that the Government of the previous regime had already dealt with the situation before the Third Republic had been proclaimed. The Government also points out that the union rights in the enterprise in question have been restored, in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code in force. The Committee notes this information.

Case No. 1594 (Côte d'Ivoire)

17. At its June 1997 meeting, the Committee had asked the Government to state whether the workers dismissed at Irho-Lamé in 1993 who considered that their rights had been impaired had appealed to the courts to have those rights restored, and to ensure that the social elections at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan were held immediately and to keep it informed of the outcome thereof. [See 307th Report, paras. 23-25.] In a communication dated 23 January 1998, the Government explains that the workers dismissed at Irho-Lamé have not appealed to the courts to have their rights restored and that it considers the case to be closed. The Committee notes this information with regret and insists that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure that the workers concerned are reinstated if they so desire. As regards the social elections at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan, the Government repeats the information provided previously whereby the first-level trade unions consider it necessary to draw up a dockers' collective agreement before considering social elections, which was confirmed by six of the seven first-level trade unions attending a meeting held on 21 January 1998 at the premises of the Trade Union of Dockers of the Autonomous Port of Abidjan (SEMPA). The Committee again requests the Government to do all it can to ensure that social elections are held as soon as possible in the Autonomous Port of Abidjan and to make sure that the first-level organizations affiliated to the trade union confederation Dignité are able to participate in them. It once again asks the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these elections.

Case No. 1918 (Croatia)

18. At its June 1997 meeting, having considered allegations concerning a dispute relating to the leadership of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Croatia (CITUC) and obstacles to the registration of this organization, the Committee requested the Government to submit further information with respect to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court regarding the leadership dispute and the refusal to register, to keep it informed of the status of the proceedings before the Administrative Court and to forward a copy of the Court's decision as soon as it is handed down [see 307th Report, para. 252]. In a communication dated 7 November 1997, the Government sent information relating to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court and explained that this Court has not yet handed down its sentence in respect of the appeal lodged against the decision of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare concerning the refusal of the CITUC's request for registration. The Government also stated that it has transmitted the Committee's recommendation to the Administrative Court. The Committee notes this information. The Committee expresses the hope that this process will shortly be concluded and requests the Government to send it a copy of the sentence as soon as it is handed down.

Cases Nos. 1512 and 1539 (Guatemala)

19. At its November 1997 meeting, the Committee asked the Government to keep it informed periodically of the progress made by the Commission on Historical Clarification in connection with the allegations under review concerning the assassination or disappearance of trade unionists (1990-1994) [see 308th Report, para. 394(b)]. In communications dated 28 January and 26 February 1998, the Government indicates that the Commission will pursue its work for a period of six months and will submit a report which will be transmitted to the Committee. The Committee notes this information and awaits receipt of the report.

Case No. 1890 (India)

20. At its meeting in June 1997, the Committee requested the Government: to keep it informed of the outcome of the request filed with the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the dismissal of Mr. L. Malwankar, President of the Fort Aguada Beach Resort Employees' Union (FABREU), and to ensure that he is reinstated in his post, if he so desires; to take appropriate steps to ensure that the ongoing inquiries held by the Beach Resort against the 15 FABREU members who went on strike are dropped; to repeal the decision declaring the hotel industry a public utility service; to take appropriate conciliatory measures to obtain the management's recognition of FABREU for collective bargaining purposes [see 307th Report, para. 376].

21. In its communication of 6 February 1998, the Government indicates that the dispute concerning Mr. Malwankar has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, but that it has been delayed because Mr. Malwankar has sought seven adjournments. While awaiting the award, the Government has assured that a decision in favour of Mr. Malwankar will be enforced. As concerns the 15 FABREU members who were the subject of management inquiries, the Government indicates that seven are under suspension pending inquiry and are being paid subsistence allowances. In these circumstances, the conciliation machinery cannot intervene as it does not constitute an industrial dispute. Transfer orders were issued with respect to the other eight members which they have refused. These members have raised an industrial dispute on this question and requested the withdrawal of the transfer orders. The report of the conciliation failure has been received by the Government and further action will follow. In the meantime, the Labour Commissioner called the union representatives for discussions in order to explore the possibility for an amicable settlement. The proposal made by the Commissioner that they take up their changed posting and then request to be transferred back to their original posting so that the Commissioner could take the matter up again with the employer was rejected. While demanding the total implementation of the Committee's recommendation, the union indicated that it was prepared to undertake joint discussions with the employers.

22. The Government also indicates that the declaration of an industry as a public utility service is at the discretion of the appropriate government. While the Government of Goa used this discretion in the interest of peace and harmony in tourism which is a key industry for the State, it should be noted that the declaration of an industry as a public utility service does not mean that strike is prohibited in this industry. The only restriction concerning strikes in such industries is that 14 days' strike notice must be given. Finally, as concerns the question of recognition of FABREU for collective bargaining purposes, the Government indicates that the Labour Commissioner discussed the matter with the management which indicated that it has recognized the Fort Aguada Association because it is the majority union. The Government adds that FABREU nevertheless may still raise disputes with the Labour Department.

23. The Committee takes due note of this information. It requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings concerning the dismissal of Mr. Malwankar and, given the Committee's conclusions in its previous examination of this case that Mr. Malwankar was dismissed on account of his trade union status and activities [see 307th Report, para. 369], it urges the Government once again to take the necessary steps to have him reinstated in his post if he so desires. As concerns the management inquiries in respect of 15 FABREU members, the Committee, recalling its previous conclusions that these inquiries and transfer orders constituted anti-union discrimination [see 307th Report, para. 372], requests the Government to take the appropriate steps to ensure that they are dropped. As concerns the recognition of FABREU as collective bargaining agent, the Committee recalls its previous conclusions based on the information provided by both the Government and the complainant that FABREU was the most representative organization at the Fort Aguada Beach Resort. The Committee must therefore once again urge the Government to continue to take any appropriate measures to obtain the employer's recognition of FABREU for collective bargaining purposes and to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Case No. 1920 (Lebanon)

24. At its meeting in November 1997, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the contested results of the elections of the officials of the General Labour Confederation of Lebanon (CGTL) on 24 April 1997 was currently the subject of judicial recourse and to keep it informed of the results of any such proceedings. Furthermore, as concerns the arrest of trade union leaders Mr. Abou-Rizk and Mr. Yasser Nehmi and their subsequent prosecution, the Committee urged the Government to do everything in its power to ensure that the charges brought against them were withdrawn immediately. [See 308th Report, para. 525.]

25. In a communication dated 9 January 1998, the Government indicated that the Beirut Court had rejected, for error in form, the appeal to annul the CGTL elections. The appeal was considered not receivable for non-conformity with the law since the executive board of the complainant union had not introduced legal action.

26. The Committee notes this information. It observes that the Government has not provided any information on the situation of Mr. Abou-Rizk or Mr. Yasser Nehmi. The Committee is obliged once again to express its deep concern regarding the prosecution undertaken against these two trade union leaders, in particular given that the charges appear to be directly linked to the fact that they submitted a complaint to the ILO. The Committee urges the Government to do everything in its power to ensure that the charges are immediately withdrawn. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this situation.

Case No. 1793 (Nigeria)

27. During its examination of this case in November 1997, the Committee found itself obliged to deplore the fact that, for nearly three years, the Government has consistently evaded responding to the urgent calls for a mission. The Committee added that a new complaint had been submitted against the Government of Nigeria alleging the adoption of further anti-union decrees and detention of unionists (Case No. 1935). The Committee therefore reiterated in the strongest possible terms the calls which have been made to the Government to indicate, as a matter of urgency, the earliest dates in which a mission to examine the trade union situation in Nigeria could be received. [See 308th Report, paras. 51-53.]

28. In a communication dated 4 February 1998, the Government indicated that it would transmit its reply concerning this case on 20 February 1998. On 20 February 1998, the Government sent a letter indicating that it would reply on 24 February 1998. No further information has since been received from the Government.

29. In these circumstances, the Committee must express its outrage at the manner in which the Government has repeatedly ignored not only its own calls for a mission to examine the trade union rights situation in the country and to visit trade unionists detained without trial, at least one of whom has been detained for over three years, but also the additional urgent calls emanating directly from the Governing Body in this respect. The levity displayed by the Government in this respect can only be viewed by the Committee with the greatest concern. Given the persistent lack of cooperation on the part of the Government in this case, the Committee considers that other types of action should be taken in order to enable some progress in the very serious matters raised in this case.

Case No. 1698 (New Zealand)

30. At its meeting in June 1997, the Committee noted information provided by the Government concerning a coalition agreement to introduce the concept of "fair bargaining" into the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) and requested the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard. Furthermore, the Committee reiterated its previous conclusions concerning section 63(e) of the ECA and recalled that the determination of the bargaining level was a matter to be left to the discretion of the parties and that legislation should not constitute an obstacle to collective bargaining at the industry level. It reiterated therefore that workers and their organizations should be able to call for industrial action in support of multi-employer contracts and requested the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in the future to amend section 63(e) in this respect.

31. In a communication dated 28 October 1997, the Government indicated that it was continuing to work through the process of identifying issues relating to bargaining, particularly recognition of the employees' representative, which have been raised by the experience with the ECA since its introduction. Options for addressing these issues will then be developed and considered by the Government before any legislation is considered. As concerns section 63(e), the Government indicates that no measures are being considered and reaffirms that it is a matter of government policy not to allow the use of strikes or lockouts to secure a multi-employer collective employment contract. Multi-employer contracts should be agreed as a result of willing employer-employee bargaining, not by enforced industrial action. Finally, the Government provided information on recent cases concerning the application of the ECA.

32. The Committee takes note of this information. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in introducing the concept of "fair bargaining" into the legislation. As concerns section 63(e) of the ECA, while reaffirming the principle that the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and therefore the autonomy of the bargaining partners, is a fundamental aspect of the principles of freedom of association [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1994, para. 844] the Committee considers that this question is distinct from that of the legitimacy of strike action in support of multi-employer contracts. The Committee cannot share the views expressed by the Government that the voluntary nature of collective bargaining means that industrial action cannot be used to support legitimate workers' demands. It therefore once again recalls its conclusions in this case that provisions which prohibit strikes if they are concerned with the issue of whether a collective employment contract will bind more than one employer are contrary to the principles of freedom of association on the right to strike [see 292nd Report, para. 737] and again requests the Government to amend section 63(e) and to keep it informed of any measures envisaged in this respect.

Case No. 1891 (Romania)

33. At its November 1997 meeting [see 308th Report, paras. 72-74], the Committee had asked the Government to send it a copy of the new law on the settlement of labour disputes once it had been adopted and to indicate whether the human rights committee set up by the Ministry of the Interior had been charged with investigating the particular allegations raised in the case, and to keep it informed regarding the results of such investigations. In a communication dated 21 January 1998, the Government states, once again, that the draft law on the settlement of labour disputes was submitted to the social partners and that the text will be sent to the ILO once it is adopted. Furthermore, it indicates that the particular allegations raised in this case were not referred to the human rights committee but that any citizen who considers that his rights have been infringed by police action may bring a complaint before the committee which will refer it to the military prosecutor's office if there has been a breach of the law. The Committee notes this information and once again expresses the hope that a new law on the settlement of labour disputes in accordance with the principles of freedom of association will be adopted very soon and that the Government will send it a copy as soon as possible.

Case No. 1618 (United Kingdom)

34. At its meeting in November 1997, the Committee urged the Government to give consideration to the incorporation of an express protection in the legislation against blacklisting. [See 308th Report, paras. 75-77.]

35. In a communication dated 9 February 1998, the Government states that, while it is not yet in a position to know whether blacklisting will definitely be covered, it is intending to publish a White Paper on fairness at work, and principally on trade union recognition, in the first part of this year. The White Paper will set out the Government's plans for achieving decent minimum standards at work, while maintaining a flexible labour market and improving competitiveness. The Government adds that it is keen to hear from trade unions, employers' organizations and others to ensure the White Paper takes account of their views.

36. The Committee takes note of this information. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in providing for an express protection in the legislation against blacklisting or other forms of discrimination based on past trade union membership or activities.

Case No. 1581 (Thailand)

37. At its meeting in November 1997, the Committee once again requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in adopting the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill and expressed its hope that the Bill, in its final form, would be in full conformity with freedom of association principles [see 308th Report, paras. 78-80]. In a communication dated 5 February 1998, the Government has indicated that the original Bill which was passed by the House of Representatives was subsequently substantially revised by the Senate. As a result, the House has disapproved the modified Bill which, inter alia, provides for a minimum requirement of 35 per cent membership for the formation of a union in a state enterprise, limits the term of office of the union's president, provides that general meetings shall only be held on public holidays and does not recognize the right to form a federation or to affiliate with a private sector federation. According to the Government, if the House resolves to reaffirm the original Bill or the Bill subsequently amended by a Joint Ad Hoc Committee consisting of members of the House and Senators, such Bill will have been deemed to have been approved by Parliament.

38. The Committee notes this information. It expresses its deep concern that the modifications made to the Bill by the Senate would result in a deterioration of trade union rights for state enterprise unions even beyond the existing Bill which was criticized in 1991 for violating the principles of freedom of association [see 279th Report, paras. 441-482]. The Committee urges that all necessary measures be taken so that the Bill, in its final form, will be in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard and to provide a copy of the Bill once it has been adopted.

Case No. 1856 (Uruguay)

39. At its meeting in March 1996, the Committee formulated the following recommendation on this case: "Regarding the dismissal allegedly on financial grounds of 39 workers four days after the end of the dispute in the Perses SA enterprise, the Committee requests the Government to conduct an inquiry into the reasons for the dismissals and, should it find that they were ordered on anti-union grounds, to take steps to have the persons concerned reinstated in their jobs. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on the subject" [see 302nd Report, para. 439]. At its meeting in November 1996, the Committee took note of the Government's statements according to which the General Inspectorate for Labour and Social Security was beginning an investigation into the allegations [see 305th Report, paras. 64 and 65]. Subsequently, in a communication of 5 March 1997, the Government stated that the investigation was at the evidence-gathering stage, i.e. was in the process of receiving and collecting the evidence submitted to it by the parties involved, mainly in the form of testimonial evidence, and that it had not yet reached any definitive conclusions on the matter. The Government added that when the administrative procedure reached its final stage, it would inform the Committee of its findings.

40. At its meeting in November 1997 [see 308th Report, paras. 81-83], the Committee took note of this information and, since the inquiry had already taken one year, expressed the hope that the administrative authority would expedite the matter and requested the Government to take steps to that end. The Committee awaited the final outcome of the inquiry.

41. In its communication of 21 January 1998, the Government states that during the evidence- gathering stage of the inquiry into the dismissals in question, one purpose of which is to allow the parties to substantiate their respective positions, only the defendant company, Perses SA, had presented itself, the Peres SA Staff Association having failed to do so. The Government also states that the information collected during the proceedings is insufficient to allow definitive conclusions to be reached on the content of the complaint, and the General Inspectorate for Labour and Social Security was therefore withdrawing the file.

42. The Committee takes note of this information and regrets that the Peres SA Staff Association did not present itself at the evidence-gathering stage of the inquiry requested by the Committee. Under these circumstances, given that the allegations date back to April 1995 and taking into account the lack of interest shown in the case by the complainant organization, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the allegations.

Case No. 1886 (Uruguay)

43. At its meeting in May 1997 the Committee, when examining allegations of anti-union discrimination arising from the nomination of only non-union members to executive positions within Lloyds Bank, requested the Government to send the text of the Administrative Court's ruling on the matter as soon as it was handed down [see 307th Report, para. 470(c)]. In a communication of 23 January 1998, the Government states that no final ruling on the matter has been handed down, since the proceedings are still at the submissions stage during which the plaintiff (Lloyds Bank Limited) presents its case, and the State Prosecutor will have to go to the Administrative Court at a later date. Finally, the case will be examined by the Judges of the Court who will then give a ruling. The Government states that it will inform the Committee of the outcome of the proceedings. The Committee takes note of this information. It expresses the hope that these proceedings, which began about a year and eight months ago (in June 1996) will be concluded shortly and requests the Government to send it a copy of the ruling as soon as it is handed down.

* * *

44. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1719 (Nicaragua), 1796 (Peru), 1809 (Kenya), 1819 (China), 1824 (El Salvador), 1826 (Philippines), 1834 (Kazakhstan), 1837 (Argentina), 1849 (Belarus), 1850 (Congo), 1854 (India), 1863 (Guinea), 1864 (Paraguay), 1870 (Congo), 1877 (Morocco), 1883 (Kenya), 1894 (Mauritania), 1903 (Pakistan), 1921 (Niger) and 1926 (Peru), the Committee requests the Governments concerned to keep it informed of any developments relating to these cases. It hopes that these Governments will quickly furnish the information requested. In addition, the Committee has just received information concerning Cases Nos. 1785 (Poland), 1813 and 1878 (Peru), 1895 (Venezuela), 1907 (Mexico) and 1908 (Ethiopia) which it will examine at its next session.

Case No. 1924

Definitive Report

Complaint against the Government of Argentina
presented by
the Trade Union of National, Provincial, Municipal and Private Steam Generator Operators and allied Occupations (SCGVA)

Allegations: Refusal to grant official trade union status

45. The complaint in this case is contained in a communication dated 1 April 1997 from the Trade Union of National, Provincial, Municipal and Private Steam Generator Operators and allied Occupations (SCGVA). Subsequently, the complainant sent further information in another communication during June 1997. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 9 October 1997 and 11 February 1998.

46. Argentina has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

47. In its communications of 1 April and June 1997, the Trade Union of National, Provincial, Municipal and Private Steam Generator Operators and allied Occupations (SCGVA) states that it was established in 1990 (as is apparent from the organization's Statutes which are attached to the complaint) and that, there being no other trade union organization for workers involved in this area of activity, it applied to the authorities in 1993 for official trade union status but did not obtain an affirmative response. The complainant provides detailed information and abundant documentation on the administrative and judicial procedures which it had initiated, to no avail, to obtain official trade union status.

48. Lastly, the complainant states that in 1994, the United Trade Union of Workers and Employees of Córdoba (SUOEM) appealed to the administrative authorities to oppose the granting of official trade union status to the Trade Union of National, Provincial, Municipal and Private Steam Generator Operators and allied Occupations (SCGVA).

B. The Government's reply

49. In its communications of 9 October 1997 and 11 February 1998, the Government states that the complainant has been registered as a trade union since 1992 but that it has not been granted official trade union status since it has not shown itself to be the most representative trade union. The Government attaches a Ministry of Labour report of March 1995 according to which official trade union status has not been granted to the complainant because it does not comply with the requirement of section 25(b) of Act No. 23551 concerning trade union associations (i.e. membership of more than 20 per cent of the workers whom the trade union wishes to represent). The Government also claims that in the Province of Córdoba, the most representative trade union to date is the United Trade Union of Workers and Employees of Córdoba (SUOEM), since virtually all workers involved with boilers, sterilizers, compressors, etc., are public municipal employees. Finally, the Government explains that the complainant did not even indicate whether it had 20 per cent of the workers as members which now it claims to represent.

C. The Committee's conclusions

50. The Committee notes that the present allegations refer to the refusal to grant "representative trade union status" which the Trade Union of National, Provincial, Municipal and Private Steam Generator Operators and allied Occupations (SCGVA) has been requesting since 1993 (under current legislation, only organizations which have representative status enjoy the right to enter into collective bargaining).

51. The Committee notes that the reply and the supporting documentation sent by the Government indicates that it has not granted official trade union status to the complainant because: (1) it does not meet, nor has it made any indication of, the requirement of a membership of more than 20 per cent of the workers whom it wishes to represent (section 25(b) of Act No. 23551); and (2) the most representative trade union in the Province of Córdoba to date is the United Trade Union of Workers and Employees of Córdoba (SUOEM).

52. In this connection, the Committee is unable in the light of available information to determine whether the membership of the complainant includes, as it claims to do, more than 20 per cent of the workers in its sector or whether or not it is the most representative organization, especially given that the allegations and the Government's reply do not indicate clearly the spheres of activity and geographical areas in which the complainant and the United Trade Union of Workers and Employees of Córdoba (SUOEM) exercise their right of representation.

53. Under these circumstances, and bearing in mind the period that has elapsed since the last census of the complainant's membership (1995), the Committee requests the Government to carry out such a census with a view to determining which of the two trade union organizations in question (the SCGVA or the SUOEM) is the more representative. If it finds that the complainant is the more representative, the Committee requests the Government to grant it official trade union status which it has been seeking since 1993.

54. Similarly, noting that it has already had occasion to criticize the provisions of Act No. 23551 (section 28) which requires the petitioning association, in order to contest the trade union status of an existing association, to have a "considerably higher" number of members [see 286th Report, Case No. 1551, paras. 47 to 50], and that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has also objected to the provision in question [see the pertinent observation of the Committee of Experts, Report III, Part 1A, 1998], the Committee requests the Government to take steps to amend the provision in question so that the criterion for the representativeness of trade unions becomes a simple majority of members.

55. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee requests the Government to conduct a verification of membership percentages in order to determine which of the two trade union organizations in question (the Trade Union of National, Provincial, Municipal and Private Steam Generator Operators and allied Occupations (SCGVA) or the United Trade Union of Workers and Employees of Córdoba (SUOEM)) is the most representative. If it finds that the complainant is the most representative, the Committee requests the Government to grant it the official trade union status which it has been seeking since 1993.

(b) The Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend section 28 of Act No. 23551 concerning trade union associations, which requires the petitioning association, in order to contest the trade union status of an existing association, to have a "considerably higher" number of members, in such a way that the criterion for determining the representativeness of trade unions becomes a simple majority of members.

Case No. 1945

Report in which the Committee requests to be
kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Chile
presented by
the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)

Allegations: Anti-union dismissals and prosecution
of trade unionists

56. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 6 November 1997.

57. The Government sent observations in a letter of 4 February 1998.

58. Chile has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

59. In its communication dated 6 November 1997, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleges that on 29 July 1997 the electricity company Rhona S.A. unilaterally terminated the contract of employment that it had with Mr. Eduardo Araos Herrera, Secretary of the Rhona S.A. National Union and Treasurer of the Metal Workers' Federation (FETEM). According to the ICFTU, this dismissal constitutes a serious violation of the provisions regarding workers' immunity established in the labour law of Chile and, consequently, the relevant trade union organizations instituted legal proceedings with a view to reversing the dismissal; at the same time they submitted a complaint to the labour administration in order to gain the union leader's reinstatement. Nevertheless, the judicial bodies and administrative authorities were overruled by the defiant attitude of Rhona S.A. officials who refused to implement the decisions taken by the National Labour Office which called for the reinstatement of the unfairly dismissed union leader. The ICFTU also alleges that Messrs. Sergio Cea Valenzuela, Sergio Silva Pérez and Jorge Muñoz Llanos, trade union leaders in Brink's of Chile, were unjustly dismissed -- despite trade union immunity -- on account of their action to establish a trade union within their company.

60. Moreover, the ICFTU alleges that when the Confederation of Bank Employees' Trade Unions organized a day of protest on 13 May 1997 in the Senate of the Republic as a show of that sector's disagreement with the Bill seeking to extend workdays to Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, the workers were forcibly removed and, subsequently, Luis Pereira, Nicolás Soto and Luis Mesina, trade union leaders, were detained. These leaders were then released; however, the Senate initiated unprecedented criminal action against them on grounds of "contempt of authority"; they are thus currently the subject of judicial proceedings despite the repeated calls by trade unions and social organizations for the charges to be dropped.

B. The Government's reply

61. In its letter of 4 February 1998, the Government states that Mr. Eduardo Araos Herrera, leader of the Rhona S.A. union and of the Metal Workers' Federation (FETEM), was indeed dismissed by his employer without the relevant tribunal's prior authorization having been obtained, as stipulated by article 174 of the Labour Code. The employer justified the dismissal by stating that on the date of termination the worker was not a trade union leader. Officials of the labour inspectorate of Viña del Mar visited Rhona S.A. and instructed the employer to reinstate the worker and to fulfil all contractual obligations. Nevertheless, the company did not comply with the labour inspectors' instructions and declined to reinstate the worker. Given the circumstances, the trade union leader took the case to the competent labour tribunal, seeking the reversal of his dismissal and, therefore, reinstatement in the company. The case is at present before the Labour Tribunal of Viña del Mar.

62. With regard to the dismissal of Messrs. Sergio Cea Valenzuela, Sergio Silva Pérez and Jorge Muñoz Llanos, leaders of the Union of Employees of Brink's of Chile, V Region, the Government indicates that the said union was established on 10 May 1996 and elected the aforementioned leaders. The company refused to accredit them and proceeded to dismiss them. The Government adds that, in view of the fact that these workers enjoy trade union immunity and that the company had not obtained the competent labour tribunal's prior authorization of dismissal, the Labour Inspectorate of Viña del Mar visited Brink's of Chile, V Region, and instructed it to reinstate these workers. The company did not comply with the labour inspectors' instructions; the inspectorate subsequently imposed money fines. Given this situation, the workers instituted judicial proceedings on grounds of "anti-trade union practices" before the Labour Tribunal of Viña del Mar. The case was declared receivable and a judgement was passed in their favour on 27 September 1997. However, the company appealed to the High Court (Court of Appeal) which declared the former judgement null and void and ordered postponement of the proceedings for the purposes of preliminary investigation as requested by the company. The case is at present under examination before the First Labour Tribunal of Valparaíso.

63. The Government indicates that the Labour Office, as well as the labour inspectorate attached to it, have no legal powers to enforce its decisions. Their powers permit them only to apply money fines. It is labour tribunals which are competent, following regular legal proceedings heard by them, to order the reinstatement of dismissed workers enjoying trade union immunity.

64. In connection with the detention and prosecution for "contempt of authority" of leaders of the Confederation of Bank Employees' Trade Unions, Messrs. Luis Pereira Concha, Nicolás Soto Reyes and Luis Mesina Marín, the Government states that it consulted the Senate of the Republic (branch of the legislature); its President declared the following on 10 October 1997:

The Senate of Chile, in keeping with its traditional tolerance of the opinions voiced in debate as well as favouring publicity of its proceedings, admits the presence in its chambers of any person wishing to attend its sessions and to become acquainted with the range of opinion; this rule applies generally and indefinitely with certain exceptions applying to private sessions.
Presence in the public gallery naturally implies that persons shall refrain from demonstrations: in the event of such action, the presiding member shall exercise his/her powers to maintain order. For that purpose, article 23(3) of the Standing Orders of the Senate empowers him/her to summon the assistance of the police, to order that the galleries be cleared and "to place in court custody the person instigating disorder on any part of the premises".
The above-mentioned powers ensue from three legal texts, two of which are contained in the Penal Code of Chile, and which have been in force without amendment since 1 March 1875; they term as offences certain forms of conduct affecting the legislative bodies, their committees or senators/parliamentarians. Article 263 provides for punishment of whomsoever, in word or deed, insults any of the legislative bodies or their committees, be it at public meetings attended by them or in the exercise of their various responsibilities. Article 264 states that "whosoever seriously disrupts order at sittings of the legislative bodies or whosoever adopts insulting or threatening behaviour at such meetings towards any parliamentarian or senator" or, similarly, whosoever insults or threatens a senator or parliamentarian in connection with the opinions he/she has voiced in Congress shall be guilty of contempt of authority (first paragraph, Nos. 1 and 3).
The State Security Act, No. 12927, of 2 August 1958, states in article 6(b), that it is an offence against public order to slander, insult or libel senators or parliamentarians, independently of whether the defamation, insult or libel is associated or not with the exercise of the offended party's functions.
The same State Security Act stipulates, in article 26, that the judicial body competent to examine the offences addressed, inter alia, by the aforementioned three articles, is the Court of Appeal.
In order to present the facts prompting the action subsequently instituted by the Senate in the relevant courts, we quote the version given by the Vice-President of the House, the Honourable Senator, Mr. Eugenio Cantuarias, before the judge trying the case:

As can be appreciated, the action instituted by the Senate complies strictly with the relevant legal provisions and regulations; it is aimed solely at protecting its dignity and due respect. No committed defender of the democratic institutions will hesitate to feel objectively concerned by the facts described above, independently of the perpetrators' motives. Consequently, the Senate simply called upon an entirely impartial body, the competent court of law, to investigate the facts and determine whether they constitute any of the aforementioned offences and, in that eventuality, establish the relevant liabilities.
In respect of the proceedings instituted at the Senate's behest versus the trade union leaders of the Confederation of Bank Employees' Trade Unions, this action is in accordance with Roll No. 863-97 and the case is at present under investigation by a minister of the Court of Appeal of Valparaíso (Civil and Collegiate Court). None of these trade unionists is in detention at this time and enjoy full freedoms.

65. Finally, the Government indicates that any further factors coming to light shall be notified in due course.

C. The Committee's conclusions

66. With regard to the dismissal, despite trade union immunity, of trade union leaders in the Rhona S.A. enterprise (Mr. Araos Herrera) and Brink's (Messrs. Cea Valenzuela, Silva Pérez and Muñoz Llanos), the Committee notes that the labour inspectorate instructed the respective employers to reinstate the above-mentioned workers, that the employers refused to do so and that, consequently, legal action was initiated with a view to the reinstatement of the dismissed persons and that such action is at present sub judice. In this regard, given that Chilean legislation requires prior judicial authorization for the dismissal of trade union leaders and that it was not sought in the present case, the Committee deplores the dismissal of the four trade unionists listed by the complainant and recalls that no one should be the subject of discrimination in employment on account of trade union membership or legitimate union functions and activities. The Committee recalls that cases concerning anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98 should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned. [See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1994, para. 749.] In this respect, the Committee urges the Government to take all the necessary measures for the reinstatement in their posts of the four trade unionists listed by the complainant. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the current legal action.

67. Regarding the action to clear the Senate chambers and the detention of Luis Pereira, Nicolás Soto and Luis Mesina, trade union leaders, as well as the criminal proceedings instituted against them on "contempt of authority" charges, the Committee has noted that, at present, these three trade union leaders are free and are awaiting the outcome of the court action. The Committee notes that, according to the Government and the report submitted by the President of the Senate, the action to clear the chambers, the detention and the initiation of criminal proceedings against them were due to repeated "gross" insults directed at certain senators during the debate on a Bill as well as due to disorderly behaviour designed to interrupt the speakers, despite warnings issued by the President of the Senate. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in exercising their freedom of expression and in expressing their opinions, "trade union organizations should respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language" [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 152]. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the current action against these trade union leaders.

68. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) With regard to the dismissal, without court authorization, of trade union leaders in Rhona S.A. (Mr. Araos Herrera) and Brink's (Messrs. Cea Valenzuela, Silva Pérez and Muñoz Llanos) and, given that Chilean legislation requires prior court authorization for the dismissal of trade union leaders and that such authorization was not sought in the present case, the Committee deplores the dismissal of the four trade unionists listed by the complainant and urges the Government immediately to take measures for their reinstatement. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the current legal action.

(b) Regarding the clearance of the Senate chambers, the temporary detention of Luis Pereira, Nicolás Soto and Luis Mesina, trade union leaders, and the initiation of criminal action against them on "contempt of authority" charges, the Committee, whilst noting the Government's statement that these facts were provoked by "gross" insults directed at certain senators during the debate on a Bill as well as by disorderly behaviour designed to interrupt the speakers, requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the current action taken against these union leaders.

Case No. 1787

Interim Report

Complaint against the Government of Colombia
presented by
-- the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
-- the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) and
-- the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU)

Allegations: Murders and other acts of violence against trade union
officials and members and anti-union dismissals

69. The Committee last examined Case No. 1787 at its March 1997 meeting [see 306th Report, paras. 248-294]. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) sent additional information in communications dated 3 February, 2 April, 5 May, 24 June, 16 and 23 July, 6 October and 6 November 1997 and 16 January 1998. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) presented new allegations relating to this case in a communication dated 23 January 1997. The Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) sent additional information in a communication dated 6 August 1997.

70. The Government sent partial observations in communications dated 29 May, 24 July and 16 December 1997 and 13 February 1998.

71. Colombia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

72. During the previous examination of the case, when it dealt with allegations concerning the murder, disappearance and other acts of violence against trade union officials and members, as well as anti-union dismissals, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 306th Report, para. 294, sections (g), (h), (i) and (j)]:

The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the judicial inquiries initiated in connection with the following murders of and death threats against trade union officials or members: (1) Antonio Moreno (12.08.1995); (2) Manuel Ballesta (13.08.1995); (3) Francisco Mosquera Córdoba (02.1996); (4) Carlos Arroyo de Arco (02.1996); (5) Francisco Antonio Usuga (22.03.1996); (6) Pedro Luis Bermúdez Jaramillo (06.06.1995); (7) Armando Umanes Petro (23.05.1996); (8) William Gustavo Jaimes Torres (28.08.1995); (9) Ernesto Fernández Pezter; (10) Jaime Eliacer Ojeda; (11) Alfonso Nogfuera; (12) Alvaro Hoyos Pabón (12.12.1995); (13) Libardo Antonio Acevedo (07.07.1996); and (14) Jairo Alfonso Gamboa López (was threatened with murder). Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to inform it on the outcome of the judicial inquiries in connection with the setting off of an explosive device in the headquarters of the Construction Workers' Trade Union (SINDICONS) in Medellín. Finally, noting that the Government has failed to communicate its observations on a considerable number of murders, murder attempts, death threats, disappearances and physical attacks on trade union leaders and officials, as well as searches of trade union headquarters and trade union members' homes (see Annex I), the Committee urges the Government to communicate its observations as soon as possible on all the cases mentioned in Annex I (following is Annex I):
Murders
(1) Hernando Cuadros (President of the Tibú branch of the Workers' Trade Union -- USO);
(2) Manuel Francisco Giraldo, member of the executive committee of the National Trade Union of Workers in the Agricultural Industry (SINTRAINAGRO), on 22 March 1955;
(3) Artur Moreno, member of the workers' committee of the Doña Francia plantation, municipality of Apartadó, on 7 June 1995;
(4) 23 workers who were members of the National Trade Union of Workers in the Agricultural Industry (SINTRAINAGRO), on 29 August 1995;
(5) 24 workers from the Rancho Amelia banana farm, who were members of the National Trade Union of Workers in the Agricultural Industry (SINTRAINAGRO), on 20 September 1995;
(6) José Silvio Gómez (coordinator of SINTRAINAGRO activities in Banafinca), on 22 March 1996;
(7) Alvaro David (member of the workers' committee of the Los Planes estate, member of SINTRAINAGRO), on 22 March 1996.

Attempted murders
The trade unionists Edgar Riaño, Darío Lotero, Luis Hernández and Monerge Sánchez.

Death threats
(1) Bertina Calderón (Vice-President of the CUT);
(2) Daniel Rico (President of the Federation of Petroleum Workers -- FEDEPETROL);
(3) Víctor Ramírez (President of the Transport Workers' Union -- SINTRASON);
(4) Members of the Executive Committee of the Single Agricultural Trade Union Federation -- FENSUAGRO;
(5) Francisco Ramírez Cuéllar (President of the Workers' Trade Union of the Mineralco, SA, enterprise);
(6) Pedro Barón, President of the Tolima branch of the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), by members of the armed forces following his participation in a protest strike on 19 July 1995;
(7) Members of the Executive Committee of the Union of Workers of the Titán SA, enterprise, in the municipality of Yumbo, who received death threats from a paramilitary group called "Colombia without guerrillas" (COLSINGUE), on 26 October 1995 and 17 May 1996.

Detention and raids on homes
Luis David Rodríguez Pérez (former leader of the National Trade Union of Workers of Incora -- SINTRADIN).

Raids on union headquarters, telephone tapping,surveillance of trade union members
A raid on the headquarters of the Single Agricultural Trade Union Federation (FENSUAGRO), the tapping of telephones in the union headquarters and of members' telephones and surveillance of the president of the Federation, Sr. Luis Carlos Acero, by armed persons.

Disappearances
(1) Rodrigo Rodríguez Sierra, President of the Trade Union of Oil Producing Workers (SINTRAPROACEITES), Copey branch, on 16 February 1995;
(2) Jairo Navarro, trade union member, on 6 June 1995.

Physical aggression and police repression
(1) police repression against workers from the Empresas Públicas de Cartagena during a peaceful demonstration on 29 June 1995;
(2) police repression against workers from the Empresas de Acueductos y Teléfonos and organized peasants from Tolima who were holding a protest meeting on 14 August 1995. The repression resulted in the death of Fernando Lombana, who was a member of the Association of Farmers of Small and Medium-Sized Holdings in Tolima (ASOPEMA), the serious injury of three other persons and several arrests (trade union members belonging to the organizations that took part in the protest).
Concerning the alleged anti-union dismissals in the ALFAGRES SA enterprise, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings under way.
Concerning the allegations of dismissals of trade union officials in the Ministry of Finance, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings under way concerning the dismissals of the three members of the union executive committee.
Finally, in connection with the dismissals of trade union officials and members belonging to the SINTRATEXTILIA trade union, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings under way, both within the penal and labour courts.

B. New allegations and additional information

73. In its communication of 23 January 1997 the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) alleges that on the morning of 7 December 1996 Edgar Riaño, leader of the Workers' Trade Union (USO) -- Huila branch -- was violently detained on the orders of the Office of the Prosecutor General and two hours later Gilberto Correño was assaulted and seriously wounded. Two days earlier Isidro Segundo Gil, Secretary-General of the SINALTRAINAL subdirective and a member of the negotiating committee for the petition presented to the Coca-Cola company was murdered in his own workplace.

74. The WFTU alleges that in early December 1996 detentions and police raids were carried out this time on the express orders of the Office of the Prosecutor General. The following union members of ECOPETROL were violently detained: Marcelino Buitrago, Felipe Mendoza, Monerge Sánchez, Guillermo Cárdenas, Rafael Estupiñán, Jorge Estupiñán, Hernán Vallejo, Luis Rodrigo Carreño, Leonardo Mosquera, Fabio Liévano, Elder Fernández, Gustavo Minorta and César Carrillo.

75. In its communications of 3 February, 2 April, 5 May, 4 and 24 June, 16 and 23 July, 6 October and 6 November 1997 and 16 January 1998 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleges the following:

Murders and disappearances of trade union
officials and members

Félix Avilez Arroyo, member of the Colombia Federation of Teachers, municipality of Ciénaga de Oro, Department of Córdoba, murdered on 12 January 1997;
Víctor Julio Garzón, Secretary-General of the Single Agricultural Trade Union Federation (FENSUAGRO), murdered in Bogotá on 7 March 1997;
Aurelio Arbeláez, member of the Workers' Union of the Frontino Gold Mines, murdered in Segovia (Antioquia) on 4 March 1997;
Néstor Eduardo Galindo, member of the subdirective of the Colombia Yumbo National Hospital Workers' Union, murdered in Yumbo on 6 March 1997;
Bernardo Orrego Orrego, killed by police in Medellín on 6 March 1997;
Gilberto Casas, Alcides Palacios Casas, Norberto Casas, Argiro Betancur, Jhon Fredy Arboleda, Eladio Chaverra and William Suárez, members of the Farm Workers' Union, Department of Antioquia, murdered between 11 February and 7 March 1997;
Luis Carlos Muñoz, union member murdered in Segovia (Antioquia) on 7 March 1997;
Nazareno de Jesús Rivera, member of the Workers' Union of the Frontino Gold Mines, murdered in Segovia (Antioquia) on 12 March 1997;
Hector Gomez, murdered in the principal park of the Remedios (Antioquia) municipality on 22 March 1997;
José Isidoro Leyton, President of the CGTD in the Department of Tolima, Ibagué City, murdered on 25 March 1997;
Enoc Mendoza Riaño, union member, murdered in Ciénaga, Magdalena, on 7 April 1997;
Magaly Peñaranda, member of the Trade Union of Municipal Workers, municipality of Ocaña, Ocaña (north of Santander), murdered at 8 in the morning on her way to work on 27 June 1997;
Eduardo Ramos, member of the National Trade Union of Workers in the Agricultural Industry (SINTRAINAGRO), murdered at the "El Chispero" farm in Apartadó (Urabá, Antioquia) on 14 July 1997;
Frieleht Varon, Branch President of the National Union for Health and Social Security (SINDESS), murdered on 3 May 1997;
Arnold Sanchez Maza, union member, held hostage for ten days and found dead in the Sinú river on 13 July 1997;
Freddy Francisco Fuentes Paternina, leader of the Córdoba Teachers' Association (ADEMACOR), murdered in Montería City, Department of Córdoba, on 18 July 1997;
Libardo Cuellar Navia, union member, murdered on 23 July 1997 on Il Agrado-Garzón Road;
Abraham Figueroa Bolaños, union member who worked with the indigenous community at the Mamague College, municipality of Milan, Department of Caquetá, murdered on 25 July 1997;
Edgar Camacho Bolaños, union member who worked with the indigenous community at the Mamague College, municipality of Milan, Department of Caquetá, murdered on 25 July 1997;
Wenceslao Varela Torrecilla, union member, kidnapped on 29 July and found shot in the Magdalena river the following day;
Atilio Vázquez, union member, kidnapped on 27 July 1997 and still uncounted for;
Sabas Domingo Zocadagui Paredes, union leader, murdered in Arauca City on 3 June 1997. The investigation is making progress under prosecutor 26, delegated by the Arauca circuit court, and is currently in the preliminary stages of submitting evidence;
Juan Camacho, union member in the mining sector, murdered in the municipality of Río Viejo on 25 April 1997;
Luis Orlando Camaño Galvis, murdered in the municipality of Aguachica, César, on 20 July 1997;
José Ricardo Sáenz, teacher from the District of Cundinamarca, member of the Colombia Teachers' Federation, disappeared on 24 July 1996;
Pedro Fernando Acosta Uparela, member of the Colombia Federation of Teachers, along with his adopted son, Hugo Causla, kidnapped in the municipality of Galeras, Department of Sucre, on 28 December 1996;
Professor Alvaro Taborda, member of the Colombia Federation of Teachers, Inem College, Monteria, Department of Córdoba, kidnapped on 8 January 1997;
Ramón Osorio, National Secretary for Education for FENSUAGRO, along with his five-year-old son, disappeared in Medellín, Antioquia, on 15 April 1997. Subsequently, on 17 April 1997 the boy reappeared at a social welfare centre in Carmen de Bigoral (Antioquia);
Misael Pinzón Granados, union member, worker in an African palm oil company, kidnapped by members of a paramilitary group operating in the municipality of Puerto Wilches, Santander, as he was travelling in a bus run by the Oleaginosa Bucarelia company, on 12 July 1997. There has been no further information as to his whereabouts;
Orlando Quiceno López, union member, kidnapped on 13 July 1997 and found dead in the municipality of Fredonia, Department of Antioquia, on 16 July 1997;
Eduardo Enrique Ramos Montiel, union leader, murdered at the "El Chispero" farm in Apartadó, Urabá, Antioquia, on 14 July 1997;
Arley Escobar, President of the Union for the National Institute of Penitentaries and Prisons (INPEC), Cali branch, murdered in Cali on 18 July 1997;
Mauricio Tapias Llerena and Camilo Suárez Ariza, Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of FENSUAGRO, kidnapped on 18 July 1997 and subsequently murdered by paramilitaries in Ciénaga, Magdalena, on 21 July 1997;
Abel Villa, member of the Mine Workers' Union, murdered in the municipality of Amagá on 21 July 1997;
Guillermo Asprilla, member of SINTRAINAGRO, murdered at the "Navarra Villa Sol" farm in the municipality of Apartadó (Urabá, Antioquia), on 23 July 1997;
Edulfo Zambrano, President of SINTRAELECOL, Atlántico branch in the city of Barranquilla, murdered on 27 October 1997;
Emiliano Jiménez and Amadeo Jalave Díaz, members of the Oil Industry Workers' Trade Union (USO); Jhoni Cubillo and Ulpiano Carvajal, union leaders of ECOPETROL; Rami Vaca, contractor for ECOPETROL; kidnapped by a heavily armed group on 27 October 1997. There has been no further information as to their whereabouts;
Jose Giraldo, Secretary of the Industry and Construction Trade Union (SINDICONS), was murdered in Medellín on 26 November 1997. The responsible individuals have not yet been identified or punished.

Death threats against union officials and members,
attacks on union headquarters and offices

Jorge Eliecer Marin Trujillo, President of the Workers' Union of the municipality of Chinchiná, received death threats from security forces on 9 December 1996 and 8 and 11 March 1997;
the Workers' Union of the Department of Antioquia presented on 5 November 1996 a petition to the Department Administration, which by law had to nominate a negotiating committee in 24 hours with a maximum delay of five days. Despite this the Committee was nominated on 28 November 1996, to be set up on 6 December 1996. From this date, with the setting up of the negotiating committee, persecution of workers and their leaders began in what seemed to be paramilitary treatment of a labour conflict. The Union headquarters in Medellín received repeated threatening calls during which they could hear machine-gun firing, or were told "accept the Government's proposal, the Department has already done so, we don't want to see them around here". In this context, there have been systematic threats to those belonging to the executive committee, including the following:
Martha Cecilia Cadavid, Union attorney, was persecuted and harassed on 13 and 28 June 1997 by two men on a motorcycle. She was followed during the evening in Medellín;
José Luis Jaramillo Galeano, Secretary-General of the Union was accused by the Department Governor, at a meeting between the Union and the Administration, of belonging to a guerrilla organization, an accusation which gave rise to continuous monitoring and threatening phone calls in which he was told "stop slandering the Governor, if not you will pay for it with your life";
Rangel Ramos Zapata, Union President, has been followed at various times by men on a motorbike, who have forced him to take cover in public buildings, and is constantly being threatened in the Union and at home by phone calls which have sometimes been taken by his daughters. On 23 August 1997, at 16.30 hours, four individuals on high-speed motorbikes appeared and asked in two different places close to his residence where Rangel Ramos Zapata lived, and they remained in the area until 19.00 hours;
Héctor de Jesús Giraldo, Jairo Humberto Gutiérrez, Luis Norberto Restrepo, Jorge Humberto Franco, Carlos Hugo Jaramillo, Horacio Berrío Castaño, Alvaro Alberto Arango and Oscar Aguirre, members of the executive committee of the Union, were threatened by phone at headquarters and were told "Leave the executive committee. We are not going to allow you to keep annoying Alvaro Uribe Vélez. Understand for once and for all that there is no work in the Department of Antioquia for you";
in an interview between SINTRADEPARTAMENTO and General Jaimes, Chief of the City Police for Medellín, the General made rash assertions such as: "This is the second time that I have been to Antioquia and I know that in this Department people do not make life difficult and solve their problems by fire power ..." and "... in Brazil, a bus ran over a group of protesters 80 times and this can happen in Medellín". Moreover, he showed that the police controlled everything that happened in Medellín and showed film in which union members Rangel Ramos Zapata and José Luis Jaramillo appeared in the foreground with, behind them, a group of workers;
Justo Pastor Quiroz, Secretary; Roque León Salgado, Treasurer; and Bersaly Hurtado, lawyer, all members of the executive committee of the South Bolívar Agromining Association have been threatened.

Physical aggression and police repression

The police brutally assaulted and wounded the following union members: Héctor Moreno, Edgar Méndez, César Castaño, Luis Cruz and Janeth Leguisamón, who were taking part in an information day on 6 January 1997, organized by the National Traffic Officer Association (ANDAT).

76. In a communication of 6 August 1997 the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) alleges that on Monday, 4 August at 18.30 p.m. in Aguachica (Department of César), David Quintero Uribe, President of the Workers' Union of the Multiactive Cotton Growing Cooperative of the Department of César Limited, was murdered.

C. Other allegations

77. In its communication of 16 January 1998, the ICFTU alleges that on 27 August 1997, the National Union of Banking Employees (UNEB) presented a list of demands to the Banking Association covering 30 entities in the banking sector and which would eventually benefit 40,000 workers. Since that date, the Association refused to act as the intermediary with respect to these 30 financial institutions. Nevertheless, after some discussions, some agreements were reached between the Banking Association and UNEB. The UNEB continued to negotiate with each one of the entities where there was representation. The UNEB, in the legal exercise of its trade union activities, programmed different activities such as marches, demonstrations, public information meetings and, through its publications, provided information on the dispute and the state of negotiations.

78. The ICFTU points out that the response of the employers of the banking entities, with the support of the forces of public order, was such as to impede the free exercise of trade union and information rights. Repressive measures were used, such as physical aggression, the locking up of union leaders in building elevators, the denial of access for union leaders to places where they met with workers to supply information, etc., going as far as to include the arbitrary detention of the UNEB leader, Carlos Romero, who was later released. Moreover, several UNEB leaders received letters and telephone calls making threats to their life.

79. According to the ICFTU, the repressive response of the employers was particularly notable in the Citibank and Andino Banks. Trade union leaders responsible for informing the employees of the developments in the dispute and the negotiations were obstructed from entering these banks, often with the use of the public forces. These obstacles were accompanied by threats and blackmail of dismissal of the workers if they listened to the information provided by the trade union leaders and if they exercised their constitutional rights of freedom of association.

80. Furthermore, Citibank continually incited and organized the customers and clients to attack union leaders who had arrived at its installations to inform the workers. These measures of repression and aggression had the complete support of the public forces of law and order which, on repeated occasions, trampled on several union members while forcibly removing them from the area. The Citibank offices in Santa Fe of Bogotá where repression of trade union activity was intensified are those branches at Puente Aranda, Barrio Chico, Barrio Cedritos and Jimenez Avenue. On 2 December 1997, the manager of this last branch took photos of several union leaders and workers. The use of these photographs is unknown. The practice of taking photographs and making video recordings by banking employers has become a very frequent practice to which the Sudameris and Anglo Colombiano banks have already had recourse.

D. The Government's reply

81. In communications of 29 May and 24 July 1997 the Government states that in connection with the allegations in the ICFTU communication of 5 May 1997 it has requested the First Office of the Prosecutor General to begin the investigations leading to the identification of those who committed the crimes mentioned, or if these investigations have already begun that those responsible be identified and tried under the provisions laid down by the existing laws for such cases. In particular, the Government gave the following details:

murder of Néstor Eduardo Galíndez Rodríguez, which occurred on 4 March 1997 in Yumbo, Valle. Investigation being carried out by Sectional Prosecutor 155 of the municipality of Yumbo, file No. 079856; accused under investigation, currently a preliminary investigation with submission of evidence;
murder of Erieleth Barón Daza, which occurred on 3 May 1997 on the road to El Limonar village, Dagua jurisdiction. Investigation being carried out by Prosecutor 132, Dagua section, Department of Valle; file No. 09062; accused under investigation, currently a preliminary investigation with submission of evidence;
murder of Luis Carlos Muñoz. Investigation being carried out by Segovia sectional unit, file No. 1894; alleged accused armed groups outside the law, currently a preliminary investigation;
murder of Jhon Fredy Arboleda Aguirre, William Alonso Suárez, Gil and Eladio de Jesús Chaverra Rodríguez, investigation being carried out by the Cisneros sectional unit under file No. 817, union verification; currently a preliminary investigation;
murder of Nazareno de Jesús Rivera García. The Segovia sectional unit began the investigation under file No. 1903. Currently this is being carried out by the National Unit for Human Rights;
murder of Héctor Gómez. Investigation being carried out by Segovia sectional unit, file No. 2056, accused under investigation; currently a preliminary investigation;
murders of Gilberto and Norberto Casas Arboleda, Alcides de Jesús Palacios Arboleda and Argiro de Jesús Betancur Espinosa, which took place on the "San Fernando" farm, jurisdiction of the municipality of Maceo, Antioquia, on 11 February 1997. The investigation was begun by the Sectional Prosecutor's Office of San Roque, file No. 1050. On 5 March 1997 this file was turned over to the Regional Prosecutor's Office of Medellín;
murder of Bernardo Orrego Orrego. Investigation under way in military criminal magistrate's court No. 73, file No. 55606, which has competence in this matter;
murder of José Isidoro Leyton. Investigation being carried out by the Regional Fiscal Directorate, Terrorist Unit of Bogotá;
murder of Magaly Peñaranda. Investigation at the preliminary stage;
murder of David Quintero Uribe. Investigation at the preliminary stage;
murder of Eduardo Enrique Ramos Montiel. The preliminary investigation was begun by the Prosecutor's Unit before the Criminal Court of the Apartadó Circuit, Antioquia, file No. 4960. It has been sent to the Regional Fiscal Directorate of Apartadó;
murder of Wenceslao Varela Torrecilla. The Sectional Prosecutor's Unit 25 of Monpos has begun the investigation, file No. 396;
murder of Libardo Cuéllar Navia. The Fiscal Unit 18 has begun the investigation before the Criminal Court of the Garzón Circuit, file No. 3207. The investigation is at the stage of collecting evidence to clarify the facts;
murder of Abraham Figueroa Bolaños and Edgar Camacho Bolaños. The investigation was begun by the Fiscal Sectional Unit of Florencia, Caquetá, but while awaiting a resolution from the National Fiscal Directorate of Santafé de Bogotá, the investigation was reassigned to the National Human Rights Unit;
disappearance of Ramón Osorio. Investigation being carried out by the crimes against freedom unit of the Medellín section, file No. 146-283, for the crime of kidnapping; currently a preliminary investigation.

E. The Committee's conclusions

82. First, before analysing the allegations and observations communicated by the Government, the Committee once again wishes to express its grave concern at the allegations which refer to a large number of murders, disappearances, as well as physical aggression, detentions and death threats against trade union officials, members and their families, as well as raids on trade union headquarters and trade union members' homes. In this respect, the Committee notes with alarm that for practically the whole of 1997 the complainants have presented allegations of violent acts against trade union leaders and members. The Committee deplores that in spite of the seriousness of the situation the Government's replies have been limited to a very reduced number of allegations. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to remedy this situation.

83. Likewise, the Committee notes that acts of violence have been committed against trade union members throughout the country and in all sectors of activity and a large number of these acts of violence have been committed against trade union officials and members of the agricultural sector -- members of FENSUAGRO or SINTRAINAGRO -- and the oil sector -- members of ECOPETROL or FEDEPETROL. The Committee deeply regrets that among the new allegations the murder of the Secretary-General of the Single Agricultural Trade Union Federation (FENSUAGRO), Víctor Garzón, in March 1997, appears. Víctor Garzón was interviewed and participated in the direct contacts mission which took place in the country in November 1996. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to stop all acts of violence against unionists and especially in those sectors where the trade unions mentioned operate.

84. The Committee deplores that all factors seem to show that anti-union violence has not decreased and that those who commit these acts of violence against trade union officials or members continue in impunity, as the Government, since the last examination of this case in November 1996, has not provided information on one single case of detention, trial and judgement of those responsible for these acts.

85. Taking into account the nature of the allegations and that it was mentioned in the report of the last direct contacts mission that the Public Defender in his 1996 report to Congress affirmed that "there are still people in the armed forces and police who commit illegal and arbitrary acts in the course of their military and police activities" and "today thousands of Colombians are still terrorized by paramilitary groups" [see 306th Report, p. 85 of the English version], the Committee, observing that the situation has not improved since that time, points out that it is the responsibility of the Government to guarantee the correct comportment of its security forces which, in any event and at all times, must respect human rights. The Committee requests the Government to ensure respect for this principle.

86. Thus, the Committee emphasizes that "the killing, disappearance or serious injury of trade union leaders and trade unionists requires the institution of independent judicial inquiries in order to shed full light, at the earliest date, on the facts and the circumstances in which such actions occurred and in this way, to the extent possible, determine where responsibilities lie, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of similar events" and "the absence of judgements against the guilty parties creates, in practice, a situation of impunity, which reinforces the climate of violence and insecurity, and which is extremely damaging to the exercise of trade union rights" [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 51 and 55].

87. In connection with the additional information presented on murders and disappearances of trade union officials and members, the Committee notes that the Government states that it has begun legal investigations into the following cases: (1) Néstor Eduardo Galíndez Rodríguez (murdered on 4 March 1997); (2) Erieleth Barón Daza (murdered on 3 May 1997); (3) Jhon Fredy Arboleda Aguirre, William Alonso Suárez Gil and Eladio de Jesús Chaverra Rodríguez (murdered between 11 February and 7 March 1997); (4) Luis Carlos Muñoz (murdered on 7 March 1997); (5) Nazareno de Jesús Rivera García (murdered on 12 March 1997); (6) Héctor Gómez (murdered on 22 March 1997); (7) Gilberto Casas Arboleda, Norberto Casas Arboleda, Alcides de Jesús Palacios Arboleda and Argiro de Jesús Betancur Espinosa (murdered on 11 February 1997); (8) Bernardo Orrego Orrego (murdered on 6 March 1997); (9) José Isidoro Leyton (murdered on 25 March 1997); (10) Magaly Peñaranda (murdered on 27 July 1997); (11) David Quintero Uribe (murdered on 4 August 1997); (12) Eduardo Enrique Ramos Montiel (murdered on 14 July 1997); (13) Libardo Cuéllar Navia (murdered on 23 July 1997); (14) Wenceslao Varela Torrecilla (murdered on 29 July 1997); (15) Abraham Figueroa Bolaños (murdered on 25 July 1997); (16) Edgar Camacho Bolaños (murdered on 15 July 1997); and (17) Ramón Osorio (disappeared on 15 April 1997). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the legal investigations under way.

88. The Committee regrets that the Government has provided no information on the state of the legal investigations on which the Committee asked to remain informed at its meeting of November 1996 in connection with the murders and death threats against the following trade union officials and members: (1) Antonio Moreno (12 August 1995); (2) Manual Ballesta (13 August 1995); (3) Francisco Mosquera Córdoba (February 1996); (4) Carlos Arroyo de Arco (February 1996); (5) Francisco Antonio Usuga (22 March 1996); (6) Pedro Luis Bermúdez Jaramillo (6 June 1995); (7) Armando Umanes Petro (23 May 1996); (8) William Gustavo Jaimes Torres (28 August 1995); (9) Ernesto Fernández Pezter; (10) Jaime Eliacer Ojeda; (11) Alfonso Noguera; (12) Alvaro Hoyos Pabón (12 December 1995); (13) Libardo Antonio Acevedo (7 June 1996); and (14) Jairo Alfonso Gamboa López (threatened with death). In this respect, the Committee once again asks the Government to keep it informed of the result of these investigations.

89. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government has not sent its observations on the numerous pending or presented allegations in 1997 and 1998, in connection with assassinations, disappearances, physical aggression, detention and death threats against trade union officials, members and their families (see annexed the complete list of allegations on which the Government has not communicated its observations). The Committee urges the Government to communicate its observations on all of these allegations annexed to this case without delay. The Committee also requests the Government to communicate without delay its observations on the anti-union acts in the banking sector (see the ICFTU communication of 16 January 1998)

90. Finally, the Committee asks once again that the Government keep it informed of the result of the judicial processes under way on the dismissals of trade union officials and members in the ALFAGRES SA and TEXTILIA Ltd. companies and in the Ministry of Finance.

91. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee once again wishes to express its serious concern at the allegations which refer to a great extent to the murders, disappearances, physical aggression and death threats against trade union officials and members and other acts of violence. Moreover, the Committee deplores having to note that impunity continues for those committing these acts of violence against trade union officials and members and, since this case was last examined in November 1996, the Government has not provided information on a single case of detention, trial and judgement of those responsible for these acts. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take steps to remedy this situation.

(b) Taking into account that there are still people in the armed forces and police who commit illegal and arbitrary acts in the course of their military and policy activities and that today thousands of Colombians are still terrorized by paramilitary groups, the Committee points out that it is the responsibility of the Government to guarantee the correct comportment of its security forces which, in any event and at all times, must respect human rights. The Committee reqests the Government to ensure respect for this principle.

(c) The Committee notes that acts of violence have been committed against trade union members throughout the country and in all sectors of activity and that a large number of these have been committed against trade union officials and members from the agricultural sector -- members of FENSUAGRO or SINTRAINAGRO -- and the oil sector -- members of ECOPETROL or FEDEPETROL -- and in this context it deeply regrets the murder in March 1997 of the Secretary-General of the Single Agricultural Trade Union Federation (FENSUAGRO), Víctor Garzón. Víctor Garzón was interviewed and collaborated with the direct contacts mission which took place in the country in November 1996. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to eradicate all acts of violence against unionists and especially in the sectors where the trade unions mentioned operate.

(d) The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the result of the legal investigations that have begun in connection with the following murders, disappearances and death threats against trade union leaders and members: (1) Antonio Moreno (12 August 1995); (2) Manual Ballesta (13 August 1995); (3) Francisco Mosquera Córdoba (February 1996); (4) Carlos Arroyo de Arco (February 1996); (5) Francisco Antonio Usuga (22 March 1996); (6) Pedro Luis Bermúdez Jaramillo (6 June 1995); (7) Armando Umanes Petro (23 May 1996); (8) William Gustavo Jaimes Torres (28 August 1995); (9) Ernesto Fernández Pezter; (10) Jaime Eliacer Ojeda; (11) Alfonso Noguera; (12) Alvaro Hoyos Pabón (12 December 1995); (13) Libardo Antonio Acevedo (7 July 1996); (14) Jairo Alfonso Gamboa López (received death threats); (15) Néstor Eduardo Galíndez Rodríguez (4 March 1997); (16) Erieleth Barón Daza (3 May 1997); (17) Jhon Fredy Arboleda Aguirre, William Alonso Suárez Gil and Eladio de Jesús Rodríguez (11 February 1997 to 7 March 1997); (18) Luis Carlos Muñoz (7 March 1997); (19) Nazareno de Jesús Rivera García (murdered 12 March 1997); (20) Héctor Gómez (22 March 1997); (21) Gilberto Casas Arboleda, Norberto Casas Arboleda, Alcides de Jesús Palacios Arboleda and Argiro de Jesús Betancur Espinosa (11 February 1997); (22) Bernardo Orrego Orrego (6 March 1997); (23) José Isidoro Leyton (25 March 1997); (24) Magaly Peñaranda (27 July 1997), (25) David Quintero Uribe (4 August 1997); (26) Eduardo Enrique Ramos Montiel (14 July 1997); (27) Libardo Cuéllar Navia (23 July 1997); (28) Wenceslao Varela Torrecilla (29 July 1997); (29) Abraham Figueroa Bolaños (25 July 1997); (30) Edgar Camacho Bolaños (25 July 1997); and (31) Ramón Osorio (disappeared on 15 April 1997).

(e) The Committee notes that the Government has not sent its observations on the various pending or presented allegations in 1997 and 1998 in connection with murders, disappearances, death threats and physical aggression against trade union officials, members and their families, as well as raids on union headquarters and union members' homes (see annexed the complete list of allegations on which the Government has not communicated its observations), and urges it to communicate its observations on all the allegations in the annex of this case without delay.

(f) The Committee also requests the Government to communicate without delay its comments on the allegations concerning anti-union acts in the banking sector (see ICFTU communication of 16 January 1998).

(g) Finally, the Committee once again requests the Government to keep it informed of the result of the judicial process under way on the dismissals of trade union officials and members of the ALFAGRES SA and TEXTILIA Ltd. companies and the Ministry of Finance.

Annex

Allegations on which the Government has not
communicated its observations

Murders and disappearances

(1) Hernando Cuadros (President of the Tibú branch of the Workers' Trade Union -- USO);

(2) Manuel Francisco Giraldo, member of the executive committee of the National Trade Union of Workers in the Agricultural Industry (SINTRAINAGRO), on 22 March 1955;

(3) Artur Moreno, member of the workers' committee of the Doña Francia plantation, municipality of Apartadó, on 7 June 1995;

(4) 23 workers who were members of the National Trade Union of Workers in the Agricultural Industry (SINTRAINAGRO), on 29 August 1995;

(5) 24 workers from the Rancho Amelia banana farm, who were members of the National Trade Union of Workers in the Agricultural Industry (SINTRAINAGRO), on 20 September 1995;

(6) José Silvio Gómez (coordinator of SINTRAINAGRO activities in Banafinca), on 22 March 1996;

(7) Alvaro David (member of the workers' committee of the Los Planes estate, member of SINTRAINAGRO), on 22 March 1996;

(8) Rodrigo Rodríguez Sierra, President of the Trade Union of Oil Producing Workers (SINTRAPROACEITES), Copey branch, on 16 February 1995;

(9) Jairo Navarro, trade union member, on 6 June 1995;

(10) Isidro Segundo Gil, Secretary-General of the SINALTRAINAL subdirective, on 9 December 1996;

(11) Félix Avilez Arroyo, member of the Colombia Federation of Teachers, on 12 January 1997;

(12) Víctor Julio Garzón, Secretary-General of the Single Agricultural Trade Union Federation (FENSUAGRO), on 7 March 1997;

(13) Aurelio Arbelaez, member of the Workers' Union of the Frontino Gold Mines, on 4 March 1997;

(14) Néstor Eduardo Galindo, member of the subdirective of the Colombia-Yumbo National Hospital Workers' Union, on 6 March 1997;

(15) Bernardo Orrego Orrego, on 6 March 1997;

(16) Gilberto Casas, Alcides Palacios Casas, Norberto Casas, Argiro Betancur, Jhon Fredy Arboleda, Eladio Chaverray and William Suárez, members of the Farmworkers' Union, Department of Antioquia, between 11 February and 7 March 1997;

(17) Luis Carlos Muñoz, union member, on 7 March 1997;

(18) Nazareno de Jesús Rivera, member of the Workers' Union of the Frontino Gold Mines, on 12 March 1997;

(19) Enoc Mendoza Riaño, union member, on 7 April 1997;

(20) Frieleht Varon, Branch President of the National Union for Health and Social Security (SINDESS), on 3 May 1997;

(21) Arnold Sánchez Maza, on 13 July 1997;

(22) Freddy Francisco Fuentes Paternina, leader of the Córdoba Teachers' Association (ADEMACOR), on 18 July 1997;

(23) Atilio Vázquez, union member, disappeared on 27 July 1997;

(24) Sabas Domingo Zocadagui Paredes, union leader, on 3 July 1997 in Arauca;

(25) Juan Camacho, union member in the mining sector, on 25 April 1997;

(26) Luis Orlando Camaño Galvis, union leader, on 20 July 1997;

(27) José Ricardo Sáenz, member of the Colombia Teachers' Federation, disappeared on 24 July 1996;

(28) Pedro Fernando Acosta Uparela, member of the Colombia Teachers' Federation, along with his adopted son, Hugo Causla, disppeared on 28 December 1996;

(29) Alvaro Taborda, member of the Colombia Teachers' Federation, disappeared on 8 January 1997;

(30) Ramón Osorio, National Secretary of Education for FENSUAGRO, disappeared on 15 April 1997 in Medellín;

(31) Misael Pinzón Granados, union member, disappeared on 12 July 1997;

(32) Orlando Quiceno López, union member, on 16 July 1997;

(33) Eduardo Ramos, union leader at the "El Chispero" farm in Apartadó, Urabá, Antioquia, on 14 July 1997;

(34) Arley Escobar, President of the Union for the National Institute of Penitentiaries and Prisons (INPEC), Cali branch, on 18 July 1997;

(35) Mauricio Tapias Llerena and Camilo Suárez Ariza, Secretary-General and lawyer, respectively, for FENSUAGRO, on 21 July 1997;

(36) Abel Villa, member of the Mine Workers' Union, on 21 July 1997;

(37) Guillermo Asprilla, member of SINTRAINAGRO, on 23 July 1997;

(38) Edulfo Zambrano, President of SINTRAELECOL, on 27 October 1997;

(39) Emiliano Jiménez and Amadeo Jalave Díaz, members of the Oil Industry Workers' Trade Union (USO); and Jhoni Cubillo and Ulpiano Carvajal, union leaders of ECOPETROL; Rami Vaca, contractor for ECOPETROL; disappeared on 27 October 1997;

(40) Jose Giraldo, Secretary of SINDICONS, murdered in Medellín on 26 November 1997.

Attempted murders

(1) Trade union members Edgar Riaño, Darío Lotero, Luis Hernández and Monerge Sánchez;
(2) Gilberto Correño, leader of the Workers' Trade Union, 7 December 1996.

Death threats

(1) Bertina Calderón (Vice-President of the CUT);

(2) Daniel Rico (President of the Federation of Petroleum Workers -- FEDEPETROL);

(3) Víctor Ramírez (President of the Transport Workers' Union -- SINTRASON);

(4) members of the Executive Committee of the Single Agricultural Trade Union Federation (FENSUAGRO);

(5) Francisco Ramírez Cuéllar (President of the Trade Union of Workers of the Mineralco, SA, enterprise);

(6) Pedro Barón, President of the Tolima branch of the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), by members of the armed forces following his participation in a protest strike on 19 July 1995;

(7) members of the Executive Committee of the Workers' Union of Titán SA, municipality of Yumbo, threatened with death by a paramilitary group called "Colombia without guerrillas" (COLSINGUE), on 26 October 1995 and 17 May 1996;

(8) Jorge Eliecer Marín Trujillo, President of the Workers' Union of the Municipality of Chinchiná, on 9 December 1996 and 8 and 11 March 1997;

(9) members of the Executive Committee of the Trade Union of Workers of the Department of Antioquia, Martha Cecilia Cadavid, lawyer for the trade union, on 13 and 28 June 1997; José Luis Jaramillo Galeano, Secretary-General; Rangel Ramos Zapata, President; Héctor de Jesús Giraldo, Jairo Humberto Gutiérrez, Luis Norberto Restrepo, Jorge Humberto Franco, Carlos Hugo Jaramillo, Horacio Berrio Castaño, Alvaro Alberto Arango and Oscar Aguirre, committee members;

(10) members of the Executive Committee of the South Bolívar Agromining Association, Justo Pastor Quiroz, Secretary; Roque León Salgado, Treasurer, and Bersaly Hurtado, Prosecutor, have been threatened.

Detention and raids on homes

(1) Luis David Rodríguez Pérez (former leader of the National Trade Union of Workers of Incora -- SINTRADIN);

(2) Edgar Riaño, leader of the Workers' Trade Union (USO) -- Huila, 7 December 1996; on orders of the Office of the Prosecutor General, and two hours later his friend Gilberto Correño was attacked and gravely injured;

(3) trade union members of ECOPETROL, Marcelino Buitrago, Felipe Mendoza, Monerge Sánchez, Guillermo Cárdenas, Rafael Estupiñán, Jorge Estupiñán, Hernán Vallejo, Luis Rodrigo Carreño, Leonardo Mosquera, Fabio Liévano, Elder Fernández, Gustavo Minorta and César Carrillo, in December 1996.

Raids on union headquarters, telephone tapping, surveillance of trade union members

A raid on the headquarters of the Single Agricultural Trade Union Federation (FENSUAGRO), the tapping of telephones in the union headquarters and of members' telephones and surveillance of the president of the Federation, Luis Carlos Acero, by armed persons.

Physical aggression and police repression

(1) Police repression against workers from the Empresas Públicas de Cartagena during a peaceful demonstration on 29 June 1995;

(2) police repression against workers from the Empresas de Acueductos y Teléfonos and organized peasants from Tolima who were holding a protest meeting on 14 August 1995. The repression resulted in the death of Fernando Lombana, who was a member of the Association of Farmers of Small and Medium-Sized Holdings in Tolima (ASOPEMA), the serious injury of three other persons and several arrests (trade union members belonging to the organizations that took part in the protest);

(3) police assault, causing injury, to the following trade union members: Héctor Moreno, Edgar Méndez, César Castaño, Luis Cruz and Janeth Leguisamón, who took part in an information day on 6 January 1997 organized by the National Traffic Officers' Association (ANDAT).

Case No. 1916

Report in which the Committee requests
to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Colombia
presented by
the Trade Union of Workers of Medellín
Municipal Enterprises (EEVVMM)

Allegations: Anti-union dismissals following the declaration
of a strike to be illegal

92. The complaint in this case appears in a communication from the Trade Union of Workers of Medellín Municipal Enterprises (EEVVMM) dated 18 November 1996. The Government sent observations in a communication dated 23 June 1997.

93. Colombia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

94. In its communication of 18 November 1996, the Trade Union of Workers of the Medellín Municipal Enterprises (EEVVMM) alleges the dismissal of 209 workers (including all the members of the union's executive, the members of the Complaints Committee, the members of the Negotiating Committee and members of the three previous union executives, as well as many rank and file members) following the declaration of illegality of the strike that took place in February 1993 during a dispute arising from negotiations on a collective agreement at the refuse collection undertaking known as Medellín Municipal Enterprises (Empresas Varias Municipales de Medellín). The strike was declared illegal on 18 February 1993 by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which cited sections 430, paragraph 1(e) and (f) and section 450(a) of the Labour Code which prohibit strikes in the public service. (The complainant provides a copy of the ministerial decision quoting the relevant passages from these sections. Section 430, paragraph 1(e) and (f) stipulates that: "In accordance with the Constitution, strikes shall be prohibited in the public service. For this purpose, the term "public service" shall be deemed to cover any organized activity aimed at safeguarding essential public services in a regular and uninterrupted manner within a special statutory framework, whether undertaken by the State, directly or indirectly, or by private individuals; the term public service thus covers among other things the following activities: ... (e) (activities) ... market squares ... (f) (activities) pertaining to all public sanitary and cleaning services").

95. The complainant states that the trade union and the workers concerned lodged administrative and judicial appeals which were exhausted in March 1996 and that all the administrative decisions and judicial rulings given in the case have accepted that the dismissals were in accordance with national legislation.

B. The Government's reply

96. In its communication of 23 June 1997, the Government refers to infringements of certain provisions of the collective agreement by the undertaking known as Medellín Municipal Enterprises and to an administrative inquiry into the matter requested by the complainant in January 1993. The Government in its reply describes the action taken in response to the complaints in separate administrative and judicial bodies.

97. Given that these government observations bear no relation to the allegations -- and some indeed relate to facts which pre-date the allegations in the present case -- the Office in a communication dated 10 July 1997 asked the Government to provide more detailed information which, however, has not so far been received.

C. The Committee's conclusions

98. The Committee notes that in the present case, the complainant alleges the dismissal of 209 workers of the undertaking known as Medellín Municipal Enterprises (which specializes in refuse collection), including all the members of the union's executive, the members of the Complaints Committee, the members of the Negotiating Committee and members of the three previous union executives, as well as many rank and file members, following the declaration of illegality of a strike that took place in February 1993 during a dispute arising from negotiations on a collective agreement. The Committee notes that the strike was declared illegal on 18 February 1993 by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security on the basis of provisions contained in section 430, paragraph 1(e) and (f) and section 450(a) of the Labour Code, which prohibit strikes in public services which the Government considers to be essential (although the Committee considers that they are not essential in the strict sense of the term).

99. First of all, the Committee regrets that the Government in its reply makes no specific reference to the dismissals that followed the declaration of illegality of the strike and instead refers to other issues (infringements by the employer of certain provisions of the collective agreement, some of which pre-date the facts alleged in the present case) which are not addressed by the present allegations. The Committee notes that on 10 July 1997 the Office asked the Government for information on the questions raised by the complainant which, however, has so far not been received.

100. As regards the declaration of illegality of the strike on the grounds of the essential nature of the refuse collection service provided by the undertaking, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the refuse collection service is not an essential service in the strict sense of the term (that is to say, a service the interruption of which is likely to endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population) which could constitute grounds for an absolute prohibition on strike action, but that, given the nature of the service in question, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has stated that a service might become essential if the strike affecting it exceeds a certain duration or extent so as to endanger the health or life of the population [see General Survey on "Freedom of association and collective bargaining", 1994, para. 160]. In this connection, the Committee considers that in appropriate cases in which the imposition of minimum services is permissible, such as in the sector of refuse collection, measures should be taken to guarantee that such minimum services avoid danger to public health and safety. In the present case, bearing in mind these considerations, the Committee deplores the declaration of illegality of the strike in the refuse collection sector.

101. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that for a number of years, when considering how far Colombian legislation conforms with the provisions of Convention No. 87, the Committee of Experts has criticized the provisions contained in the Labour Code on the basis of which the Government declared the strike to be illegal and which prohibit strike action in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential in the strict sense of the term [see the relevant observation of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III, Part 1A, 1998].

102. At the same time, noting that the strike was declared illegal by an administrative authority, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the fact that "Responsibility for declaring the strike illegal should not lie with the government, but with an independent body which has the confidence of the parties involved" [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 522], particularly in the public sector.

103. Under these circumstances, the Committee deplores the mass dismissals that have taken place and urges the Government to take all necessary measures to reinstate in their posts the trade union leaders, members and workers who were dismissed for participating in a strike in 1993 at the undertaking known as Medellín Municipal Enterprises, and if this is not possible, to ensure that they receive full compensation. The Committee also requests the Government to take measures to ensure that in future, declarations on the legal status of strikes are made by an independent body and not by the administrative authority. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken in this regard.

104. Lastly, the Committee, like the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, requests the Government to take steps to amend those provisions of the Labour Code that prohibit strikes in a wide range of services which cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term (in particular sections 430 and 450).