Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee takes note of the observations submitted by the following trade union organizations: (1) the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), dated 28 August 2009, referring to the Government’s refusal to discuss collective labour agreements with the workers in certain sectors (health, courts, petroleum, cement, electricity, public sector, etc.); (2) the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 24 August 2010, referring to practices that undermine collective bargaining, such as unwarranted delays in bargaining talks in both the public and the private sectors and collective bargaining violations in various enterprises and sectors in the country; (3) the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI), dated 31 August 2010, likewise referring to delays in the discussion of collective agreements and the absence of social dialogue, and to the failure to renew collective agreements, whose expiry dates back many years, a yearly decrease in the number of collective agreements in comparison to the increasing number of workers and trade unions, the cancellation of one negotiated collective agreement to impose another in its stead, and the requirement that in order to initiate the collective bargaining process, trade union executive committees must be approved by the National Electoral Council (CNE); and (4) the Single National Union of Public Employees of the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (SUNEP–CVG), dated 10 November 2010. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments made by the CSI, the CTV and the ASI.

Article 4 of the Convention. Right to collective bargaining. In its previous comments, in view of the ITUC’s observation that the collective bargaining processes in various sectors had been at a standstill since 2006 (pointing out that 243 collective agreement had not been signed and more than 3,500 had not been discussed), the Committee requested the Government to send its observations on the comments made by the ITUC on the situation of collective bargaining, and to provide information on the cases in which two trade union organizations claimed to be the most representative, and on the administrative decisions taken by the labour authority in accordance with the provisions on trade union referendums, and to send the texts of those provisions.

As regards the cases in which two trade union organizations claimed to be the most representative, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that in order to determine which of two trade union organizations or groups of trade union organizations really represents the majority of the workers for the purposes of collective bargaining, the workers concerned are consulted directly by means of a trade union referendum, which establishes which one has the majority support of the workers. The Committee further notes that the Government cites the occurrence at the Polar Brewery as an example, but has not sent the texts of the administrative decisions rendered by the labour authority pursuant to the provisions on trade union referendums. Consequently, the Committee again requests the Government to provide the texts of the administrative decisions rendered by the labour authority in the last three years pursuant to the provisions on trade union referendums.

With regard to the situation of collective bargaining, the Committee notes the observations sent by the Government responding to the comments by the CTV and the ITUC regarding delays in the talks on collective agreements in the public sector and the absence of social dialogue. The Committee further notes that according to the ITUC’s comments of 2010: (1) the Government’s failure to engage in social dialogue and the refusal to establish tripartite consultations on policies affecting workers’ conditions and living standards led to numerous trade union protests; (2) in 2009, unjustified delays in collective bargaining talks were common practice in both the public and the private sectors; and (3) the delays resulted in the expiry of many collective agreements and the failure to renew them (by June 2009, 243 collective agreements were left unsigned in the public sector, adversely affecting 1.5 million public employees, and more than 3,500 agreements had not been discussed). The Committee notes that according to the ASI, in 2008, 562 collective agreements were approved, a drop as compared to the figure for 2007 (612). The ASI adds that, according to the press, as at November 2009 only 87,821 persons were covered by collective agreements. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government that a number of collective agreements have been concluded (including agreements with the education, underground transportation, electricity, telecommunications, health and petroleum sectors, and with public enterprises) and that there are two collective agreements being drafted for the court workers in the judicial sector. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that between 1999 and 2009, 6,914 collective agreement were approved in the country, with an aggregate total of 6,399,909 workers covered (an average of 629 collective agreements signed per year and 581,810 workers covered); 692 agreements were concluded in 2008 (with 163,528 workers covered) and 484 in 2009 (with 603,920 workers covered). According to the Government, until June 2010, three collective agreements were approved in the public sector covering 42,014 workers; during the same period, in the private sector, four collective agreements were approved covering 803,276 workers, including, as regards the latter, the Industrial Building Rule which covers 800,000 workers in the building sector. The Government adds that far from suffering any delay, standstill or obstruction, collective bargaining has been encouraged and such processes have greatly increased. In view of the considerable discrepancy in the figures supplied by the trade unions and those sent by the Government, the Committee requests the Government to continue to send information and statistics on collective agreements (number, categories covered, number of workers covered, etc.). In the Committee’s view, it would be appropriate for the Government to examine, together with the trade unions, the information the number and coverage of existing collective agreements.

Lastly, the Committee notes the ITUC’s statement that on 8 May 2009 the Government called a meeting to which it invited only the union organizations that support the Government’s policy – the Fuerza Unitaria National Union of the Teaching Profession (SINAFUM), the Venezuelan Federation of Teachers (FVM), and the Venezuelan Federation of Educators (FEV) – and signed a collective agreement with them, leaving aside six other federations (FETRAENZEÑANZA, FETRAMAGISTERIO, FETRASINED, FENAPRODO, FESLEV and FENATEV) on the grounds that they had not met the requirements for holding trade union elections and presenting financial reports to the National Electoral Council (CNE). The Committee notes with concern that in addition, according to the CTV, several large organizations – such as the Single National Union of Public Employees, and Professional, Technical and Administrative Staff of the Ministry of Health and Social Development (SUNEP–SAS), the Federation of Health Workers (FETRASALUD), the Federation of Public Employees (FEDEUNEP) and the Venezuelan Medical Federation (FMV) – have been unable to bargain collectively for the renewal of their collective agreements because of “overdue elections” (they failed to hold elections upon expiry of their executive boards’ terms of office), a situation which bars them by law from exercising the right to bargaining collectively. Pointing out that certain instances of overdue elections have been linked to interference by the CNE, according to the reports issued by the Committee on Freedom of Association in recent years, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that these organizations are able to elect their bodies without any interference whatsoever from the CNE (which is not a judicial body and which may hear any claim from a small group of workers and hold up the endorsement of the elections), so that these major trade union organizations may exercise their right to bargain collectively and defend the interests of their members.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and other communications.

The Committee recalls that it previously asked the Government to provide information on: (1) the cases that have arisen in recent years in which two trade union organizations claimed to be the most representative; (2) the criteria used in practice by the authorities to determine the most representative trade union; and (3) the number of cases in which the decision of the administrative authority has been challenged in a court of law, indicating the grounds put forward by the complainant trade union organization.

The Committee notes that the Government points out that the criteria used to determine the most representative trade union is that provided for in the Regulations of the Basic Labour Act concerning trade union referendums and that it is not aware of any appeals being lodged against decisions concerning the representativeness of trade unions. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent specific information concerning the cases in which, given that two trade union organizations claimed to be the most representative, the labour authority would have had to have issued a decision.

In this regard, taking into account the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) that: (1) the collective bargaining processes in various sectors have been at a standstill since 2006 (it points out that 243 collective agreements have not been signed and more than 3,500 have not been discussed), and (2) that the trade union referendum mechanism could be a form of state interference in trade union life, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the cases in which two trade union organizations claimed to be the most representative, as well as on the administrative decisions adopted by the labour authority in accordance with the provisions on trade union referendums, and to send the texts of those provisions. The Committee also requests the Government to send its observations on the comments made by the ITUC on the situation with regard to collective bargaining.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and, in particular, the information concerning the procedure followed to determine the representativeness of trade union organizations in the collective bargaining process.

The Committee asks the Government, once again, to provide information on the cases that have arisen in recent years in which two trade union organizations claimed to be the most representative and on the criteria used in practice by the authorities to determine the most representative trade union. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the number of cases in which the decision of the administrative authority has been challenged in a court of law, indicating the grounds put forward by the complainant trade union organization.

Lastly, the Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention and refers, in this respect, to its observation on the application of Convention No. 87.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee also notes the report of the direct contacts mission which visited Venezuela from 13 to 15 October 2004, and the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) (30 July 2004). The Committee notes that the comments made by the IOE are addressed in the observation relating to the application of Convention No. 87.

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that, according to the report of the direct contacts mission, the Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act will soon be submitted to the Legislative Assembly and that it contains provisions reinforcing the sanctions in the event of violations of the guarantees protecting freedom of association (acts of anti-union discrimination or interference) with fines of between 250 and 500 tax units, as well as, in situations in which a single trade union exists in an enterprise but does not represent the majority of the workers, allowing the employer to negotiate a collective agreement with this union.

With regard to its previous comments concerning the negotiation of collective agreements with non-representative organizations of workers, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that at the outset of bargaining unions that are able to demonstrate their representativeness are recognized. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on cases which have occurred in recent years in which two unions claimed to be the most representative and on the respective criteria followed in practice by the authorities in determining the most representative trade union.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

In an earlier direct request the Committee asked the Government to provide information on: (1) whether the Act of 2002 concerning the public service prohibits and penalizes acts of anti-union discrimination against workers in the public service who are not engaged in the administration of the State and acts of interference in organizations of public employees by the national, federated state or municipal public administration; and (2) the rules of procedure that govern collective bargaining in the public administration.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the Basic Labour Act applies as regards prohibiting and penalizing acts of anti-union discrimination against workers in the public service who are not engaged in the administration of the State and acts of interference in organizations of public employees by the national, federated state or municipal public administration. The Committee further notes that the Government refers to the draft reform of the Basic Labour Act concerning amendments pertaining to the amount of fines. The Committee examines this matter in the context of its observation on Venezuela’s application of Convention No. 98.

With regard to the rules of procedure for collective bargaining in the public administration, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the negotiation of collective agreements in the public sector is governed by specific rules contained in sections 182-192 of the Basic Labour Act Regulations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

1. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference; majorities required for collective bargaining. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, a new Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act was submitted to the National Assembly on 9 May 2003 and was approved at first reading on 17 June 2003, and that the second reading has begun, with the consultation and participation of all social partners. The Committee observes that the Bill contains several provisions that take account of the comments the Committee has been making for many years (particularly the provision that where a trade union does not represent an absolute majority of the workers in an enterprise, it can at least negotiate an agreement on behalf of its members (section 473(2) of the Basic Labour Act); and the provision of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by means of effective sanctions (sections 637 and 639 of the Basic Labour Act)). The Committee draws attention to the seriousness of the current problems and hopes that the new Bill will be adopted shortly. The Government is requested to provide information in its next report on all developments in this matter.

2. Comments submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on 17 September 2002 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the ICFTU refers to the questions raised by the Committee in the previous paragraph and makes the following additional points: (1) in the context of state restructuring, the Government issued a decree withdrawing the employment stability laid down in the legislation and collective agreements thus allowing the dismissal of trade union officials in the public sector; (2) in breach of existing collective agreements, officers of the organization of National Assembly employees were transferred and workers of the Guacara Industrial Zone were dismissed; and (3) the Government has negotiated collective agreements with unions which are not representative and which the Government controls (as examples, the ICFTU cites the collective agreement signed by Pequiven, a subsidiary of PDVSA, and the Fuerza Bolivariana de Trabajadores). The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (i) it is not, and will not be, government practice to disregard the human and trade union rights of workers, particularly the right to organize and conclude collective agreements; (ii) the executives of more than 2,800 trade unions have been renewed by elections carried out in accordance with the unions’ by-laws, so it can hardly be alleged that the Government has intervened or interfered since it is the trade union leaders themselves who, without any kind of pressure or threat, negotiate, approve and conclude the agreements with employers and state institutions; (iii) during the term of the present Government, more than 3,000 collective agreements have been discussed and concluded, to the benefit of some 9 million workers; and (iv) as regards the observations of the supervisory bodies, work is being carried out promptly and transparently to bring the domestic legislation into line with ratified international labour Conventions.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government has sent no specific response to the ICFTU’s comments on the transfers and dismissals of workers for trade union activities and the negotiation of a collective agreement with a non-representative organization which the Government controls. The Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has had to examine a series of cases concerning anti-union dismissals and transfers. The Committee recalls in general that Article 1 of the Convention requires workers to be protected adequately against acts of anti-union discrimination both at the time of hiring and in the course of employment, and also upon termination of the employment relationship, and that the protection is against all measures of a discriminatory nature (dismissal, transfer, demotion and any other prejudicial act). The protection provided in the Convention is particularly important in the case of trade union representatives and officers, who must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the union office which they hold (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 223). Furthermore, bearing in mind that the legislation grants the right of collective bargaining to the most representative organization, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that at the outset of the bargaining, unions that are able to demonstrate their representativeness are recognized.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the adoption of the Act on the public service. It requests the Government to state in its next report: (1) whether the Act prohibits and penalizes acts of anti-union discrimination against workers in the public service who are not engaged in the administration of the State and acts of interference in organizations of public employees by the national, federated state or municipal public administration; and (2) which rules of procedure govern collective bargaining in the public administration.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the observation of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 17 September 2002 on the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments thereon.

The Committee notes the report of the direct contacts mission carried out in Venezuela in May 2002.

The Committee also notes that a bill to reform the Basic Labour Law, drafted after the abovementioned mission, was submitted to the National Assembly on 7 June 2002. The Committee observes that the bill contains several provisions that take account of the comments that the Committee has been making for many years (particularly providing that where no trade union represents an absolute majority of workers in an enterprise, it can at least negotiate an agreement on behalf of its members; and protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by means of effective sanctions). The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any developments in the processing of the abovementioned bill.

Lastly, in its previous observation the Committee had noted the comments of the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) raising objections to the Act to reform the judicial authorities, adopted on 26 August 1998, on the grounds that it was in breach of the collective agreement in force in the sector. In this regard, the Committee notes from the report of the direct contacts mission the authorities’ statement that: (1) the Act to reform the judiciary never really came into force; and (2) labour relations in the judiciary are currently governed by collective agreements.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2067 (324th, 325th and 326th Reports).

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the sanctions against anti-union discrimination and interference (sections 637 and 639 of the Fundamental Labour Act (LOT) which limit fines to two months’ minimum wages) are not merely symbolic, but are sufficiently dissuasive and effective. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that a Bill has been prepared (to amend section 187 of the Procedural Labour Act) to adjust the rates of fines, based on tariff blocks, with a view to ensuring that such financial sanctions are sufficiently dissuasive and effective. The Committee hopes that the above Bill will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to provide information in this respect in its next report.

Article 4. The Committee recalls that for many years it has been referring to the restrictions on collective bargaining under section 473(2) of the LOT, which provides that to negotiate a collective agreement the trade union concerned must represent the absolute majority of workers in an enterprise. The Committee notes that the Government refers to section 145 of the LOT regulations, under which two or more trade union organizations may act jointly for the purposes of obliging the employer to engage in collective bargaining or to exercise the right to industrial action. While the Government also indicates that in cases in which there have been problems of representivity, in the sense that trade union organizations submitting draft collective agreements do not represent the absolute majority, the Ministry of Labour has encouraged negotiation (the Government cites as an example the case of the negotiation of the collective agreement in the enterprise Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. and that of the employees in the courts), the Committee recalls that the provisions of section 73(2) of the LOT do not promote collective bargaining in the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. In these conditions, the Committee once again asks the Government to take measures to amend this provision so that in cases where no union organization represents an absolute majority of workers, minority organizations may jointly negotiate a collective agreement applicable to the enterprise or negotiating unit, or at least conclude a collective agreement on behalf of their members. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.

The Committee also notes that on 30 January 2000 the National Constituent Assembly adopted a decree suspending the process of discussing the collective contract in the enterprise Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. for a period of 180 days in special consideration of the state of national emergency and that the period in question may be prolonged. The Committee considers that having recourse to the suspension of a process of collective bargaining by decree constitutes an act of interference by the authorities in the relations between the social partners, which is a serious violation of the right to collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to repeal the decree concerned and to inform it in this respect in its next report.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted the comments of the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) dated 11 February 1999 raising objections to the Act to reform the judicial authorities and the Act governing careers in the judiciary, adopted on 26 and 27 August 1998. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided its comments in this respect. The Committee notes that, according to the WCL, a number of the provisions of the above Acts (such as those respecting the increase in the working day, the elimination of the right to annual holidays and the elimination of employment stability) violate the provisions of the collective agreement in force in the sector. The Committee emphasizes in this respect that legislation which modifies collective agreements which are already in force is not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. In these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that effect is given to the clauses of the collective agreement in question.

Finally, the Committee, in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association (see 326th Report, Case No. 2067, paragraph 517(a)), requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the Bill for the protection of trade union guarantees and freedoms and the Bill respecting the democratic rights of workers are withdrawn.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report together with the comments submitted by the World Labour Federation, dated 11 February 1999, in which it raised objections to the Acts, adopted on 26 and 27 August 1998, reforming the powers vested in the judiciary and governing careers in the judiciary. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that over a number of years it has been referring to the need to strengthen sanctions against anti-union discrimination so that they are sufficiently effective and dissuasive. The Committee notes with interest the enactment of Decree No. 3235 of 25 January 1999 (regulating the fundamental Labour Act), prohibiting anti-union practices and behaviour (section 243), defining anti-union practice and behaviour (section 244) and enabling workers who have been subjected to anti-union discrimination to have recourse to the Constitution (section 14). The Committee requests the Government to continue to make every effort to give full effect to these provisions of the Convention and to take the necessary measures to ensure that sanctions against anti-union discrimination and interference (sections 637 and 639 of the fundamental Labour Act which limit fines to two months' minimum wages) are not merely symbolic but are sufficiently dissuasive and effective. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on all measures adopted in this respect.

Article 4. The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been referring to the restrictions on collective bargaining under section 473(2) of the fundamental Labour Act, which stipulates that to negotiate a collective agreement the trade union in question must represent an absolute majority of the workers of an enterprise. The Committee notes that the Government makes no reference to this question in its report. The Committee reminds the Government that this provision does not promote collective bargaining within the meaning of Article 4. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend this provision so that in cases where no union organization represents an absolute majority of workers, minority organizations may jointly negotiate a collective agreement applicable to the enterprise or negotiating unit, or at least conclude a collective agreement on behalf of their members. The Committee requests the Government to inform it, in its next report, of any measures adopted in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government forwarded a copy of the tripartite agreement concluded between the Ministry of Labour, the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS) and the Workers' Confederation of Venezuela (CTV). The above agreement provides that until a draft text partially reforming the Organic Labour Act, measures must be taken in response to the suggestions made by the ILO supervisory bodies (as a result of the representation presented by FEDECAMARAS and the International Organization of Employers under article 24 of the ILO Constitution) which can be implemented by the labour administration, and that within a maximum of two months, a tripartite committee will be established to prepare the necessary instruments to bring the national law and practice into conformity with international standards.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to: (1) strengthening the sanctions applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination and interference so that they are sufficiently effective and dissuasive (sections 637 and 639 of the Organic Labour Act which limits the fine to two minimum salaries), and (2) restrictions on collective bargaining under section 473, paragraph 2 of the Organic Labour Act, which provides that a trade union must represent an absolute majority of the workers of an enterprise to negotiate a collective agreement.

The Committee notes that the Government has not referred to the matter of sanctions applicable in the case of anti-union discrimination and interference. In this respect, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sanctions applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination and interference (sections 637 and 639 of the Organic Labour Act) are sufficiently dissuasive and effective. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.

With regard the requirement that a trade union must in all cases represent the absolute majority of the workers of an enterprise to be able to negotiate a collective agreement (section 473(2), of the Organic Labour Act), the Committee notes with interest that the above tripartite agreement provides that this section must be amended so that, in cases where there is no trade union to represent the absolute majority of workers, minority organizations may jointly negotiate a collective agreement, or at least conclude a collective agreement on behalf of their members.

The Committee expresses the hope that the committee responsible for preparing reforms of the Organic Labour Act will be established within the time limit provided for in the agreement and that these texts which will bring the law into conformity with the Convention will cover all the provisions which have been the subject of its comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with further information in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the report supplied by the Government.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to (1) the strengthening of the penalties applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination and interference so that they are sufficiently effective and dissuasive (sections 637 and 639 of the fundamental Labour Act which limits fines to two minimum wages); and (2) certain restrictions on collective bargaining under section 473, paragraph 2, of the fundamental Labour Act, which provides that in order to negotiate a collective agreement, the trade union in question must represent an absolute majority of the workers in an enterprise, and section 507 of the same law which does not envisage the possibility that, in the absence of trade union organizations, workers' representatives may negotiate with employers.

With reference to the sanctions applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that the Government recognizes that in fact the fines established in sections 637 and 639 of the fundamental Labour Act do not represent a penalty which employers are likely to fear. In practice it states that no employers have committed the offences established in these sections. The Committee would ask the Government to monitor this carefully in the future. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to guarantee that the sanctions applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination and interference (sections 637 and 639 of the fundamental Labour Act), are not merely symbolic but are sufficiently dissuasive and effective. The Committee recalls that legal standards are inadequate if they are not coupled with effective and expeditious procedures and with sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application (see 1994 General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 224). The Committee requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on all measures adopted in this respect.

With reference to the need, in all cases, for a trade union to represent the absolute majority of workers in an enterprise for the purposes of negotiating a collective agreement (section 473, paragraph 2 of the fundamental Labour Act), the Committee reminds the Government that this provision does not promote collective bargaining as it is defined in Article 4 and requests the Government to take measures to amend the provision in question so that in those cases where no union organization represents an absolute majority of workers, minority organizations may jointly negotiate a collective agreement applicable to the enterprise or negotiating unit, or at least conclude a collective agreement on behalf of their members. The Committee requests the Government to inform it, in its next report, of any measures adopted in this respect.

As regards the fact that the fundamental Labour Act does not envisage the possibility that, in the absence of trade union organizations, workers' representatives may negotiate with employers (section 507), the Committee notes that the Government explains that in accordance with legislation collective bargaining must be conducted through a trade union.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1612 (298th Report, para. 20, approved by the Governing Body at its 262nd Session, March-April 1995).

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to:

- request for details on the possibility for organizations of civilian staff employed in the armed forces and independent institutions and state enterprises dependent on the Ministry of Defence to be able to conclude collective agreements (sections 7 and 8 of the Fundamental Labour Act);

- the reinforcement of penalties applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination and interference so that they are sufficiently effective and dissuasive (sections 637 and 639 of the Fundamental Labour Act, which limits fines to two minimum wages); and

- the restrictions on collective bargaining (sections 473(2) and 507 of the Fundamental Labour Act).

With reference to the first issue, the Committee takes due note that, according to the information supplied by the Government, civilian staff employed by the armed forces and independent institutions and state enterprises dependent on the Ministry of Defence fulfil an important administrative role related to the constitutional mandate of the Ministry to maintain order and preserve national sovereignty. The Committee also notes the unified National Federation of Public Employees is responsible for negotiating collective agreements for all public employees, and that the Government recently concluded two collective agreements with various trade union organizations covering most of the workers in the public sector; one agreement is applicable to manual workers and the other to public employees. It notes that the economic terms of these agreements are also applicable to workers in the defence sector.

The Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to its other comments and therefore once again requests it to take the necessary measures to ensure that the penalties applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination and interference (sections 637 and 639 of the Fundamental Labour Act) are not merely symbolic in their nature, and that the appropriate measures are taken to ensure that they are sufficiently effective and dissuasive.

With regard to the third issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that in practice workers and their trade union organizations can conduct voluntary and free collective negotiations with their employers, if both parties so wish.

The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of the measures adopted in relation to its previous comments.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and the provisional conclusion of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning Case No. 1612 (290th report, paragraphs 14-34, approved by the Governing Body at its 256th Session, May 1993).

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the following points:

- the possibility for collective agreements to be concluded between organizations of civilian staff employed by the armed forces and independent institutions and state enterprises dependent on the Ministry of Defence (sections 7 and 8 of the Organic Labour Act);

- more effective and dissuasive penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination and interference (sections 637 and 639 of the Organic Labour Act).

The Committee notes that the Organic Labour Act does not apply to military staff but does apply to civilian personnel working for the Ministry of Defence and in independent institutes or enterprises dependent on the Ministry.

The Committee asks the Government to provide information on unions that have been established and collective contracts that have been concluded, that concern the above-mentioned civilian personnel.

The Committee furthermore again asks the Government to consider adopting measures to ensure that the penalties applying to acts of anti-union discrimination and interference (sections 637 and 639 of the Organic Act), are sufficiently effective and dissuasive.

The Committee expresses the hope, as did the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1612, that the Government will take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to allow workers, in the absence of an organization, to conduct without hindrance voluntary and free collective negotiations, if both parties so wish.

The Committee asks the Government in its next report to provide information on measures taken in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the contents of the new Organic Labour Act of 27 November 1990.

In its previous direct request, the Committee criticised the Organic Act respecting the national armed forces, which, as amended in 1983, prohibits the conclusion of collective labour agreements between civilian staff employed by the armed forces and independent institutes and state enterprises dependent on the Ministry of Defence. The Committee indicated that only public servants engaged in the administration of the State and the armed forces lay outside the scope of the Convention (Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention).

The Committee notes with interest that the new Organic Labour Act provides that staff employed in providing services for the armed forces shall enjoy benefits that are not inferior to those enjoyed by workers covered by the Act in so far as this is compatible with the nature of their work (section 7) and that public servants and employees who hold career positions shall have the right to bargain collectively (section 8).

The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether these provisions permit collective agreements to be concluded between the organisations of civilian staff employed by the armed forces and independent institutes and state enterprises dependent on the Ministry of Defence.

The Committee also reminded the Government, with reference to Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, of the importance of providing for sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties, and particularly heavy fines, against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, and it hoped that practical steps would be taken in this respect.

In this connection, the Committee notes that the new Organic Labour Act, in sections 637 and 639, prescribes fines only of a sum between one-quarter and twice the minimum monthly wage in the event of the employer violating the legal guarantees of freedom of association or refusing to respect an order to reinstate a worker who is protected by legal provisions respecting the right of association. The Committee therefore requests the Government to consider the adoption of measures to ensure that the penalties that are applicable in the event of anti-union discrimination and interference are sufficiently effective and dissuasive.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's report and recalls that its previous comment dealt with section 426 of the Organic Act respecting the national armed forces, as amended in 1983, which allows the exclusion of civilian staff employed by the national armed forces, as well as employees of independent institutes and state enterprises dependent on the Ministry of Defence from the right to conclude labour agreements, whereas only public servants engaged in the administration of the State and the armed forces themselves may be excluded from the scope of the Convention.

In its report, the Government indicates that important developments have occurred in the public administration as regards collective bargaining, but no final response has yet been agreed. The changes that have been made in the Labour Bill, particularly as regards its scope, could have a direct effect on the right to collective bargaining in the public service.

While noting these statements, the Committee trusts that the legislation will be made more flexible and that appropriate measures will be taken to encourage and promote the development and utilisation of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between the civilian staff of the armed forces, independent institutes and state enterprises dependent on the Ministry of Defence and their employers with a view to the regulation, by these means, of terms and conditions of employment, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. It requests the Government to supply information on the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee noted with interest the Government's intention to amend section 270 of the Labour Act to increase the amount of the fine that may be imposed on employers who dismiss a worker in violation of the statutory trade union protection set out in section 204 or who refuse to reinstate a worker.

In its last report, the Government indicates that the Committee's comments have been transmitted to the Congress of the Republic within the context of the discussion of the General Labour Bill, and that it hopes that the amount of fines for employers who infringe the provisions of the Convention will be increased significantly.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls the importance of protecting workers against acts of anti-union discrimination through sufficiently severe penalties, and particularly through heavy fines, and it hopes that practical steps will be taken in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the progress achieved in this connection.