wcms_161662

protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment –
dismissal, transfer or other prejudicial measures – and that such protection was particularly
desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to carry out their trade union
functions in full independence, they must have the assurance that they will not be
victimized by virtue of their office. 45
119. Practices involving the blacklisting of trade union officials or members constitute a serious
threat to the free exercise of trade union rights and, in general, governments should take
stringent measures to combat such practices. 46 The use of extremely serious measures,
such as the dismissal of workers for having participated in a strike and a refusal
subsequently to re-employ them, implies a serious risk of abuse and constitutes a violation
of freedom of association. 47 In a case against the Government of Ecuador, the Latin
American Central of Workers alleged that PETROECUADOR had dismissed a highranking
union officer and some rank-and-file members in the course of their trade union
activities. 48 According to the CFA, the Government is responsible for preventing all acts
of anti-union discrimination and must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination
are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial
and considered as such by the parties concerned. 49 A case in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela involved a general strike and the mass dismissals of oil workers. The incident
began with the Government’s refusal to recognize the leadership of the Workers’
Confederation of Venezuela (CTV). On 19 February 2003, a detention order was issued
against the president of CTV who was persecuted for days by state security guards. These
incidents led to a national civil work stoppage on 2 December 2002 and 1.5 million people,
including oil workers, took part in demonstrations. The National Union of Oil, Gas,
Petrochemical and Refinery Workers (UNAPETROL) had 495 workers at the state-owned
oil company PDVSA. On 3 July 2002, UNAPETROL sent the relevant documentation to
the Ministry of Labour, which subsequently asked PDVSA for a description of the duties
performed in the company by the members of UNAPETROL. The Ministry of Labour then
issued administrative Decree No. 2002-036, stating that registration of the UNAPETROL
trade union had been refused on the grounds that a trade union which claimed to represent
the interests of both workers and employers, and was composed of workers who
constituted the senior and middle management of the enterprise, may not be established. In
addition, since the start of a national civic work stoppage in December 2002, the stateowned
oil company PDVSA and its subsidiaries had dismissed more than 23,000 workers,
including workers affiliated to UNAPETROL, on the grounds of “lack of integrity” or
“immoral conduct at work”. Furthermore, PDVSA requested its subsidiaries in writing not
to hire the dismissed workers who were also members of UNAPETROL. The CFA was
concerned that the delay of the courts in resolving the vast majority of the
23,000 dismissals was tantamount to a denial of justice and did not exclude the possibility
that the 6,048 cases were dropped were withdrawn by the workers precisely because of the
excessive delay. 50
45 ILO: Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, No. 128, Case No. 651, para. 58.
46 2006 Digest, para. 803.
47 ibid., para. 666.
48 ILO: Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, No. 308, Case No. 1911.
49 2006 Digest, para. 817.
50 ILO: Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, No. 337, Case No. 2249, paras 1478
and 1499; and Report No. 333, Case No. 2249, paras 1044–1050.
58 TMOGE-R-[2008-12-0110-1]-En.doc/v3