Definitive Report - Report No 75, 1964

Case No 347 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 13-JUN-63 - Closed

1. 24. By a communication dated 13 June 1963, addressed directly to the I.L.O, the Printing Workers' Union of Zulia presented a complaint of alleged infringement of freedom of association against the Government of Venezuela. The complainants were informed, by a letter dated 10 July 1963, of their right to furnish further information in substantiation of their complaint within a period of one month ; but they did not avail themselves of this right. The complaint was transmitted to the Government, for its observations, by a letter also dated 10 July 1963 ; the Government forwarded its observations on 29 October 1963.
2. 25. At its 35th Session (Geneva, 4 and 5 November 1963) the Committee decided to defer examination of the case until the present session because the Government's observations had been received too late to be examined in November.
3. 26. Venezuela 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 27. In its communication, the complaining organisation states that officials in the service of the government political party promote fragmentation by threatening to dismiss employees of the Government Printing Office unless they renounce their membership of the Union. It alleges that an attempt is being made to found a parallel organisation and that the acts denounced amount to introducing party politics into the trade union movement.
2. 28. In its reply the Government rejects the complaint, stating that Venezuela has a democratic régime and that the conditions attached to establishing a trade union are defined in statutory provisions. It adds that the complainant union is dominated by extremist elements, that despite this there has been no political interference with it, and that no parallel trade union organisation has been established nor is any such action intended.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 29. The Committee observes that the complainants have made allegations in very general terms and that no particular person is mentioned, no date is given to the alleged events and all significant details such as might give the accusations point are omitted, so that no sufficient evidence has been adduced to support the complaint.
2. 30. Accordingly, the Committee, while it has always attached the greatest importance to the principle enunciated in the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), that " workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment ", considers that in the present case the complainants have not produced sufficient evidence to permit of an examination of the case on its merits.

31. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.