Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 313, Mars 1999

1. 270. The Committee examined this case at its meetings in March 1996, July 1997 and March 1998 and submitted the following interim reports to the Governing Body (see 302nd Report, paras. 519 to 534; 307th Report, paras. 471 to 479; and 309th Report, paras. 387 to 403, approved by the Governing Body at its 265th Session (March 1996), 269th Session (June 1997) and 271st Session (March 1998)).
2. 271. The Government sent new observations in a communication dated 4 November 1998.
3. 272. 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. 273. In the present complaint, the complainant organization previously criticized the registration of a trade union (SINATRAINCORACTEL) which had been approved very quickly by the authorities in 1994 despite certain anomalies, and argued that there already existed a trade union at the radio broadcasting company CORAVEN-RCTV, namely, the Occupational Trade Union of Radio, Theatre, Cinema, Television and Allied Workers of the Federal District and State of Miranda (SRTVA), and that the public company in question supported the establishment of the new trade union through various anti-union actions (presence of company representatives at the constituent meeting of the new union, threats of dismissal against workers who did not join the new union, negotiation of a collective agreement with the new union, the old one still in force being cancelled by the company, etc.). According to the complainant, there was no constituent meeting as such and the members of the union executive belonged to the old union (see 309th Report, para. 400).
2. 274. The Government states that: (1) once the new union was established, the meeting to elect the executive board was attended by 319 workers; (2) freedom of association in this case was manifested by trade union pluralism which is protected by law; (3) the new trade union fulfilled all legal criteria; (4) the new union was not registered in record time but rather within the time-limit laid down by legislation; (5) the fact that the new union had leaders from the union committee already in existence is irrelevant; (6) as regards the existence of collective conditions already in force, it is the responsibility of the Directorate of the National Labour Inspection Service to oversee the principle of inviolability of collective agreements; (7) this situation concerns a dispute among members of a union which gave rise to the establishment of a new union (see 309th Report, para. 401). At the same time, the Government had indicated that the complainant organization (SRTVA) had on 20 July 1996 lodged an appeal (the text of which was attached) before the Supreme Court which had not yet given a ruling. According to the documents supplied by the Government, the appeal lodged by the SRTVA was ruled to be admissible on 5 May 1997 by the Supreme Court of Justice which asked the Minister of Labour to submit a report on the matter.
3. 275. At its meeting in March 1998, the Committee made the following recommendation (see 309th Report, para. 403):
4. Noting that the Government's declarations and the allegations are contradictory with regard to the legality of the registration of the new union and that the Government's reply does not deal with the alleged presence of representatives of the enterprise at the constituent meeting for the new union, neither does it deal with the allegation concerning the threat of dismissal against workers who did not join the new union, the Committee requests the Government to send its comments concerning these allegations so that it may examine this complaint in full knowledge of the facts.
5. B. The Government's reply
6. 276. In its communication of 4 November 1998, the Government reiterates that registration of the trade union SINATRAINCORACTEL was confirmed in accordance with the requirements of the Organic Labour Law. The allegation made by the complainant, that the decision to register the union SINATRAINCORACTEL was taken with excessive haste in only 15 days, is unfounded, since section 425 of the Organic Labour Law expressly states that the competent administrative authority shall register the proposed trade union organization within a period of 30 days following the application, and it is therefore entirely possible -- and indeed plausible -- for registration to take place before the expiry of the period specified by the provision in question. If that has occurred in response to an application in accordance with the law, it does not constitute an act of anti-union interference, as the complainant organization claims.
7. 277. The Government adds that the administrative ruling by which agreement was given for registration of the trade union organization in question is an administrative act and, as such, can be contested in the courts by anyone who considers his or her rights to have been infringed by that act.
8. 278. The Government explains that it has deliberately refrained from expressing an opinion regarding the allegation made by the complainant organization concerning the presence of representatives of the enterprise at the constituent meeting of the new union on the grounds that an opinion or pronouncement on the matter would constitute real interference by the administrative labour authorities in a union's internal affairs. Any complaint regarding the presence of representatives of the enterprise at the constituent meeting of the new trade union will have to be made through a challenge to the relevant minutes of the constituent meeting which of necessity must be done through a court of law.
9. 279. The Government indicates that it cannot enter into considerations of the internal constitution of trade union organizations, since these are autonomous legal entities which can establish their own rules of membership, something which is essential to freedom of association.
10. 280. As regards the allegation of the complainant organization concerning the threat to dismiss workers who did not join the new union, this is also a complaint that does not come within the competence of the national executive authority. It should be noted that the allegation relates to a presumed threat which, if it is found to have taken place, could constitute conduct detrimental to freedom of association. Since the threat is a declaration regarding a possible future occurrence, it is for the courts alone to determine whether it constitutes an act of interference by the employer in the establishment of a trade union organization.
11. 281. Lastly, the Government emphasizes that Venezuelan law provides mechanisms which ensure legal protection for freedom of association and avert any impending injury which might be caused by an apparently detrimental act of the kind alleged by the complainant organization, in accordance with legislation in force. This includes the possibility of initiating an action to obtain constitutional protection to prevent implementation of acts of the type referred to.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 282. The Committee notes that the Government in its reply neither confirms nor denies the presence of representatives of the company CORAVEN-RCTV at the constituent meeting of the new trade union SINATRAINCORACTEL, nor does it confirm or deny the alleged threat to dismiss workers who did not join the new union. Instead, it confines itself to stating that there are mechanisms and remedies available to the other union (SRTVA). The Committee requests the Government to carry out an investigation into these allegations and to keep it informed as soon as possible of the outcome thereof.
2. 283. Taking into account the foregoing considerations, and given that the Government in its successive replies has maintained that the present case concerns an internal dispute in a trade union which gave rise to the establishment of another union with a membership of 319 workers, the Committee considers it necessary to have the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice on this matter. It requests the Government to send it the text of the decision handed down in this regard.