37. On August 17, 1992, the STOJ entered into a Collective Agreement on Working Conditions with the Judiciary, for a two-year period. The agreement was approved by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, through resolution No. 2956 of November 20, 1992. The denunciation of this agreement in 1994 and the difficulties in negotiating a new one were the origin of the dispute that led to the 1996 strike, as explained below. 38. The relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement are the following: Article 1. Purpose of the Agreement. The general purpose of this agreement is to regulate, harmonize and develop relations and the mutual interests of the Judicial Branch and its employees, with the aim of achieving stability and greater efficiency in its work, always preserving the correct and effective functioning of the institution. Article 3. Professional Law. This agreement has the character of a professional law between the institution and its employees, being superior to any norm, if the latter diminishes or misrepresents the economic and social benefits established herein. Article 21. Disciplinary Regime. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 108 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, and until the Civil Service Law of the Judicial Branch is enacted, the disciplinary regime pertaining to employees of the Judicial Branch shall be governed by the Civil Service Law, Decree 1748 of the Congress of the Republic, the Law of the Judiciary and Ruling 23-82 of the Supreme Court of Justice, insofar as it does not contravene the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala. Article 22. Hearing for the worker. The dismissal of a worker shall be agreed upon after a five-day hearing with the interested party. Article 56. Term of the Agreement. This agreement shall remain in force for a period of two years from the date of its approval in accordance with the law. 27 B. Renegotiation of the collective agreement and the strike of 1996 B.1. The denunciation process and renegotiation of the collective agreement 39. On October 18, 1994, the STOJ denounced the Collective Agreement on Working Conditions signed between the Judiciary and the Union before the General Labor Inspectorate for the purpose of starting direct negotiations to sign a new agreement. Since the direct negotiation of the new agreement was unsuccessful, on November 21, 1994, the STOJ filed an economic and social dispute before the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court (hereinafter the “First Chamber”). 28 On that same date, the First Chamber decided that the STOJ had not exhausted the direct procedures and therefore requested that it should pursue such actions. 29 On September 8, 1995, the STOJ asked the First Chamber to consider the direct procedure exhausted; however, the Chamber informed the STOJ that the process had been suspended until the appeals filed before the Constitutional Court by the Union itself were resolved. On November 28, 1995, the Second Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court (competent due to the Judiciary’s vacations schedule) ruled that the direct procedure had been exhausted. 30 27 Collective Working Conditions Agreement signed between the Judiciary of the State of Guatemala and the Judiciary Workers' Union’, August 17, 1992 (evidence file, folios 5 to 16). 28 Cf. Brief presented before the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court of Guatemala City by the Secretary General of the STOJ on November 21, 1994 (evidence file, folios 3527 to 3535). 29 Cf. Ruling of the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court in the context of Collective Dispute No. 730-94 on November 21, 1994 (evidence file, folios 3537 to 3539). 30 Cf. Ruling of the Second Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court in the context of Collective Dispute No. 730-94 of November 28, 1995 (evidence file, folios 3541 and 3542). 13