Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 344, Mars 2007

897. The complaint is contained in communications from the Association of Teachers’ Health Insurance Employees (ASOESEMMA) dated 24 January, 8 April, 6 and 25 May, 15 June, 8 September, 28 November and 21 December 2006. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 10 October 2006 and 19 February 2007.

1. 898. The Dominican Republic 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. 899. In its communications dated 24 January, 8 April, 6 and 25 May, 15 June, 8 September and 28 November, ASOESEMMA alleges that the management of the Teachers’ Health Insurance Company (SEMMA) has committed a number of violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, such as the transfer of union officials and offers of promotion to association leaders in exchange for giving up their seats on the Executive Committee, as well as hindering the exercise of trade union rights. ASOESEMMA states that, following these anti-union actions and with the aim of breaking up the Executive Board which had been in the process of demanding wage increases and promotions, the management of SEMMA decided to dismiss César Antonio Familia and Rabel Novas, respectively Secretary-General and Treasurer of ASOESEMMA, in November 2005. The trade union leaders in question lodged an administrative appeal against their dismissal with the Higher Administrative Tribunal in September 2006.
2. 900. The complainant organization adds that, following the abovementioned dismissals, the SEMMA authorities committed various acts of interference. Specifically, they tried to interfere in the running of ASOESEMMA operations by seeking to impose their agenda by organizing a meeting and proposing an increase in union members’ monthly dues. It also alleges that, against this background of interference, the SEMMA authorities held a poll on 24 May 2006 to elect a so-called ASOESEMMA executive board. ASOESEMMA states that the administrative labour authority has done no more than attempt mediation and that the employer participated in only one of the four meetings that were called.
3. 901. The complainant organization alleges in addition that the SEMMA management has refused to transfer to ASOESEMMA the sum of money corresponding to the dues levied on union members for March, April and May 2006.
4. 902. Finally, in its communication dated 21 December 2006, the complainant organization reports that the administrative appeal lodged with the Higher Administrative Court in relation to the dismissal of union officials César Antonio Familia and Rabel Novas is still being heard.
5. B. The Government’s reply
6. 903. In its communications of 10 October 2006 and 19 February 2007, the Government recalls that, according to the complainant organization, César Antonio Familia and Rabel Novas, the Secretary-General and Treasurer of ASOESEMMA, were separated from service with SEMMA (their separation from SEMMA was approved by its Board of Directors on 27 March 2006), as a form of harassment because of their status as trade union leaders.
7. 904. The Government reports that SEMMA claims that the separation was quite regular, was approved by the Board of Directors and was in response to the breaches of discipline committed by the two individuals. SEMMA is a public institution, established pursuant to Executive Decree No. 2745 of February 1985, and attached to the Ministry of Education, whose function is to meet the health-care needs of teachers working in the state education sector. Labour relations in public institutions are not governed by the Labour Code. The Government indicates that ASOESEMMA lodged a request with the Ministry of Labour for an inquiry into the circumstances.
8. 905. The Government states that, although labour relations between SEMMA and its employees are not governed by the Labour Code, the Department of Labour decided to send two labour inspectors to attempt to reach an agreement between the parties on 23 May 2006. The labour inspectors visited SEMMA’s management in an attempt at reconciliation and issued a written report on 27 May in which various suggestions for settling the dispute were made. In addition to the Labour Inspectorate, the Ministry of Labour, through the Department of Labour, convened the employers and the workers concerned for mediation and/or conciliation, but after more than five meetings it was still not possible to reach agreement.
9. 906. The Government states that, on 26 July 2006, the Director-General for Labour sent a communication to the Ministry of Education recommending the reinstatement of the workers. The recommendation was made in the light of the labour inspectors’ report and with a view to achieving a compromise in the dispute. On 26 June 2006, an administrative appeal was lodged against SEMMA. The Government points out that the workers lodged their administrative appeal with the Higher Administrative Court because the labour courts are not competent to hear cases of disputes arising between public institutions and their employees.
10. 907. The Government indicates that, although the Ministry of Labour ought not to be involved in the dispute since the administrative labour authorities are prohibited by law from interfering in legal proceedings, as is the case with the appeal that the workers have lodged with the Administrative Labour Court, the Government understands that the confidence of the parties to the dispute in the Ministry of Labour is such that it is continuing its efforts to seek a solution through mediation and conciliation. Discussions are accordingly being held with the National Trade Union Council, the central workers’ confederation representing ASOESEMMA, in order to resolve the problem. The Government will continue to participate actively in the resolution of this dispute and will inform the Committee at the appropriate time.
11. 908. In its last communication dated 19 February 2007, the Government declares that the Ministry of Labour has actively participated in the proceedings, using the internal and administrative means conferred by the law, such as conciliation and mediation, as well as the intervention of work inspectors and the active participation of the Ministry, with the aim of resolving the conflict. However, after the qualification of the complaint as a judicial interpretation conflict, the Ministry of Labour, as a dependent organ of the executive power, decided not to intervene officially until the tribunals of the Republic render a definitive decision. The Government therefore considers that it should postpone any type of decision until the competent tribunal has ruled.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 909. The Committee observes that in the present case ASOESEMMA alleges that the management of SEMMA has committed a number of violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Specifically, it alleges the anti-union dismissal in November 2005 of César Antonio Familia and Rabel Novas, ASOESEMMA’s Secretary-General and Treasurer, interference by SEMMA in the activities of ASOESEMMA by calling for elections and attempting to impose a timetable for the Association’s meeting, and the non-remittance of the dues payable by union members for March, April and May 2006.
2. 910. With regard to the alleged anti-union dismissals in November 2005 of César Antonio Familia and Rabel Novas, ASOESEMMA’s Secretary-General and Treasurer, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that: (1) SEMMA has indicated that the dismissal was regular, was approved by the Board of Directors and was in response to the breaches of discipline committed by the union officials; (2) although labour relations between SEMMA and its employees are not governed by the Labour Code, the Department of Labour decided to send two labour inspectors to attempt to generate an agreement between the parties on 23 May 2006; (3) the Ministry of Labour, through the Department of Labour, convened mediation and conciliation meetings between the parties on more than five occasions, but that no agreement was reached; (4) because the labour courts are not competent to hear cases of disputes arising between public institutions and their employees, the dismissed workers lodged an appeal with the Higher Administrative Court; (5) the Director-General for Labour sent a communication to the Ministry of Education recommending the reinstatement of the union officials in question, and the Government will continue to resolve the dispute through mediation and conciliation.
3. 911. In view of the fact that the administrative authority recommended the reinstatement of the dismissed trade union leaders, the Committee requests the Government to continue to promote the reinstatement of the trade union officials César Antonio Familia and Rabel Novas. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures adopted in this respect, and of the outcome of the appeal against the dismissals lodged with the Higher Administrative Court.
4. 912. Finally, the Committee observes that the Government’s reply does not permit to establish clearly whether the other allegations relating to interference by SEMMA in the activities of ASOESEMMA and the non-remittance of the dues payable by union members for March, April and May 2006 are being examined by the judicial authority. In this regard, the Committee urges the Government, if the judicial authorities are not seized with these issues, to take measures without delay to undertake an inquiry into this matter and, if the allegations are corroborated, to ensure that steps are taken to put an immediate end to the acts of interference and to transfer to ASOESSMA all the union dues withheld during the period indicated in the allegations.