Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 327, March 2002

Case No 1952 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 05-FEB-98 - Closed

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

1. 121. In its last examination of this case in November 2000, the Committee noted that the Government had not sent any information relating to the matter of the effective payment of the wage arrears of the firefighters (officers and members of SINPROBOM of the Eastern Fire Brigade) corresponding to the period during which they were dismissed and requested the Government to provide information in this respect [see 323rd Report, para. 101]. These persons had been reinstated in their jobs.
2. 122. In its communications dated 16 and 28 August and 26 September 2001, SINPROBOM alleges that the Government attempted to adopt a decree with the scope and force of law on the exercise of the function of firefighters’ brigades (a copy of the draft was transmitted with their communications). This decree aims at eliminating trade union rights by linking this brigade with the defence and security of the nation and provides for the dissolution of firefighters’ trade unions within 180 days. Moreover, the complainant alleges that an anti-union campaign has begun with a view towards restricting the rights of the firefighters of the Eastern Fire Brigade, the Fire Brigade of Guacara, San Joaquín and Mariara, and the Municipal Autonomous Fire Brigade Institute of Valencia to join the workers’ organization of their own choosing. The complainant further alleges the dismissal of a member of the executive committee of the Fire Brigade Union of Valencia (Emerson Ochoa) brigade in which the employer opposes collective bargaining and in which regular transfers of union officers occur with anti-union motives. The complainant also alleges that the state of Yaracuy maintains a campaign of hostility and disparagement in respect of the Fire Brigade Foundation of this state and, by means of a new law of 22 December 2001, has excluded firefighters from the right to organize and to bargain collectively.
3. 123. In its communication of 15 October 2001, in reply to the Committee’s request for information, the Government refers to steps taken for the rehiring of Tomas Arencebia, Juan Bautista Medina, Rubén Gutiérrez, Ignacio Díaz and Plácido Gutiérrez, unjustifiably dismissed from the Eastern Fire Brigade, while they were protected by trade union immunity and should have been untransferrable. The Government also refers to the employer’s request to annul the administrative order for reinstatement and payment of loss of wages, as well as the summons given on 14 and 20 August 1997 by the local prefecture, under warning of imprisonment. On these specifics, the Government indicates that the new Venezuelan Constitution provides a new basic labour standard process, with the aim of confirming the reinstatement orders. The Government adds that the Supreme Court rendered a judgement on 2 August 2001 according to which the administrative courts will be responsible for reviewing the abovementioned causes as well as the recourse for judicial protection (amparo) in the case of non-compliance with the reinstatement order, all with the aim of ensuring that the administrative decision for reinstatement does not become illusory. The Government indicates that it will give the necessary follow-up to these matters and keep the Committee informed.
4. 124. As concerns the collective rights of the fire-fighting personnel of the Eastern Fire Brigade, the Government indicates that, on 16 and 28 August 2001, SINPROBOM denounced some government conduct which it considered to be in the context of measures of anti-union discrimination (they refer to the mayors’ offices which cover the communities of Eastern Caracas: Chacao, Baruta and Sucre), as well as artificial situations in respect of the supposed deficit which hinders a concession on the benefits requested in the draft collective agreement and attacks from the mayors’ offices aimed at weakening trade union association. The Government underlines, on the other hand, that the complainant recognizes the good offices of the Minister of Labour and the Public Defender, while the eastern labour inspectorate recognized trade union rights, protection against anti-union discrimination and collective bargaining.
5. 125. The Government considers the complainant’s request to the Committee to condemn the State for violation of Convention No. 87 out of context and disproportionate, given that the State itself, through the Minister of Labour, is trying to ensure that the collective rights violated in this case may be fully exercised.
6. 126. Finally, as concerns the draft decrees with force of law, the Government states that, by means of a highly responsible examination of the concrete national reality, a series of measures and drafts have been put in place aimed at raising the concept of citizen security, the living standard of the population and the protection of the national interest, without forgetting collective labour rights and even envisaging their improvement. In this respect, the Government will ensure that these texts are drafted with special attention to these rights. It reiterates its firm intention to count on the Committee’s collaboration and assistance in the aspects concerning freedom of association and their appropriate application.
7. 127. The Committee deplores the fact that, according to the Government’s indication, the officers and members of SINPROBOM have not yet obtained the lost wages corresponding to the period when they were dismissed (since 1997). The Committee notes with concern that the employer has appealed against the reinstatement of the trade union officers and the payment of their wages. The Committee insists that the Government ensure that these wages are paid and that the employment relationship of these officers and members affiliated to SINPROBOM continues. It requests the Government to keep it informed of all court judgements in this respect.
8. 128. The Committee notes the Government’s statement concerning the draft decrees on the exercise of the function of firefighters’ brigades and, more specifically, that it will ensure that the drafts are drawn up in a manner not to restrict freedom of association. The Committee would nevertheless point out with deep concern that the draft transmitted by the complainant provides for the dissolution of the firefighters’ trade union and the creation of an association controlled by the employers’ representatives. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls its previous recommendation requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee in law and in practice the right of firefighters to organize and to bargain collectively [see 310th Report, Case No. 1952, para. 608]. The Committee urges the Government to keep it informed of the evolution of the situation.
9. 129. The Committee further requests the Government to reply in detail to the following allegations:
   • (a) the anti-union campaign to hinder the right of the firefighters of the Eastern Fire Brigade, the Fire Brigade of Guacara, San Joaquín and Mariara, and the Municipal Autonomous Fire Brigade Institute of Valencia to join the workers’ organization of their own free choice;
   • (b) the dismissal of a member of the executive committee of the union of the Fire Brigade of Valencia (Emerson Ochoa) and the regular transfer of trade union leaders for anti-union motives; and
   • (c) the campaign of harassment and disparagement in respect of the Fire Brigade of Yaracuy and the promulgation of the Act of December 2001 which excludes firefighters from the right to organize and to bargain collectively.