National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
Display in: French - Spanish
Previous comment
The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 28 August 2007, which referred to matters under examination by the Committee, as well as to the prohibition of the right to strike by agricultural workers during the harvest. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Chilean labour legislation envisages a semi-regulated procedure under which agricultural workers represented by a trade union negotiate collectively with their employer an instrument known as an “collective agreement” which, once concluded, has the same effect as a collective contract (sections 314bis A and 314bis B). Such bargaining is not of a binding nature, so that it does not give rise to the rights, prerogatives and duties established through regulated collective bargaining, and consequently there is no right to strike. The fact that these workers cannot negotiate a collective agreement or benefit from the right to strike is due to the fact that they perform seasonal work of short duration. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the right to strike is an intrinsic corollary to the right to organize which may only be restricted in the case of essential services (the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) and in the case of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. Under these conditions, observing that agricultural workers do not form part of either of these categories, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure in law and practice that agricultural workers can enjoy the right to strike. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.
The Committee notes the comments made by the ITUC on 26 August 2009 on the application of the Convention. The Committee also notes the comments sent by the National Inter-Enterprise Union of Airport Workers of Chile and other unions in various sectors, dated 24 March 2009, which refer to legislative matters already raised by the Committee, and particularly to questions relating to the right to strike. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this regard.
The Committee recalls that for several years it has been asking the Government to amend or repeal various legislative provisions, or to take steps to ensure that certain workers are afforded the guarantees laid down in the Convention. Specifically, in its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to take steps to:
– repeal section 11 of Act No. 12927 on the internal security of the State, which provides that any interruption or collective suspension, stoppage or strike in public services or services of public utility, or in production, transport or commercial activities which is not in accordance with the law and results in prejudice to the public order or to compulsory legal functions or damage to any vital industries shall constitute an offence and be penalized with imprisonment or relegation;
– ensure that officials of the judiciary are afforded the guarantees set forth in the Convention;
– amend article 23 of the Political Constitution, which provides that the holding of trade union office is incompatible with active membership in a political party and that the law shall lay down sanctions for trade union officials who participate in party political activities;
– amend sections 372 and 373 of the Labour Code, under which an absolute majority of the workers in the enterprise is required for a decision to strike;
– amend section 374 of the Labour Code, under which a strike must be carried out within three days of the decision to call it, otherwise the workers in the enterprise concerned shall be deemed to have refrained from going on strike and so accept the employer’s final offer;
– amend section 379 of the Labour Code, which provides that at any time the group of workers concerned by the negotiations may be called upon to vote, by at least 20 per cent of them, for the purpose of taking a decision, by absolute majority, to censure the negotiating committee, in which case a new committee shall be elected forthwith;
– amend section 381 of the Labour Code containing a general prohibition on the replacement of striking workers, but which provides for the possibility of such replacement subject to compliance by the employer with certain conditions in the final offer during the process of negotiation, and the requirement to pay a bond of four units of account (UF) for each worker hired as a replacement;
– amend section 384 of the Labour Code, which provides that strikes may not be called by workers in enterprises which provide public utility services, or services the interruption of which would seriously endanger the health, public supply, the national economy or national security (the third subsection of section 384 provides that, in such cases, if no agreement is reached between the parties to the bargaining, the matter shall be referred to compulsory arbitration). The Committee noted previously that the definition of services in which strikes may be prohibited, as well as the list drawn up by the government authorities, is too broad and goes beyond services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In particular, the list includes certain private port terminals and also the Arica–La Paz railway, which cannot be considered as essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee also notes Case No. 2649 examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association relating to the exercise of the right to strike by workers in sanitary enterprises (water supply).
– amend or repeal section 385 of the Labour Code, which provides that, in the event of a strike which by reason of its nature, timing or duration causes a serious risk to health, the supply of goods or services to the population, the national economy or national security, the President of the Republic may order the resumption of work;
– amend section 254 of the Penal Code, which provides for penal sanctions in the event of the interruption of public services or public utilities or the abandonment of their posts by public employees; and
– amend section 48 of Act No. 19296 which grants broad powers to the Directorate of Labour for the supervision of the accounts and financial and property transactions of associations.
The Committee observes that the Government reiterates its intention to include in the relevant domestic legislation all of the provisions necessary to bring the legislation rapidly into harmony with the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures in the near future to amend the legislation with a view to bringing it fully into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.
Furthermore, in its previous observation, the Committee noted the preparation of a draft revision of the Constitutional Organic Act on Municipalities, No. 18695, and hoped that it would take into account the principle that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be confined to officials exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft text is undergoing its first constitutional reading in the Chamber of Deputies, and that the proposal to adopt legislation on this subject has been approved, while the only amendments adopted concern the removal of the prohibition for trade union leaders to take office as deputies or senators. In these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any progress made in relation to this draft text.
The Committee notes the Government’s report and its reply to the comments of the National Inter-enterprise Trade Union of Metallurgy, Communications, Energy and Allied Workers (SME), dated 9 January 2006, and of the National Confederation of Municipal Employees of Chile (ASEMUCH), dated 25 May 2006, which refer to matters already raised by the Committee and to other issues covered below.
The Committee recalls that it has been asking the Government for several years to amend or repeal various legislative provisions, or to take steps to ensure that certain workers are afforded the guarantees laid down in the Convention. Specifically, the Committee asked the Government in its previous observation to take steps to:
– repeal section 11 of Act No. 12927 on the internal security of the State, which provides that any interruption or collective suspension, stoppage or strike in public services or services of public utility, or in production, transport or commercial activities which is not in accordance with the law and results in prejudice to the public order or to compulsory legal functions or damage to any vital industries shall constitute an offence and be penalized with imprisonment or banishment;
– amend sections 372 and 373 of the Labour Code, under which an absolute majority of the workers of the enterprise is required for a decision to strike;
– amend section 374 of the Labour Code, under which a strike must be carried out within three days of the decision to call it, otherwise the workers of the enterprise concerned shall be deemed to have refrained from going on strike and so accept the employer’s final offer;
– amend section 381 of the Labour Code containing a general prohibition on the replacement of striking workers, but which provides for the possibility of such replacement subject to compliance by the employer with certain conditions in the final offer during the negotiating process. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the amendment introduced by Act No. 19759 limits that possibility, requiring the payment of a bond of four units of account (UF) for each worker hired as a replacement. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the contracting of workers to break a strike in a sector not considered as essential in the strict sense of the term for the purposes of prohibiting strikes, constitutes a serious violation of the freedom of association;
– amend section 384 of the Labour Code which provides that strikes may not be called by workers in enterprises which provide public utility services or services the interruption of which would seriously endanger the health, public supply, the national economy or national security (the third paragraph of section 384 provides that, in such cases, if no agreement is reached between the parties to the bargaining, the matter shall be referred to compulsory arbitration). The Committee noted that the definition of services in which strikes may be prohibited, as set out in section 384, as well as the list drawn up by the government authorities, is too broad and goes beyond services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the list containing the establishments covered by section 384 is drawn up jointly by the Ministries of Labour and Social Security, National Defence and the Economy, Development and Reconstruction in July each year and that the list for 2006 was much shorter than in previous years, with the removal of sanitary services and port enterprises from the list and the extension to them of the right to strike. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that the list includes some private port terminals and also the Arica–La Paz railway, which cannot be considered as essential services in the strict sense of the term;
– amend or repeal section 385 of the Labour Code, which provides that, in the event of a strike which by its nature, timing or duration causes a serious risk to health, the supply of goods or services to the population, the national economy or national security, the President of the Republic may order the resumption of work;
– amend section 48 of Act No. 19296 which grants broad powers to the Directorate of Labour for supervision of the accounts and financial and property transactions of associations.
The Committee observes that the Government states that it has noted the Committee’s observations in this respect and that these will be taken into consideration in forthcoming discussions for bringing the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee regrets that, for several years since the ratification of the Convention, numerous restrictions have continued to be placed on the exercise of the rights established by the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will take all the necessary steps to amend the legislation in order to bring it into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on all measures taken in this respect.
Moreover, with regard to the preparation of a draft revision of the Constitutional Organic Act on Municipalities, No. 18695, the Committee requests the Government once again to make every effort in the accompanying consultation process to take account of the principle whereby the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to officials exercising authority in the name of the State and hopes that the final text will take account of this principle.
Finally, the Committee notes the communication dated 28 August 2007 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which refers to the issues raised by the Committee and also to the prohibition of the right to strike imposed on agricultural workers during harvest time. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments in this respect.
The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee also notes the comments of the National Inter-Enterprise Union of Metallurgists, Energy, Communication and Allied Branches (SME), of 9 January 2006, and of the National Confederation of Municipal Employees of Chile (ASEMUCH) of 25 May 2006. The Committee notes that the SME refers to legislative issues already raised by the Committee and that it raises objections to section 11 of Act No. 12927 on the internal security of the State, which provides that any interruption or collective suspension, stoppage or strike in public services or services of public utility, or in production, transport or commercial activities which is not in accordance with the law and results in prejudice to the public order or to compulsory legal functions or damage to any vital industries shall constitute an offence and be penalized with imprisonment or banishment. In this respect, the Committee considers that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Even in such cases, both excessive recourse to the courts in labour relations and the existence of heavy sanctions for strike action may well create more problems than they resolve. Since the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed and should be subject to normal judicial review (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 177). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal the above provision so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention and to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect.
The Committee also notes the indication by ASEMUCH that neither its comments nor those of the Committee have been taken into account and that the draft text of Act No. 18695 setting forth the constitutional framework for municipal authorities, which would abolish the right to strike of municipal officials and affect their rights in terms of stability of employment, training, qualifications and remuneration, has not been amended. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in 2005 a tripartite working group met, with the participation of representatives of the Government and of ASEMUCH, but that the negotiations broke down. Considering that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 158), the Committee requests the Government to continue making every possible effort during the process of consultation on the above draft legislation and to keep it informed of any legislative developments in this connection.
The Committee also recalls that for several years it has been requesting the Government to amend or repeal a number of legislative provisions, or to take steps to secure for certain workers the guarantees afforded by the Convention. The Committee regrets to note that the Government’s report does not contain any information on this subject. More specifically, the Committee requested the Government to:
– amend article 23 of the Political Constitution which provides that the holding of trade union office is incompatible with active membership in a political party and that the law shall lay down sanctions for trade union officials who participate in party political activities;
– amend section 379 of the Labour Code which provides that at any time the group of workers concerned by the negotiations may be called upon to vote, by at least 20 per cent of them, for the purpose of taking a decision, by absolute majority, to censure the negotiating committee, in which case a new committee shall be elected forthwith;
– amend section 381 of the Labour Code containing a general prohibition on the replacement of striking workers, but which provides for the possibility of such replacement subject to compliance by the employer with certain conditions in the final offer during the negotiating process;
– amend section 384 of the Labour Code which provides that strikes may not be called by workers in enterprises which provide public utility services or services the interruption of which would seriously endanger the health, public supply, the national economy or national security (the third paragraph of section 384 provides that, in such cases, if no agreement is reached between the parties to the bargaining, the matter shall be referred to compulsory arbitration). The Committee noted that the definition of services in which strikes may be prohibited, as set out in section 384, as well as the list drawn up by the government authorities, is too broad and goes beyond services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (for example, port enterprises, the Central Bank and the railway);
– amend or repeal section 385 of the Labour Code which provides that, in the event of a strike which by its nature, timing or duration causes a serious risk to health, the supply of goods or services to the population, the national economy or national security, the President of the Republic may order the resumption of work;
– amend section 254 of the Penal Code which provides for penal sanctions in the event of the interruption of public services or public utilities or the abandonment of their posts by public employees; and
The Committee hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to bring it into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention and requests it to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect.
The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to amend or repeal a number of legislative provisions, or to take steps to secure for certain workers the guarantees afforded by the Convention. Specifically, it asked the Government to:
- ensure that officials of the judiciary are afforded the guarantees set forth in the Convention;
- amend article 23 of the Political Constitution which provides that the holding of trade union office is incompatible with active membership in a political party and that the law shall lay down sanctions for trade union officials who participate in party political activities;
- amend sections 372 and 373 of the Labour Code, under which an absolute majority of the workers of the enterprise is required for a decision to strike;
- amend section 374 of the Labour Code, under which a strike must be carried out within three days of the decision to call it, otherwise the workers of the enterprise concerned shall be deemed to have refrained from going on strike and so accept the employer’s final offer;
- amend section 379 of the Labour Code which provides that at any time the group of workers concerned by the negotiations may be called upon to a vote, by at least 20 per cent of them, for the purpose of taking a decision, by absolute majority, to censure the negotiating committee, in which case a new committee shall be elected forthwith;
- amend section 381 of the Labour Code containing a general prohibition on the replacement of striking workers, but which provides for the possibility of such replacement subject to compliance by the employer with certain conditions in the final offer during the negotiating process;
- amend section 384 of the Labour Code which provides that strikes may not be called by workers in enterprises which supply public utility services or services the interruption of which would seriously endanger health, public supply, the national economy or national security (the third paragraph of section 384 provides that, in such cases, if no agreement is reached between the parties to the bargaining, the matter shall be referred to compulsory arbitration). The Committee noted that the definition of services in which strikes may be prohibited, as set out in section 384, as well as the list drawn up by the government authorities, is too broad and goes beyond services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (for example, port enterprises, the Central Bank and the railway);
- amend or repeal section 385 of the Labour Code which provides that, in the event of a strike which by its nature, timing or duration causes a serious risk to health, the supply of goods or services to the population, the national economy or national security, the President of the Republic may order the resumption of work;
- amend section 254 of the Penal Code which provides for penal sanctions in the event of the interruption of public services or public utilities or the abandonment of their posts by public employees;
- amend section 48 of Act No. 19296 which grants broad powers to the Directorate of Labour for supervision of the accounts and financial and property transactions of associations.
The Committee hopes that the Government will take the steps called for by these comments and asks it to provide information in its next report on all measures it has adopted.
Lastly, the Committee reminds the Government that the National Confederation of Municipal Workers of Chile (ASEMUCH) sent comments on 6 June 2003 and 13 October 2004 on the application of the Convention. In its comments, ASEMUCH referred to the authorities’ intention to table a draft reform of Act No. 18695 setting forth the constitutional framework for municipal authorities, which would abolish the right to strike of municipal officials and affect officials’ rights in terms of stability of employment, training, qualifications and remuneration. The Committee notes that according to the Government: (1) there are no laws or regulations that are inconsistent with the Convention, there was merely an exchange of views at a meeting of the Technical Bureau made up of representatives of the Government and of ASEMUCH, which had been convened for an exchange of views, ideas and proposals on the content of the regulations to govern the new powers granted by the Constitution to 350 municipalities; (2) in the Technical Bureau, the Government representatives presented a minute containing the basis for participation by workers in the definition of employment conditions at municipality level, based on the prescriptions of Convention No. 151; (3) the minute is of no legal relevance, having none of the characteristics of laws or regulations, and is a memo of the basic ideas for participation by municipal workers in determining working conditions in the various communes; and (4) the Government has embarked on studying and preparing a Bill to regulate the authority granted by article 110 of the Constitution to all municipalities in the country. The Bill has not been finalized and so has not been sent to the National Congress for enactment. The Committee again reminds the Government that the right to strike is an intrinsic corollary of freedom of association protected by Convention No. 87. This right is not, however, absolute and may be restricted in exceptional circumstances or even prohibited for certain categories of workers, in particular certain public servants (those exercising authority in the name of the State) or workers providing essential services in the strict sense of the term (those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 179). In these circumstances, the Committee considers that municipal officials who do not exercise authority in the name of the State should enjoy the right to strike. It requests that the Government consult with the trade unions concerned if it intends to adopt the abovementioned Bill.
The Committee notes the Government’s observations with regard to the comments made by the National Confederation of Municipal Employees of Chile (ASEMUCH). The Committee also notes a communication dated 13 October 2004, in which ASEMUCH sends new comments.
The Committee intends to examine this information and the other pending issues raised by the Committee in its previous direct request (see 2003 direct request, 74th Session) in the context of the regular reporting cycle in 2005.
The Committee also notes the comments made by the National Inter-Company Trade Union of Metallurgy, Communications, Energy and Related Activities Workers (SME) in a communication dated 2 May 2004 concerning the application of the Convention, as well as the Government’s observations in this regard, and points out that these communications concern Convention No. 98 and are examined under this Convention.
The Committee notes the Government’s report.
Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s report on the application of Convention No. 98 that officials in the judicial authorities continue to be governed by special conditions of service which prohibit them from establishing trade union organizations. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention provides that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and that, under the terms of Article 9 of the Convention, only the members of the armed forces and the police may be excluded from its scope of application. Under these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that officials of the judicial authorities are afforded the guarantees set forth in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted for this purpose.
Article 3. 1. Right to elect representatives in full freedom. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that article 23 of the Political Constitution provides that the holding of trade union office is incompatible with active membership in a political party and that the law shall lay down sanctions for those trade union officials who participate in party political activities. The Committee notes the Government’s contention that: (1) the constitutional provision seeks to secure greater freedom and independence for trade union organizations; this does not prevent each member of a trade union organization from maintaining political affiliation, provided that this does not affect her or his activities within the organization; and (2) section 236 of the Labour Code provides that to stand for and hold office as a trade union delegate it is necessary to comply with the requirements set out in the respective rules, with the result that the eligibility requirements are established by the trade union organizations themselves. In this respect, the Committee considers that article 23 of the Political Constitution may establish obstacles in such a way that certain persons are deprived of the right to be elected to trade union office solely because of their political beliefs or affiliation and that it should be the trade unions themselves which regulate such questions in their rules. In these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the above constitutional provision so as to bring it into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted to this end.
The Committee also referred previously to section 18 of Act No. 19296 on civil servants’ associations, which provides that a candidate for union leadership must not have been convicted of a serious offence (pena aflictiva). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 18 of the above Act was amended by Act No. 19806 of 31 May 2002, with the deletion of the words "nor to have been tried in a court of law" (ni hallarse procesado).
2. Right to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee noted previously that sections 372 and 373 of the Labour Code provide that: (1) all the workers in the enterprise involved in the negotiations shall have the right to participate in the ballot to decide on strike action; (2) the employer shall inform all the workers concerned of the final offer; (3) in the ballot, the workers shall vote in favour of the strike or in favour of accepting the employer’s offer; (4) the decision to strike shall be taken by an absolute majority of the workers in the respective enterprise; and (5) if this proportion is not attained, it shall be understood that the workers accept the employer’s final offer made during the negotiations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) the administrative case law of the Directorate of Labour has repeatedly found that in the ballot on the last offer of the employer or strike action, only those workers involved in the respective process and who are under the obligation to work at the time are obliged to participate, thereby excluding from this group such workers as are on medical leave, holiday or who are not engaged in the corresponding shifts; and (2) the legislation is very rigorous and closely regulated with regard to the exercise of the right to strike. In this respect, the Committee recalls once again that legislative provisions that require a vote by workers before a strike can be held must ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast, and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 170). In these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the above sections of the Labour Code in the sense indicated above and to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted to this end.
The Committee also noted previously that, under the terms of section 374 of the Labour Code, once a decision has been taken to strike, this must be carried out within three days, failing which it shall be understood that the workers in the enterprise concerned have refrained from going on strike and, consequently, accept the employer’s final offer. The Committee pointed out that: (1) the fact that strike action has not been taken within three days should not be taken to mean acceptance of the employer’s proposal by the workers; (2) the proposal must be accepted explicitly by the workers or their representatives; and (3) the workers must not lose their right to strike because they have not taken such action within three days of calling the strike. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it will take into account these comments in discussions which may be held in future on this point. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report on any measures taken to amend the provision in question.
The Committee noted previously that section 379 of the Labour Code provides that "at any time the group of workers concerned by the negotiations can be called upon to vote, by not less than 20 per cent of them, for the purpose of deciding to censure the negotiating committee, which must be decided upon by the absolute majority, and in which case a new committee shall be elected forthwith." The Committee considered in its previous direct request that this section may give rise to acts of interference with the right of trade unions to organize their activities and that these questions should be dealt with solely by trade union statutes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it will bear these comments in mind in any discussions which may be held in future on this point. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted to amend the above section.
The Committee notes that section 381 of the Labour Code contains a general prohibition on the replacement of striking workers, but that there exists the possibility of their replacement subject to compliance by the employer with certain conditions in the final offer during the negotiating process. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that: (1) it is necessary to bear in mind that the inspection carried out by the Directorate of Labour is intended to ensure that the provision is complied with in its entirety, namely that such replacement can be carried out only by employers who comply with the minimum requirements established; and (2) the interpretation which has been made of this provision by the above inspection service has been very restrictive, in the sense of considering as a legitimate replacement any arrangement in which a worker who provides a replacement performs the same tasks as the worker who is on strike; this has resulted in prohibiting in practice the replacement of workers by students and volunteer workers. Nevertheless, the Committee is bound to recall that the replacement of strikers seriously impairs the right to strike and affects the free exercise of trade union rights (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 175) and it requests the Government to amend the legislation to ensure that enterprises cannot hire new workers to replace those who are engaged in a lawful strike.
The Committee also commented on section 384 of the Labour Code, which provides that strikes cannot be called by workers in enterprises which supply public utility services or those the interruption of which would seriously endanger the health, public supply, the national economy or national security. In such cases, the abovementioned article provides that if agreement is not reached between the parties during the collective bargaining process, the matter shall be referred to compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) in July the Ministries of Labour and Social Insurance, the Economy, Energy and Mining and National Defence drew up a list of enterprises in which, although the workers may engage in collective bargaining, they may not call a strike and the process of negotiation is therefore subject to compulsory arbitration; and (2) the list of enterprises in the above situation consists almost entirely of enterprises which provide essential public services such as gas, electricity, health services, enterprises in ports and others of a strategic nature, such as the Central Bank and the Postal Services of Chile, as well as the Arica-La Paz rail connection, under the terms of an agreement concluded with Bolivia. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the right to strike is an intrinsic corollary of freedom of association protected by Convention No. 87. This right is not, however, absolute and may be restricted in exceptional circumstances or even prohibited for certain categories of workers, in particular certain public servants (those exercising authority in the name of the State) or workers providing essential services in the strict sense of the term (those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 179). The Committee considers that the definition of services in which strikes may be prohibited, as set out in section 384, as well as the list drawn up by the government authorities in July, is too broad and goes beyond services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (for example, port enterprises, the Central Bank and the railway). In these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the law and practice in the sense indicated above and to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted to this end.
The Committee also noted that section 385 of the Labour Code provides that in the event of a strike which by its nature, timing or duration causes a serious risk to the health, the supply of goods or services to the population, to the national economy or national security, the President of the Republic may order the resumption of work. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that: (1) despite the existence of this legal provision, the President of the Republic has not had recourse to it for the past 25 years, as the most sensitive collective bargaining processes have been resolved through direct dialogue between the parties or with the intervention of the administrative authorities to bring the parties closer; (2) under the terms of section 385, for the President of the Republic to order the resumption of work in general or in a specific service, there has to be a situation of national crisis caused by the interruption of services which affects the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, when the strike causes serious harm to health, the supply of goods and services to the population, the economy of the country or national security; (3) the workers concerned by the resumption of work are covered by the procedures of conciliation, mediation and arbitration; and (4) the arbitrator is designated from the list of independent persons established previously, with their fees being covered by the State. In this respect, the Committee considers that the definition contained in section 385 of services in which the President of the Republic may order the resumption of work appears to go beyond essential services in the strict meaning of the term. Taking into account the fact that, according to the Government, the President of the Republic has not had recourse to this prerogative for 25 years, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to repeal or amend the provision in question as indicated above.
The Committee also noted that section 254 of the Penal Code provides for penal sanctions in the event of the interruption of public services or public utilities or the abandonment of their posts by public employees. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the above provision does not set forth sanctions for the exercise of the right to strike, but for the interruption of public services or public utilities where such interruption is unlawful, untimely and clearly harmful to users and the country. In this respect, the Committee considers that a strike may be declared illegal by virtue of certain of the legislative provisions commented on in the paragraphs above and that this could result in the imposition of the sanctions envisaged in the Penal Code. In these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend section 254 of the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted to this end.
The Committee also noted that section 48 of Act No. 19296 grants broad powers to the Directorate of Labour for the supervision of the accounts and financial and property transactions of associations. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a provision similar to the above (section 265 of the Labour Code) was repealed on the grounds of the need to grant trade union organizations greater freedom and independence. The Committee requests the Government, in the same way as for the repealed provision of the Labour Code, to take measures to amend section 48 of Act No. 19296 to limit the powers of supervision of the Directorate of Labour.
Finally, the Committee notes the comments of the National Confederation of Municipal Workers of Chile (ASEMUCH), dated 6 June 2003, on the application of the Convention. The Committee regrets that the Government has not provided its observations in this respect. The Committee notes that ASEMUCH refers to the authorities’ intention to table a draft reform of Act No. 18695 setting forth the constitutional framework for municipal authorities, which would abolish the right to strike of municipal officials. In this connection, the Committee refers to its comments in the above paragraphs on the categories of workers for whom the exercise of the right to strike may be restricted or even prohibited. The Committee considers that municipal officials who do not exercise authority in the name of the State should enjoy the right to strike.
The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:
The Committee requests the Government to confirm the entry into force of the amendments of the Labour Code approved by Congress on 11 September 2001. With regard to labour legislation, the Committee requests the Government to provide clarification on the validity and scope of certain provisions. The Committee refers specifically to the Administrative Statute (Act No. 18834), particularly in regard to section 78, and the Legislative Decree on trade union associations (No. 2757). Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to furnish information on any other legislation applicable on this subject. Article 3 of the Convention 1. The right to elect representatives in full freedom. The Committee observes that section 23 of the Political Constitution provides that the holding of trade union office is incompatible with active membership in a political party and that the law shall lay down sanctions for those officials who participate in party political activities. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the provisions which prohibit the exercise of trade union office to certain persons because of their opinions or their political affiliation are not compatible with the right of organizations to elect their representatives freely. These are, essentially, provisions concerning eligibility for trade union office on political grounds which relate to the activities of the specific party or political movement (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 119). The Committee deems that section 23 may lay down obstacles in such a way that certain persons are deprived of the right to be elected to trade union office solely because of their political beliefs or affiliation and that it should be the trade unions themselves which regulate such questions in their statutes. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend this constitutional provision so as to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. Section 18 of Act No. 19.296 on civil servants’ associations lays down that a candidate for union leadership must not have been convicted of a serious offence (pena aflictiva). The Committee considers that these terms are too broad and that conviction for an act the nature of which is not such as to call into question the integrity of the person concerned and is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office (see General Survey, paragraph 120). The Committee requests the Government to clarify the extension of the concept of "pena aflictiva" in practice and to what extent it affects workers in standing as candidates for trade union elections. 2. The right to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee observes that section 218 of the Labour Code lays down that labour inspectors, public notaries, civil registry officials and officials of the state administration designated as such by the Directorate of Labour shall be officials authorized to authenticate documents. Public notaries shall be present at constituent assemblies of trade union organizations, elections of their officials, votes of censure on officials, and at assemblies convened to decide on amendment of their statute, inter alia. The Committee considers that this is contrary to the right of trade union organizations to organize freely their administration and activities and therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, to ensure that the public authorities refrain from interfering in meetings of trade union organizations. The Committee also notes sections 370 and 371 of the Labour Code which refer to the right to strike only when collective negotiation procedures have broken down and only at enterprise level. In this respect, the Committee considers that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see General Survey, paragraph 165). Furthermore, workers should be able to conduct sympathy strikes, provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful (see General Survey, paragraph 168). The Committee therefore requests that the Government indicate whether it is permissible to carry out actions beyond those envisaged in the framework of collective disputes at the level of the enterprise, such as strikes at national or inter-enterprise level for socio-economic or solidarity reasons, without sanctions being incurred by those participating. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful to know whether federations and confederations may conduct strikes without being sanctioned for them. The Committee notes that sections 372 and 373 provide that voting to decide on strike action shall be personal, secret and in the presence of a public notary and that all workers in the undertaking involved in the bargaining may take part. The employer shall inform all workers concerned of the final offer and shall supply a copy of the offer to the Labour Inspectorate. In the ballot, workers shall vote in favour of the strike or in favour of accepting the employer’s offer by means of pre-printed voting slips. The decision to strike shall be taken by an absolute majority of workers of the particular undertaking involved in the negotiations. If this proportion is not reached, it will be understood that the workers accept the employer’s final offer. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the legislative provisions which require a vote by workers before a strike can be held must ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast, and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level (see General Survey, paragraph 170). Furthermore, the Committee considers that acceptance of the employer’s proposal by the workers cannot be implied, as provided in section 373, by the lack of a quorum in voting to take strike action. In fact, the Committee considers that such acceptance must be made expressly by workers or by the representatives involved in the negotiations. The Committee requests that the Government take measures to amend these provisions by eliminating the presumption of acceptance of the strike in the event of lack of a quorum and by ensuring that account is taken only of the votes cast and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level. The Committee notes that section 374 lays down that once a decision has been taken to strike, this must be carried out within three days otherwise it will be understood that the workers of the undertaking concerned have refrained from striking and, consequently, have accepted the employer’s final offer. On the same lines as the previous point, the Committee considers that the fact that strike action has not been taken within three days should not signify acceptance of the employer’s proposal by the workers. The proposal must be accepted expressly by the workers or their representatives. In addition, the workers must not lose their right to strike because they have not taken such action within three days of declaring it. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to repeal this section which places unnecessary restrictions on the right to strike and the right of trade unions to organize their activities. The Committee notes that section 379 provides that at any time the group of workers involved in the negotiation can be called to vote by not less that 20 per cent of them for the purpose of deciding on censure of the negotiating committee, which must be decided by the absolute majority, in which case a new committee is elected at once. The Committee considers that this section may give rise to acts of interference in the right of trade union organizations to organize their activities and that these questions should be dealt with solely by trade union statutes. The Committee requests that the Government indicate the measures taken or envisaged to repeal this section. The Committee notes that section 381 currently in force prohibits in a general way the replacement of strikers. Nevertheless, it observes that the possibility of replacing them remains, subject to certain conditions. Section 381 requires, in addition to the already existing conditions, provision for payment of a premium for strike replacements which makes recruitment of new workers more expensive for the employer. Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that replacement of strikers seriously impairs the right to strike and affects the free exercise of trade union rights (see General Survey, paragraph 175). The Committee requests that the Government amend its legislation to ensure that undertakings cannot recruit new workers to replace their own employees who are on legal strike. The Committee notes that section 384 provides that striking is forbidden for workers of undertakings which supply public utility services or those the interruption of which would seriously endanger the health, public supply, the economy of the country or national security. In these cases, section 384(3) provides that if agreement is not reached between the parties during the collective bargaining process, compulsory arbitration will take place. In this respect, the Committee recalls that legislation may prohibit strike action and impose compulsory arbitration in the following cases: first, in undertakings or institutions which provide essential services, in the strict sense of the term, namely those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; and secondly, in regard to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 158-159). The Committee observes in this regard that current legislation is excessively broad since the concept of public utility and damage to the country’s economy go beyond the concept of essential service. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that in the case of non-essential services, for the purpose of avoiding damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or the consumers who suffer the economic effect of the collective dispute, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other public services rather than imposing an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey, paragraph 160). The Committee also notes that section 385 provides that where there is a strike which by its nature, timing or duration causes a serious risk to the health, to the supply of goods and services to the population, to the economy of the country or to national security, the President of the Republic can order the resumption of work. In this regard, the Committee considers that it should be the judicial authorities, at the request of the administrative authorities, which order resumption of work only in cases of acute national crisis or where the interruption of services would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, providing in such cases that workers enjoy adequate compensatory guarantees, for example, conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned (see General Survey, paragraph 164). Finally, the Committee notes that section 254 of the Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in the event of interruption of public services or public utilities or abandonment of post by public employees. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see General Survey, paragraph 177). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take measures so that legislation will allow the prohibition or restriction of the right to strike only in case of essential services or public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the event of acute national crisis. The Committee also requests the Government to amend section 385 so that it is the judicial authorities which determine resumption of work and that appropriate compensatory guarantees are provided in such cases. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend section 254 of the Penal Code in regard to sanctions on the exercise of the right to strike which should be restricted to essential services, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to cases of acute national crises, in accordance with the abovementioned principle. The Committee notes that section 48 of Act No. 19296 grants broad powers to the Directorate of Labour in supervision of the books and financial and property transactions of associations. In this regard, the Committee recalls that such supervision should be limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports or if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law (see General Survey, paragraph 125). The Committee requests the Government to modify this section in order to restrict the powers of the Directorate of Labour, in conformity with the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention.
The Committee requests the Government to confirm the entry into force of the amendments of the Labour Code approved by Congress on 11 September 2001.
With regard to labour legislation, the Committee requests the Government to provide clarification on the validity and scope of certain provisions. The Committee refers specifically to the Administrative Statute (Act No. 18834), particularly in regard to section 78, and the Legislative Decree on trade union associations (No. 2757). Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to furnish information on any other legislation applicable on this subject.
1. The right to elect representatives in full freedom. The Committee observes that section 23 of the Political Constitution provides that the holding of trade union office is incompatible with active membership in a political party and that the law shall lay down sanctions for those officials who participate in party political activities. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the provisions which prohibit the exercise of trade union office to certain persons because of their opinions or their political affiliation are not compatible with the right of organizations to elect their representatives freely. These are, essentially, provisions concerning eligibility for trade union office on political grounds which relate to the activities of the specific party or political movement (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 119). The Committee deems that section 23 may lay down obstacles in such a way that certain persons are deprived of the right to be elected to trade union office solely because of their political beliefs or affiliation and that it should be the trade unions themselves which regulate such questions in their statutes. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend this constitutional provision so as to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.
Section 18 of Act No. 19.296 on civil servants’ associations lays down that a candidate for union leadership must not have been convicted of a serious offence (pena aflictiva). The Committee considers that these terms are too broad and that conviction for an act the nature of which is not such as to call into question the integrity of the person concerned and is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office (see General Survey, paragraph 120). The Committee requests the Government to clarify the extension of the concept of "pena aflictiva" in practice and to what extent it affects workers in standing as candidates for trade union elections.
2. The right to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee observes that section 218 of the Labour Code lays down that labour inspectors, public notaries, civil registry officials and officials of the state administration designated as such by the Directorate of Labour shall be officials authorized to authenticate documents. Public notaries shall be present at constituent assemblies of trade union organizations, elections of their officials, votes of censure on officials, and at assemblies convened to decide on amendment of their statute, inter alia. The Committee considers that this is contrary to the right of trade union organizations to organize freely their administration and activities and therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, to ensure that the public authorities refrain from interfering in meetings of trade union organizations.
The Committee also notes sections 370 and 371 of the Labour Code which refer to the right to strike only when collective negotiation procedures have broken down and only at enterprise level. In this respect, the Committee considers that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see General Survey, paragraph 165). Furthermore, workers should be able to conduct sympathy strikes, provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful (see General Survey, paragraph 168). The Committee therefore requests that the Government indicate whether it is permissible to carry out actions beyond those envisaged in the framework of collective disputes at the level of the enterprise, such as strikes at national or inter-enterprise level for socio-economic or solidarity reasons, without sanctions being incurred by those participating. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful to know whether federations and confederations may conduct strikes without being sanctioned for them.
The Committee notes that sections 372 and 373 provide that voting to decide on strike action shall be personal, secret and in the presence of a public notary and that all workers in the undertaking involved in the bargaining may take part. The employer shall inform all workers concerned of the final offer and shall supply a copy of the offer to the Labour Inspectorate. In the ballot, workers shall vote in favour of the strike or in favour of accepting the employer’s offer by means of pre-printed voting slips. The decision to strike shall be taken by an absolute majority of workers of the particular undertaking involved in the negotiations. If this proportion is not reached, it will be understood that the workers accept the employer’s final offer. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the legislative provisions which require a vote by workers before a strike can be held must ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast, and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level (see General Survey, paragraph 170). Furthermore, the Committee considers that acceptance of the employer’s proposal by the workers cannot be implied, as provided in section 373, by the lack of a quorum in voting to take strike action. In fact, the Committee considers that such acceptance must be made expressly by workers or by the representatives involved in the negotiations. The Committee requests that the Government take measures to amend these provisions by eliminating the presumption of acceptance of the strike in the event of lack of a quorum and by ensuring that account is taken only of the votes cast and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level.
The Committee notes that section 374 lays down that once a decision has been taken to strike, this must be carried out within three days otherwise it will be understood that the workers of the undertaking concerned have refrained from striking and, consequently, have accepted the employer’s final offer. On the same lines as the previous point, the Committee considers that the fact that strike action has not been taken within three days should not signify acceptance of the employer’s proposal by the workers. The proposal must be accepted expressly by the workers or their representatives. In addition, the workers must not lose their right to strike because they have not taken such action within three days of declaring it. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to repeal this section which places unnecessary restrictions on the right to strike and the right of trade unions to organize their activities.
The Committee notes that section 379 provides that at any time the group of workers involved in the negotiation can be called to vote by not less that 20 per cent of them for the purpose of deciding on censure of the negotiating committee, which must be decided by the absolute majority, in which case a new committee is elected at once. The Committee considers that this section may give rise to acts of interference in the right of trade union organizations to organize their activities and that these questions should be dealt with solely by trade union statutes. The Committee requests that the Government indicate the measures taken or envisaged to repeal this section.
The Committee notes that section 381 currently in force prohibits in a general way the replacement of strikers. Nevertheless, it observes that the possibility of replacing them remains, subject to certain conditions. Section 381 requires, in addition to the already existing conditions, provision for payment of a premium for strike replacements which makes recruitment of new workers more expensive for the employer. Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that replacement of strikers seriously impairs the right to strike and affects the free exercise of trade union rights (see General Survey, paragraph 175). The Committee requests that the Government amend its legislation to ensure that undertakings cannot recruit new workers to replace their own employees who are on legal strike.
The Committee notes that section 384 provides that striking is forbidden for workers of undertakings which supply public utility services or those the interruption of which would seriously endanger the health, public supply, the economy of the country or national security. In these cases, section 384(3) provides that if agreement is not reached between the parties during the collective bargaining process, compulsory arbitration will take place. In this respect, the Committee recalls that legislation may prohibit strike action and impose compulsory arbitration in the following cases: first, in undertakings or institutions which provide essential services, in the strict sense of the term, namely those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; and secondly, in regard to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 158-159). The Committee observes in this regard that current legislation is excessively broad since the concept of public utility and damage to the country’s economy go beyond the concept of essential service. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that in the case of non-essential services, for the purpose of avoiding damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or the consumers who suffer the economic effect of the collective dispute, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other public services rather than imposing an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey, paragraph 160).
The Committee also notes that section 385 provides that where there is a strike which by its nature, timing or duration causes a serious risk to the health, to the supply of goods and services to the population, to the economy of the country or to national security, the President of the Republic can order the resumption of work. In this regard, the Committee considers that it should be the judicial authorities, at the request of the administrative authorities, which order resumption of work only in cases of acute national crisis or where the interruption of services would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, providing in such cases that workers enjoy adequate compensatory guarantees, for example, conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned (see General Survey, paragraph 164). Finally, the Committee notes that section 254 of the Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in the event of interruption of public services or public utilities or abandonment of post by public employees. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see General Survey, paragraph 177). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take measures so that legislation will allow the prohibition or restriction of the right to strike only in case of essential services or public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the event of acute national crisis. The Committee also requests the Government to amend section 385 so that it is the judicial authorities which determine resumption of work and that appropriate compensatory guarantees are provided in such cases. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend section 254 of the Penal Code in regard to sanctions on the exercise of the right to strike which should be restricted to essential services, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to cases of acute national crises, in accordance with the abovementioned principle.
The Committee notes that section 48 of Act No. 19296 grants broad powers to the Directorate of Labour in supervision of the books and financial and property transactions of associations. In this regard, the Committee recalls that such supervision should be limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports or if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law (see General Survey, paragraph 125). The Committee requests the Government to modify this section in order to restrict the powers of the Directorate of Labour, in conformity with the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention.
The Committee notes with interest the report sent by the Government as well as the recent amendment of the Labour Code approved by Congress on 11 September 2001. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to confirm the entry into force of the abovementioned instrument.
The Committee notes that sections 372 and 373 provide that voting to decide on strike action shall be personal, secret and in the presence of a public notary and that all workers in the undertaking involved in the bargaining may take part. The employer shall inform all workers concerned of the final offer and shall supply a copy of the offer to the Labour Inspectorate. In the ballot, workers shall vote in favour of the strike or in favour of accepting the employer’s offer by means of preprinted voting slips. The decision to strike shall be taken by an absolute majority of workers of the particular undertaking involved in the negotiations. If this proportion is not reached, it will be understood that the workers accept the employer’s final offer. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the legislative provisions which require a vote by workers before a strike can be held must ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast, and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level (see General Survey, paragraph 170). Furthermore, the Committee considers that acceptance of the employer’s proposal by the workers cannot be implied, as provided in section 373, by the lack of a quorum in voting to take strike action. In fact, the Committee considers that such acceptance must be made expressly by workers or by the representatives involved in the negotiations. The Committee requests that the Government take measures to amend these provisions by eliminating the presumption of acceptance of the strike in the event of lack of a quorum and by ensuring that account is taken only of the votes cast and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level.
The Committee notes that section 381 prohibits in a general way the replacement of strikers. Nevertheless, it observes that the possibility of replacing them remains, subject to certain conditions. Section 381 requires, in addition to the already existing conditions, provision for payment of a premium for strike replacements which makes recruitment of new workers more expensive for the employer. Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that replacement of strikers seriously impairs the right to strike and affects the free exercise of trade union rights (see General Survey, paragraph 175). The Committee requests that the Government amend its legislation to ensure that undertakings cannot recruit new workers to replace their own employees who are on legal strike.
The Committee notes the first report sent by the Government along with the comments supplied by the Single Central Organization of Chilean Workers in February 2001 with reference to the Labour Code in force at that time.
The Committee also notes with satisfaction that, between the ratification of the Convention and the sending of the first report, the National Congress has amended the Labour Code to provide improved application of the Convention. Specifically, through the amendments made to the Labour Code, the scope of application of the right to organize has broadened, the number of persons required in order to establish trade unions has decreased, certain conditions for trade union leadership eligibility have been abolished and the power of the authorities to interfere in trade union organizations has been reduced.
In addition, the Committee is raising a number of matters in relation to the application of the Convention in a direct request.