Display in: French - Spanish
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
- 102. In its previous examination of the case at its November 2010 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 358th Report, paras 701 and 723]:
- (a) Regarding the alleged anti-union dismissal of union leaders Mr Cubilla, Mr Adamson and Mr Aguilar, the Committee recalls that, in its previous examination of the case, it observed that according to the allegations the judicial authority did not accede to the company’s request for a suspension of their trade union immunity, and that the Committee therefore requested the Government to ensure that they had been able to return to their posts of work. Noting the Government’s assertion that the situation has changed inasmuch as the demonstration was an act of violence and not a peaceful protest, the Committee requests it to inform it without delay of the current status of the workers involved and, specifically, whether they are still covered by their trade union immunity. The Committee also requests the Government to inform it whether any proceedings have been initiated in connection with what the Government describes as an act of violence against the installations of Union International Network G4SW.
- (b) Regarding the alleged dismissal (as part of a corporate restructuring) of dozens of other workers said to have been involved in the October 2006 protest march, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information as to whether the trade unions concerned or the union members themselves have initiated any further court action, and it can therefore not determine whether or not all the remaining dismissals were considered to have been justified. The Committee requests the Government to provide it without delay with information on the subject, together with copies of the court decisions handed down.
- (c) Regarding the company’s alleged failure to pass on union dues to the union or to comply with the laws and regulations on the subject, the Committee requests the Government to inform it whether the company has deducted any union dues that have not been credited to the trade union concerned and, if so, to ensure that this is done without delay.
- (d) Regarding the alleged violent attack on trade unionists and the theft of their belongings by individuals who had received orders from the management to remove them from the premises, where they were exercising their right to protest against the company, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to indicate whether there has been any investigation into the matter or if the victims have lodged any judicial appeals and to keep it informed of developments.
- (e) Regarding the alleged financial support provided by the company for setting up a new trade union, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it is unaware of any such occurrence and its reliance on the country’s laws and regulations. The Committee requests the Government to order an inquiry into the allegations and to keep it informed accordingly.
- (f) Regarding the other allegations – threatened civil or criminal sanctions against trade unionists who took part in the demonstrations, certification (recognition) of trade union elections involving a very small group of dissidents from the union and the union’s request for collective negotiations (the list of demands that had been settled by an agreement concluded in September 2006 was resubmitted in October 2006) – the Committee regrets to note that the Government has not provided any information on the subject. The Committee requests the Government to institute an inquiry without delay into the alleged threats of civil and criminal sanctions against trade unionists who took part in the demonstrations and to keep it informed of developments. It requests further that the Government send its observations without delay on the alleged certification (recognition) of trade union elections involving a very small group of dissidents from the union and that it indicates whether the executive committee elected on that occasion has ousted the committee that filed the case under examination; it invites the Government to provide information on any steps taken since November 2006 to follow up the union’s request for collective negotiations.
- 103. In its communication dated 18 May 2010, the Government states the following:
- – with regard to (a), concerning the alleged anti-union dismissal of union leaders Mr Cubilla, Mr Adamson and Mr Aguilar, these persons were not dismissed; instead, each trade union official signed an agreement with the company to terminate the employment relationship by mutual consent (in which they agreed on respective severance pay, and agreed to formally drop any claims, complaints, or legal proceedings against the company, with the company agreeing to do the same vis-à-vis the workers);
- – with regard to (b), concerning the alleged dismissal by the company Union International Network G4SW of trade unionists who were said to have been involved in the October 2006 protest march, these workers cannot claim unfair dismissal, given that the Higher Labour Court of the First Judicial District of Panama has ruled that the strike held by the National Union of Security Agency Employees (Unión Nacional de Trabajadores de Agencias de Seguridad – UNTAS) was illegal;
- – with regard to (c), concerning the alleged failure of Union International Network G4SW to pass on union dues to the union, the company indicates that all union dues have been paid and that no money owed to the trade union has been withheld; Union International Network G4SW (which later changed its name to GS4 SA) also signed a collective agreement with UNTAS on 8 October 2009, valid for four years from that date;
- – with regard to (d), concerning the alleged violent attack and theft of the belongings of trade unionists exercising their right to protest against Union International Network G4SW (which later changed its name to GS4 SA) – as mentioned above, mutual agreements were signed with the trade union members, stipulating that they would drop any claims, complaints or legal proceedings which had been lodged previously;
- – with regard to (e), concerning alleged financial support provided by Union International Network G4SW to set up a new trade union, the Community Organizations Directorate is not aware of any parallel trade union existing within the company, with UNTAS being the only affiliated trade union entity;
- – with regard to (f), concerning other allegations of threatened civil or criminal sanctions against trade unionists who took part in the demonstrations, certification (recognition) of trade union elections involving a very small group of dissidents from the union and the union’s request for collective negotiations (the list of demands that had been settled by an agreement concluded in September 2006 was resubmitted in October 2006), the Government indicates that the Higher Labour Court ruled in favour of the company in its ruling that the UNTAS strike was illegal; the company has also signed agreements with UNTAS trade union officials, in which the parties agree to end the employment relationship by mutual consent, and has issued the respective severance payments and formally dropped any claims, complaints or legal action vis-à-vis the workers; moreover, having attempted to negotiate a collective agreement with Union International Network G4SW in 2006, UNTAS finally signed a collective agreement with the company – now known as GS4 SA – on 8 October 2009, and valid for four years from that date.
- 104. The Committee takes note of this information, and particularly the fact that the parties to the conflict have signed a new collective agreement.
