Definitive Report - REPORT_NO305, November 1996

1. 273. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions and Trade Union Confederation of Civil Servants (CSI-CSIF) dated 7 December 1994. The Government supplied its observations in communications dated 8 May 1995 and 1 October 1996.
2. 274. At its November 1995 meeting, the Committee decided to transmit the Government's reply to the complainant organization for comment. The Committee requested the complainant organization to transmit, without delay, the observations and information requested (see 300th Report of the Committee, para. 6, approved by the Governing Body at its 264th Session (November 1995)). The complainant organization sent its comments in a communication dated 28 December 1995, and the Government (which changed after the last parliamentary elections) sent new observations in a communication dated 1 October 1996.
3. 275. Spain has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 276. In its communications of 7 December 1994 and 28 December 1995, the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions and Trade Union Confederation of Civil Servants (CSI-CSIF) alleges that the Autonomous Community of Madrid, and more specifically its Economic and Finance Minister agreed with the Workers' Commissions (CC.OO) and the General Union of Workers (UGT) to set up collective bargaining committees to examine certain aspects of the "collective agreement and purely civil servant matters and the funding of posts", amongst other matters, for civil servants and workers providing their services in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. The complainant points out that it is the most representative civil service trade union and the representative worker trade union within the Autonomous Community of Madrid and for this reason criticizes the underhand agreement to set up the above-mentioned bargaining committees, avoiding the participation of the CSI-CSIF, and the lack of any specific convocation for this purpose and concealment of the bargaining committee set up between the administration and the CC.OO and UGT. The complainant points out that it was not informed of the negotiations at the worker and civil servant levels except through trade union notes from the CC.OO and the UGT published on 8 November 1994 which state that the bargaining committees were set up on 28 September 1994.
2. 277. The CSI-CSIF sent a copy of a UGT document dated 22 December 1994 in which it sends its local organizations "the pre-agreement signed today, 22 December 1994, with the administration of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, the General Union of Workers and the Workers' Commissions". This pre-agreement was not signed by the CSI-CSIF, and if this organization had been convened, it would have placed on record the fact that it had not signed the agreement in question. It is suspicious, to say the least, that the CSI-CSIF was convened to the negotiations on 23 and 27 December 1994. In fact, the Autonomous Community of Madrid was bargaining behind the organization's back, as it had not been convened, and when the pre-agreements had been signed by the UGT and CC.OO, the Autonomous Community of Madrid brought them before the general bargaining committee with the intention of having them approved by the CSI-CSIF.
3. 278. Lastly, the CSI-CSIF points out that it has withdrawn the appeal it had lodged on the facts contained in the complaint in order to avoid adverse effects for the workers employed in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, since it had requested in its appeal that the application of the agreements in question be suspended, in particular as regards wages. None the less, the CSI-CSIF states that it maintains its complaint to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

B. The Government's reply

1. 279. In its communications of 8 May 1995 and 1 October 1996, the Government states that the allegations made by the complainant organization in no way reflect the reality of the situation. Although it is true that the general bargaining committees for both civil servant staff and workers in the Autonomous Community of Madrid were set up on 28 September 1994, according to appended documents, and as indicated by the CC.OO and UGT trade unions in their information notes, what is absolutely incorrect is that the CSI-CSIF was not aware of these negotiations and was not convened to the negotiations. In fact, in a communication from the Director-General of the Civil Service, dated 26 September 1994 (which the Government encloses), this trade union federation was convened to participate in both the initiation of the collective bargaining for civil servant staff and in setting up the bargaining committee for the collective agreement applicable to workers.
2. 280. The Government adds that if the CSI-CSIF had in any way been sidelined from the establishment of the above-mentioned bargaining committees (which the previous paragraph shows is absolutely not the case), or from any subsequent stage in the bargaining process, then it is difficult to understand the meaning of the communication which the President of the CSIT (which acts in the Autonomous Community of Madrid in representation of the CSI-CSIF), Mr. José Montero Regueira, delivered the day after the general bargaining committee for civil servant staff was set up, i.e. 29 September 1994, to the Director-General of the Civil Service, which textually states that "now that the general bargaining committee for civil service staff in the Autonomous Community of Madrid for 1994 has been set up, I am enclosing a proposal by the CSIT concerning the allocation of economic funds for which provision is made in Chapter 1 of the budget of the Autonomous Community of Madrid for 1994, under the heading Provision for technical adjustments", Chapter 1 (the Government encloses a copy of this document).
3. 281. The Government adds that throughout the bargaining process the CSIT made various proposals on the matters being negotiated. In the same way, this trade union, along with two others which make up the general bargaining committee of the civil service staff, was once again convened on 3 October 1994 to a further meeting of the general bargaining committee (the Government encloses the corresponding documents).
4. 282. The Government states that from the above-mentioned documentary evidence, it can be concluded with absolute clarity that the CSI-CSIF was accorded equal treatment on a par with that given to other participating trade unions both in the setting up of the bargaining committees and in the subsequent bargaining process. A different matter is the fact that the scant proposals made by this trade union were not incorporated by the above-mentioned bargaining committees into the final agreements which were also signed by the CSI-CSIF.
5. 283. In its communication of 1 October 1996, the new Government emphasizes that the comments presented on 28 December 1995 by the complainant repeat for a large part what it had stated in its initial communication; as a result, the former Government's observations apply to these comments also. As regards the statement of the CSI-CSIF to the effect that the agreements were adopted on 22 December 1994 (that is, before this union was convened to negotiations on 23 and 27 December of the same year), the Government emphasizes that the agreements were concluded on 27 December 1994 and were signed by this organization as well, as is clear from the documents sent by the Economic and Finance Ministry of the Autonomous Community of Madrid (the agreements referred to were attached to the Government's reply).

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 284. The Committee observes that in this case the CSI-CSIF alleges: (1) that a decision to set up bargaining committees on some aspects of a collective agreement and the funding of workplaces which concerned civil servants and workers in the Autonomous Community of Madrid was taken between the trade unions UGT and CC.OO and the Economic and Finance Minister of this Autonomous Community, which excluded the complainant organization; (2) that it was not informed of negotiations by the bargaining committees (set up in September 1994) until November 1995; and (3) that the (pre-)agreements were signed by the UGT and CC.OO before the complainant organization was convened.
2. 285. The Committee observes that the Government sends documentation which proves that the Director-General of the Civil Service convened the complainant organization on 26 September 1994 to participate in collective bargaining for civil service staff and the establishment of the bargaining committee of the collective agreement for workers. The Committee also observes that the Government encloses specific proposals made by the complainant organization (dated 29 September 1994) on the matter of the "allocation of economic resources", within the framework of the general bargaining committee. Similarly, the Government encloses documents which show that the complainant organization was once again convened on 3 October 1994 to the general bargaining committee. The Committee observes that the complainant organization has not commented on any of these points, despite having been invited to do so by the Committee.
3. 286. The Committee concludes that, as the Government points out, the complainant organization was convened to participate both in the setting up of the bargaining committees and in the subsequent bargaining process.
4. 287. Lastly, the Committee notes that the complainant organization has withdrawn the appeal it had lodged before the Spanish jurisdictional authorities and observes that the final agreement was dated 27 December 1994 and was also signed by the complainant organization.