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

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Spain (Ratification: 1977)

Display in: French - Spanish

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Commissions (CCOO) and the General Union of Workers (UGT), the Spanish Confederation of Employers' Organizations (CEOE), and the Spanish Confederation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CEPYME), forwarded by the Government, and the comments by the Government on all these observations.

The Committee notes with regret that it has not received the Government’s comments on the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received in 2018, which raised issues on the application of the Convention in practice, including the exercise of the right to strike and the remittance of union dues. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments on the above-mentioned observations.

Trade union rights and civil liberties. The Committee notes the indication by the Government and the trade union confederations concerning the repeal of section 315.3 of the Penal Code on the offence of coercion to initiate or continue a strike, which established that “those who, acting as a group or individually, but in agreement with others, coerce other persons to initiate or continue a strike, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and nine months to three years or by a fine of 18 months to 24 months”. Recalling that all penalties in respect of illegitimate actions linked to strikes should be proportionate to the offence or fault committed and that the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike, the Committee notes with satisfaction the above-mentioned repeal. In this regard, the Committee notes the closure of Case No. 3093 before the Committee on Freedom of Association (400th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, November 2022, paragraphs 28-36).

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the concerns expressed by the trade union organizations regarding the impact on the freedom of assembly and demonstration of Basic Act No. 4/2015 protecting public safety (LPSC) and section 557 ter of the Penal Code, also adopted in 2015. The Committee considered that it was necessary to verify the application in practice of the broad, indeterminate legal concepts contained in this legislation to ensure that they do not limit the exercise of freedom of association as protected by the Convention, and requested the Government to: (i) submit to social dialogue the issue of the application of the LPSC and of section 557 ter of the Penal Code with a view to considering the measures that could be necessary to ensure the full exercise of civil liberties in relation to trade union rights; and (ii) provide information on specific cases in which the LPSC and section 557 ter of the Penal Code have been applied in relation to trade union activities.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) no amendment to the above-mentioned provisions is being or has been pursued; and (ii) the information on their application in practice from the Ministries of Justice and the Interior will be relevant. The Committee notes the observations of the trade union confederations, according to which: (i) the processing of legislative proposals aimed at reforming the above-mentioned legislation and provisions remains blocked in Parliament; and (ii) they consider it necessary for this legislation to be revised in order to avoid undue restrictions on the freedom of assembly, expression and demonstration of trade union organizations.

The Committee observes that it was not informed that the application of the LPSC and section 557 ter of the Penal Code had been the subject of social dialogue processes. The Committee also notes with regret the absence of specific information from the Government on the application in practice of the above-mentioned legislation. In light of the above, the Committee is bound to request the Government once again to: (i) submit to social dialogue the issue of the application of the LPSC and of section 557 ter of the Penal Code with a view to considering the measures that could be necessary to ensure the full exercise of civil liberties in relation to trade union rights; and (ii) provide information on the specific cases in which the LPSC and section 557 ter of the Penal Code have been applied in relation to trade union activities.

Article 3 of the Convention. Observations of the social partners on the exercise of the right to strike. In its previous comments, having received diverging observations from the trade union organizations on one hand and employers’ organizations on the other, the Committee requested the Government to address, with these organizations, the operation of the machinery for the determination of minimum services and the other issues and concerns raised by these organizations in relation to the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee observes that the Government merely provides a series of court decisions on the matter. The Committee notes that the CEOE and the CEPYME suggest that: (i) the possibility of establishing a new regulation on the exercise of the right to strike, which dates back to 1977, be examined, in order to address new circumstances; (ii) at least the situation of strikes in public services and strategic sectors, in particular the establishment of minimum services, be considered, with provision made for the possibility of using other workers in the event of non-performance of these services; and (iii) the use of dialogue and mechanisms for the autonomous settlement of labour disputes, including after a strike has begun, be increased. The Committee lastly notes that the CCOO alleges that the rules on the determination of minimum services continue to be repeatedly violated by the government authorities, and that the CCOO cites, in this regard, 13 recent court rulings that determine, in relation to minimum services, a violation of the right to strike.

Noting with regret the absence of a specific reply by the Government to its previous requests, and observing the frequent recourse to the courts on issues related to the right to strike, the Committee once again requests the Government to encourage tripartite social dialogue on the regulation of the right to strike in general, and on the definition of minimum services in particular. The Committee also requests the Government to provide its comments on the allegations of the CCOO on the frequent failure by the government authorities to comply with the rules on minimum services.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO) and the General Union of Workers (UGT), both received on 9 August 2018 and included in the Government’s report, and of the Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organizations (CEOE), communicated by the Government on issues addressed by the present comment, as well as the Government’s comments in this respect.

The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2018, which in addition to raising issues addressed by the present comment, refer to matters relating to the application of the Convention in practice, including the exercise of the right to strike and the check off of trade union dues. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Trade union rights and civil liberties. In its previous comment, after noting the observations of the ITUC and the CCOO alleging that Basic Act No. 4/2015 protecting public safety (LPSC) and new section 557 ter of the Penal Code restrict freedom of assembly, expression and demonstration, and the Government’s reply emphasizing the guarantees set out in the LPSC, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the LPSC in relation to the exercise of freedom of association, as well as its comments on the allegations relating to the new section 557 ter of the Penal Code. The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication that the LPSC includes appropriate measures to protect the holding of meetings and demonstrations and prevent the disturbance of public safety (with the legal text emphasizing that the provisions in question shall be applied in the most favourable manner to give full effect to fundamental rights and civil liberties, and particularly the rights of assembly and demonstration, the freedoms of expression and information, freedom of association and the right to strike). The Government also affirms that the great majority of labour disputes which have arisen in Spain are pursued peacefully, with workers and trade union representatives making the correct use of the rights of assembly and demonstration. With regard to section 557 ter of the Penal Code, the Government specifies that this provision is only applicable against types of conduct that are criminalized (“persons who, acting in a group or individually but with the support of the group, enter or occupy, against the will of the person responsible, the premises of a public or private association, an office, workshop, establishment or space, even though it is open to the public” and cause “a disturbance to the public peace and its normal activity”). The Government indicates in this respect that only the most serious types of conduct would be included in this criminal offence and that the rights of assembly, demonstration and freedom of association, the exercise of which, as emphasized by the Government, do not require the use of violence or action which jeopardizes the social peace, are not restricted in their content under the terms of section 557 ter. The Committee also notes that both the ITUC and the CCOO once again denounce the use of the LPSC to limit the rights of peaceful assembly and expression, as well as freedom of association and the right to strike. The ITUC asserts that, since the adoption of the LPSC, there have been thousands of detentions, fines and penalties under the Act, and the CCOO adds that the party that has formed the new Government, together with others, has initiated parliamentary action to repeal the precepts of the LPSC, which it alleges are limiting the exercise of these constitutional rights, and that two legislative proposals on this subject have been accepted for examination by the Congress of Deputies. Finally, the Committee notes that the criminal offence set out in section 557 ter of the Penal Code includes broad and indeterminate legal concepts (such as the disturbance of the public peace and normal activities), and that the Government refers to similar broad concepts in relation to the scope of the protection of freedom of association, in particular in its affirmation that the exercise of this right does not require the disturbance of the social peace. In this regard, and recalling the concerns expressed by the trade union confederations, the Committee considers that it is necessary to verify the application of these concepts in practice with a view to ensuring that they do not limit the exercise of freedom of association as protected by the Convention. In light of the above, and noting the varying views expressed, the Committee requests the Government to submit to social dialogue with the most representative organizations the issue of the application of the LPSC and of section 557 ter of the Penal Code with a view to considering the measures that could be necessary to ensure the full exercise of civil liberties in relation to trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect, and on specific cases in which the LPSC and section 557 ter of the Penal Code have been applied in relation to trade union activities.

Article 3 of the Convention. Observations of the social partners on the exercise of the right to strike. In its previous comment, the Committee, noting the various viewpoints of the workers’ confederations, as well as the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the CEOE, in relation to the exercise of the right to strike, and particularly regarding minimum services, requested the Government to address through tripartite dialogue the operation of the procedures for the determination of minimum services, as well as the other issues and concerns raised by these organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in general terms that tripartite dialogue depends on the proposals made by the parties to the negotiation. The Government recalls the principal elements of the system for the determination of minimum services, and emphasizes that: the most common intervention by the government authorities is the determination of minimum services for essential services; its intervention is impartial; the establishment of these minimum services has to be undertaken on the basis of a restrictive criterion, without achieving the normal level of operation, and there must be adaptation and proportionality between the protection of the interests of the community and the restriction of the right to strike; this has to be done through a legal provision, following a hearing of the strike committee, with sufficient publicity and the reasons being given to allow those affected to defend their positions and any subsequent judicial review; in each case, the characteristics and circumstances of the strike have to be taken into account; minimum service orders can be challenged in the courts, and failure to comply with them does not render a strike unlawful. The Committee also notes the assertion by the CCOO, in relation to essential services (within the definition of such services in Spanish legislation), that the administrative authority continues to fail to comply with the elements of the system for the determination of minimum services referred to by the Government (the CCOO provides examples of court rulings in this respect). In particular, the CCOO indicates that, in an important number of such essential services, the Government authorities refuse to enter into dialogue with trade unions for the determination of minimum services and instead establish them in a unilateral and abusive manner, which has given rise to various appeals to the courts, some of which have not been resolved, while others have given rise to court judgments finding the determination of minimum services and the replacement of workers abusive. The Committee further notes that the CEOE once again alleges the existence in the country of dysfunctions in the exercise of the right to strike and that it reiterates its previous observations in this respect (with the assertion that the dysfunctions should be resolved by guaranteeing the free individual exercise of both the right to strike and the right to work, and its views that: (i) information on the strike should be prohibited from 24 hours prior to the commencement of the strike with a view to avoiding situations of coercion; (ii) the judicial finding on whether or not the strike is legal should be issued before it commences; (iii) minimum services should be negotiated prior to the commencement of the dispute, and the rules established should be of a permanent nature; (iv) all the liabilities that may arise from participation in unlawful strikes should be determined; and (v) recourse to dialogue and out-of-court resolution machinery should be intensified). Observing the persistent divergences in the information provided and that the social partners continue to challenge aspects of the current system, including the reference by workers’ organizations to court rulings setting aside administrative decisions for the determination of minimum services, the Committee once again requests the Government to address through social dialogue with the most representative organizations of employers and workers the operation of the machinery for the determination of minimum services and the other issues and concerns raised by these organizations in relation to the exercise of the right to strike.

Finally, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government and the observations of the ITUC, UGT and CCOO in relation to the matters examined (the legislation and criminal proceedings and penalties relating to the exercise of the right to strike) in Case No. 3093 of the Committee on Freedom of Association. In this regard, the Committee refers to the examination, recommendations and follow-up of the case by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 31 August 2014 and 1 September 2015, the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO), received on 17 August 2015 and also included in the Government’s report, and the General Union of Workers (UGT), received on 4 September 2015, as well as the Government’s replies to them. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organizations (CEOE), received on 1 September 2015, as well as other observations of the IOE, received on the same date, which are of a general nature.

Observations of the ITUC and the CCOO on the exercise of civil liberties. The Committee notes that the observations of the ITUC and the CCOO allege that Basic Act No. 4/2015 protecting public safety (LPSC) and the new section 557ter of the Penal Code restrict freedom of assembly, expression and demonstration, which are essential to the exercise of freedom of association. The Committee further notes the Government’s reply indicating that: (i) the LPSC does not restrict or violate the right to freedom of association or to strike, as it only criminalizes offences committed by persons who disrupt or seek to disrupt harmonious relations among citizens, disrupting public order, causing damage to persons or property, blocking roads or public spaces or preventing authorities or bodies from performing their duties freely; (ii) the LPSC provides greater guarantees than the previous legislation by establishing that any administrative action shall be governed by the principles of lawfulness, equal treatment and non-discrimination, opportunity, proportionality, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability, and shall be subject to administrative and judicial supervision; and (iii) the LPSC establishes that its provisions on the maintenance of public safety and on penalties shall be interpreted and applied in the manner most favourable to the full enjoyment of fundamental rights and public liberties, and particularly the right of assembly and to demonstrate, freedom of expression and of information, freedom of association and the right to strike. Taking due note of the Government’s reply, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the LPSC with regard to the exercise of freedom of association, as well as its comments on the allegations relating to the new section 557ter of the Penal Code.

Observations of the IOE, CEOE, UGT and CCOO on the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee notes that, in their observations, the IOE and the CEOE make allegations of dysfunctions in the exercise of the right to strike in the country, which should be rectified to ensure the free individual exercise of both the right to strike and the right to work. In this regard, they call for: (i) the prohibition of dissemination of information on a strike in the 24 hours preceding its initiation in order to avoid situations of coercion; (ii) court rulings on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of strikes to be issued prior to the commencement of the strike; (iii) minimum services to be negotiated prior to disputes arising and to be established on a permanent basis; (iv) the determination of all liabilities that may be derived from participation in illegal strikes; and (v) the intensification of the use of dialogue and out-of-court settlement mechanisms. Moreover, the Committee notes that the UGT and the CCOO allege that public administrations issue decisions imposing minimum services that are abusive in view of their excessive scope and lack of justification, and which have been found null and void after having been challenged by trade unions in the courts (many rulings are cited). The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government on various court rulings issued in disputes over the definition of minimum services. Noting the differing views of the confederations of workers and of the IOE and the CEOE, including with regard to minimum services, and noting the existence of large numbers of court rulings setting aside administrative decisions establishing minimum services on the grounds mentioned above, the Committee requests the Government to address through tripartite dialogue the operation of the procedures for the determination of minimum services, as well as the other issues and concerns raised by these organizations.

The Committee takes note of the issues raised in the observations of the ITUC, the UGT and the CCOO relating to the exercise of the right to strike, criticizing penal provisions and alleging the initiation of a large number of criminal and disciplinary proceedings against trade union members, as well as the Government’s reply, and notes that they are the subject of a case before the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 3093).

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 August 2011 and 31 July 2012 criticizing the decisions of the administrative authorities (in the community of Valencia and the community of Madrid) to impose minimum service requirements which on occasion amount to 90 per cent of the ordinary service and which in practice prevent the exercise of the right to strike (the ITUC also alleges that, in the case of a strike by workers in the metro in Madrid, after reaching an agreement which brought an end to the strike, the company made a claim against the strike committee and the unions for €6 million in damages, which is before the Higher Court of Justice of Madrid). In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that, concerning the decisions of determination of essential services mentioned by the ITUC as well as other cases, the judicial authorities intervened in several cases and ruled in favour of the workers. The Committee notes the Government’s observations on the ITUC’s comments.

Finally, the Committee notes the issues raised in the comments of the General Union of Workers (UGT) and the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CC.OO.), dated 31 August 2012, as well as in the recent observations of the Government. The Committee notes that these issues were previously submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 2947).

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

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it noted with satisfaction Ruling No. 236/2007 of the Constitutional Court declaring unconstitutional section 11 of the Act respecting foreign nationals (Basic Act No. 8/2000 on the rights of foreign nationals in Spain and their social integration), which made the right of foreign nationals to organize or to join an occupational organization freely, under the same conditions as Spanish workers, subject to obtaining a permit to stay or reside in Spain. In this respect, the Committee notes with satisfaction the Government’s indication in its report of the adoption of Act No. 2/2009 of 11 December, reforming Basic Act No. 4/2000 and integrating into the provisions of the Act the contents of Rulings Nos 236/2007 of 7 November and 259/2007 of 19 December of the Constitutional Court, which found that the requirement imposed by Basic Act No. 4/2000 on foreign nationals to be legally resident in Spain in order to exercise the fundamental rights of assembly, association, trade union membership and strike constituted an unjustified restriction and are therefore contrary to the Constitution. The Committee observes that the new section 11 of Basic Act No. 4/2000, in accordance with the wording set out in Basic Act No. 2/2009, provides that foreign nationals shall have the right to organize freely or to join an occupational organization and to exercise the right to strike under the same conditions as Spanish workers.

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

The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been commenting on the Act respecting foreign nationals (Basic Act No. 8/2000 on the rights of foreign nationals in Spain and their social integration), which prohibits “irregular” foreign workers (those without proper work papers) from exercising the right to organize.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the Government’s statement that, in Ruling No. 236/2007, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional section 11 of the Act respecting foreign nationals, which make the right of foreign nationals to organize or to join an occupational organization freely, under the same conditions as Spanish workers, subject to obtaining a permit to stay or reside in Spain.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that for many years it has been referring to the Act respecting foreign nationals (Basic Act No. 8/2000 on the rights of foreign nationals in Spain and their social integration), which prohibits “irregular” foreign workers (those without proper work papers) from exercising the right to organize. It further recalls that it has requested the Government to provide information on any measures taken to amend this Act with a view to securing the right of all foreign workers to join organizations to further their interests as workers.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) the law in force, Basic Act No. 4/2000 of 11 January on the rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in Spain and their social integration, sets out and recognizes the rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in Spain, including those of freedom of association and the right to organize, for foreign residents who are lawfully in Spain; (2) the inclusion in the legislation in force on foreign nationals and immigration of the requirement of legal residence responded to the fact that, when formulating Basic Act No. 8/2000, the legislature considered it appropriate not to recognize the exercise of such rights for those foreign nationals whose residence in Spain involved an infringement of the provisions of Spanish legislation respecting foreign nationals and immigration on the grounds of their irregular presence on Spanish territory, and their consequent liability to a compulsory order to leave the Spanish territory or a repatriation measure; (3) freedom to organize, article 28 of the Constitution, is regulated by Basic Act No. 11/1985 of 2 August respecting freedom to organize, and the freedom of association, article 22 of the Constitution, is developed, among other provisions, by Act No. 191/1964 of 24 December; and (4) the latter laws do not cover foreign nationals who are not legally in Spain. The Government adds that various appeals have been lodged calling for Basic Act No. 4/2000 of 11 January on the rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in Spain and their social integration, in the version contained in Basic Act No. 8/2000 and in the version set out in Basic Act No. 14/2003, to be declared unconstitutional. The appeals against the constitutionality of Basic Act No. 4/2000, in the version contained in Basic Act No. 8/2000, constitute a fundamental challenge to the notion that the exercise of the right of assembly, the right to strike, freedom of association and the right to organize, and the right to free legal assistance, can be made conditional upon the administrative situation of a foreign national.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that Royal Decree No. 2393/2004 of 30 December approved the regulations issued under Act No. 4/2000 of 11 January on the rights and freedoms of foreign nationals in Spain and their social integration. It notes that, in the context of foreign nationality and immigration, and with regard to the defence of the interests of immigrants, section 69 of Basic Act No. 4/2000 establishes the obligation for the public authorities to promote the strengthening of associative initiatives among immigrants.

In this regard, while noting the measures adopted in relation to the rights of foreign nationals and immigrants, the Committee recalls once again that, in accordance with the obligations deriving from Article 2 of the Convention, workers have to be accorded the right, without distinction whatsoever, to join organizations of their own choosing, with the sole exception of members of the armed forces and the police. Under these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the Act respecting foreign nationals as indicated above and to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect and on the rulings of the judicial authorities on this issue in relation to the appeals that are currently under examination.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it referred to the Act respecting foreign nationals (Organic Act No. 8/200 on the rights of foreign nationals in Spain and their social integration), which prohibits "irregular" foreign workers (those without proper work papers) from exercising the right to organize. It further recalls that it requested the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken to amend this Act with the view to securing the right of all foreign workers to join organizations to further their interests as workers.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that various aspects of the Act in question have been amended by Act No. 14/2003 of 20 November, but that section 11, which covers freedom of association and the right to strike, has not been amended and continues to provide that: "Foreign nationals shall have the right to organize freely or to join an occupational organization, under the same conditions as Spanish workers, which they may exercise when they obtain the authorization to stay or reside in Spain".

In this connection, the Committee recalls once again that, under Article 2 of the Convention, workers must be accorded the right, without distinction whatsoever, to join organizations of their own choosing, with the sole exception of members of the armed forces and the police. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the Act respecting foreign nationals as indicated above and to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes the Act respecting foreign nationals (Organic Act No. 8/2000 on the rights of foreign nationals in Spain and their social integration), which prohibits "irregular" foreign workers (those without proper work papers) from exercising the right to organize. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that that Article 2 of the Convention establishes the right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to join organizations of their own choosing, with the sole exception of members of the armed forces and the police. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure taken to amend this Act with a view to securing the right of all foreign workers to join organizations to further their interests as workers.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will provide information in future reports on the adoption of any legislation respecting the minimum service which has to be maintained in the event of a strike, defined with the participation of workers’ organizations.

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

The Committee duly notes the approval of Royal Decree 1844/1994 approving the Regulations governing trade union elections to workers' representative bodies in an undertaking, and of Act No. 10/1997 respecting the rights of workers to information and consultation in companies and groups of companies, mentioned by the Government in its report.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that legislation will be adopted in the very near future concerning the minimum level of services to be maintained in the event of a strike, in the definition of which the trade union organizations should be involved, and requests the Government to inform it of any developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the comments by the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Commissions (CC.OO.).

In its previous observations, the Committee expressed and reiterated the hope that the Bill concerning strikes and collective disputes would fully respect the principles of freedom of association with regard to strikes and, in particular, minimum services.

In this connection, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the above-mentioned Bill has been sent to Parliament. Furthermore, the Committee notes with interest the "Agreement on the Extrajudicial Settlement of Labour Disputes (ASEC)" concluded on 25 January 1996 by two workers' confederations (UGT and CC.OO.) and two employers' confederations (CEOE and CEPYME), whose purpose is to create and develop a system for the settlement of collective labour disputes between workers and employers or their respective organizations.

The Committee asks the Government to inform it of any amendments to the legislation in this connection.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the comments of the General Union of Workers (UGT).

In its previous observation, the Committee noted that the basic Bill in relation to strikes and collective disputes had been sent to Parliament with the agreement of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Commissions (CC.OO) and the UGT; the text provided that responsibility for determining those who are to provide minimum essential services will be shared between the employers and the trade unions, or the representatives of the workers who have called the strike.

The Committee expresses the hope that the future basic law respecting strikes and collective disputes will fully respect the principles of freedom of association in relation to strikes and, in particular, minimum services.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the comments of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Commissions (CC.OO.) and the General Union of Workers (UGT).

The Committee recalls that on many occasions it has pointed out the need for occupational organizations to be able to participate in the determination of the minimum service to be maintained in the event of a strike.

In this context, the Committee notes that the CC.OO. and the UGT criticize in their comments the contents of a Bill respecting strikes which has been submitted to Parliament. The Committee also notes that according to the Government a new basic text respecting strikes and collective disputes has been sent to Parliament with the agreement of the CC.OO. and UGT. The Committee also notes the Government's indications that in future regulations it is envisaged that responsibility for determining those who are to provide minimum essential services will be shared by the employers and the trade unions, or the representatives of the workers who have called the strike.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the future basic law respecting strikes and collective disputes will fully respect the principles of freedom of association in respect of strikes and, in particular, minimum services. The Committee requests the Government to supply the above text once it has been adopted.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and of the Decrees determining the minimum services to be maintained during a number of strikes that have occurred in various sectors since 1988.

The Committee observes that from reading the above Decrees, it is not clear that the occupational organisations which called the strikes participated in determining the minimum services.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the contents of Act No. 7/1990 of 19 July 1990 on collective bargaining and participation in determining the working conditions of public employees, section 32, subsection (h) of which provides that "proposals on trade union rights and participation" shall be subject to negotiation. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the above subsection constitutes a legal basis for collective negotiation to determine the minimum services to be maintained in the event of strikes in the public sector, and to inform it of any initiatives in this respect.

The Committee again expresses the hope that, in future, occupational organisations will be able to participate in determining the minimum services to be maintained in the event of strike and ask the Government to report on any developments in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the Trade Union Confederation Committees (CC.00.) to the effect that the Government frequently adopts decrees to maintain a mimumum service in services that are not essential in the meaning of the Convention, such as education, public administration, radio and television, with the aim of impeding the exercise of the right to strike. The CC.OO. goes on to stress that the Government has never consulted the trade union organisations on the introduction of these measures.

In its reply, the Government refers to the information already provided in the context of the cases examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association, and during the discussions at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards and within the Governing Body.

The Committee has taken note of the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association regarding Case No. 1466. See 268th Report, approved by the Governing Body in November 1989.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that the purpose of trade union organisations is to defend the interests of their workers and that the strike is one of the essential means available to them to achieve this objective. However, the exercise of the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited: (a) in the case of public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority; (b) in essential services, namely, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, health or personal safety of the whole or part of the population and, (c) in the event of an acute national crisis and then only for a limited period.

With regard to the maintenance of a mimimum service, the Committee has pointed out in paragraph 215 of its 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining that, if a total and prolonged stoppage of work in a major sector of the economy is liable to endanger the life, personal safety or health of the population and cause an acute national crisis, the maintenance of a minimum service - concerning a specified category of workers - would seem to be justified. For such a measure to be acceptable, the minimum service should be restricted to operations that are strictly necessary to avoid endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population and, at the same time, the workers' organisations should, if they wish, be able to participate in defining the minimum service along with the employers and public authorities. Such a system could also be used in the case of essential services in order to avoid a total ban on strikes in these services.

The Committee therefore trusts, like the Committee on Freedom of Association in the context of Case No. 1466, that, in future, workers' and employers' organisations will be able to participate in defining the minimum service to be maintained in the event of a strike. It requests the Government to provide a copy of any Decree adopted for this purpose, indicating the role played by the above organisations in the setting up of such services.