Definitive Report - Report No 375, June 2015

Case No 2968 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 16-NOV-12 - Closed

Allegation: Detention of and bringing of charges against trade unionists in the construction sector

1. 619. The Committee examined this case at its June 2013 and October–November 2014 meetings and, on the latter occasion, presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 373rd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paras 531–546, approved by the Governing Body at its 322nd Session (November 2014)].
2. 620. The Government sent additional observations in a communication dated 20 February 2015.
3. 621. The Bolivarian Republic of 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 622. In its previous examination of the case, at its October–November 2014 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations on the issues that remained pending [see 373rd Report, para. 546]:
   • (a) Underlining that the allegations refer to serious issues related to the freedom of trade unionists, the Committee firmly expects that the Government will send without delay the information that it has received from the Office of the Attorney-General on the situation concerning the five trade unionists in the construction sector mentioned in the allegations who were first detained and then brought before the military judicial authorities and required as an interim measure to report every week to the tribunal.
   • (b) The Committee also invites the complainant organization to supply the names and union positions of the one hundred or so trade unionists who have reportedly faced criminal charges for having carried out union activities and, in the case that this is not possible, to indicate any eventual impediments to providing such information.
2. 623. With regard to recommendation (a), the complainant organization had stated that the alleged acts, involving the detention of, and bringing of charges against, trade unionists in the State of Táchira, occurred as from 13 August 2012, noting that the trade unionists in question were Hictler Torres, Luis Arturo González, José Martín Mora, Wilander Operaza and Ramiro Parada. According to the allegations, they were detained for having protested to demand the payment of their social benefits by the private enterprise Xocobeo CA, under contract with the Ministry of Housing and Environment for the construction of housing units in a military zone, Murachí Fort. According to the allegations, the crimes with which they were charged were: failure to respect a sentry and failure to respect the armed forces, sections 502 and 505 of the Basic Code of Military Justice; and violation of the security zone, established by section 56 of the Basic Act on the Security of the Nation [see 368th Report, para. 1000, and 373rd Report, para. 546].

B. The Government’s reply

1. 624. In its communication of 20 February 2015, the Government stated, with regard to recommendation (a) made by the Committee, that the Office of the Attorney-General has reported that there are no reports, nor do its records show, that any worker or executive of the private enterprise Xocobeo CA has been detained or that any of the individuals mentioned has been brought before “military judicial authorities”. The Government added that none of the 187 trade union organizations of construction workers that exist in the country have trade union officials or representatives registered by the names of Hictler Torres, Luis Arturo González, José Martín Mora, Wilander Operaza and Ramiro Parada.
2. 625. In the light of the foregoing and, in particular, given that none of the workers mentioned by the complainant organization are being prosecuted or detained, the Government requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of the allegations.
3. 626. With regard to the complainant’s allegations that more than one hundred workers have reportedly faced criminal charges for having exercised their trade union rights, the Government urges the Committee to decide, as it has done on other occasions, not to pursue the examination of this allegation in the absence of the specific information requested from the complainant.
4. 627. Lastly, the Government reiterates the comments that it presented during the previous examination of the case.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 628. With regard to recommendation (a) made during its previous examination of the case, the Committee takes due note of the statement by the Office of the Attorney-General, communicated by the Government, that the five workers mentioned by the complainant organizations are not being detained or prosecuted and have not been brought before a military tribunal. Under the circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of these allegations.
2. 629. With regard to recommendation (b), the Committee notes with regret that the complainant organization has ignored the Committee’s request that it supply the names of the one hundred or so trade unionists who have faced criminal charges for having carried out union activities. Consequently, the Committee will not pursue its examination of these allegations.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 630. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.