Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 344, Mars 2007

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 76. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2006 meeting [see 340th Report, paras 862–877]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to reinstate union member, Mari Cruz Herrera, to her post, in accordance with the agreement made with the employer’s representative before the labour inspectorate, especially given that the current system does not allow that worker, a union member, any right to freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee also requested the Government and the Union of Workers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Cattle-raising and Food (SITRAMAGA) to send the text of all rulings regarding the dismissal of union members Mr Emilio Francisco Merck Cos and Mr Gregorio Ayala Sandoval.
2. 77. The Committee takes note of the Government’s communications dated 4 August and 22 November 2006, as well as the communications of the Trade Union of Workers in Civil Aviation (USTAC) of 7 July 2006 and of SITRAMAGA of 26 June 2006, which refer to the issues already raised. As to the reinstatement of Mrs Mari Cruz Herrera to her post, the Committee notes the communication of the General Directorate of Civil Aviation (enclosed by the Government), in which it states that the cancellation of said union member’s contract was endorsed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. Taking into account the fact that a commitment exists which was made by the representative of the employer before the labour inspectorate to reinstate Mrs Mari Cruz Herrera, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that said commitment is respected.
3. 78. As to the dismissal of union members Emilio Francisco Merck Cos and Gregorio Ayala Sandoval, the Committee takes note of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the amparo (appeal for the protection of constitutional rights) presented and that of the Constitutional Court, of 4 July 2000 and 2 April 2001 respectively, in which the amparo was denied because it was held that the dismissal of the union members was justified because they had been absent from their posts without the permission of their employer. In this context the Committee recalls that the dismissal of trade unionists for absence from work without the employer’s permission does not appear in itself to constitute an infringement of freedom of association [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, para. 805].