Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 218, November 1982

Case No 1141 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 23-JUN-82 - Closed

1. 330. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Single Trade Union of Workers in the Iron and Steel and Related Industries of the State of Bolivar (SUTISS-BOLIVAR) dated 23 June 1982. SUTISS-BOLIVAR sent additional information in a communication dated 2 September 1982. The Government replied in communications dated 8 September and 1 November 1982.
2. 331. Venezuela 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

1. 332. The complainant alleges that on 20 November 1981, at the request of the Orinoco Iron and Steel Corporation (SIDOR), the Federation of Workers in the Metallurgical, Mining, Engineering and Related Industries of Venezuela (FETRAMETAL) and the Federation of Workers of the State of Bolivar (FETRA-BOLIVAR) signed a series of agreements, lacking any legal basis, aimed at withdrawing recognition of the executive Committee of SUTISS-BOLIVAR by suspending the members of the executive from trade union duties and activities of the members of the board and by imposing a parallel executive which was to sign a collective agreement with the SIDOR enterprise, together with the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR.
2. 333. According to the complainant, the parallel executive, in pursuance of the provisions of the above-mentioned agreements, in November 1981 signed a collective agreement with SIDOR, the terms of which are inferior to those proposed by the legitimate executive for 11 months until in mid-October 1981 the discussion of the draft collective agreement came to a standstill owing to the refusal of the enterprise to grant the minimum acceptable conditions; this refusal led the general assembly of SUTISS-BOLIVAR to initiate the legal procedure leading up to the declaration of a strike.
3. 334. In addition, the complainant states that on 12 November 1981, before the above-mentioned agreements were signed, the executive of SUTISS-BOLIVAR, learning of the actions of SIDOR aimed fraudulently at dominating FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR, decided to withdraw from these federations and informed them of this the following day, as well as the enterprise and the labour inspectorate. The General Assembly of SUTISS-BOLIVAR, attended by 6,000 workers, unanimously ratified this decision on 17 November 1981.
4. 335. In support of its assertions concerning the interference of SIDOR to secure the signing of a collective agreement in conditions favourable to itself, the complainant encloses a letter dated 8 February 1982 signed by the President, the General Secretary and the Secretary for Collective Bargaining of FETRAMETAL, addressed to the members of the management of SIDOR, requesting approval of a contribution of 2 million bolivars as expenses incurred during the discussion and signing of the collective agreement concluded in November 1981.
5. 336. Lastly, the complainant alleges that Andrés Velásquez and Eleuterio Benitez, President and General Secretary respectively of SUTISS-BOLIVAR, were arbitrarily dismissed.

B. The Government's reply

1. 337. In its communication of 8 September 1982, the Government states that as a result of collective bargaining between the trade unions representing the workers, and the SIDOR enterprise for the purpose of signing a new labour agreement, some divergences arose between the executive Committee of SUTISS-BOLIVAR and the higher-level organisations to which it is affiliated, leading the latter to adopt measures to take over the said executive. These measures thus result from an inter-union dispute.
2. 338. The Government has sent the text of the agreements signed by FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR on 13 November 1981, published in the press on 20 November, suspending from trade union activities the members of the SUTISS-BOLIVAR executive and nominating a provisional executive for the trade union. The Government has also sent the text of the ruling of the National Disciplinary Tribunal of FETRAMETAL, confirming the above-mentioned penalties and deciding to expel the members of the executive Committee of SUTISS-BOLIVAR and to relieve them definitively of the executive responsibilities they held in accordance with sections 81(a), (c), (d), (h), (i) and single subparagraph and section 82(d) of the by-laws of FETRAMETAL.
3. 339. The ruling mentioned above is based on the fact that after the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) had ordered FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR to hold a consultation in the form of a referendum among the workers of SIDOR in order to decide whether to sign a collective agreement along the lines proposed by the CTV and these federations, or to continue the collective dispute which began when discussions on the draft collective agreement reached a standstill, and after the CTV had informed the executive of SUTISS-BOLIVAR of this, the latter rejected the consultation and publicly announced that it would boycott and sabotage it, ordering the workers to tear up their ballot papers and to abstain from voting. As the Tribunal's ruling states, the vote was nevertheless held on 11, 12 and 13 November 1981 with the result that, out of a total of 4,794 votes, there were 4,232 in favour of signing the collective agreement, 435 against and 127 invalid votes.
4. 340. The Government adds that it is not for it to decide on the validity or legitimacy of the executive Committee of SUTISS-BOLIVAR, as this is a matter for the legal bodies; it points out that SIDOR is a commercial enterprise, subject to the provisions of the Commercial Code, whose management acts independently of the executive authority, and that therefore the Government does not interfere in situations where the company must act in the capacity of an employer.
5. 341. Lastly, the Government has sent the text of the claim filed by members of the SUTISS-BOLIVAR executive with the court of the first instance, requesting that the suspension of the members of the executive of SUTISS-BOLIVAR be declared invalid, that the nomination of the executive appointed by FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR be declared unlawful, and that the collective agreement concluded between the SIDOR enterprise and the representatives of FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR, among others, be declared invalid. This claim contains the text of the letter of 8 January 1982 referred to by the complainant.
6. 342. Lastly, referring to the dismissal of Mr. Andrés Velásquez and Mr. Eleutério Benitez, the Government states that they have used the appeals procedure available in the labour legislation, in particular, the Act against unjustified dismissals.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 343. The Committee observes that the complainant has alleged that, as a result of acts of interference by the SIDOR enterprise with the SUTISS-BOLIVAR trade union through the FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR federations, the Latter agreed to the suspension from trade union duties and activities of the members of the executive Committee of SUTISS-BOLIVAR and to the imposing of a parallel executive; and that the SIDOR enterprise recognised this executive and, in November 1981, concluded a collective agreement with it on terms favourable to the enterprise. In support of these allegations, the complainant states that the executive of SUTISS-BOLIVAR decided to discontinue the trade union's membership of FETRAMETAL on 12 November 1981 and that this decision was upheld by the General Assembly on 17 November 1981, that is, before the agreement of 20 November 1981 in which FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR suspended the members of the executive of SUTISS-BOLIVAR. In addition, the complainant has supplied a letter dated 8 February 1982, signed by three leaders of FETRAMETAL and addressed to the management of the SIDOR enterprise, requesting approval of a contribution of 2 million bolivars as expenses incurred during the discussion and signing of the collective agreement concluded in November 1981.
2. 344. In this respect, the Committee observes that the Government has sent a copy of the agreement signed by FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR suspending the members of the executive of SUTISS-BOLIVAR and that the date of the agreement is not 20 November 1981 as the complainant states - this being the date on which it appeared in the press - but 13 November, so that, as the by-laws of FETRAMETAL require the approval of the General Assembly for a decision to disaffiliate, and as this approval was obtained on 17 November 1981, the complainant cannot use its disaffiliation as grounds for arguing that the agreement concluded between FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR is invalid, in order to prove the alleged interference of the enterprise in recognising the parallel executive and later negotiating a collective agreement. Furthermore, to judge from the documents sent by the complainant, the first item on the agenda drawn up at the extraordinary session of the General Assembly of SUTISS-BOLIVAR on 16 November 1982 is "intervention in the affairs of SUTISS-BOLIVAR". As for the letter of 8 February 1582 signed by three leaders of FETRAMETAL and addressed to the management of SIDOR, the Committee considers - without prejudice to what may be concluded by the Venezuelan legal authorities which will rule on the case, with greater possibilities of evidence - that it does not in itself prove that acts of interference were committed by SIDOR, firstly because this letter is not signed by the enterprise, but by FETRAMETAL trade union leaders, secondly because, although the letter contains a request for 2 million bolivars from the enterprise, which sum had been determined unofficially with the chairman of the board of management, they are requested as expenses incurred in negotiating and signing the agreement, without any indication of the date on which the sum was determined, and lastly because the same Letter mentions that similar sums have been paid to other trade unions for similar purposes and that this is a general practice.
3. 345. The Committee notes in addition that, according to the Government, the intervention measures against the executive of SUTISS-BOLIVAR adopted by FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR were the result of an inter-union dispute. The Committee notes further that the examination of the agreement between FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR and of the ruling of the National Disciplinary Tribunal of FETRAMETAL indicates that the intervention measures against the executive of SUTISS-BOLIVAR constitute a penalty imposed by the Committee on Infringements of Discipline for violation of the bylaws of FETRAMETAL and that the fundamental reasons for these measures was the rejection of and attempt to boycott and sabotage the consultation with SIDOR workers held by means of a referendum decided on by FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR, for the purpose of deciding whether to sign a collective agreement along the lines proposed by the CTV and these federations, or to continue the collective dispute resulting from SIDOR's refusal to accept the terms required by SUTISS-BOLIVAR in discussions of the draft collective agreement which had been going on for nearly one year.
4. 346. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the complainant has not proved that acts of interference in the affairs of SUTISS-BOLIVAR were committed by the SIDOR enterprise, and that the penalties against the executive Committee of SUTISS-BOLIVAR adopted by FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR appear to belong to a purely inter-trade union context. In this respect, the Committee must point out, as it has on previous occasions, that inter-union disputes are outside the scope of Convention No. 98, since Article 2 is designed to protect workers' organisations against employers' organisations or their agents or members and not against other workers' organisations or the agents or members thereof. Therefore, taking note of the fact that the Venezuelan legal authorities will rule on the validity of the penalties adopted by FETRAMETAL and FETRA-BOLIVAR against SUTISS-BOLIVAR and on that of the collective agreement concluded by the provisional executive nominated by these federations, the Committee considers that the allegations in question do not call for further examination.
5. 347. Lastly, as regards the allegation concerning the arbitrary dismissal of Andrés Velásquez and Eleuterio Benitez, President and General Secretary, respectively, of SUTISS-BOLIVAR, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, they have used the appeal procedures available under the legislation, in particular, under the Act against unjustified dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to send the text of the decision of the appeals authorities concerning these dismissals.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 348. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present report and in particular the following conclusions:
   • (a) as regards the allegations concerning acts of interference by the SIDOR enterprise in the affairs of the trade union SUTISS-BOLIVAR, the Committee considers that they do not call for further examination;
   • (b) as regards the allegation concerning the arbitrary dismissal of Andrés Velásquez and Eleuterio Benitez, the President and General Secretary, respectively, of SUTISS-BOLIVAR, the Committee notes that they have used the appeal procedures available under the legislation and requests the Government to send the text of the decision of the appeals authorities concerning these dismissals.