Informe provisional - Informe núm. 374, Marzo 2015

1. 372. The complaints relating to the present case are contained in communications by the Latin American Federation of Education and Culture Workers (FLATEC), dated 15 May 2013; Education International (EI) and the Federation of Teachers’ Organizations of Honduras (FOMH), dated 24 June 2013. In a communication dated 23 January 2015, the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH) and other national organizations have submitted new allegations. Education International for Latin America (IEAL) has supported this communication in a letter dated 29 January 2015.
2. 373. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 24 September 2013 and 21 May 2014.
3. 374. Honduras 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 complainants’ allegations

1. 375. The complaints form part of a long dispute between teachers’ union organizations and the Government, originating with the suspension of the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute and the delay in the payment of salaries in arrears, and giving rise to protest movements and strikes, during the period from 2010 to 2013.
2. 376. In a communication dated 15 May 2013, FLATEC alleges that the economic regime contained in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute has been suspended, that the salary increases from 2010 to 2013 for teachers are in arrears, that the police forces have suppressed protests by teachers, and that the protest movements have been declared illegal; similarly, according to the allegations, more than 600 teachers have been sanctioned for participating in a protest movement, deductions of union dues for teachers’ organizations have been suspended, and requests for renewal of paid trade union leave for members of the Trade Union of Honduran Teachers (SINPRODOH) have been refused. In a communication dated 24 June 2013, EI and the FOMH denounce the death of a union activist, the legal proceedings instituted against 24 teachers for the crimes of sedition and unlawful association, the exclusion of teachers’ organizations from the higher authority of the administration of the National Social Welfare Institute for Teachers (INPREMA), sanctions for the exercise of the right to strike, and the refusal of requests for renewal of paid union leave for members of the First Honduran Union Association of Teachers (PRICPHMA), the Honduran Union Association of Teachers’ Outreach (COLPROSUMAH) and the Professional Association of School Teachers of Honduras (COPRUMH).
3. 377. EI and the FOMH denounce the death of Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez, a teacher affiliated to the COLPROSUMAH, which occurred on 18 March 2011, when she was participating in a peaceful demonstration called by teachers’ organizations of Honduras against the new INPREMA Act. To date, no one has been convicted as a result of Ms Velásquez Rodríguez’s death.
4. 378. EI and the FOMH denounce the legal proceedings instituted against 24 teachers for the crimes of sedition and unlawful association, after the teachers were arrested during a peaceful demonstration called by organizations affiliated to union federations. Various teachers were detained in the COLPROSUMAH vehicle, just as they were planning to move to the Supreme Court of Justice, as part of the demonstration, to submit an action for constitutional protection (amparo) against the INPREMA Act. Those detained and then charged include Mr José Martin Suazo Sandoval, a member of the COLPROSUMAH executive board; Mr José Francisco Zelaya, Mr Walter Urbina Mencia, Mr Dennis Núñez Bojórquez, Mr Andrés Adalid Romero, Mr Donaldo Molina, Mr José Erasmo Chinchilla, Mr José Rolando Servellón, Mr Marco Antonio Melgar, Mr Edgar Cobos Gutiérrez, Mr Leavin Amaya, Mr José Alex Martínez, Mr Elvis Rolando Guillén, Ms Wendy Yamileth Méndez Ocampo, Ms María Auxiliadora Mendoza, Ms Linda Melina Guillén, Ms Ingrid Lizeth Sierra Méndez and Ms Nuria Evelyn Verduzco Avendaño, all of whom are members of the COLPROSUMAH.
5. 379. EI and the FOMH explain that Decree No. 247-2011 of 14 December 2011, which contains the INPREMA Act, excluded teachers’ organizations from the INPREMA board of specialists (higher authority of the administration).
6. 380. The complainant organizations explain that the Act on Fiscal and Financial Emergencies, contained in Decree-Law No. 18-2010, of 28 March 2010, declared the country to be in a state of fiscal emergency. Furthermore, the economic regime of the Honduran Teachers’ Statute was suspended by means of Decree-Law No. 224-2010, dated 28 October 2010. EI and the FOMH emphasize that the latter Decree-Law orders the de-indexation of the minimum salary, as a result of which the minimum salary cannot henceforth be used as a reference for an automatic increase in salaries. On 5 May 2012, the SINPRODOH lodged an administrative appeal with the State Secretariat of the Education Department, representing 54,000 teachers, prior to legal action for violation of the Honduran Teachers’ Statute, demanding payment of the salary increases for the years in arrears.
7. 381. The complainant organizations allege that the State Secretariat of the Labour and Social Security Departments decided to declare the protest movements illegal and threaten to sanction the teachers by means of dismissal. More than 300 teachers were sanctioned in the form of suspension without pay for a period of six months. Through the State Secretariat of the Education Department, the Government issued Executive Decision No. 15575-SE-2012, of 18 October 2012, which sanctioned hundreds of teachers who participated in the protest movement by means of a deduction in their wages and dismissal from their posts. EI and the FOMH allege that the sanction was published before the sanctioned teachers had the opportunity to be heard in court. On 18 October 2012, the SINPRODOH brought an action for constitutional protection (amparo) in the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice against Executive Decision No. 15575-SE-2012. The Chamber declared the appeal to be receivable and ordered that it should be heard by an ordinary court; the action was brought before the Civil Court of Administrative Disputes for annulment of the administrative act. The action was received and the legal proceedings are under way.
8. 382. The complainant organizations denounce the fact that the Government ordered the suspension of deductions in union dues for teachers’ organizations, in Executive Decision No. 15907-SE-2012, of 19 December 2012. EI and the FOMH state that the first suspension period began in March 2011 and ended in March 2012; the second suspension period began in January 2013 and continues to date. On 29 December 2012, the SINPRODOH brought an action for constitutional protection (amparo) in the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice against the executive decision in question. The Chamber declared the appeal to be receivable and ordered that it should be heard by an ordinary court; the action was brought before the Civil Court of Administrative Disputes for annulment of the administrative act. The action is in the process of being received.
9. 383. In addition, EI and the FOMH denounce the adoption of Executive Decision No. 15096 SE 2012, of 30 July 2012, which provides for the extension of the school year in the case of stoppages or class suspensions. The State Secretariat of the Education Department sends inspectors to each assembly lawfully convened by the organizations, so that they may produce a record of proceedings. The records are used to impose salary deductions or to suspend teachers.
10. 384. The complainant organizations denounce the refusal of the requests for renewal of paid leave:
    • (a) FLATEC states that the State Secretariat of the Education Department ordered, in circular letter No. 0019-SE-2013, of 7 February 2013, that the paid leave of Mr Bertín Alfaro Bonilla, Mr Santos Blas Oviedo Rivas and Mr Gaeri Jonathan Duarte, SINPRODOH officials, not be renewed, following the submission of the request on 22 January 2013 to the Trujillo district education department and regional education departments of El Paraíso and Yoro. Moreover, the State Secretariat of the Education Department ordered that these persons report to work and cease their union administrative duties. On 11 February 2013, the SINPRODOH challenged the letter before the State Secretariat of the Education Department; to date no decision has been taken on the matter. Subsequently, the State Secretariat of the Education Department ordered the recording of acts of abandonment of their posts by Mr Bertín Alfaro Bonilla, Mr Santos Blas Oviedo Rivas and Mr Gaeri Jonathan Duarte, for failing to give classes on 18, 19 and 20 February 2013. Those acts were challenged by the SINPRODOH, under a previous decision of the State Secretariat of the Labour and Social Security Departments, as those officials, having been elected for the period 2011–14, did not have to report for duty until February 2015. Mr Gaeri Jonathan Duarte was summoned to a dismissal hearing on 2 April 2013, and FLATEC states that the State Secretariat of the Education Department had ordered that he be dismissed. Mr Bertín Alfaro Bonilla was summoned to a dismissal hearing on 25 April 2013, and FLATEC states that the State Secretariat of the Education Department had already announced his dismissal. The acts of abandonment recorded against Mr Bertín Alfaro Bonilla were challenged in the district education department of El Negrito, Yoro.
    • (b) EI and the FOMH add that paid union leave was also denied to Mr Armando Gómez Torres, President of PRICPHMA; Mr Orlando Mejía Velásquez, Secretary-General of PRICPHMA; Mr Cesar Augusto Ramos, Secretary for Legal Affairs of PRICPHMA; Mr Jury Hernández Troches, Secretary for the Environment of PRICPHMA; Mr Rufino Murillo, Secretary for Internal Affairs of PRICPHMA; Mr Walter Edgardo Rivera, Secretary for Advertising of PRICPHMA; Mr Elder Zavala, Secretary for Pedagogical Affairs of PRICPHMA; Mr Grebil Escobar del Cid, Secretary for Finance of PRICPHMA; Mr Edwin Emilio Oliva, President of COLPROSUMAH; Mr Martin Suazo Sandoval, Secretary for Advertising of COLPROSUMAH; Mr Edgardo Antonio Casaña, President of COPRUMH; Mr Otto Omar Cayetano, Vice-President of COPRUMH; Mr Oscar Geovanny Alemán, Secretary for Finance of COPRUMH; Mr Carlos Hernán Izaguirre, Legal Adviser of COPRUMH; and Ms Denia Esmeralda Galindo, Secretary for Disputes of COPRUMH. On 10 April 2013, Mr Armando Gómez Torres, President of PRICPHMA; Mr Orlando Mejía Velásquez, Secretary-General of PRICPHMA; Mr Cesar Augusto Ramos, Secretary for Legal Affairs of PRICPHMA; Mr Jury Hernández Troches, Secretary for the Environment of PRICPHMA; Mr Rufino Murillo, Secretary for Internal Affairs of PRICPHMA; Mr Walter Edgardo Rivera, Secretary for Advertising of PRICPHMA; Mr Elder Zavala, Secretary for Pedagogical Affairs of PRICPHMA; and Mr Grebil Escobar del Cid, Secretary for Finance of PRICPHMA were dismissed. On 18 April 2013, Mr Edwin Emilio Oliva, President of COLPROSUMAH; Mr Bertín Alfaro Bonilla, President of SINPRODOH; and Mr Gaeri Jonathan Duarte of SINPRODOH were dismissed.
11. 385. FLATEC denounces the fact that the Government is in arrears for the payment to teachers of salary increases for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. As a result, teachers’ representatives instigated union action by means of protests and other movements; those protest actions were suppressed by the police forces.
12. 386. EI and the FOMH denounce the unilateral suspension, by the Secretary of State of the Education Department, of the Teacher Selection and Competitive Recruitment Boards, which hinders the mobility of workers.
13. 387. FLATEC states that, in circular-letter No. 0029-SE-2013, the State Secretariat of the Education Department gave the SINPRODOH five working days to submit a report on the amounts, use and handling of the funds received as a result of the deductions transferred. On 8 March 2013, the SINPRODOH challenged the letter in question before the State Secretariat of the Education Department; to date, the matter has not been resolved.
14. 388. Furthermore, FLATEC denounces the fact that the Higher Court of Auditors notified Mr Bertín Alfaro Bonilla, Mr Lorenzo Sánchez Rivas, Mr José Armando Villela Paisano and Mr Leonel Eraldo Amara Sorto, SINPRODOH officials, of civil liability claims for 49,070,777.79 Honduran lempiras (HNL). That compensation is the result of the alleged signing of a negotiation agreement, resetting the levels of pensions for retired teachers affiliated to the SINPRODOH, with the Government. The SINPRODOH challenged the civil liability claims against Mr Bertín Alfaro Bonilla and Mr Lorenzo Sánchez Rivas; to date, the matter has not been resolved. Mr José Armando Villela Paisano and Mr Leonel Eraldo Amara Sorto are awaiting notification.
15. 389. In addition, EI and the FOMH denounce the workplace harassment faced by Mr Franklin Padilla of the Association of Secondary Teachers of Honduras (COPEMH), and Mr Oscar Recarte, Secretary for Pedagogical Affairs and President of COPEMH, respectively.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 390. In its communication of 24 September 2013, the Government states that its actions are not directed against the SINPRODOH. Furthermore, in its communication of 21 May 2014, the Government emphasizes that the State ensures that teachers’ labour rights are observed and demands that teachers discharge their duties, particularly those relating to the right to education for children and young people.
2. 391. As regards the death of Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez, the Government states that her death was caused by a young, reckless driver, who hit her while driving against the flow of traffic. A forensic report of the Public Prosecutor’s Office concluded that Ms Velásquez Rodríguez died from a blow caused by the impact of her falling onto the roadway. It excludes the possibility that, prior to Ms Velásquez Rodríguez’s fall, she had been hit by an object designed for use by the military or police.
3. 392. As for the detention of 24 teachers for the crimes of sedition and unlawful association, the Government explains that they were arrested for assaulting several police officers with mortar rockets. The teachers attempted to flee, but they were stopped by a police patrol. In the car that the teachers were driving, mortar, gasoline and tyres were found, among other things. The Government adds that according to a legal source the mortars that were found were highly explosive, able to cause blindness, deafness, bodily harm and even death. The Government considers that the teachers were treated in the same way as any citizen who would have committed such crimes would have been treated and that due process was respected at all times. To date, no teacher has been convicted of the aforementioned crimes.
4. 393. Regarding the exclusion of teachers’ organizations from the INPREMA board of specialists, following the reforms contained in Decree No. 247-2011 of 14 December 2011, which contains the INPREMA Act, the Government explains that the reforms were based on actuarial studies carried out by the National Commission of Banks and Securities (CNBS), and that they were disseminated among the teachers’ unions in 2010. The Government explains that the measures taken guarantee the effective development of INPREMA as an autonomous entity.
5. 394. As for the suspension of the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute, the Government explains that the Act on Fiscal and Financial Emergencies, contained in Decree-Law No. 18-2010, of 28 March 2010, declared that the country was in a state of fiscal emergency, so as to tackle in a comprehensive and responsible manner the fiscal and financial crisis which the public finances were undergoing, and in order to re establish a balance and reactivate sustainable economic growth, through the adoption of extraordinary fiscal and financial measures. The provisions of the Act on Fiscal and Financial Emergencies are to be strictly applied by the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, with their respective dependent institutions and bodies, at the national level. Furthermore, Decree-Law No. 224-2010, of 28 October 2010, suspends, as long as it is in force, the economic regimes established in the different professional statutes. Those economic regimes are fiscal measures that were taken on the basis of the minimum salary increases agreed between employers and workers, or fixed by the President of the Republic, as appropriate; they have served as a reference for the automatic and direct increase in salaries envisaged for public servants protected by special laws or rules, to the detriment of the budgets of centralized and decentralized state institutions, since the activities undertaken are not based on the spirit and rationale which inspire the meaning and scope of the Act on Minimum Salaries, and because they have a strong impact on the public finances of the State of Honduras, which relies on an annual income and expenditure budget. During the process of setting the minimum wage for 2010, the National Minimum Wage Commission considered that the economic impact of the automatic increase in wages under those economic regimes was financially unsustainable for the State, which was why it suggested adopting measures to separate the economic regimes from agreements related to the setting of the minimum wage.
6. 395. As regards the administrative appeal lodged by the SINPRODOH, representing around 54,000 teachers, which requested the back payment of salaries with their respective collateral benefits, and a bonus for the commercial interest generated by the sums of money in arrears, the Government states that the administrative appeal in question was declared receivable by the State Secretariat of the Education Department, in a ruling dated 17 August 2012. The case was transferred thereby to the subdepartment of human resources in charge of the teaching profession and the administrative office of the State Secretariat so that they could report as to whether the teachers in question were owed the payment they demanded, pursuant to article 72 of the Administrative Procedure Act. In a ruling of 12 March 2013, the reports of the offices in question were received and, for the sake of clarity, the case was submitted to the State Secretariat of the Finance Department so that it could issue a decision determining whether the payment in the form of salary increases corresponded to the respective collateral, backdated to 2010–12, bearing in mind that salary increases are the prerogative of the executive authority, according to the State’s economic capacity. The Under-Secretariat for Finance and Budget reported, in letter No. 166 DGP AE, dated 13 June 2013, that the appeal lodged by the SINPRODOH members could not, and should not, be accepted, as the country’s financial situation did not allow for further and greater commitments beyond those contained in the National General Income and Expenditure Budget. A decision to that effect was taken on 18 June 2013, by the Under-Secretariat for Finance and Budget, and the case was passed on to the Legal Services Unit of the State Secretariat of the Education Department for legal advice prior to the final decision. Once the trial period requested on 18 July 2013 by the legal representative of the SINPRODOH had elapsed, without the period having been used by the party concerned, an order was issued as per the provisions of the ruling of 18 June 2013 (legal advice and decision).
7. 396. Concerning the declaration of the protest movements as illegal and the sanctions imposed under Executive Decision No. 15575-SE-2012, of 18 October 2012, the Government explains that the State Secretariat of the Labour and Social Security Departments declared the strikes and protests launched by the teachers’ representatives in the past two years to be illegal. The administrative procedure, provided for in national legislation for the application of the corresponding sanctions, was then launched. A state of emergency in the national public education system was declared at all levels, excluding the higher level, by Executive Decree No. PCM-016-2011, of 18 March 2011. On the basis of section 571 of the Labour Code, paragraph one of which states: “where a work suspension has been declared illegal, the employer shall be free to dismiss on such grounds those persons who have intervened or participated in the suspension …”, the State Secretariat of the Education Department issued Executive Decision No. 15575-SE-2012, of 18 October 2012, by which it was agreed to deduct from their monthly salary the days not worked by those teachers if, according to the acts recorded, it is established that they did not report for duty on 22, 30 and 31 August, and that the number of days of absence does not exceed two. In addition, in those cases where the teacher has failed to report for work, without good cause, for two whole and consecutive days or three working days in a month, that is the dates indicated above, the employment contract with the State Secretariat of the Education Department shall be deemed terminated, with no liability on the part of the above institution, pursuant to all the above sanctions, failures and dismissals.
8. 397. As regards the allegations concerning suspension of union dues, the Government explains that, owing to the extra deductions imposed on teaching staff by teachers’ unions and other banking and financial deductions, delays in the payment of teaching staff occurred, as a result of the tardiness of these organizations to report. The State Secretariat of the Education Department therefore issued Decision No. 15907-SE-2012, of 19 December 2012. A decision was taken to suspend temporarily the voluntary deductions granted to Honduran teachers’ unions, excluding the mandatory dues such as those of INPREMA, the Honduran Social Security Institute (IHSS), union contributions, and other legal and judicial fees. The Government clarifies that, having received the reports requested by the State Secretariat of the Education Department for this purpose, voluntary deductions were resumed for the COPRUMH and the Teachers’ College of Honduras (COLPEDAGOGOSH).
9. 398. Concerning the adoption of Decision No. 15096-SE-2012, of 30 June 2012, which provides for the extension of the school year in the case of stoppages or suspensions of classes, the Government states that the actions of the State Secretariat of the Education Department have been motivated by the desire to the right to education. The fact that, in the country, millions of young boys and girls and adults continue to be deprived of education opportunities, in many cases owing to poverty, together with the constant stoppages, strikes and occupation of education centres by teachers’ representatives, has generated chaos in the education system in the past three years. The State Secretariat of the Education Department is endeavouring to achieve fulfilment of the right to education and the minimum time in terms of class days, which section 12 of the Regulations under the Honduran Teachers’ Statute establishes as actual working time during the school year (that is ten months, with a minimum of 200 working days), for which reason it has taken action to guarantee the country’s education, as envisaged in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute and the Regulations thereunder.
10. 399. As for the refusal of the requests for renewal of paid union leave, the Government indicates that department directors, department secretariats and subdepartments of human resources in charge of teachers were informed, by circular letter No. 0019-SE-2013, of 7 February 2013, that in order to grant paid union leave to teachers who occupy posts in the national executive boards of union organizations, consideration should be given to section 13(6)(d) of the Honduran Teachers’ Statute, which refers to paid leave for those occupying managerial positions for the duration of the post. Consequently, this should be applied within the framework of the basic law of each teaching organization determining post duration. In this regard, section 59 of the Regulations under the Honduran Teachers’ Statute states: “All the legal provisions contained in article 13 of the Law shall be applied in each case by the immediate higher authority which, in turn, shall inform the corresponding authority accordingly.” The above circular letter was challenged before the State Secretariat of the Education Department and the appeal was declared not to be receivable as it did not meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
11. 400. The Government refutes the allegation that circular letter No. 0019-SE-2013, of 7 February 2013, ordered the non-renewal of union leave for certain teachers in particular, such as the SINPRODOH officials, Mr Bertín Alfaro Bonilla, Mr Gaeri Jonathan Duarte and Mr Santos Blas Oviedo Rivas. The Government explains that action was taken to investigate whether the teachers had abandoned their jobs in the education centres, following failures or abandonment on the part of many teachers, and the constant complaints made by children’s parents, in observance of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the Government clarifies that the leave requested by Mr Grebil Escobar del Cid, Secretary for Finance of PRICPHMA, was granted.
12. 401. The Government states that, while Mr Armando Gómez Torres, President of PRICPHMA, Mr Orlando Mejía Velásquez, Secretary-General of PRICPHMA, and Mr Cesar Augusto Ramos, Secretary for Legal Affairs of PRICPHMA, held posts as teachers’ representatives and were on paid union leave, they illegally obtained new teaching positions in schools where they never reported for work. Furthermore, specific records show that on 19, 20 and 21 February 2014, none of the three teachers reported for work. Mr Jury Hernández Troches, Secretary for the Environment of PRICPHMA, committed serious misconduct consisting of dereliction of duty from 8 February 2013 onwards. Mr Edwin Emilio Oliva, President of COLPROSUMAH, Mr Martin Suazo Sandoval, Secretary for Advertising of COLPROSUMAH, and Mr Gaeri Jonathan Duarte of the SINPRODOH also committed serious misconduct consisting of dereliction of duty, which is why they were dismissed.
13. 402. The Government emphasizes that the leave requested by Mr Rufino Murillo, Secretary for Internal Affairs of PRICPHMA, was refused because it was requested in order to take up a position that was not part of the PRICPHMA executive board. In the case of Mr Walter Edgardo Rivera, Secretary for Advertising of PRICPHMA, the Court of Appeal for Administrative Disputes ordered a stay of proceedings prior to the request being resolved. Mr Murillo and Mr Rivera were not sanctioned and still have an employment relationship with the State Secretariat of the Education Department.
14. 403. The Government states that some representatives returned to their workplaces when the regional departments decided not to extend their paid leave, including Mr Edgardo Antonio Casaña, President of COPRUMH; Mr Otto Omar Cayetano, Vice-President of COPRUMH; Mr Oscar Geovanny Alemán, Secretary for Finance of COPRUMH, Mr Carlos Hernán Izaguirre, Legal Adviser of COPRUMH, and Ms Denia Esmeralda Galindo, Secretary for Disputes of COPRUMH.
15. 404. Concerning the actions for constitutional protection (amparo), filed against the State Secretariat of the Education Department by the teachers’ representatives whose union leave was not renewed, in connection with the administrative disciplinary proceedings instituted against various teachers, including those of the SINPRODOH, it has emerged that the Supreme Court of Justice has declared them to be not receivable, since the administrative channels have not been exhausted prior to the judicial remedies. Concerning the request submitted by Mr Bertín Alfaro Bonilla for 2013, the Government states that the Director of the education department of Yoro requested a report from the department secretariat indicating how many years Mr Alfaro Bonilla had obtained leave for. The response was that the period was from 2005 to 2012 (that is eight consecutive years). Nevertheless, section 95(5) of the Labour Code states: “Where a worker holds union management positions, the leave shall last for as long as the worker stays in his post. The employer shall be forbidden to pay a salary for this purpose. The leave in question shall be requested by the individual union organization ... .” For that reason, Decision No. 05-2013, of 3 February 2013, declared the request for paid leave to be non-receivable, under section 59 of the Regulations of the Honduran Teachers’ Statute which states: “All the legal provisions contained in article 13 of the law (the Honduran Teachers’ Statute) shall be applied in each case by the immediate higher authority.” Decision No. 119/DOS/2008 issued by the State Secretariat of the Labour and Social Security Departments refers to the SINPRODOH statutes, section 17 of which grants a period of three years, with re-election for a further period to any post, with a total or partial break of three years before applying for a new post on the central executive board. Mr Alfaro Bonilla completed his two periods on 30 November 2010 and cannot therefore continue to obtain paid union leave. The leave refused is that which corresponds to the post of director of the José Trinidad Reyes school, located in the village of Las Delicias, El Negrito municipality, department of Yoro, for which reason he is expected to report to the education centre. The Government is unaware whether Mr Alfaro Bonilla occupies other posts within national or international union organizations. Having finalized the process, the regional department of Yoro issued Decision No. 049-D.D.E.Y.-2013, whereby Mr Alfaro Bonilla was dismissed for abandoning his post and an order to issue an annulment agreement was given owing to the dismissal of the director of the José Trinidad Reyes education centre. On 30 May 2013, an appeal was lodged against that decision and the case was submitted to the State Secretariat of the Education Department on 17 June 2013.
16. 405. As regards the money owed by the Government to teachers, the Government recognizes that the delay in teachers’ monthly payments has been one of the main problems faced by the State Secretariat of the Education Department. The Government explains that the delay (that is the failure to pay on the 20th day of each month) affected teachers at the national level and that their unrest was understandable. Faced with this situation, the State Secretariat of the Education Office issued Decision No. 15907 SE 2012, of 19 December 2012, which temporarily suspended the voluntary deductions for teachers to Honduran teachers’ unions, excluding mandatory dues such as those of INPREMA, the IHSS, union contributions and other legal and court fees.
17. 406. Regarding the teacher selection boards, the Government clarifies that the State Secretariat of the Education Department began a “teacher reorganization” process, which aimed to return teachers assigned to other education establishments to the schools where they had been originally appointed. As a result of this process, needs and vacancies were identified, which led to the redistribution of posts based on the information gathered. In June 2013, guidelines were issued on how to set up regional selection boards in regions where the reorganization process had been completed and where there were vacancies. The teacher reorganization process was concluded in 2014, the boards were set up and representatives from teachers’ unions have now been included. The Government adds that the competitive examinations have regained their public status, with many of their stages being conducted in open interviews.
18. 407. As regards the allegations relating to the report requested on the amounts, use and handling of the funds received as a result of the transferred deductions, under circular letter No. 0029-SE-2013, of 4 March 2013, the Government states that this was sent to the six presidents of the teachers’ unions belonging to the FOMH, requesting them to report on the amounts, use and handling of funds received as a result of the deductions transferred to teachers’ organizations. For many years, the Secretariat acted as a management body channelling those deductions, following requests made by teachers. Therefore, as a result of the failure to submit the report in question, the State Secretariat of the Education Department reserves the right to decide whether to continue to authorize the transfer of those deductions. The circular letter referred to was challenged before the State Secretariat of the Education Department. The appeal was declared non-receivable, since circular letter No. 0029-SE-2013 does not constitute an administrative act deriving from an administrative procedure, in accordance with section 116 of the General Act of Public Administration; it is not a general act which may be challenged, in accordance with the provisions of section 129 of the Administrative Procedure Act, nor is it an administrative decision issued by the administration hearing cases in the first or second instance, pursuant to section 137 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 408. The Committee notes that in this case, the complaints form part of a long dispute between teachers’ organizations and the Government, which gave rise to protest movements and strikes, during the period from 2010 to 2013, caused by the suspension of the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute and the delays in the payment of salaries in arrears, among other things.
2. 409. Similarly, the Committee observes that the allegations refer to: (1) the death of a trade union activist on 18 March 2011, while she was participating in a peaceful demonstration; (2) the legal proceedings instituted against 24 teachers, for the crimes of sedition and unlawful association, and their arrest while participating in a peaceful demonstration; (3) the exclusion of teachers’ organizations from the higher authority of the administration of INPREMA; (4) the suspension of the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute, and its de-indexation from the minimum salary (preventing the continuing use of the minimum salary as a reference for the automatic and direct increase of salaries); (5) the failure to pay salary increases from 2010 to 2013 and the suppression of the protests to which this gave rise; (6) the declaration of the protest movements as illegal by the administrative authority and the resulting sanctions imposed on more than 600 teachers; (7) the suspension of the deductions in union fees for teachers’ organizations; (8) the adoption of Decision No. 15096-SE-2012, of 30 July 2012, which provides for the extension of the school year in the case of stoppages or suspensions of classes; (9) the refusal of requests for renewal of union leave; (10) the unilateral suspension of Teacher Selection and Competitive Recruitment Boards; (11) the request for a report on the amounts, use and handling of the funds obtained as a result of the deductions transferred to teachers’ organizations; (12) the civil liability claims brought against four SINPRODOH officials, for an amount of HNL49,070,777.49; and (13) the professional persecution of two members of the COPEMH.
3. 410. The Committee notes that the Government states that its actions are not directed against the SINPRODOH. It also notes the following statements by the Government: (1) the death of Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez was caused by a young, reckless driver, who hit her while driving against the flow of traffic. The forensic report of the Public Prosecutor’s office excludes the possibility that, prior to her fall, she had been hit by an object designed for use by the military or police; (2) the teachers were arrested for the crimes of sedition and unlawful association for assaulting several police officers with mortar rockets. Due process was respected at all times and, to date, no teacher has been convicted for the aforementioned facts; (3) the reforms outlined in Decree No. 247 2011, of 14 December 2011, containing the National Social Welfare Institute for Teachers Act were based on actuarial studies carried out by the CNBS, and were disseminated among the teachers’ unions in 2010; (4) Decree-Law No. 224-2010, of 28 October 2010, suspended the economic regimes established in the different professional statutes, as they are fiscal measures which served as a reference for the automatic and direct increase of salaries, to the detriment of the budgets of centralized and decentralized state institutions; in this respect, the administrative appeal lodged by the SINPRODOH was not successful, since the country’s financial situation did not allow for further and greater commitments beyond those contained in the National General Income and Expenditure Budget; (5) the delay in teachers’ monthly payments has been one of the main problems faced by the State Secretariat of the Education Department, and this delay (that is the failure to pay on the 20th day of each month) affected teachers at the national level and their unrest was understandable, which was why the Secretariat issued Decision No. 15907-SE-2012, of 19 December 2012, temporarily suspending the voluntary deductions for teachers to Honduran teachers’ unions, excluding mandatory dues such as union contributions and other legal and court fees. The State Secretariat of the Education Department has acted for many years as a management body to channel the deductions for teachers’ unions, in line with requests made by teachers. It sent the circular letter to the six presidents of teachers’ organizations belonging to the FOMH, requesting them to report on the amounts, use and handling of funds received. Voluntary deductions were resumed for the teachers’ unions that had submitted the reports requested, namely the COPRUMH and the COLPEDAGOGOSH; (6) the adoption of Decision No. 15096-SE-2012, of 30 June 2012, which provides for the extension of the school year in the case of stoppages or suspension of classes, was motivated by the desire to fulfil the right to education and the minimum number of class days; (7) the State Secretariat of the Labour and Social Security Departments has declared illegal the strikes and protests launched by teachers’ representatives in the past two years; consequently, pursuant to national legislation on the disciplinary regime, Executive Decision No. 15575-SE-2012, of 18 October 2012, was issued, imposing sanctions involving salary deductions, temporary suspension or dismissal, as the case may be; (8) the refusal of the requests for renewal of paid union leave made by certain teachers is based on national legislation, which should be applied within the framework of the basic law of each teaching organization determining post duration. In this respect, there was a case in which the request for leave was indeed granted (Mr Grebil Escobar del Cid, Secretary for Finance of PRICPHMA), and another case in which the request for leave was refused because it was requested in order to take up a position that was not part of the executive board (Mr Rufino Murillo, Secretary for Internal Affairs of PRICPHMA). In most cases, the requests for renewal of paid union leave were refused because the time limit set under the regulations of the teacher’s organization concerned had been exceeded; (9) the State Secretariat of the Education Department began a “teacher reorganization” process, which aimed to return teachers assigned to other education establishments to the schools where they had been originally appointed. As a result, needs and vacancies were identified, which led to the redistribution of posts based on the information gathered. The reorganization process was concluded in 2014, the teacher selection boards have now been set up, and representatives from teachers’ unions have been included.
4. 411. The Committee notes with profound concern the seriousness of the allegations which include the death of a union activist, criminal proceedings and mass sanctions relating to union activities, and also significant restrictions on the union rights of officials.
5. 412. Regarding the death of Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez, the Committee observes that, while this highly regrettable event occurred during a demonstration organized by the teachers’ organizations of Honduras, it does not seem, according to government statements, to be the result of a violation of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee requests the complainant organizations to provide information in their possession on this allegation and in particular whether her death was, as the Government states, due to a car accident and to indicate whether anyone has been charged or detained in this regard.
6. 413. As regards the legal proceedings instituted against 24 teachers for the crimes of sedition and unlawful association, and their subsequent arrest, while participating in a peaceful demonstration, the Committee takes note of the statements made by the Government that they assaulted several police officers by throwing mortar rockets at them. The Committee emphasizes that the principles of freedom of association do not protect abuses consisting of criminal acts while exercising the right to strike [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 667]. The Committee regrets the acts of violence that occurred during the demonstration and urges the Government to provide information without delay on the specific acts for which they are being prosecuted, on the status of the legal proceedings instituted and, where applicable, the outcome.
7. 414. Concerning the dispute which is the subject of this complaint, the Committee notes the allegations relating to the suspension of the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute, under section 3 of Decree-Law No. 224-2010, of 28 October 2010, and also notes the economic arguments put forward by the Government. The Committee also notes that section 4 of the above Decree-Law states that: “within a period of 90 days and subject to negotiation with union organizations, the executive authority shall fix the adjustment to the base salary of public servants governed by special laws or professional statutes, in accordance with the state salary policy, without this increasing the collateral benefits”. As regards the alleged failure to pay the salary increases, the Committee observes that the Government acknowledges that the delay in teachers’ monthly payments has been one of the main problems faced by the State Secretariat of the Education Department and that, in view of the situation, the Secretariat issued Decision No. 15907-SE-2012, of 19 December 2012, temporarily suspending the voluntary deductions from teachers for Honduran teachers’ unions, excluding mandatory dues such as those of INPREMA, the IHSS, union contributions and other legal and court fees. The Committee recalls that as part of its previous examination of Case No. 2330, in November 2004, the complainant organizations in that case had alleged that the Honduran Teachers’ Statute was a legal instrument equivalent to a collective labour agreement and the product of many years of struggle, as reflected in Decree-Law No. 136-97, of 11 November 1997, and that that argument was not rejected by the Government [see 335th Report, para. 859]. The Committee recalls that a fair and reasonable compromise should be sought between the need to preserve as far as possible the autonomy of the bargaining parties, on the one hand, and measures which must be taken by governments to overcome their budgetary difficulties, on the other [see Digest op cit., para. 1035]. The Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to seek a negotiated solution acceptable to all the parties concerned, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association laid down in the ratified Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Committee expects that the parties will take full account of these principles in the future and requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the salary negotiations provided for in Decree Law No. 224 2010, of 28 October 2010.
8. 415. As for the allegation regarding the suspension of the deduction of union dues for teachers’ organizations, the Committee notes that paragraph 2 of Agreement No. 15907-SE-2012, of 19 December 2012, excludes union dues. The Committee notes, however, that the Government has not denied the alleged suspension of the deduction of union dues, and has indicated that voluntary deductions had resumed for teachers’ organizations that had submitted the reports requested. The Committee recalls that the withdrawal of the check-off facility, which could lead to financial difficulties for trade union organizations, is not conducive to the development of harmonious industrial relations and should therefore be avoided [see Digest, op. cit., para. 475]. Given that the suspension of the deduction of union dues infringes trade union rights, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the remaining teachers’ organizations once again benefit from the check-off facility for the union dues of their members.
9. 416. As for the declaration of illegality made by the State Secretariat of the Labour and Social Security Departments, which led to the adoption of Executive Decision No. 15575 SE 2012, of 18 October 2012, and the subsequent imposition of sanctions involving salary deductions, temporary suspension or dismissal, as the case may be, affecting hundreds of teachers, the Committee recalls that responsibility for declaring the strike as illegal should not lie with the Government, but with an independent body which has the confidence of the parties involved [see Digest, op. cit., para. 628]. The Committee also recalls that arrests and dismissals of strikers on a large scale involve serious risk of abuse and place freedom of association in grave jeopardy. The competent authorities should be given appropriate instructions so as to obviate the dangers to freedom of association that such arrests and dismissals involve [see Digest, op. cit., para. 674]. The Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to seek a negotiated solution acceptable to all the parties concerned, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association laid down in the ratified Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining; it also requests the Government to take steps to amend the legislation so that the legality or illegality of the strike is declared by an independent body.
10. 417. As for the allegations relating to the extension of the school year in the case of stoppages or suspension of classes, under Decision No. 15096-SE-2012, of 30 July 2012, the Committee takes note of the clarifications provided by the Government indicating that the State Secretariat of the Education Department has been endeavouring to achieve fulfilment of the right to education and the minimum number of class days, which section 12 of the Regulations under the Honduran Teachers’ Statute establishes as actual working time during the school year (that is ten months, with a minimum of 200 working days). The Committee considers that in these circumstances the extension of the school year is not a cause for objection.
11. 418. The Committee notes that the Government has not responded to the allegations referring to the sending of inspectors to each lawfully convened assembly, by the State Secretariat of the Education Department, in order to record the proceedings for sanctions-related purposes. The Committee emphasizes that the presence of representatives of the authorities or the employer at union assemblies constitutes interference in violation of the principles of freedom of association laid down in ratified Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining. It requests the Government to ensure that such practices do not recur in the future. The Committee further emphasizes that the right of occupational organizations to hold meetings in their premises to discuss occupational questions, without prior authorization and interference by the authorities, is an essential element of freedom of association and the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede its exercise, unless public order is disturbed thereby or its maintenance seriously and imminently endangered [see Digest, op. cit., para. 130].
12. 419. As for the allegations concerning refusal of union leave requested by numerous officials, whose names are mentioned in the allegations, under circular letter No. 0019 SE 2013, of 7 February 2013, which the Government claims limits union leave to the duration of the union positions held, the Committee notes that on 11 February 2013 the above letter was challenged by the SINPRODOH before the State Secretariat of the Education Department. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government, according to which action was taken to investigate whether the teachers had abandoned their duties in the education centres, following the failures or abandonment on the part of various teachers and the constant complaints made by parents, in observance of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government relating to the actions for constitutional protection (amparo) brought by the teachers’ representatives against the State Secretariat of the Education Department, in connection with the administrative disciplinary proceedings instituted against a number of teachers, including those from the SINPRODOH, and which the Supreme Court of Justice has declared not to be receivable, as the administrative channels had not been exhausted prior to the judicial remedies. The Committee also takes note of the information provided on the requests for renewal of trade union leave that were granted, and those that were refused, along with the reasons for their refusal. The Committee requests the Government to resume dialogue with the complainant organizations in order to find a prompt solution to this situation, and to inform it of the outcome of any legal proceedings instituted.
13. 420. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s reply is not sufficiently clear as regards the allegations pertaining to: (1) the exclusion of teachers’ organizations from the higher authority of the administration of INPREMA; and (2) the suppression of the protests resulting from the failure to pay salary increases from 2010 to 2013. The Committee urges the Government to send its observations in this regard without delay, in particular information concerning the complaints submitted to the competent authorities by the people who have been victims of police repression during the protests.
14. 421. Moreover, the Committee requests the complainant organizations to provide more detailed information on the allegations concerning: (1) the unilateral suspension of the teacher selection and competitive recruitment boards; (2) the request for a report on the amounts, use and handling of the funds obtained as a result of the deductions transferred to teachers’ organizations; (3) the institution of civil liability proceedings against four SINPRODOH officials, for an amount of HNL49,070,777.49; and (4) the alleged professional persecution with no further details against two members of the COPEMH. The Committee requests the complainant organizations to furnish all information available to them in relation to these allegations, so that the Government may provide a precise response.
15. 422. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the communication dated 23 January 2015 from the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH) and other national organizations concerning allegations of sanctions against education trade unionists and other restrictions on trade union rights in relation to the dispute at hand.