Informe provisional - Informe núm. 320, Marzo 2000

1. 735. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 16 June 1999 from the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF). That organization sent additional information in a communication dated 6 July 1999. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 2 November 1999.
2. 736. Nicaragua 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. 737. In its communications of 16 June and 6 July 1999, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) alleges that in October 1998 the members of the executive committee of the Fransisco Prado Blanco trade union representing workers at the Alfonso y Angelina banana plantation were dismissed. The IUF adds that the General Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour, following a long inquiry, issued a ruling on 6 January 1999 ordering the reinstatement of the executive committee members in their posts until a definitive ruling on the matter could be given. Despite this, the plantation owner came to an arrangement with the local inspector and has ignored the ruling.
2. 738. The IUF also alleges that the members of the executive committee of the trade union at the El Relámpago plantation, which has the same owner as the Alfonso y Angelina plantation, were dismissed in October 1998 and have not been reinstated. This has deprived workers on the plantation of a trade union.
3. 739. The IUF also alleges that at the beginning of May 1999, without any good reason and in an arbitrary manner, the employment contracts of Mr. Manuel Jesús Canales Morales and Mr. Bayardo Munguía Fuentes, officials of the Héroes y Mártires de Septiembre trade union representing workers at the Emma banana plantation, were terminated. In a ruling dated 30 June 1999, the Chinandega District Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour overruled the dismissals and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the workers concerned and payment of any back pay owed to them. Despite this, the plantation manager ignored the ruling when the two officials reported to their place of work on 2 July 1999. The IUF claims that a charge against the officials was fabricated and unsubstantiated and that the fundamental reason for their dismissal was their position as trade union officials. The IUF supplies a copy of a communication dated 26 May 1999 from the plantation director to the District Labour Inspector requesting the dismissal of the officials and accusing them of theft and abuse of trust. It also supplies a copy of the Inspector's ruling of 30 June 1999 refusing permission for the dismissals.

B. The Government's reply

1. 740. In its communication of 2 November 1999, the Government supplies a copy of the rulings of the General Labour Inspectorate and of certain judicial proceedings relating to the allegations. As regards the alleged dismissal of seven executive committee members of the Fransisco José Prado Blanco trade union at the Alfonso y Angelina plantation, a ruling of 3 February 1999, which was upheld on appeal on 12 February 1999, authorized the dismissals on the grounds that there were good reasons for them. According to the ruling, it had been established that the workers interrupted their work on 28, 29 and 30 September 1998 and incited other workers to stop work. Also according to the ruling, the dismissed workers agreed that they had used work time to put forward demands without obtaining permission from management to interrupt work, and the plantation had incurred losses.
2. 741. As regards the alleged dismissals of the members of the executive committee of the El Relámpago plantation, the Government indicates that in a ruling dated 11 June 1998 the Chinandega District Labour Inspectorate refused permission to dismiss trade union official Juan Osabas Bareta on the basis that there were no grounds for doing so.
3. 742. As regards the dismissal of the trade union officials at the Emma banana plantation (Mr. Bayardo Munguía Fuentes and Mr. Manuel Jesús Canales), the Government states that a ruling of the Chinandega District Labour Inspectorate on 30 June 1999, which was upheld on appeal by a ruling of the General Labour Inspectorate on 27 July 1999, refused permission for such dismissals on the basis that there were no grounds for doing so (the courts have still not proven the charge of theft and abuse of trust on the part of the union officials, or that the latter caused financial loss to the plantation). The matter was subsequently brought before the courts (the Government supplies a copy of the judicial proceedings that have taken place so far) because the officials were not reinstated by the company and did not receive the back pay owed to them.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 743. The Committee notes that in the present complaint the complainant alleges dismissals of trade union officials at the Alfonso y Angelina, El Relámpago and Emma banana plantations.
2. 744. The Committee notes that according to the Government (which has supplied copies of Labour Inspectorate rulings), the seven trade union officials dismissed at the Alfonso y Angelina plantation used work time to put forward demands, interrupting work without permission and inciting other workers to stop work. The Committee also notes that the Labour Inspectorate refused permission to dismiss trade union official Juan Osabas Bareta of the El Relámpago plantation for want of adequate reasons. In this regard the Committee notes that the complainant referred not to one dismissal only but to the dismissal of all the members of the executive committee of the trade union at the El Relámpago plantation. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to ensure the reinstatement of trade union leader Juan Osabas Bareta and to send its observations on the alleged dismissals of the other members of the executive committee. As regards the dismissal of Mr. Bayardo Munguía Fuentes and Mr. Manuel de Jesús Canales (at the Emma plantation), the Committee notes that the Labour Inspectorate rulings refused permission for such dismissals on the basis that there were no grounds for dismissal. The Committee notes that this matter has been brought before the courts by the union officials in question because the plantation refuses to reinstate them and pay the back wages owed to them, and requests the Government to inform it of any ruling given on the matter. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the enterprises concerned reinstate without delay the workers for whom the labour inspectorate had ordered reinstatement and payment of the wages owed.
3. 745. In general terms, the Committee draws attention to the principle according to which "(n)o person should be dismissed or prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th (revised) edition, 1996, para. 748). Given that in the present complaint it has been established that administrative rulings for the reinstatement of trade union officials in their posts on the Emma plantation have been ignored, the Committee emphasizes that "(t)he basic regulations that exist in the national legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination are inadequate when they are not accompanied by procedures to ensure that effective protection against such acts is guaranteed" (see Digest, op. cit., para. 739).