All Comments

Home Page | Français | Español |

ILO is a United Nations Agency

RSS Feed | Newsroom | Contact us

NORMLEX

Information System on International Labour Standards

Instruments
Key documents
Ratification of ILO Conventions
Supervising the application of International Labour Standards: Supervision by country; Search comments by the supervisory bodies; Complaint procedures; Freedom of association cases; Representations (Art. 24); Commission of Inquiry (Art. 26)
Regular reporting
Country profiles
Comparatives
Maritime Labour Convention (2006)

MLC, 2006

NATLEX *new look*
National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights

LEGOSH
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation

EPLex
Employment protection legislation database

Compendium of court decisions

NORMLEX Home > Country profiles > > Comments > All Comments

Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, 1962 (No. 118) - Uruguay (Ratification: 1983)

Display in: French - Spanish

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the additional information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee has examined the application of the Conventions on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year (see Part IV, Article 21, of Convention No. 102), as well as on the basis of the information available to it in 2019.

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on social security, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions No. 102 (minimum standards), No. 118 (equality of treatment), and No. 121 (employment injury benefits) together.

Part II (Medical care). Article 9, in conjunction with Article 10(1) of Convention No. 102. Coverage of the spouses of insured persons. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request regarding the extent to which the spouses of insured persons are covered, particularly with respect to medical care for maternity.

Article 10(2) of Convention No. 102. Cost-sharing. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request regarding cost sharing by beneficiaries for medical care, including in the case of maternity. In relation to medical care in the case of maternity, the Committee requests the Government to confirm that, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the Convention, cost-sharing is not required for the pre-natal, confinement and post-natal medical care provided under Article 10(1)(b) of the Convention.

Part IV (Unemployment benefit). Article 21 of Convention No. 102. Scope of coverage. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning the total number of employees protected under each unemployment benefit scheme.

Part VII (Family benefit). Article 40, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(e), of Convention No. 102. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request regarding the conditions of entitlement to family benefit.

Part XIII (Common provisions) of Convention No. 102. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided the information requested in relation to the application of Articles 69, 70, 71 and 72 of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide this information.

Article 5, in conjunction with Article 8 of Convention No. 118. Benefits for the victims of employment injury and their dependants. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the national legislation which, in section 33(1) of Act No. 16074 on industrial accidents and occupational diseases insurance, adopted in 1989, provided that when beneficiaries were residents in another country without nominating an agent, the payment of benefits shall be suspended. Moreover, the dependants of workers who had died as a result of an employment accident or an occupational disease, who were living abroad at the time of the accident or the disease, were entitled to receive the benefit only as from the date on which they settled in Uruguay, and only for the period during which they reside there (section 33(3) of the Act). The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the adoption of the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention, which provides that each Member that has ratified it shall guarantee to its own nationals and to the nationals of any other Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of the branch or branches in question, when they are resident abroad, provision of employment injury benefits, subject to measures for this purpose being taken, where necessary, in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its reply, the Government indicates the bilateral or multilateral agreements concluded to this effect and also indicates that the Uruguayan Social Security Bank (BPS) pays its benefits in any country in which the retired beneficiary or beneficiary of a pension is located, whether or not there is a social security agreement. While, noting with interest the Government’s indications regarding the application in practice of Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to specify whether in practice the BPS also pays benefits for permanent invalidity or death as a result of employment injury to the nationals of any other Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of the branch or branches in question, when they are resident abroad. The Committee also once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention with regard to the payment abroad of employment injury benefits and to provide information on any measures adopted or envisaged in this respect.

Article 10 of Convention No. 121. Domiciliary visiting. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 11 of Act No. 16074 of 1989 on industrial accidents and occupational diseases insurance, does not envisage the provision of medical care at the home of the worker, if necessary, in accordance with Article 10(a) of the Convention, and reiterated the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to give full effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s reply indicating that, in recent years, a home-based care system has been implemented to provide treatment and nursing care and meet the other needs that affect the patient’s health, with a view to conserving psycho-social conditions. Home-based nursing care is provided in accordance with protocols established for each situation with monitoring and evaluation of compliance with the guidelines and, where appropriate, educational and promotional activities are conducted regarding the procedures carried out during the in-patient hospital treatment. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the relevant legal provisions and regulations, with an indication of whether they include a direct reference to cases of employment injury.

Article 19 and the application in practice of Convention No. 121. Employers not insured for employment injury. Rate of the benefit. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 8 of Act No. 16074 of 1989, on industrial accidents and occupational diseases insurance, provides that compensation paid by the State Insurance Fund to victims of employment injury employed by uninsured employers is calculated on the basis of the national minimum wage and it requested the Government to calculate the replacement rate obtained in the case of workers having the same earnings and dependants as the standard beneficiary envisaged by Articles 19 or 20 of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the replacement rates for all workers and observes that that these rates would apply to workers who have not been insured by their employers on the basis of the national minimum wage, rather than the worker’s actual wages, as is the case for insured workers. The Committee further observes that the national minimum wage may, in some cases, be lower than the real wage paid to the workers concerned, which can lead to a lower rate of compensation for these workers. While noting that the legislation guarantees the payment of compensation irrespective of whether employers have complied with their obligation to insure their workers, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to improve compliance by employers with their obligation to take out employment injury insurance, thereby encouraging the registration of their workers with the State Insurance Fund, to ensure that they are able to receive benefits at the rate envisaged for insured workers.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 10(2). Cost-sharing. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request regarding cost sharing by beneficiaries for medical care, including in the case of maternity. In relation to medical care in the case of maternity, the Committee requests the Government to confirm that, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the Convention, cost-sharing is not required for the pre-natal, confinement and post-natal medical care received, as established in this Article of the Convention.

Article 21. Scope of coverage. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the total number of employees protected under each unemployment benefit scheme.

Part VII (Family benefit). Article 40, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(e). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request regarding the conditions of entitlement to family benefit.

Part XIII (Common provisions). The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided the information requested in relation to the application of Articles 69, 70, 71 and 72 of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide this information.

Article 19 and application in practice of the Convention. Employers not insured for employment injury. Rate of the benefit. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 8 of Act No. 16074 of 1989, on industrial accidents and occupational diseases insurance, provides that compensation paid by the State Insurance Fund to victims of employment injury employed by uninsured employers is calculated on the basis of the national minimum wage and it requested the Government to calculate the replacement rate obtained in the case of workers having the same earnings and dependants as the standard beneficiary envisaged by Articles 19 or 20 of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the replacement rates for all workers and observes that that these rates would apply to workers who have not been insured by their employers on the basis of the national minimum wage, rather than the worker’s actual wages, as is the case for insured workers. The Committee further observes that the national minimum wage may, in some cases, be lower than the real wage paid to the workers concerned, which can lead to a lower rate of compensation for these workers. While noting that the legislation guarantees the payment of compensation irrespective of whether employers have complied with their obligation to insure their workers, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to improve compliance by employers with their obligation to take out employment injury insurance, thereby encouraging the registration of their workers with the State Insurance Fund, to ensure that they are able to receive benefits at the rate envisaged for insured workers.

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

Article 5 of the Convention (in conjunction with Article 8). Survivors’ benefits and employment injury benefits. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that, under the terms of section 33(1) of Act No. 16.074 of 1990, when beneficiaries are resident in another country without nominating an agent, the payment of benefits is suspended. Moreover, the dependants of workers who have died as a result of an employment accident or an occupational disease, who were living abroad at the time of the accident or the disease, are entitled to receive the benefits only on the date on which they settle in Uruguay, and only for the period during which they reside there (section 33(3) of the Act). The Committee wishes to emphasize once again that Article 5 of the Convention establishes the obligation for countries which ratify it to ensure the provision, of employment injury pensions among other benefits, both to its own nationals and to the nationals of any other Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of the corresponding branch, when they are resident abroad. In this context, Article 8 of the Convention recognizes that the conclusion of agreements for the maintenance of these rights is one of the principal means of guaranteeing the obligations deriving from the Convention. While regretting that the Government has not undertaken to bring the national legislation fully into conformity with the above international obligations, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future. The Committee requests the Government to provide information as to developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. It notes in particular the new social security agreements concluded by the Government of Uruguay with the Governments of Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal and Costa Rica.

Article 5 of the Convention (branch (g)) (in conjunction with Article 10). Employment injury benefit. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to specify whether the benefits paid to an agent in Uruguay, under the terms of section 33(1) of Act No. 16074 of 1989, are freely transferable by the agent to beneficiaries abroad. In its report, the Government indicates that the State Insurance Bank only checks credentials with a view to ensuring the payment in due form to the agent, following which, in accordance with the clauses of the agreement between the parties, the benefits can be transferred to beneficiaries resident abroad. The Committee notes this information. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures that the State Insurance Bank has or is envisaging adopting to ensure, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, the direct payment of benefits to beneficiaries who are unable to designate an agent. It also requests additional information on the application of bilateral agreements and on the number of beneficiaries residing abroad who are not covered by a bilateral agreement.

The Committee drew attention to the incompatibility with Article 5 of the Convention of the residence requirement set out in the last subsection of section 33 of the above Act, under which the dependants of workers who have died as a result of an employment accident or occupational disease, who were living abroad at the time of the accident or the disease, are entitled to receive the benefits only on the date on which they settle in Uruguay and only for the period during which they reside there. In its report, the Government indicates that retirement benefits are provided by Uruguay in any State in which the beneficiary is residing. In the case of survivors’ benefit, where a beneficiary is resident in a country with which there is no social security agreement, the benefit will be provided for a period of one year. While it takes due note of this information, the Committee reminds the Government that, under the terms of Article 5 of the Convention, the provision of survivors’ benefits shall be guaranteed to beneficiaries, when they are resident abroad, under the same conditions and for the same period of time as prescribed in sections 25 and 26 of Act No. 16713 of 3 September 1995 establishing the social insurance system. The Committee trusts that the Bill referred to in the previous report will be adopted in the near future and that, as the Government indicated, it will bring the national legislation into conformity with Article 5 of the Convention.

Article 6. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of Decree No. 316/999 of 6 October 1999, issuing rules relating to family allowances, as envisaged in section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 15084. It also noted that, in the same way as the Legislative Decree, section 6(3) of Decree No. 316 makes the provision of family allowances by the Social Insurance Bank conditional upon compliance with compulsory school attendance by the children in public or private teaching establishments authorized by the competent body. The Committee recalled that, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, each Member which has accepted the obligations in respect of family benefit shall guarantee the grant of family allowances both to its own nationals and to the nationals of any other Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i), as well as to refugees and stateless persons, in respect of children who reside on the territory of any such member State, on conditions and within limits to be agreed upon by the Members concerned.

In reply to these comments, the Government reports the adoption of Act No. 17758, under which the coverage of Legislative Decree No. 15084 and of Act No. 17139 is extended to households with income of any nature that is lower than three national minimum wages. With regard to the progress achieved in the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral social security agreements, the Government reiterates that three bills are currently undergoing the process of obtaining Parliamentary approval. In particular, with regard to the possibility of concluding an agreement with France, the Government indicates that no progress has been made in this respect as the Government of France is of the opinion that the number of Uruguayan nationals resident in France does not merit the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with Uruguay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress achieved in the adoption of the three bills that are currently undergoing the process of obtaining parliamentary approval. It hopes that the Government will continue to adopt measures with a view to ensuring that full effect is given to Article 6 of the Convention.

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

Article 5 of the Convention (branch (g)) (Employment injury benefit) (in conjunction with Article 10).

1. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government reports that the previous legislature did not approve the draft legislation prepared by the State Insurance Bank to amend section 33(1) and (2) of Act No. 16704 of 1989, which permits the suspension of a pension if the beneficiaries take up residence in another country without designating an agent or proposing another arrangement for payment which is accepted by the State Insurance Bank.

The Committee notes this information. It recalls that under Article 5 of the Convention, the State is obliged to ensure the provision of employment injury benefits to nationals of Uruguay and of any other State which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of branch (g), as well as for refugees and stateless persons, when the beneficiary is resident abroad. The Committee therefore hopes that the draft legislation will be adopted in the near future and that it will contain the necessary amendments to ensure the provision of the above benefits as of right and without any condition or restriction.

The Committee also notes that the Government did not reply to the questions raised in previous comments. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate whether the benefits paid to an agent in Uruguay, under the terms of section 33(1) of the above Act, are freely transferable by the agent to beneficiaries resident abroad. It also requests additional information on the application of bilateral agreements, as well as on the number of beneficiaries resident abroad who are not covered by a bilateral agreement.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee had drawn attention to the incompatibility with Article 5 of the Convention of the residence requirement set out in the last subsection of section 33 of Act No. 16074 of 1989, under which the dependants of workers who have died as a result of an industrial accident or occupational disease, who were living abroad at the time of the accident or the disease, are entitled to receive the benefits only from the date on which they settle in Uruguay and only for the period during which they reside there. The Committee trusts that the above draft legislation will be adopted in the near future and that, as indicated by the Government, it will bring the national legislation into conformity with Article 5 of the Convention by ensuring in all cases the provision of employment injury benefits to the dependants of deceased workers’, who are residing abroad (irrespective of whether the deceased worker was a national of Uruguay or a refugee or a stateless person or a national of a country that has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of branch (g)).

Article 6. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the adoption of Decree No. 316/1999, of 6 October 1999, issuing rules concerning the family allowances provided for in section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 15084. The Committee notes that, in the same way as the Legislative Decree, section 6(3) of Decree No. 316 makes the provision of family allowances by the Social Insurance Bank conditional upon compliance with compulsory school attendance of the children in public or private teaching establishments authorized by the competent body. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, each Member which has accepted the obligations in respect of family benefit shall guarantee the grant of family allowances both to its own nationals and to the nationals of any other Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i), as well as to refugees and stateless persons, in respect of children who reside on the territory of any such member State, on conditions and within limits to be agreed upon by the Members concerned.

The Committee also notes the information concerning the bilateral and multilateral social security agreements concluded by Uruguay and the statistical information concerning foreign workers resident in Uruguay. The Committee notes that three of the agreements concluded concern countries (Bolivia, Israel and Italy) which have accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of branch (i) "family benefit". The Committee notes the above information with interest. It hopes that the Government will continue adopting measures to give full effect to Article 6 of the Convention and requests the Government to continue providing information on any progress achieved in the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral social security agreements with States which have accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of branch (i) and with those with which migration occurs (such as, for example, France).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Article 5 of the Convention (branch (g)) (Employment injury benefit) (in conjunction with Article 10). 1. In previous comments, the Committee had pointed out that section 33, paragraphs (1) and (2), of Act No. 16.074 of 1989 permits suspension of a pension if the beneficiaries reside in another country without first designating an agent or proposing another arrangement for payment which is accepted by the State Insurance Bank. In reply, the Government states in its report that the situation remains the same, but the State Insurance Bank has drafted a law concerning this issue which is being prepared.

The Committee notes this information. It recalls that under Article 5 of the Convention the State must ensure the provision of employment injury benefits for nationals of Uruguay and of any other State which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of branch (g), as well as for refugees and stateless persons, when the beneficiary is resident abroad. The Committee therefore hopes that the draft legislation mentioned by the Government will be adopted soon and that it will contain the necessary amendments to ensure ipso jure and without any condition or restriction the provision of these benefits abroad, irrespective of the country of residence of the beneficiary, even when a bilateral or multilateral social security agreement has not been concluded with that country (subject, where appropriate, to the administrative assistance that States which have ratified this Convention are bound to afford each other, under the terms of Article 11). In the meantime, it again requests the Government to state whether the benefits paid to an agent in Uruguay, under the terms of section 33(1) of the above Act, are freely transferable by the agent to the beneficiaries resident abroad and to indicate any other arrangements for payment accepted by the State Insurance Bank under this provision, and to provide the rules adopted respecting the transfer of funds abroad.

In addition, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the State Insurance Bank pays benefits to 15 persons residing abroad who are covered by bilateral agreements. Given this relatively low number, the Committee requests further information on the application of bilateral agreements, as well as information on the number of beneficiaries resident abroad who are not covered by a bilateral agreement.

2. In previous comments, the Committee had drawn attention to the incompatibility with Article 5 of the Convention of the residence requirement set out in the last subsection of section 33 of Act No. 16.074 of 1989, under which the dependants of workers who have died as a result of an industrial accident or occupational disease, who were living abroad at the time of the accident or the disease, are entitled to receive the benefits only from the date on which they settle in Uruguay and only for the period during which they reside there. In reply, the Government states that the above-mentioned draft law will also address this issue. The Committee notes this information and hopes that the draft law will bring the national legislation into conformity with Article 5 of the Convention to ensure in all cases the provision of employment injury pension also to deceased workers' dependants (irrespective of their nationality) residing abroad where the deceased worker was a national of Uruguay, a refugee, a stateless person or a national of another country that has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of branch (g).

Article 6. The Committee previously had referred to Legislative Decree No. 15084 of 28 November 1980, under which family allowances provided by the Bank for Social Provisions are conditional upon sending the child to school in public or private teaching establishments authorized by the competent bodies. In reply, the Government states that accords pertaining to family benefits have been concluded with Argentina, Bolivia, Italy and Paraguay, and that the Mercosur customs union is studying the possibility of a multilateral Convention on social security, to which Uruguay will adhere in the future. The Committee notes this information. It recalls that, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, each Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of family benefit shall guarantee the grant of family allowances both to its own nationals and to the nationals of any other Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i), as well as to refugees and stateless persons, in respect of children who reside on the territory of any such Member, under conditions and within limits to be agreed upon by the Members concerned. It would appreciate being kept informed in future reports of any progress made in concluding bilateral or multilateral social security arrangements with the other States which have accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i) and with which there are migratory flows.

Lastly, the Committee again requests the Government to supply statistics on the number and nationality of foreign workers resident in Uruguay.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

Article 5 of the Convention (branch (g)) (Employment injury benefit) (in conjunction with Article 10). (a) In reply to the Committee's previous comments, the Government states that in order to receive their entitlement abroad, beneficiaries have two options, according to the country of residence. If the beneficiary resides in one of the countries which has concluded a bilateral social security agreement with Uruguay (namely, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain), benefits are transferred by bank order to one of the correspondents of the Bank of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay in the country concerned. In the other cases, a certificado de vida (current identification) is regularly required. The Government adds that a draft text to amend Act No. 16.074 of 1989 respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases is currently under examination and that account will be taken to ensure its compatibility with this provision of the Convention.

The Committee notes this information. However, with regard to beneficiaries who are resident abroad and cannot avail themselves of the terms of a bilateral or multilateral social security agreement, the Committee notes that the report does not contain a reply to the matters raised in its previous direct request concerning section 33(1) and (2) of the above Act No. 16.074 of 1989, under which a pension can be suspended if the beneficiaries go to reside in another country without designating an agent or proposing another arrangement for payment which is accepted by the State Insurance Bank. In this respect, the Committee once again draws the Government's attention to the fact that by virtue of Article 5 of the Convention it must be possible to transfer the employment injury benefit, among other types of benefit, of nationals of Uruguay and of any other State which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of the branch concerned, as well as refugees and stateless persons, when they are resident abroad. The provision of these benefits abroad must therefore be guaranteed ipso jure and without any condition or restriction, irrespective of the country of residence of the beneficiary, even when a bilateral or multilateral social security agreement has not been concluded with that country (subject, where appropriate, to the administrative assistance that States which have ratified this Convention are bound to afford each other, under the terms of Article 11).

The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to state whether the benefits paid to an agent in Uruguay, under the terms of section 33(1) of the above Act, are freely transferable by the agent to the beneficiaries resident abroad and to indicate any other arrangements for payment accepted by the State Insurance Bank under this provision. It also requests the Government to provide the rules adopted respecting the transfer of funds abroad. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures that it intends to take to ensure that the competent social security institution secures direct payment of benefits in the country of residence for beneficiaries entitled to such benefits under the Convention, particularly where they have neither the possibility nor the financial means to appoint an agent. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to take these matters into consideration when preparing the draft amendment to Act No. 16.074 of 1989.

Finally, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to supply statistical information in its next report on the number of beneficiaries residing abroad and the value of any benefits transferred, stating in particular whether the beneficiary's country of residence is a country with which no bilateral agreement has been concluded, since the information referred to by the Government in its report has not been received by the ILO.

(b) In its previous direct request, the Committee drew attention to the incompatibility with Article 5 of the Convention of the residence requirement set out in the last subsection of section 33 of Act No. 16.074 of 1989, under which the dependants of workers who have died as a result of an industrial accident or occupational disease who were living abroad at the time of the accident or the disease are entitled to receive the benefits only from the date on which they settle in Uruguay and for the period during which they reside there. Since the Government's report does not contain a reply on this point, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are contemplated to bring the national legislation into conformity with Article 5 of the Convention and to ensure in all cases the provision of employment injury pension to deceased workers' dependants residing abroad (regardless of whether they are nationals of Uruguay, refugees, stateless persons or nationals of another country that has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of branch (g)).

Article 6. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to a number of provisions of Legislative Decree No. 15084 of 28 November 1980, under which beneficiaries of family allowances provided by the social insurance bank have to meet the requirement of sending their child to school in public or private teaching establishments authorized by the competent bodies. The Committee recalled that, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, each Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of family benefit has to guarantee the grant of family allowances both to its own nationals and to the nationals of any other Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i), as well as to refugees and stateless persons, in respect of children who reside on the territory of any such Member, under conditions and within limits to be agreed upon by the Members concerned.

In its reply, the Government states that no legislative measure has yet been taken respecting family allowances. However, it refers to the bilateral social security agreements which have been concluded or are currently being concluded with a number of countries, which also cover family allowances. The Committee notes, however, that of these countries, only Italy has accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i). It is therefore bound to express its hope once again that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future for carrying out necessary amendments in Legislative Decree No. 15084 of 18 November 1980 or for concluding bilateral or multilateral social security agreements with States which have accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i) "family benefit", in so far as there are migratory flows with those States, in order to give full effect to Article 6 of the Convention. (In addition to Uruguay, the following States have accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i): Bolivia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, France, Guinea, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Tunisia and Viet Nam.)

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply with its next report statistics on the number and nationality of foreign workers resident in Uruguay.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in response to its previous direct request. It notes in particular Act No. 16/074 of 10 October 1989 respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases. It wishes to draw the Government's attention to the following points and to receive additional information on them.

Article 2 of the Convention (branch g) (Employment injury benefit) (in conjunction with Article 10).

(a) Under section 33, subsections 1 and 2 of Act No. 16/074 of 1989 mentioned above, payment of the benefit is suspended, without prejudice to specific provisions in bilateral or multilateral social security agreements, if the persons covered settle in another country without appointing an agent or proposing another arrangement for payment accepted by the State insurance bank. The Committee wishes to point out in this connection that under Article 5 of the Convention, employment injury benefit, in particular, must be transferable both to nationals and to the nationals of any other State that has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of the branch in question, as well as to refugees and stateless persons, when they are resident abroad. The provision of these benefits must be guaranteed automatically and without any conditions or restrictions, regardless of the beneficiary's country of residence, even if no bilateral or multilateral social security agreements have been concluded with the country in question (subject, where appropriate, to administrative assistance which the States which have ratified the present Convention must afford each other under Article 11).

Accordingly, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify whether the benefits paid to an agent in Uruguay under section 33, subsection 1, of Act No. 16/074 of 1989 can be freely transferred by the agent to the beneficiaries residing abroad, and to specify the other arrangements for payment accepted by the State insurance bank under this provision. It also asks the Government to communicate the rules governing the transfer of funds abroad. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures it plans to take to ensure that the competent social security institution secures direct payment of benefits in the country of residence for beneficiaries entitled to such benefits under the the Convention, particularly where the latter have neither the possibility nor the financial means to appoint an agent.

The Government is also asked to provide statistical information on the number of beneficiaries residing abroad and the value of any benefits transferred, stating in particular whether the beneficiary's country of residence is a country with which no bilateral agreement has been concluded.

(b) The Committee also notes that under the last subsection of section 33 of Act No. 16/074 of 1989, dependants of workers who have died as a result of an industrial accident or occupational disease who were living abroad at the time of the accident or the illness are entitled to receive the benefits due only from the date on which they settle in the country and for the period during which they reside there. Since such condition of residence is incompatible with Article 5 of the Convention, the Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will be able to indicate the measures that have been taken or are contemplated to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention and to ensure that in all cases the provision of employment injury benefit to deceased workers' dependants residing abroad (regardless of whether they are nationals of Uruguay, refugees, stateless persons or nationals of another country that has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of branch (g) of Article 2).

Article 6. The Committee notes the Government's statement that an amendment to the general family allowance scheme is currently being examined. It hopes that the amendment will also modify the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 15084 of 18 November 1980 on which it commented previously, so as to grant, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, family allowances to its own nationals and to the nationals of any other Member concerned which has accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i), and to refugees and stateless persons, in respect of children who reside on the territory of any such Member, under conditions and within limits to be agreed upon by the Members concerned. (To date: Bolivia, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, France, Guinea, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Netherlands, Norway, Tunisia and Viet Nam.) The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this respect.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

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

Article 5 of the Convention (in conjunction with Article 10) (branch (g) employment injury benefit). The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Act No. 16/074, of 10 October 1989, respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases, which repeals Acts Nos. 10004 of 1941 and 12949 of 1961 that provided, in particular, that beneficiaries must be resident in the country in order to receive employment injury benefit. The Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of above-mentioned Act No. 16/074 so that it may examine it in the light of its previous comments on this provision of the Convention.

Article 6. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government confines itself to stating that the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 15084 of 28 November 1980 which make the grant of family benefit conditional upon the residence of beneficiaries on the national territory, are still in force. Consequently, the Committee can only stress that making the grant of family benefit conditional upon the residence of beneficiaries on the national territory is not compatible with the above provision of the Convention which prescribes that each Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of family benefit shall guarantee the grant of family allowances to its own nationals and to the nationals of any other Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention for this branch, and to refugees and stateless persons, in respect of children who reside on the territory of any such Member, under conditions and within limits to be agreed upon by the Members concerned. (To date: Barbados, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, France, Guinea, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Netherlands, Norway, Tunisia and Viet Nam.) The Committee therefore once again expresses the hope that, in the near future, the necessary measures will be adopted to give effect to this provision of the Convention and asks the Government to provide information in its next report on the progress made in this connection. [The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.]