Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1998, Publication: 86th ILC session (1998)

A Government representative, Minister of Labour, recalled that, only a few days after it had taken over the responsibility of governing the country, the Government had received the direct contacts mission to review observance of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It had gathered together the social partners and reactivated the initiative to establish a formal procedure for the modernization of industrial relations, involving a 23-month programme financed by the State and the Inter-American Development Bank. It was primarily, but not exclusively, in the context of this programme that all the themes covered by the above Conventions, and other fundamental matters for an updated concept which protected the interests of workers and employers, should be addressed.

He added that, since the direct contacts mission, the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB) had changed its leaders on three occasions, giving rise to difficulties in addressing the modernization of industrial relations. At present, partial progress was being made with them with regard to all their demands. Nevertheless, the common concern of the three executive committees of the COB was to reject participation in the programme known as the Social Dialogue Programme. Bolivian trade unionists did not accept the observance of a Convention which provided for freedom of association and the establishment of more than one trade union per enterprise. The Government was continuing its policy of dialogue and consultation, and that was the reason why it had not used its powers to adopt the necessary legal instruments since to do so without consensus would prejudice the principal objective of the adoption of a new General Labour Act.

Endorsing a number of government policies, he stated that the non-recognition of the right to organize of public servants only affected a small group of public sector workers, since public employees in education, health, the oil industry and other sectors were fully covered by trade unions. This right was also enjoyed by public servants in the central administration, who worked in ministries and other bodies in which enjoyment of the right would not affect their fundamental functions.

Nevertheless, an analysis was being undertaken of the effect on the population of union membership for public officials who demanded the right of freedom of association.

He added that the Government, despite supporting the right to have more than one union per enterprise, had been avoiding this extreme through legal provisions and had worked with the COB to seek solutions for the discrepancies which had arisen. Nevertheless, there was currently a serious problem relating to workers in the social security sector, who had elected officers in a national congress who were not now recognized by the COB. It was probable that a congress of unity would be held to resolve the problem. If not, a new trade union body would emerge as a result of internal struggles in the trade union movement.

The Ministry of Labour had not submitted a text amending the legislation to the Council of Ministers in view of the launching on 15 February this year of the Social Dialogue Programme, for which a coordinator had been appointed who was organizing initial tripartite meetings with a group of technicians. It was to be hoped that these meetings, which were to be held with all the sectors concerned and throughout the national territory, would lead up to a proposal for the amendment of the labour legislation. Nevertheless, particular subjects on which consensus was achieved and which could be classified as urgent would be resolved on a case-by-case basis by the Government. The Government also accepted the need to amend provisions which inappropriately extended the powers of labour inspectors to trade union activities (section 101 of the General Labour Act). It would also be necessary to repeal section 129 of the Decree issued under the General Labour Act, which provided for the possibility of dissolving trade union organizations by administrative authority. Protection for workers other than trade union leaders against acts of anti-union administration would also be included. As a result, it could be said that, even without the adoption of the new legislation, the Ministry of Labour had continuously taken action to provide the protection in question.

He agreed with the need to include provisions in the legislation granting protection against any act of interference by employers' organizations in workers' organizations, and vice versa. Once again, effective action had been taken. The Government had neither imposed nor permitted the imposition of penal sanctions in the case of general strikes or sympathy strikes. He added that in his country penal measures were covered by the Penal Code, and not by labour legislation. He also said that agricultural wage-earners were now no longer excluded from the scope of the General Labour Act. A section in the National Agrarian Reform Institute Act had abolished this discriminatory provision, which had been contained in section 1 of the General Labour Act, which had been amended. A tripartite seminar had recently been held involving the most representative organizations and ILO experts, in which the draft text of the Decree to implement the provision incorporating agricultural wage-earners within the scope of labour legislation had been discussed. He noted in this respect that, following the revolution in 1952, the great majority of agricultural workers had become owners of their land and were therefore self-employed workers not covered by any dependent labour relationship.

He then referred to the points raised in the report of the Committee of Experts, namely denial of the right to organize of public servants, prohibition of more than one trade union per enterprise, the requirements for the holding of trade union office, certain restrictions on the right to strike, the illegal nature of general strikes and sympathy strikes, the prohibition of strikes in banks, and the possibility to impose arbitration by decision of the Executive to bring an end to a strike. He stated that they would be examined in the context of the Social Dialogue Programme with a view to achieving consensus and the incorporation of the relevant provisions in the new General Labour Act.

He said that he would continue working with ILO experts and would look forward to the comments of the Committee of Experts. He also emphasized that trade unions could be established without any previous authorization and considered that the subject of strikes in public markets was of greater importance. Trade unions were very active in those areas and their right to strike had been fully respected by the Government.

In conclusion, he said that the Government had noted the comment concerning collective agreements and was pursuing a policy for the development of this type of negotiation, as well as for its extension to the agricultural sector. Its scope should not be confined to wage negotiation, but should also include other conditions of employment.

The Employers' members thanked the Government representative for his statement describing the positive developments that had occurred, which were all the more welcome since the application of the Convention in his country had already been examined by the Committee in 1993, 1995 and 1997. In its previous report, the Committee of Experts had noted 11 points on which the legislation was not in conformity with the Convention. This year, the Committee of Experts had noted that on five of these points, consensus had been reached by the Government and the social partners on the implementation of the recommendations of the direct contacts mission of October 1997. This mission seemed therefore to have been a success and the necessary changes to the legislation should be made in the near future. The pending questions included the freedom of association of agricultural workers. However, the Government was endeavouring to reach a consensus on this point and the Committee of Experts had noted that trade unions of agricultural workers already existed in certain enterprises. Certain aspects of the right to strike were still under discussion. It was possible not to share the opinion of the Committee of Experts concerning certain restrictions on the right to strike, such as the necessity of a three-quarters majority vote to take strike action: what was at issue was ultimately the application of the democratic principle according to which most serious decisions required a qualified majority. In general, the Government was demonstrating its will to negotiate and there were no reasons to doubt its sincerity. The Bolivian Central of Workers (COB), for its part, remained attached to the principle of having one trade union in an enterprise, which was understandable from its point of view; this was a case of the classical conflict between principles and interests. It was not necessary to dwell on the question of the prohibition of the right to strike in public markets which were considered to be an essential service, because the COB had not contested the situation, and the Committee of Experts had not expressed any criticism in this respect. The Conference Committee should therefore take note of the positive developments taking place in the context of lively tripartite dialogue and the productive collaboration with the ILO. The Government should be encouraged to pursue this line of action and to inform the supervisory bodies of the progress achieved.

The Workers' members thanked the Minister for his presence and the explanations provided. Since 1966, the Committee of Experts had been noting serious divergencies between the legislation and the Convention, and the question had been examined by the Conference Committee in 1993, 1995 and 1997. In 1993, the Government had stated that a preliminary draft law had been prepared in cooperation with the ILO to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. In 1995, the state of emergency had resulted in a wave of massive repressions against trade unionists. In 1997, the Committee had noted the Government's request for a direct contacts mission. This mission had taken place in October 1997 and the Committee of Experts had noted with interest in its comments on the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 that it had made it possible to identify solutions to each of the problems that it had raised. However, in practice, the Government had stated that the social partners had not reached a consensus position on the right of public servants to organize trade unions and on allowing the existence of more than one trade union in an enterprise. Consensus had emerged on the need to modify the legislation on the other five points raised by the Committee of Experts: the possibility of interference by the public authorities in the activities of trade unions; the possibility of dissolving trade unions by administrative authority; the insufficient provisions to ensure protection against anti-union discrimination; the absence of provisions guaranteeing the independence of employers' and workers' organizations from each other; and penal sanctions in the event of general and solidarity strikes. The Committee of Experts had also noted that consensus had been reached in principle on the recognition of the organizations of agricultural workers. It had noted, however, that on eight points of non-compliance with the Convention that it had identified, the social partners had still not arrived at a common position. These were: the denial of the right to organize for public servants; the impossibility of establishing more than one trade union in an enterprise; the nationality and residence conditions to be satisfied to be a trade union leader; certain restrictions on the right to strike; the unlawful nature of sympathy strikes; the unlawful nature of strikes in banks; and the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration in order to put an end to a strike. The Committee of Experts had insisted on the need to modify the legislation on each of these points, including the right to strike, on which it had expressed a position in the 1994 General Survey which was fully supported by the Workers' members. The beginnings of progress could therefore be seen, as well as the persistence of substantial divergencies with the Convention in a certain number of areas. The Minister's statement, the observation of the Committee of Experts and the report of the direct contacts mission pointed to the commitment of the Government to continue consultations with the social partners to find a solution for each of these problems. It was to be hoped that the difficulties could be overcome through social dialogue and that new amendments to the legislation could be foreseen. The Committee should therefore invite the Government, on the one hand, to indicate the reforms which resulted in the adoption of the legislation that conformed with the Convention and, on the other hand, to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity in the other areas.

The Worker member of Bolivia welcomed the excellent work of the Committee of Experts and agreed with the statement by the Government representative that being in Bolivia was like being in paradise. Although he recognized that there were major problems in the country, the Government needed to respect the principles of the Convention. Even though public officials only accounted for a small number of workers, they should enjoy the right to organize, both in the ministries and in municipal authorities.

He stated that substantial resources were being provided by the Inter-American Development Bank for the modernization of the industrial relations system. Nevertheless, the workers were not in agreement with such modernization, since it involved the limitation of labour rights which had been acquired. He referred to the case of two rural workers from Chaparé, where recent confrontations had resulted in workers being detained, wounded and killed. The COB had emphasized the need for dialogue, which had been rendered impossible because government violence had prevented a climate of dialogue from developing. COB leaders and rural workers from Chaparé had been detained and this situation could not continue if dialogue was to be promoted for the improvement of industrial relations. Trials against trade unionists also had to be brought to an end.

With reference to the report of the Committee of Experts, he stated that the five points raised needed to be resolved if progress were to be made. However, it did not appear to be possible to reach an agreement with the Government on the amendment of the general labour legislation. In conclusion, he said that the workers would oppose any such amendments and the ILO should safeguard the general well-being of the workers.

The Worker member of Colombia emphasized the importance of giving effect to the Convention in all developing countries in view of its significance for freedom, democracy and the protection of fundamental human rights. He said that the Government should make greater efforts to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in accordance with the comments made by the Committee of Experts. With regard to the right to strike, he said that the application of the Convention was undermined in the country by claiming that the services concerned were essential, without the appropriate democratic and tripartite dialogue on the scope of that right. The lack of dialogue meant that the right to strike was determined by the authorities.

On the subject of agricultural workers, he called for the Government to provide information on real progress in the inclusion of those workers in the scope of the General Labour Act, particularly in view of the high number of workers in the sector. In conclusion, he stated that any restriction on the right to organize, collective bargaining or the right to strike could not be accepted by the Committee and that the Government could not say that it was adopting an attitude of comprehension when it pleaded the public and general interest, such as in the case of public employees.

The Worker member of Argentina considered that the ILO direct contacts mission had underlined the need to amend the legislation which was not in conformity with the principles of the Convention, particularly in relation to interference by the authorities in trade union activities, the dissolution of trade unions by administrative authority, the absence of protection for workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and the lack of provisions prohibiting interference by employers in trade unions. In addition to all of these violations of freedom of association, the right to strike was restricted, particularly in the case of general strikes and sympathy strikes.

It was essential for the Government to provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to amend the legislation. He referred to the Summit of American Peoples held recently in Santiago de Chile, where the Coordinadora de Centrales Sindicales del Cono Sur, which included the central trade union organizations of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, had transmitted an urgent protest to the President of Bolivia on the repression of rural workers and teachers who had taken part in strikes.

Turning to the prohibition of the right to organize of public servants, he stated that this restriction prevented an important sector from exercising its trade union rights and participating in negotiations to improve its wages and working conditions. The permanent repression of the right to strike in a wide range of sectors resulted in the denial of this inalienable right to many workers. This general context of repression was aggravated by the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the general labour legislation. The ILO should place special emphasis on observance of the Convention as a means of protecting workers in developing countries from the structural adjustment policies which were steadily impoverishing the working class. In conclusion, he supported the statements by the Workers' members urging Bolivia to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention in the near future.

The Worker member of Spain informed the Committee that he had recently returned from Bolivia, where he had participated in the seminar in Santa Cruz de la Sierra to which the Government representative had referred. A declaration had been concluded there on 10 June 1998 which clearly stated that: the Government frequently had recourse to repression instead of dialogue, as had happened in Chaparé and one month ago in La Paz, resulting in several workers being wounded; and that there was an absence of a culture of dialogue. The absence of a culture of tripartism was perhaps caused by the lack of material resources. Although the Committee of Experts had noted in its report that 1,143 collective agreements had been concluded, these mainly covered wages rather than other working conditions. With the signature of the declaration of Santa Cruz, in which the signatories had undertaken to enter into dialogue, a new era had been commenced. He trusted in the will of the Government, the COB and the employers to enter into negotiations. Finally, he stated that the ILO and the Catholic Church were carrying out praiseworthy work to establish a new era of dialogue which would help to resolve the discrepancies in the application of the Convention.

The Worker member of Guatemala said that when it had been in vogue, the doctrine of national security in Latin America had been used to combat the trade union movement with a view to dividing it. The application of the Conventions on freedom of association had been a distant dream. With the arrival of representative democracy, hope had grown that the fundamental rights of workers would be recognized. However, that had not been the case. Freedom of association was one of the rights that continued to be systematically violated by the authorities in Bolivia.

With reference to the statement made by the Government representative, he regretted that the Government had not maintained the receptive and constructive attitude shown during the direct contacts mission, which had been noted by the Committee of Experts in its report. He also regretted that the Government had not taken advantage of the political opportunities which had arisen to find solutions to the five points raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts, with particular reference to public servants and rural workers.

He requested the Government representative to state clearly whether the Government had a real commitment to dialogue, particularly since he had said that it had not been possible to enter into dialogue with the COB, while at the same time affirming that disputes would be settled through tripartite dialogue. The problems relating to the application of the Convention were of a long-standing nature and no progress had been made, even after the visit by the ILO direct contacts mission.

The Government representative wished to reply to the comments made by a number of the members of the Committee. He considered that in practice much progress had been made in the field of industrial relations and that the authorities did not interfere in trade union matters. Nor had trade unions been dissolved or interfered with by administrative authority. There had been no such interference, and this had not been denied by the trade union leaders who were present. The right of trade union leaders to defend the interests of those whom they represented had been protected, except in cases where the judicial authorities had intervened due to violations of the legislation. With reference to the intervention by the Worker member of his country, who had stated that various leaders of rural workers had been brought before the courts, he emphasized that this had occurred because they had violated the general law, but not as a means of exerting pressure on trade union activities. The executive did not have the power to interfere with the judicial authorities and the leaders in question had been convoked by magistrates, not the police.

He emphasized that the Ministry of Labour had not intervened in relations between workers and employers during collective bargaining. With regard to the general strikes, he said that they had been protected, as illustrated by the period between 1 March and 13 April 1998, when the COB had called an indefinite general strike, which had been resolved by dialogue, not violence. There had been no penal consequences of the strike. The Government took no action in labour matters that were not fully discussed with the social partners. With reference to the comments made by a number of speakers concerning rural workers and teachers, he pointed out that the Government had entered into its first process of dialogue with teachers. He repeated his statement from his previous intervention with regard to agricultural workers and quoted section 4 of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform Act No. 1715, which had included agricultural wage-earners within the scope of the General Labour Act. He recalled that a seminar had been held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra with the technical assistance of the ILO in which the most representative organizations of workers and employers, including rural workers' organizations, had participated. In the conclusions adopted in June 1998, the request had been made for the ILO to continue its technical assistance to support the Technical Tripartite Commission in the formulation of a draft decree respecting agricultural wage-earners, which marked a high point in the processes of dialogue and consultation in the country.

He reaffirmed the Government's commitment to seeking consensus and hoped that new labour legislation could be developed through dialogue. The Government was prepared to introduce changes in the areas in which it was within its competence to make decisions, for example through executive decrees, and undertook to amend all provisions which were in contradiction to the Convention. This had not been done earlier because the Government had been working within the context of the Social Dialogue Programme to reach consensual decisions. However, it was not in a position to make an undertaking to amend legislative provisions, for which only Parliament was competent. Contradictions existed between the workers in the country, who were not prepared to enter into discussions with the Government concerning reforms to the labour legislation, particularly on a change to allow more than one trade union per enterprise. The only discrepancy which involved the Government was the recognition of the right to organize of public servants, although even that only affected workers in ministries and prefectoral authorities. On the subject of the need for a two-thirds majority to call a strike, he said that this was an old provision and it was for the trade unions to seek a solution, not the Government. With regard to decisions to call strikes in markets, he said that the workers normally owned their stalls and there were no restrictions in practice.

He recalled that a draft General Labour Act had been formulated in 1993, but had not been successful because it had been a government draft which had not received consensus. For this reason, it had become necessary to establish a programme of social dialogue. He admitted that in 1995, under the previous Government, reprisals had been carried out against workers and that trade union leaders had been arrested under emergency legislation. However, when the current Government had been faced with trade union demands opposing the wages policy in the national budget in March this year, a solution had been found through dialogue and for the first time in many years, the problems had been resolved without the adoption of the usual measure of declaring a state of emergency. With reference to the social unrest in the Chaparé region, he noted that this involved agricultural workers who grew cocoa and whose crops were not legally permitted for traditional purposes. The authorities responsible for maintaining order had intervened because when the crop was grown in areas where it was not permitted under a 1988 Act, it was used by drug traffickers, who manipulated the social sectors. The violence which had occurred in the region, which had been mentioned by several speakers, had not been related to trade union activities, but to disputes relating to the production of cocaine. In conclusion, while recognizing that Bolivia was not a paradise, he said that much progress had been achieved in the field of trade union freedoms and the efforts made to modernize the labour legislation were designed to optimize the industrial and agricultural capacity of the country with a view to creating more jobs. He reaffirmed his previous statement that the appropriate attitude and aptitude was required for dialogue and that the Government was prepared to work with the social partners to promote a culture of dialogue and understanding.

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Minister of Labour and of the discussion that took place in the Committee. The Committee noted that this case had been discussed in the Conference Committee on numerous occasions. It recalled that the Committee of Experts had been formulating comments for several years on the discrepancies between national legislation and Articles 2, 3, 4 and 10 of the Convention, such as the denial of trade union rights for civil servants, the impossibility of setting up more than one union at the enterprise level, the requirement to have Bolivian nationality to be elected as a trade union official, the wide powers of the authorities over trade union affairs, the severe restrictions on the right of workers' organizations to formulate their programmes of action free of intervention by the public authorities and the administrative dissolution of trade unions. The Committee noted with interest that a direct contacts mission had taken place in October 1997 to help the Government improve the application of the Convention. In this regard, it also noted that some progress had been made in elaborating draft legislation on five important points raised by the Committee of Experts to bring the legislation into fuller conformity with the Convention. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the coming session of the Committee of Experts on the concrete measures taken to adopt and implement the legislative amendments prepared during the ILO mission. It also expressed the hope that the Government would continue social dialogue with all the persons involved and that measures would be taken to adjust legislation so as to remove all the other discrepancies with Convention No. 87.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

A Government representative stated that, in effect, a problem of interpretation existed between the Convention and the labour legislation in his country. To overcome this problem, an agreement with the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB) had been signed in May 1997 to form a committee to study the correct interpretation concerning freedom of association. The Government requested the presence of ILO technical experts to assist in overcoming the problems concerning freedom of association.

The political Constitution of the State guaranteed freedom of association. The existing problems raised could be solved within the existing legal framework through the Ministry of Labour. In certain cases, the Bolivian Central of Workers had refused to recognize the freedom of a worker to participate or not participate in a union or to have more than one union per enterprise. In any case, it was hoped that the assistance and cooperation of the ILO would help arrive at a single and correct interpretation and application of the Convention within the framework of the agreement with the COB.

The Workers' members recalled that since 1967 the Committee of Experts had revealed frequent and serious divergencies between the national legislation and the Convention. In 1993 and in 1995, the present Committee had discussed this case in depth. The 11 points set out in the observation of the Committee of Experts demonstrated a manifest interference by the public authorities in the internal affairs and functioning of trade unions. Rather than establishing a framework for the proper functioning of a system of industrial relations, national legislation and practice aimed at hindering its creation. In 1993, the Employers' members had expressed certain hesitations concerning points 8 to 11 concerning the right to strike. The Workers' members were, for their part, convinced that the restrictions imposed relating to the right to strike and the general structure of the legislation violated freedom of association and the right to organize. The Workers' members shared the view of the Committee of Experts as expressed in points 8 to 11 of their observation.

During the emergency in 1995, the authorities proceeded to arrest trade unionists. These events led to the lodging of a complaint to the Committee on Freedom of Association. That Committee deplored the action taken by the Government against the trade union movement and requested it to reinstate the rights of all those concerned and to eliminate all effects of the state of emergency for the workers concerned. However, the Government had not submitted a report for examination by the Committee of Experts. It had not honoured the undertakings it had made in 1995 to bring national legislation into conformity with the Convention, in consultation with employers' and workers' organizations. In 1993, the Government had announced the imminent adoption of a new labour law which would satisfy some of the remarks made by the Committee of Experts. But those commitments had not been honoured. This inertia was unacceptable. The Government had not shown cooperation and the Committee on Freedom of Association had to examine this case in the absence of any clarification from the Government.

The total absence of any progress in this case was deeply disturbing. The Government had not honoured any of the undertakings it had made to the Conference Committee; it had not cooperated with the ILO in spite of having had the possibility to receive technical cooperation; as concerned those sanctioned during the state of emergency, it had not provided any information as to whether they had been reinstated in their jobs and in their trade union activities. These elements justified the sending of a direct contacts mission. If the Government was not in a position to request such a mission, this would be yet another demonstration of the total lack of any will to cooperate, and would call for this Committee to mention the case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Employers' members referred to the Government representative's statement on arrangements reached with the trade union concerning the interpretation of the Convention and found this to be very surprising since this case had been discussed several times on previous occasions. The Government representative had added that certain provisions commented on by the Experts were not applied in practice. There was no real new information. Out of the 11 points enumerated by the Committee of Experts in its observation, the first seven constituted clear violations of the Convention. The Employers' members could not come to the same conclusions as the Committee of Experts with regard to the other four points. The legislative requirement for a majority of three-quarters of the workers to declare a strike was reasonable and democratic. The prohibition on strike action in certain public services and the ban on general strikes showed that the public good prevailed over individual interests. However, urgent action needed to be taken by the Government on the former points. Since the Government was not taking any initiative in this matter, ILO technical assistance or even a direct contacts mission was desirable.

The Workers' member of Argentina stated that this was a serious case that should be viewed in the context of the previous examinations made of the matter by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts. The Government had made promises which it did not keep, and compounded the problem with the failure to send a report for examination by the Committee of Experts. The Government of Bolivia resorted to a state of emergency, to the negation of social dialogue, and to the mass detention and confinement of union leaders. In an era of globalization, such anti-union action could spread to other countries, as was already happening in Latin America. In Bolivia, there was a regression of social and union rights: workers and their organizations faced policies which sought to eliminate acquired rights, until workers' organizations disappeared. He considered this a violation of democracy and thought that the Committee should request the Government to commit to improving the application of this fundamental ILO Convention. Such progress would benefit the workers of Bolivia as well as those in MERCOSUR.

The Workers' member of Colombia stated that the Convention, ratified 34 years ago, was a dead letter in Bolivia. The international community and the ILO were aware of the difficulties which the Bolivian unions faced. The Government should adopt pertinent measures to harmonize its legislation with the Convention. In the current situation, it appeared that even an elected government would not solve the persistent problems of freedom of association. The speaker expressed his hope that the request for the technical assistance of the ILO would attain concrete results.

The Workers' member of Iceland, who spoke on behalf of the Workers' members of the Nordic countries, asserted that although Bolivia had been a Member of the ILO from the beginning, this case was by no means a new one. During the 1980s, this case had been addressed by the Committee of Experts in 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1985. In 1985, the Government had stated in its report that in preparing and drafting the General Labour Bill, it had taken account of the discrepancies existing between the national legislation and the Convention. However, since 1985 this case had been examined by the Committee of Experts every other year and the Government still had done nothing.

While individual States did have the right to establish a minimum number of regulations to ensure that trade unions functioned normally, this did not mean, as had been pointed out by the Committee of Experts, that the Government could place excessive restrictions on their establishment and functioning through detailed legislation. The purpose of Convention No. 87 was to protect trade unions against undue government intervention.

In view of the numerous comments by the Committee of Experts on the various violations of the Convention, he wondered why Bolivia had ratified Convention No. 87 in the first place. The Committee did not seem to be able to note any progress, despite its long-standing and extensive handling of the case and its repeated requests to the Government for change. Recent information showed that violations of the Convention vis-à-vis the Bolivian trade union movement continued. These included the violent repression of demonstrations by the security forces, as well as the arrest, detention without trial and torture of trade unionists. However, the Government did not see these and other violations of the Convention as a serious problem, as it appeared from the Government representative's statement. In view of the fact that the Government had shown such a lack of respect for the obligations that it had undertaken voluntarily, the speaker insisted that the Government receive a direct contacts mission so that it could obtain the assistance clearly needed in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of Convention No. 87.

The Employers' member of Bolivia recognized, as the Committee of Experts' report noted, that a certain formal basis existed to question the relationship of the legislation to the Convention. None the less, it was important to dispel the impression that a sinister oppression of unions existed in Bolivia. The truth was that the majority of legal provisions examined by the Experts - like many others - were obsolete and too caustic and rigid. These obsolete standards were not applied, which ensured in practice freedom of association. Certain of these provisions noted by the Experts were in force due to the desire of the workers, for example, the impossibility that existed for more than one union per enterprise. He referred to some provisions that were obsolete. The national legislation provided for the existence of a union protection (which required judicial approval prior to dismissal of a union leader). He added that, in practice, general or solidarity strikes did not result in the confinement of the leaders. Also, there were cases of enterprises with more than one union.

The speaker recalled the efforts of 1985 and 1986 to reform the General Labour Law, with the technical assistance of the ILO. None the less, the lack of tripartite consensus prevented the Government from promulgating new legislation. In reality, the employers hoped that modern reforms would be adopted which would be in full conformity with the Convention and would eliminate the existing rigidities.

The Government representative stated that he had taken note of the previous interventions and reiterated his previous statements. He was obliged to cast aside the over-exaggerated impression of the violations of social peace in his country. On the contrary, the Government intended to promote a reform of the labour legislation, in agreement with the social partners. The labour legislation dated from 1939, and since then more than 4,200 resolutions and modifications had been adopted, which had created significant inconsistencies. It was due only to a lack of resolve of the Bolivian Central of Workers that the reform of the labour legislation had not been achieved.

The speaker recalled that in 1996, with the assistance of the ILO Regional Office and the Inter-American Development Bank, a social dialogue was begun with the participation of workers' and employers' representatives. The Bolivian Central of Workers attended only one session. It should be recalled that no union leaders remained in detention or confinement, and that all had been reinstated in their jobs. Furthermore, the state of emergency ended in 1995, but such measures were necessary to counter subversive activity which threatened civil order and were within the constitutional framework. It was appropriate to urge the COB to work with the Government to improve the current situation. The existence of 257 strikes, 425 shut-downs, and three general strikes during 1996 testified to the functioning of freedom of association in his country.

The Workers' members recalled, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, that it was correct that in 1993 the Government representative had made reference to a draft law under preparation with the technical assistance of the ILO. Two years later, however, the Committee of Experts noted that it was "not able to note any progress with regard to the application of the Convention". Now, another two years later, the Committee noted that "it has not received the Government's report". One can only conclude that there was no will to collaborate with the ILO. At the same time, cases had been brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The suggestion to have recourse to a direct contacts mission was specifically intended to be able to clarify the situation. It was therefore even more regrettable that the Government representative had not responded specifically to this suggestion.

The Government representative indicated that the Government had already requested a high-level committee to assist in solving the pending problems.

The Employers' members indicated that they had taken note of the most recent statement made by the Government representative which was very new to them. But the progress made appeared not to be sufficient yet. The tripartite committee referred to by the Government representative did not seem to be working. The Government did not seem to know exactly what the requirements of the Convention were. Its lack of cooperation was highlighted by the absence of a report. Therefore the Government needed to receive a direct contacts mission at least in respect of the first seven points enumerated in the observation of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative as well as the debate which followed. The Committee regretted that, despite the discussions in the Committee in 1993 and 1995, and the assurances which had been given by the Government that a draft law formulated with ILO technical assistance would be enacted in the near future, it had not been enacted. The Committee regretted that the Government had not sent the requested report. The Committee recalled that the restrictions on the right to unionize, including for public officials, should be removed, and urged the Government, as had the Committee on Freedom of Association, to take all necessary measures to eliminate acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee noted that the Government had declared its intention to request a direct contacts mission to secure concrete advances in harmonizing the national legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee trusted that this mission would take place in the near future and that in the next report the Government would be able to show substantial progress in regard to this fundamental Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1995, Publication: 82nd ILC session (1995)

A Government representative of Bolivia stated that the points raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts referred to specific situations and legislation prior to August 1993. The new Government, which had assumed its functions on 6 August 1993, had nevertheless the responsibility of replying to the comments of the Experts. The speaker referred to each of the points raised in this observation. The denial of the right of public servants to unionize: in practice, the majority of public servants were affiliated to recognized trade union organizations which carried out their activities under the protection of the General Labour Act (GLA). Teachers, and workers from the health service, who represented 80 per cent of state employees, as well as employees of state enterprises, were members of trade unions. Officials in legislative positions, as well as those in the judiciary and in municipalities, were members of trade unions. The only workers who were not trade union members were those officials who came directly under the President of the Republic; they only represented 7 to 8 per cent of all the workers in the administration of the State. In fact, the employees of the executive branch were, for a large part, joining the public service through competitive examinations which allowed them to obtain contracts of at least five years. Section 104 of the GLA had fallen into abeyance during the process of modernizing the public sector, which had started on 6 August 1993.

The impossibility of setting up more than one union in an enterprise: neither section 103 of the GLA nor the Ministry of Labour made it impossible to set up more than one union in an enterprise. The existence of a single union in an enterprise was due to a preference expressed by workers' organizations themselves in their by-laws.

The wide powers of supervision of the Labour Inspectorate over the activities of trade unions: section 101 of the GLA was not applied. Neither the Labour Inspectorate nor any state organ exercised any control, given that trade union activities were protected by Convention No. 87, as well as the Bolivian Constitution itself.

The prohibition from holding trade union office placed upon persons who do not normally work in the enterprise: section 6(c) of the Legislative Decree of 1951 had only reflected what already existed and did not contain any legal obligation. The Ministry of Labour did not call into question the possibility of such workers belonging to a trade union. It was the workers themselves who had included such provisions in the by-laws of their organizations.

The termination of the mandate of trade union leaders when they retired from their job: such a situation could arise in practice when workers themselves decided on this but section 7 of the Legislative Decree of 1951 did not have any legal effect.

The requirement that members of the governing board had to be of Bolivian nationality (section 138 of the Regulatory Decree issued under the GLA): the fact was that political activity was closely linked to trade union activity. Since foreigners did not participate in political activities, they did not participate in trade union activities either. Of course, there was the case of foreign trade union leaders, such as in the university (which was an autonomous institution); the trade union of university teachers had three professors of different foreign nationalities. This was due to the specific nature of the university.

The possibility of dissolving trade unions by administrative authority: this possibility, provided for by section 129 of the Decree issued under the GLA, was only a precautionary measure. It was not an unrestricted possibility. In a democratic regime, it was a precautionary measure in the face of militant politico-trade union activity.

The excessive number required to call a strike: section 114 of the GLA and section 159 of the Decree issued thereunder only regulated the right to strike without running counter to the exercise of this right.

The prohibition of strikes in all public services: this prohibition had a constitutional base, a concept adopted to protect the right of all citizens and inhabitants of Bolivia without running counter to Convention No. 87.

Compulsory arbitration: section 113(c) of the GLA allowed for compulsory arbitration only after an arbitral decision had been handed down; this decision was then compulsory. In fact, this provision was not applied.

General and solidarity strikes: general and solidarity strikes which ran counter to the constitutional order of Bolivia were contrary to Convention No. 87. Democratic governments did not apply the penal sanctions provided for in the provisions mentioned by the Experts.

The Government was fully disposed to review the existing legislation, a process which would require the political will of the Confederation of Bolivian Workers and the Confederation of Private Sector Employers in order to determine, by way of consensus, the provisions of the GLA that had to be amended.

The Workers' members recalled that, for several years, the Committee of Experts had been reiterating its comments on the points raised, which were manifestly in contradiction with Convention No. 87. The same 11 points raised in this observation had already been discussed in 1993. In this respect, the intervention of the Government representative was quite surprising: in 1993, he had stated that the first three points would be dealt with through the imminent adoption of a new general labour Act. As for the other matters, it had been stated that these provisions were not applied in practice. Now, the Government representative had stated that all of the provisions mentioned, including the first three, were not applied and that, in any event, Bolivian legislation was not contrary to Convention No. 87. However, for the Workers' members, the problems raised by this legislation with respect to Convention No. 87 were serious.

The Workers' members stated that they were very worried by the fact that a state of emergency had been declared on 18 April 1995, resulting in a violation of trade union rights. The Minister of Labour had treated the Bolivian trade union organizations in a derogatory manner in his intervention before the plenary of the Conference.

The Workers' members evoked the negotiations undertaken by the Confederation of Bolivian Workers with the Government, within the framework of which this organization had presented a series of claims which reflected the points raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts. However, the Government had not wanted trade unions in the public sector and had not wanted to engage in social dialogue either. An intervention by the Catholic Church had allowed for a preliminary agreement to be reached. Just as the Confederation of Bolivian Workers was ready to apply the agreement concluded, the Government had intervened violently, arresting the leaders of this organization and declaring a state of emergency.

For the Workers' members, the state of emergency was a flagrant violation of Convention No. 87 and ILO principles. The Bolivian Government should respect its obligations, possibly through the intermediary of the Catholic Church, and should respect the preliminary agreement that had been concluded. Trade union rights should be re-established. Similarly, the legislation in force should be modified in order to reply to all of the points raised by the Committee of Experts. The Government was urged to lift the state of emergency.

The Employers' members stated that seven of the points raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts were very important, given that the provisions in question did not guarantee the exercise of freedom of association. It would appear from the arguments developed by the Government representative that the situations that were contrary to Convention No. 87 had a legal basis. The situation on the practical level seemed quite unusual, due to the fact that, according to the Government representative, the provisions in force had fallen into abeyance. As for the example given of foreign trade union leaders within the university, this manifestly was not representative of the general situation. The Employers' members considered that the observations of the Committee of Experts relating to the restrictions on the right to strike did not justify detailed comments, given that Convention No. 87 was silent in this respect. The Employers' members noted that, according to the declaration of the Government representative, it would be necessary to amend the legislation. Given that, for a long time, this legislation was not in conformity with Convention No. 87, they urged the Government to take into consideration the seven relevant points raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts and to take the necessary measures. They trusted that the next report would contain information on progress made in this respect.

The Workers' member of Bolivia indicated that the state of emergency had suspended all trade union and political rights. The Confederation of Bolivian Workers, of which he was on the Executive Board, had submitted petitions to the Government which reflected the points raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts, in particular the possibility for public servants to exercise trade union activities. It would be appropriate to repeal section 104 of the GLA which denied this right to these categories of workers and which constituted a restriction on freedom of association. Faced with the Government's refusal, the organization had exercised its right to demonstrate and its freedom of expression, rights which were set forth in the Bolivian Constitution. His organization had also asserted its professional and wage claims. When a state of emergency had been declared, a trade union meeting had been interrupted and violent acts had been carried out against men, women and even minors, as well as journalists. The speaker himself had been detained in a military barracks near the border with Chile for 20 days due to his participation in the said trade union meeting. As long as the state of emergency lasted, an authorization had to be obtained from the Ministry or the competent prefecture in order to be able to exercise the right to hold meetings.

The speaker recalled that the Organization of American States had called on the President of the Republic to lift the state of emergency. Similarly, a mission from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) had visited the country but had had to leave without having accomplished its task. These facts constituted a violation of the exercise of the right to affiliate with international organizations of workers. The speaker requested the Committee to ask the Bolivian Government to lift the state of emergency in order to allow political, trade union and civic liberties to be re-established. He invited the ILO to send a fact-finding mission to the country and pointed out that, in any event, amendments had to be made to the labour legislation with a view to protecting workers without losing the acquired social rights.

The Workers' member of Argentina agreed with the points developed by the Workers' member of Bolivia and added that the workers of Argentina, as well as of all of America, were strongly concerned by the state of emergency in Bolivia. The seriousness of the violations of the fundamental rights of workers enshrined in Convention No. 87 could be noted by an ILO mission to the country. It would be appropriate for the Conference Committee to give the Government specific indications as to the measures to be taken in order for the legislation, that had been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts, to be amended in conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 87.

The Workers' member of Uruguay stressed, like the Workers' and Employers' members, that the issues raised by the Committee of Experts had already been pointed out in 1993 and that no satisfactory reply had since been received. On 1 May of this year, the member States of MERCOSUR had adopted in Montevideo a resolution in favour of Bolivian workers. A delegation of several trade union centres had visited Bolivia to request the release of imprisoned trade unionists and the re-establishment of democratic institutions, which had only resulted in the expulsion of one of the delegation. This Committee should clearly ask the Government to put an end to the violations of Convention No. 87 and to lift the state of emergency. In addition, a mission should visit the spot to study the situation.

The Workers' member of Senegal considered that laws that were rejected by the workers could not be considered valid to have a selective application. In such a case they must simply be repealed. He thought the Government of Bolivia was going in the wrong direction. It was not for going into a political debate that the violation was pointed out regarding the freedom of association since the imposition of the state of emergency. He thought it important for the Committee to request in its conclusions that good sense be demonstrated and the state of emergency lifted.

The Government representative stated that, since 1993, a draft modification of the Labour Code had been prepared following a mission of the ILO and of the Inter-American Bank for Development. Since the Government wished to make this reform in consultation with those concerned, it was for Bolivian workers to make their comments on this draft so that it could be submitted to Parliament. The Workers' members should ask their Bolivian colleagues the reasons why they had not responded to this offer of consultation.

Allegations were made of violations of human rights. But human rights had a collective dimension, and did not relate only to the interests of trade unionists. When a general strike deprived children of their right to education and blocked freedom of movement, questions could be raised whether it was not the trade unionists who violated human rights. As regards the incident mentioned by the Workers' member of Uruguay of a trade union delegate from Latin America who visited the Government, the speaker added that these trade unionists publicly criticized government policy, which justified their being returned to the border. The state of emergency was an indispensable measure to re-establish public order without affecting freedom of association or human rights. It had been imposed in conformity with the Constitution and with the consent of Congress.

Freedom of association had been preserved during the state of emergency and the trade unions continued to have meetings. An agreement had been signed on 23 May of this year with the Bolivian Workers' Central, a copy of which had been communicated to the Standards Department of the ILO. The present accusations were without basis and of a purely political character: they reflected the resistance of certain interests and privileges to the large-scale democratic transformation which was taking place.

The Workers' members agreed that the discussion should be strictly limited to the elements of the case noted in the report of the Committee of Experts. However, the general context could not be ignored, especially in the field of freedom of association. This was not an academic debate but a discussion based on the reality of the world with the objective of achieving progress in the application of Conventions.

They thought that the situation was confused and clear at the same time: confused as to the state of legislation, and as to an agreement with trade union organizations; but clear in the absence of a response to the questions raised for a number of years, and in the existence of violations of the freedom of association. The Committee should insist in its conclusions that the Government take all the necessary measures to guarantee fundamental rights and freedom of association, both in law and practice. It could also be suggested that a direct contacts mission or assistance be called for.

The Employers' members also noted that the provisions in force were not in conformity with the Convention. If there was a draft law taking account of the observations of the Committee of Experts, it should be quickly adopted with or without consultation of the social partners, since it was the responsibility of the Government to honour its international commitments.

They did not think that the question of the state of emergency was directly related to the application of the Convention, as long as it did not have the aim of withholding such application. Since the Committee of Experts had not had the occasion to comment on this issue and since this Committee did not have sufficient information, this question should not be included in the conclusions.

For the other points, the Employers' members agreed with the Workers' members in urging the Government to take measures to ensure conformity with the Convention in law and practice.

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that ensued. The Committee noted with regret that, in spite of the fact that the application of this Convention had been discussed at length within the present Committee in 1993, and that the Government at that time had given assurances that the draft law under preparation, with the help of the technical assistance of the ILO, was to be adopted in the near future, the Committee of Experts stated in its report that it was not able to note any progress with regard to the application of the Convention. It recalled that the numerous questions at issue included the denial of the right to unionize to public servants, the impossibility of setting up more than one union in an enterprise, the wide powers of supervision of trade union activities by public authorities and the restriction on the right for workers to elect their own leaders in full freedom.

The Committee, while taking note of the assurance of the Government representative concerning the continuing efforts in the area of legislation, felt that the oral information provided in regard to these various matters was not sufficient to prevent violations of the rights protected by Convention No. 87. The Committee, therefore, called upon the Government to examine urgently all of the issues mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts, and to modify, if necessary with an ILO consultative mission, national laws and practice to guarantee full freedom of association as envisaged in the Convention, and to furnish a detailed written report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

A Government representative, the Minister of Labour, stated that the Government, with the assistance of the ILO, had drawn up a new draft General Labour Law which had been submitted to the employers' and workers' organizations for comments. The Government hoped that these organizations would reply and stated that it would continue its efforts to secure the approval of the new law in Parliament. With regard to the first three points raised by the Committee of Experts, he stated that the draft law guaranteed the right to organize along with all other social rights that were due to civil servants; trade unions were not required to obtain any prior authorization in order to establish a union organization; and there was no prohibition on setting up more than one union in an enterprise. The Decree No. 22407 reaffirmed and guaranteed freedom of association, as well as the free and autonomous functioning of the unions. With respect to the other points raised by the Committee of Experts, he declared that the legal provisions referred to were obsolete and were not applied in practice: labour inspectors did not interfere in any form in the activities of the union organizations; no cases had risen in recent years of the union being disolved by administrative means; in practice the workers, including those in the public sector, had the right to strike and could declare a strike without meeting any type of obligations and arbitration was no longer compulsory. In the last ten years the frequency of strikes had indeed increased in the various sectors of the economy. Workers could declare a strike at any time including solidarity strikes and general strikes. All of the above-mentioned gaps in the existing labour legislation had been recognized and were dealt with in the new draft General Labour Law which has been submitted to the ILO and studied by the ILO experts. Therefore, most of the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerned obsolete instruments. Referring also to the agreement concluded between the Government and the central workers' organization, he considered it important to take into account the actual practice. The Government was making every effort for the new General Labour Law to be submitted for consideration by the next session of the Parliament, following consultations with the social partners, in order to have modern and effective regulations which could ensure all of the fundamental rights of workers.

The Employers' members recalled that the Report of the Committee of Experts stated that for many years now comments had been made on a number of points which had accumulated since the case of Bolivia had first been discussed by this Committee in 1983. Points 1 to 5 mentioned by the Committee of Experts were very clear matters where the Employers supported the Committee of Experts. As far as the question of strikes was concerned, the Employers considered, for instance, that a State might prohibit general strikes and sympathy strikes because this right did not actually ensue from the Convention, but obviously the Government had the right to follow any recommendations that the Committee of Experts might make. The Employer's members took note of the declaration of the Government representative that all these points were now outdated and that they would be changed in the draft General Labour Law. The Committee of Experts asked the Government to address all of these different issues in its next report and to present a report on the state of affairs. The Employers associated themselves with this request. If all of the points were actually to be covered by the new law, then there would be no further problems and possibly the discussion in this Committee would help to accelerate this process.

The Workers' members fully agreed with the remarks made by the Employers' members that the violations in question had been known for a number of years and were quite important. According to the Government representative, there were no problems in practice on essentially all the points raised by the Committee of Experts and all of them would be dealt with in the new draft legislation. The Workers' members regretted that there was no proof of this nor were there texts to determine the state of things in relation to the application of the Convention in legislation and in practice. They did not doubt the progress in the political democratization of the country, but were also aware of the difficulties demonstrated by the suppression of the workers' demonstrations at the beginning of 1993, by the prohibition of the strike of 48 hours at the same time and by the prohibition of the strike of teachers. The Workers considered it most urgent to clarify the situation and therefore strongly associated themselves with the request made by the Committee of Experts and supported by the Employers' members that the Government should supply in the near future the reports and the clarifications necessary to assess the situation.

The Employers' member of Bolivia stated that the comments made by the Committee of Experts were formally correct in that they pointed out that certain legislative texts that still existed in Bolivian law were in conflict with the provisions of the Convention. However, as stated by the Government representative, the points mentioned by the Committee of Experts were obsolete and did not exist in practice. However, anyone reading the Experts' report might get an impression that in Bolivia there still existed a situation of repression or very severe restrictions on the trade union movement. This was not so, and Bolivia was known as a country in which trade union organizations were very active. Bolivian employers did not agree with the comments of the Committee of Experts with regard to the right to strike and supported the position which the Employers' members had taken with regard to the scope of the Convention concerning the right to strike. The draft law had been worked out with the help of the ILO which was still being considered by the social partners. This process should be reactivated on the basis of a social and technical analysis through a tripartite dialogue.

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government with regard to the points that have been under discussion for a number of years. The Committee regretted that no progress was able to be noted with regard to the problems mentioned by the Committee of Experts and hoped that the new draft General Labour Law under discussion would effectively meet these concerns in the very near future. The Committee requested the Government to submit a detailed report to the ILO on the issues raised and reminded the Government that it could have recourse to the technical assistance of the ILO.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 29 August 2008, which referred to legislative matters already raised by the Committee, as well as death threats against the Executive Secretary of the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB) and a dynamite attack against the COB headquarters in La Paz. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s recognition that the attack against the headquarters of the COB was reprehensible and caused material damage, although there were no fatalities. The Government adds that the corresponding complaint was made to the criminal investigation forces in the national police, but that progress was not made in the investigation as it was impossible to find those responsible. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected.

The Committee notes the new comments made by the ITUC on 26 August 2009, which refer to matters that are already under examination. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

The Committee notes the new Political Constitution of the State enacted on 7 February 2009. The Committee notes with satisfaction that articles 14, 49 and 51 of the new Constitution recognize the universal nature of the right to organize and collective bargaining for all workers, including agricultural workers, and the trade union protection of trade union leaders, and that it provides in article 112 that the rights recognized are directly applicable. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the State now has to adopt new legislation in accordance with the new Constitution and that consequently all the national legislation, including the General Labour Act, will be amended (repealed) and harmonized with the new Constitution, under which international Conventions have precedence in their application. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, with regard to freedom of association, the new Constitution was drawn up using Convention No. 87 as inspiration and accordingly many of the trade union rights set out in the law were transformed into constitutional rights. Now their implementation needs to be regulated through explicit legislation. In this respect, the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Insurance is engaged in drawing up a new Labour Act in accordance with the new Constitution, and during this process it will take into consideration and incorporate the Committee’s comments.

The Committee recalls that for many years its comments have referred to the following matters:

–           The exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the General Labour Act of 1942 (section 1 of the General Labour Act of 1942 and Regulatory Decree No. 224 of 23 August 1943, issued under the Act), which implies their exclusion from the guarantees afforded by the Convention. The Committee notes the reference by the Government in its report to various provisions which have gradually granted the guarantees set out in the Convention to agricultural workers and the indication that the Bill on agricultural and rural workers, establishing the conditions and rights of agricultural workers, is before the Senate of the National Congress. The Committee hopes that the Bill will be adopted in the near future and will ensure the application of the guarantees set out in the Convention to all agricultural workers, whether they are wage earners or own-account workers.

–           Denial of the right to organize of public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act). The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, public servants, like all workers, without distinction whatsoever, should enjoy the right to establish organizations of their own choosing and to join those organizations without previous authorization for the promotion and defence of their interests.

–           The requirement of 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise in order to establish a trade union, if the latter is industrial in nature (section 103 of the General Labour Act). In this respect, the Committee recalls that this percentage is very high and could therefore hinder the establishment of trade unions at the industry level.

–           The broad powers of supervision conferred on the labour inspectorate over trade union activities (section 101 of the General Labour Act, which provides that labour inspectors shall attend the deliberations of trade unions and monitor their activities). The Committee recalls that Article 3 of the Convention provides that workers’ organizations shall enjoy the right to organize their administration and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right.

–           The requirement that trade union officers must be of Bolivian nationality (section 138 of the Regulatory Decree of the General Labour Act) and permanent employees in the enterprise (sections 6(c) and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of June 1951). In the view of the Committee, national legislation should allow foreign workers to take up trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country, regardless of the acquisition of nationality (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 118). Provisions which lay down the requirement to belong to an occupation or establishment in order to be a trade union officer are not consistent with the Convention, as they may infringe the organization’s right to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties, or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 117).

–           The majority of three-quarters of the workers in order to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of the Regulatory Decree). The Committee recalls that the requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is too high and could excessively hinder the possibility of calling a strike, particularly in large enterprises. The Committee considers, for example, that it would be more appropriate to reduce the required majority to a simple majority of the votes cast.

–           The illegality of general and sympathy strikes, subject to penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 and section 234 of the Penal Code). The Committee recalls that the general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse, especially where the initial strike is legal, and that these strikes, as well as general strikes, are means of action that should be available to workers. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and therefore measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringement of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts.

–           The illegality of strikes in the banking sector (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1958 of 1950). The Committee recalls that banking services are not regarded as essential services in the strict sense of the term (services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) in which strikes may be banned or restricted. However, the Committee recalls the possibility of establishing a negotiated minimum service in cases where, although the total prohibition of strike action is not justified, and without calling into question the right to strike of the great majority of workers, it is considered necessary to ensure that the basic needs of users are met.

–           The possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration by decision of the executive authorities in order to bring an end to a strike, including in services other than those that are essential in the strict sense of the term (section 113 of the General Labour Act). The Committee recalls that a system of compulsory arbitration through the labour authorities, if a dispute is not settled by other means, can result in a considerable restriction of the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and may even indirectly involve an absolute prohibition of strikes, contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute and strike situations is only acceptable if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or in cases where the strike may be restricted, or even banned, that is in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

–           The possibility of dissolving trade union organizations by administrative authority (section 129 of the Regulatory Decree). The Committee recalls that measures of suspension or dissolution by administrative authority constitute serious infringements of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee considers that the dissolution of trade union organizations is a measure which should only occur in extremely serious cases. Such dissolutions should only occur following a judicial decision so that the rights of defence are fully guaranteed.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that in the context of the planned legislative reform, further to the adoption of the new Constitution, all of its comments will be taken into account. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect and recalls that, if it so wishes, it may have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office.

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

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 29 August 2008, which refer to legislative matters already raised by the Committee as well as death threats against the Executive Secretary of the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB) and a dynamite attack against the COB headquarters in La Paz. In this regard, the Committee recalls that in such cases, the setting up of an independent judicial inquiry is a particularly appropriate method of fully ascertaining the facts, determining responsibilities, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such actions. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this regard.

The Committee observes with concern that for many years, its comments have referred to the following matters.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish organizations of their own choosing. Exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the General Labour Act of 1942 and hence from the guarantees afforded by the Convention (section 1 of the General Labour Act of 1942 and Regulatory Decree No. 224 of 23 August 1943 issued under the Act). The Committee notes that in its report, the Government points out that legislative progress in favour of agricultural workers is gradual. Thus, the Act of 22 November 1945 recognizes some rights of rubber workers; several supreme resolutions of 1971 recognize rights of these workers and of chestnut workers; Supreme Decrees Nos 19524 of 1983 and 20255 of 1984 recognize a special scheme in favour of sugar cane and cotton harvest workers, whose right to organize is expressly recognized; final provision No. 4 of Act No. 1715 of the National Agrarian Reform Service provides for wage-earning agricultural workers to be included in the scope of the General Labour Act, under a special seasonal scheme which reflects the seasonal nature of the work they perform. Section 3 of Act No. 3785 of 23 November 2007 also provides that seasonal workers are included in the scope of the General Labour Act. Thus, according to the Government, agricultural workers have gradually been included in the scope of this Act. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures so that all agricultural workers, whether they are wage earners or self-employed workers, enjoy the guarantees of the Convention.

Denial of the right to organize of public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the Civil Service Superintendence, which is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Labour, is examining the possibility of recognizing the right of association of the public sector. The Committee recalls that under Article 2, public servants, like all workers without distinction whatsoever, should enjoy the right to establish organizations of their own choosing and join those organizations without previous authorization for the promotion and defence of their interests. In this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that public servants enjoy the guarantees envisaged in the Convention.

Requirement that 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise must give their agreement in order to establish a trade union if the latter is industrial (section 103 of the General Labour Act). The Committee notes that the Government points out that the percentage in question is not always restrictive because the political Constitution guarantees free unionization as a means of defence, representation, assistance, education and culture of workers. In this regard, the Committee reiterates once again that the percentage concerned is very high and could therefore hinder the establishment of trade unions at the industry level. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to lower the percentage concerned to a reasonable level.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities, elect their representatives in full freedom and formulate their programmes, without interference from the public authorities. Broad powers of supervision conferred on the labour inspectorate over trade union activities (section 101 of the General Labour Act provides that labour inspectors shall attend the debates of trade unions and monitor their activities). The Committee notes that according to the Government, labour inspectors check the activities of trade union organizations to ensure that they are acting in accordance with the legislation, ensuring observance of the principle of legality. The aim of such inspections is to prevent confrontations between groups of workers in the same organization. The inspections are carried out in moderation, in an impartial manner and with respect for the democratic decisions and the principle of legitimacy of the workers elected to a board. In this regard, the Committee recalls once again that Article 3 provides that workers’ organizations shall enjoy the right to organize their administration and the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 101 of the General Labour Act so that any external interference is limited to exceptional cases where it is justified by serious circumstances.

Requirement that trade union officers must be Bolivian (section 138 of the Regulatory Decree of the General Labour Act) and permanent employees in the enterprise (sections 6(c) and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of June 1951). The Committee notes that the Government refers to the right of foreigners to obtain Bolivian nationality when they have resided in the country for at least two years or for a shorter period in certain cases. It points out that the requirement that trade union leaders must be Bolivian is a way of protecting the rights of national workers given that there is a risk that a foreign worker with less than one year’s residence might leave the country, abandoning the workers and the trade union. In this regard, the Committee recalls that provisions on nationality which are too strict could deprive some workers of the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, for example migrant workers in sectors in which they account for a significant share of the workforce. The Committee considers that national legislation should allow foreign workers to take up trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 118), regardless of the acquisition of nationality.

The Committee also recalls that provisions which lay down the requirement to belong to an occupation or establishment in order to be a trade union officer are not consistent with the Convention. Provisions of this type infringe the organization’s right to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or pensioners, from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 117).

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to lift these restrictions in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Right to strike. Majority of three-quarters of the workers in order to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of the Regulatory Decree). The Committee notes that according to the Government, the figure in question is a balanced one which encourages and allows consensus between workers, preventing minority decisions by a few to the detriment of the majority of workers who hold another view. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike, particularly in large enterprises. The Committee considers, for example, that it would be more appropriate to reduce the majority laid down to a simple majority of the votes cast. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation in order to lower the majorities required to call a strike.

Illegality of general and sympathy strikes, subject to penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 and 234 of the Penal Code). The Committee notes that the Government points out that, according to the National Directorate of Prisons, there is no record of persons having been detained as a preventive measure or convicted on these grounds during the period 2005–07, and that the Government, with the support of the ILO, intends to implement the tripartite agreement reached between the COB, the Bolivian Confederation of Private Entrepreneurs and the Ministry of Labour of Bolivia, designed to amend sections 2, 9 and 10 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 and section 234 of the Penal Code. The Committee recalls that the general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse, especially when the initial strike is legal, and that these strikes, as well as general strikes, are means of action which should be available to workers. The Committee also recalls that no worker on strike who has acted peacefully should be subject to criminal sanctions. The Committee expresses the hope that in the near future the necessary amendments will be made to Legislative Decree No. 2565 and to the Penal Code in accordance with the above principles.

Illegality of strikes in the banking sector (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1958 of 1950). The Committee notes that the Government points out that the Decree in question determines the public services, the activities of which shall not be interrupted so as not to harm society, including banking activities, the services of which may not be withdrawn given that these services involve the handling of the subsistence resources of many people. In this regard, the Committee recalls that banking services are not regarded as essential services in the strict sense of the term (services the interruption of which could endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) in which strikes may be banned or restricted. However, the Committee recalls the possibility of a negotiated minimum service in cases where, although the total prohibition of strike action is not justified, and without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, it is considered necessary to ensure that users’ basic needs are met. The Committee requests the Government to amend Supreme Decree No. 1958 of 1950 in order to ensure that the banking sector enjoys the right to strike in accordance with the above principles.

Possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration by decision of the Executive in order to bring an end to a strike, including in services other than those that are essential in the strict sense of the term (section 113 of the General Labour Act). The Committee observes that the Government refers to the arbitration procedure and to the tripartite composition of the arbitration tribunals as a means of resolving disputes and conflicts, and points out that compulsory arbitration is not imposed by the Executive and that it is used to prevent strike action and not to bring a strike to an end. In this regard, the Committee recalls that a system of compulsory arbitration through the labour authorities, if a dispute is not settled by other means, can result in a considerable restriction of the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and may even involve an absolute prohibition of strikes, contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute and a strike is acceptable if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or if the strike in question may be restricted, even banned, i.e. in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to amend section 113 of the General Labour Act in accordance with the above principles.

Article 4. Dissolution of trade unions. Possibility of dissolving trade union organizations by administrative authority (section 129 of the Regulatory Decree). The Committee notes that the Government points out that the Regulatory Decree issued under the General Labour Act refers to two grounds for the dissolution of trade union organizations: (1) the violation of the General Labour Act, and (2) in the event of a suspension of activities for one year. In the latter case, the aim is to encourage workers not to neglect to establish their board and obtain the appropriate recognition of the Ministry of Labour. The Government points out that the Ministry of Labour has not recorded many cases of dissolution of trade unions on the above grounds. It points out that dissolution takes place more frequently at the request of workers, with the agreement of the workers to determine the distribution of the trade union’s assets. The Committee recalls that measures of suspension or dissolution by the administrative authority constitute serious infringements of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee considers that the dissolution of trade union organizations is a measure which should only occur in extremely serious cases; such dissolutions should only happen following a judicial decision so that the rights of defence are fully guaranteed. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to amend the legislation in accordance with the above principle.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate any legislative developments relating to all the questions raised.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee observes that the Government’s report has not been received. It notes the comments of 28 August 2007 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which refer to matters already raised by the Committee.

For many years, in its comments on the application of the Convention the Committee has referred to:

–           the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the General Labour Act of 1942 and hence from the guarantees afforded by the Convention (section 1 of the General Labour Act of 1942 and Regulatory Decree No. 224 of 23 August 1943 issued under the Act);

–           the denial of the right to organize of public servants (section 104 of the Act);

–           the requirement that 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise must give their agreement in order to establish a trade union if the latter is industrial (section 103 of the Act);

–           the broad powers conferred upon the labour inspectorate to supervise trade union activities (section 101 of the Act);

–           the requirement that candidates for trade union office must be Bolivian (section 138 of the Regulatory Decree) and permanent employees in the enterprise (sections 6(c) and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of June 1951);

–           the possibility of dissolving trade unions by administrative decision (section 129 of the Regulatory Decree);

–           restrictions on the right to strike: (i) majority of three-quarters of the workers in order to call a strike (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the Regulatory Decree); (ii) the unlawfulness of general and sympathy strikes, subject to penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565); (iii) the unlawfulness of strikes in the banking sector (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1959 of 1950); (iv) the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration by decision of the Executive in order to end a strike, including in services other than those that are essential in the strict sense of the term (section 113 of the Act).

The Committee draws attention to the gravity of these breaches of the Convention which have persisted for many years, and notes with regret that, despite assistance from the Office in 2004, there has been no progress on the issues raised. It reminds the Government that it is important to take measures to ensure that the Convention is fully applied and requests it to send information in its next report on any developments in this respect.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) of 10 August 2006, which refer largely to pending issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice that are already under examination.

The Committee requests the Government, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, to provide its observations for the Committee’s next session in November-December 2007 on all the matters relating to legislation and the application of the Convention in practice raised in its previous observation in 2005 (see 2005 observation, 76th Session).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee recalls that, in relation to the observations made by the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB), it previously asked the Government to provide information on the dismissal of workers from the SABSA enterprise as a result of a strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the dismissal of the workers from SABSA has its origins in a strike which was declared unlawful by decision of the General Directorate of Labour on 5 May 1999 and that the case is currently before the judicial labour authorities. In this respect, the Committee recalls that responsibility for declaring a strike illegal should not lie with the Government, but with an independent body which has the confidence of the parties involved. The Committee asks the Government to ensure compliance with this principle in future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes that a technical assistance mission visited the country from 19 to 22 April 2004 and that, in this context, a tripartite negotiation meeting was held in which agreement was reached on the amendment of the following provisions of the legislation which have been the subject of the Committee’s comments for many years:

-  the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the General Labour Act of 1942, and therefore from the rights and guarantees of the Convention (section 1 of the General Labour Act of 1942 and Regulatory Decree No. 224 of 23 August 1943, issued under the General Labour Act);

-  the denial of the right to organize of public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act);

-  the possibility of the dissolution of trade union organizations by administrative decision (section 129 of the Regulatory Decree); and

-  restrictions on the right to strike: (i) the requirement of three-quarters of the workers in the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of the Regulatory Decree); (ii) the illegality of general and sympathy strikes, subject to penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565); (iii) the illegality of strikes in the banking sector (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1959 of 1950); and (iv) the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration by decision of the executive authority in order to bring an end to a strike, including in services other than those that are essential in the strict sense of the term (section 113 of the Act).

In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (1) although the tripartite agreement was endorsed and the corresponding draft legal amendments formulated, these have not been approved due to a generalized crisis which has resulted in labour, social and political conflict giving rise firstly to a change in ministers and then to the resignation of the President of the Republic; (2) the current administration of the Government and the collective interest is focused on the holding of national elections and the calling of a Constituent Assembly, for which reasons it is currently difficult to make progress on the matters referred to above; and (3) nevertheless, it is in the Government’s interest to make progress on these matters and therefore, as soon as the political conditions so permit, these legal provisions will be approved. In these conditions, the Committee expresses the hope that conditions will soon permit the Government to act, and requests that the Government provide information in its next report on any progress achieved in relation to the approval of the legislative amendments referred to by the Government.

On the other hand, the Committee recalls that for many years it has been commenting on the remaining provisions of the legislation which are not in conformity with the Convention:

(1)  the requirement that 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise give their agreement to establish a trade union in any industry (section 103 of the Act);

(2)  the broad powers of supervision conferred upon the labour inspectorate over trade union activities (section 101 of the Act); and

(3)  the requirement, to be eligible for trade union office, to be of Bolivian nationality (section 138 of the Regulatory Decree) and to be a permanent employee in the enterprise (sections 6(c) and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 2565, of June 1951).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no agreement was reached with regard to these provisions and that, as they are subjects on which both the workers and employers agreed to reject the amendments proposed by the Committee, these changes will not be imposed. However, the Committee also notes the Government’s indication that there was tripartite agreement that the Ministry of Labour will convene further negotiation meetings within a reasonable period with a view to obtaining the amendment of the provisions upon which comments have been made. The Committee requests that the Government provide information in this respect.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on another point.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee observes with concern that it has been making comments on the application of the Convention in relation to the following points for many years:

(1)  the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the General Labour Act of 1942, and therefore from the rights and guarantees of the Convention (section 1 of the General Labour Act of 1942 and Regulatory Decree No. 224 of 23 August 1943 issued under the General Labour Act);

(2)  the denial of the right to organize of public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act);

(3)  the requirement that 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise give their agreement to establish a trade union in any industry (section 103 of the General Labour Act);

(4)  the broad powers of supervision conferred upon the labour inspectorate over trade union activities (section 101 of the General Labour Act);

(5)  the requirement to be of Bolivian nationality for eligibility to trade union office (section 138 of the Regulatory Decree) and to be a permanent employee of the enterprise (sections 6(c) and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 2565, of June 1951);

(6)  the possibility of the dissolution of trade union organizations by administrative decision (section 129 of the Regulatory Decree);

(7)  restrictions on the right to strike: (i) requirement of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of the Regulatory Decree); (ii) the illegality of general and sympathy strikes, subject to penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565); (iii) the illegality of strikes in the banking sector (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1959 of 1950); and (iv) the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration by decision of the executive authority in order to bring an end to a strike, including in services other than those that are essential in the strict sense of the term (section 113 of the General Labour Act).

I.  Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers, without distinction
  whatsoever, to establish organizations of their own choosing

  A.  Agricultural workers

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that draft legislation has been prepared entitled "Regulations respecting rural wage employment", which is at its initial stage and will be examined in a tripartite context so that, once the necessary consensus has been obtained, it can be submitted to Congress for approval. The Committee once again emphasizes the importance of the right to organize for all agricultural workers, whether they are wage earners or self-employed workers, and expresses the firm hope that the above Bill will guarantee the right to organize of these categories of workers. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments relating to the Bill and to send a copy of it when it has been adopted.

  B.  Public servants

The Committee regrets to note that under section 104 of the General Labour Act and section 7 of the Act issuing the conditions of service in the public service of 1999, the right to organize of this category of workers is still not recognized, thereby excluding public servants from the right to establish trade unions, irrespective of their classification or position. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in view of the socio-political situation experienced by the country, it maintains its position with regard to the provisions of the conditions of service of the public service, although it does not discard the possibility that they may be revised in the near future. The Committee recalls that Article 2 applies to all workers without distinction whatsoever, including those engaged in the centralized public sector, and once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible to ensure that this category of workers is granted the right to organize in the very near future.

In general, with regard to the other matters raised by the Committee, the Government indicates that, despite its intention to update the General Labour Act, the Central of Bolivian Workers is reticent about any change or study with a view to improving the current Act, particularly in view of the current national and global situation. The Government adds that it will nevertheless make every effort to take the necessary measures in the near future within a tripartite context, with a view to formulating and adopting new legislation, which will contain provisions guaranteeing and taking into account the observations of the ILO. The Committee notes that the Government requests the Office to provide technical assistance to a tripartite committee with the principal objective of amending the General Labour Act, in accordance with the observations and recommendations made by the Committee. The Committee hopes that, with the Office’s assistance, the Government will be in a position to amend its legislation in relation to the various aspects referred to by the Committee in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the measures adopted in this respect.

Observations made by the Central of Bolivian Workers (COB)

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the dismissal of workers of the SABSA enterprise as the result of a strike.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report, including the observations and additional legal texts sent in reply to the comments that the Committee has been making for many years in relation to the application of the Convention on the following points:

(1)  the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the General Labour Act of 1942, and thus from the rights and guarantees of the Convention (section 1 of the General Labour Act of 1942, and Regulatory Decree No. 224 of 23 August 1943);

(2)  the denial of the right to organize of public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act);

(3)  the requirement that 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise give their agreement in order to constitute a trade union when it concerns an industry (section 103 of the General Labour Act);

(4)  the wide powers of supervision conferred on the labour inspectorate over trade union activities (section 101 of the General Labour Act);

(5)  the requirement of Bolivian nationality for eligibility to trade union office (section 138 of the Regulatory Decree) and for having permanent employment status in the enterprise (sections 6(c) and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of June 1952);

(6)  the possibility of the dissolution of trade union organizations by administrative decision (section 129 of the Regulatory Decree);

(7)  the restrictions on the right to strike: (i) requirement of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of the Regulatory Decree); (ii) the illegality of general and sympathy strikes, subject to penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565); (iii) the illegality of strikes in the banking sector (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1959 of 1950); and (iv) the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration by decision of the executive authority in order to put an end to a strike, including in services other than those that are essential in the strict sense of the term (section 113 of the General Labour Act); and

(8)  the observations submitted by the Bolivian Central of Workers regarding the dismissal of airport workers in the SABSA enterprise following a strike for the purpose of securing the application of an arbitration award in their favour.

I.  Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers, without
  distinction whatsoever, to establish organizations
  of their own choosing

A.  Agricultural workers

The Committee notes that the Government does not supply any information concerning measures taken to ensure the right to organize of agricultural workers. It notes however that, contrary to its statement in its 1999 report that the programme of the modernization of labour relations and the related draft Supreme Decree agreed upon between the parties would repeal the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of section 1 of the General Labour Act of 1942 and section 1 of Regulatory Decree No. 224 of 23 August 1943, the Government now states in its latest report that such a Decree cannot amend an Act.

The Committee emphasizes once again the importance of the right to organize for all persons working in rural areas, whether they are wage-earners, labourers or self-employed workers. It also expresses the firm hope that legislative measures will be adopted as soon as possible to guarantee the right to organize of these categories of workers. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the measures that it plans to take to give effect in practice to the right to organize of agricultural workers.

B.  Public servants

The Committee regrets to note that under section 104 of the General Labour Act and section 7 of the Act issuing the conditions of service in the public service, of 1999, the right to organize of this category of workers is still not recognized, thereby excluding public servants from the right to establish trade unions, irrespective of their category and position. The Government adds that in this respect it has to be understood as meaning the employees in the centralized public sector, as these are the direct representatives of the State, similar to employers, and receive funds directly from the General State Treasury and are appointed directly. The Committee recalls that Article 2 applies to all workers, without distinction whatsoever, including those engaged in the centralized public sector. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible to ensure that this category of workers is granted the right to organize in the very near future.

  C.  Requirement that an excessively high number of
  workers give their agreement for the establishment
  of a trade union at the industry level (50 per cent
  of the workers)

The Committee notes that the Government has once again failed to supply information on the amendment to section 103 of the General Labour Act, even though the above amendment was announced in the report for 1998 within the context of the programme for the modernization of labour relations and was to be communicated to the social partners with a view to its adoption by consensus.

The Committee recalls that section 103 imposes a percentage which is too high and could therefore hinder the establishment of trade unions at the industry level, and has the indirect result of preventing the establishment of other organizations. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to bring its legislation into line with the requirements of the Convention as soon as possible. The Committee also requests that the Government seek wording acceptable to the social partners which would, for example, define the concept of the most representative trade union.

II.  Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations
  to organize their administration and activities,
  elect their representatives in full freedom and
  formulate their programmes, without interference
  from the public authorities

A.  Broad powers of supervision over trade
  union activities

The Committee recalls that under the terms of section 101 of the General Labour Act, "trade unions shall be administered by a responsible committee. Labour inspectors shall attend their debates and monitor their activities". The Committee notes that, notwithstanding this, under the terms of the Ministerial Decision of 2 May 2001, the participation of labour inspectors in the debates of trade union bodies by virtue of section 101 of the General Labour Act "shall only be at the explicit request of workers’ organizations".

The Committee notes that the above Decision was adopted in view of "the number of workers in the country, which has increased considerably over the past 30 years, thereby increasing the quantity of trade union organizations and leading to a shortage of inspectors in the Ministry of Labour and Micro-Enterprises, who should attend the debates of the trade union organizations, but resulting in the impossibility in practice of their participation in these events". The Committee notes that although, on the one hand, the Decision states that "trade union freedom and autonomy must prevail in their various decisions, which on many occasions are delayed by formalities", it provides, on the other hand, that "the Ministry of Labour and Micro-Enterprises aims to activate and facilitate trade union activities without the intention of amending the General Labour Act and its Regulatory Decree in their essential content". The Committee recalls that Article 3 of the Convention lays down the principle that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their administration and that the public authorities must refrain from any interference which would restrict this right, with the effect that this right is therefore independent of the incapacity of the labour inspectorate to attend all trade union meetings in view of their high numbers and frequency. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will ensure full observance of this right and requests it to indicate in its next report the measures which have been adopted to amend section 101 accordingly.

B.  Requirement of Bolivian nationality and
  permanent employment status in the
  enterprise for eligibility to trade union office

Although the Government has been indicating for some time that the requirement to have permanent employment in the enterprise is not implemented and cannot be applied in the country, the Committee notes that this provision has not been repealed. The Committee further notes that section 138 of the Regulatory Decree of the General Labour Act requiring Bolivian nationality in order to hold trade union office has not been repealed. The Committee emphasizes that provisions on nationality which are too strict could deprive workers in some instances of the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, for example in the case of migrant workers in sectors in which they account for a significant share of the workforce (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 118).

Furthermore, provisions requiring members of trade unions to belong to the occupation concerned and to be members of the trade union to be elected to trade union office in the union are contrary to the Convention. Provisions of this type infringe the organization’s right to elect their representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons, such as full-time union officers, from carrying out union duties, or by depriving unions of the benefit of certain experience among their union officers when enough qualified persons from among their own ranks cannot be supplied. When national legislation imposes conditions of this kind on all trade union leaders, there is also a real risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers, which deprives them of their trade union office. In order to bring such legislation into conformity with the Convention, it would be desirable to make it more flexible, either by admitting as candidates persons who have been previously employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 117).

The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take steps to ensure the rapid harmonization of the legislation with this Article of the Convention through the explicit removal of these two restrictions.

III.  Articles 3 and 10. Right of workers’ organizations to formulate
  their programmes to defend the professional and socio-economic
  interests of their members, without administrative interference

The Committee notes with regret the Government’s statement which, contrary to the indications provided in its previous report, indicates that the legislation from 1940 relating to restrictions on the right to strike remains in force. As a result, under the terms of section 114 of the General Labour Act and section 159 of the Regulatory Decree, the requirement remains that any decision to call a strike has to be approved by at least three-quarters of all the workers in active service.

The Committee also regrets that in its report the Government does not take a position on the prohibition of general and solidarity strikes, under threat of penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 1951), nor the prohibition of strikes in banks (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1959 of 1950), nor concerning the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike, also in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (section 113 of the General Labour Act).

The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to ensure the prompt amendment of the provisions which curtail the free exercise of this right so that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities.

IV.  Article 4. Right of workers’ organizations not to be
  liable to dissolution from administrative authority

The Committee once again notes that, under the terms of a Supreme Decree of 11 June 1999, any ministerial decision dissolving a trade union organization must be transmitted automatically to the labour courts. While noting that such administrative dissolution orders have to be reviewed by a judicial body, the Committee regrets that such procedure does not have the effect of suspending the administrative decision.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to take measures in order to bring its legislation into line with the Convention by ensuring that an administrative decision to dissolve a trade union will not take effect until a judicial decision has been handed down confirming this order.

V.  Observation submitted by the Central of Bolivian Workers (COB)

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the dismissal of workers of the SABSA enterprise as a result of a strike.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report as well as the answers and additional legal information it has sent in its reply to the comments the Committee has been making on the application of the Convention for many years now. These touch on the following points:

(1)  The exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the General Labour Act of 1942, and thus from the rights and guarantees of the Convention in regard to agricultural workers (section 1 of the General Labour Act and Regulatory Decree).

(2)  The refusal of the right to organize for public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act of 1942).

(3)  The requirement that 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise give their agreement in order to constitute a trade union when it concerns an industry (section 103 of the General Labour Act).

(4)  The wide powers of supervision conferred on the labour inspectorate over trade union activities (section 101 of the General Labour Act).

(5)  The requirement of Bolivian nationality for eligibility to trade union office (section 138 of Regulatory Decree No. 224, and of having permanent employment in the enterprise (sections 6(c) and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of June 1951).

(6)  The possible dissolution of trade union organizations by an administrative decision (section 129 of Regulatory Decree No. 224, of 23 August 1943, in application of the General Labour Act).

(7)  Restrictions on the right to strike (a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike) (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the Regulatory Decree); the unlawful nature of general and sympathy strikes, which are liable to penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of 1951), the unlawful nature of strikes in banks (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1959 of 1950), and the possible imposition of compulsory arbitration by decision of the executive power to put an end to a strike, including in services other than those essential in the strict sense of the word, that is to say, with the inclusion of some whose interruption would not endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (section 113 of the General Labour Law).

(8)  The observations submitted by the Bolivian Central of Workers regarding the dismissing of airport workers at the SABSA enterprise following a strike held to call for application of an arbitration decision in their favour.

I. Article 2 of the Convention (the right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish  organizations of their own choosing)

 A. Agricultural workers

The Committee stressed the importance of guaranteeing freedom of association and the right to organize to all those working in rural areas, whether wage earners, labourers, or self-employed workers. The Committee again requests the Government to supply a copy of the draft Supreme Decree on regulations on salaried work (which, according to the Government, would abolish the exclusion, under section 1 of the General Labour Act, of agricultural workers from the scope of this Act) and firmly hopes that legal measures will be adopted as soon as possible to guarantee that this category of workers enjoys freedom of association.

B. Public servants

The Committee notes with regret that under section 7 of the Act on the Statute of the Public Service of 1999, freedom of association is not extended to this category of workers and that section 104 of the General Labour Act is upheld, under which public servants are refused the right to organize, irrespective of their rank and category. The Committee again urges the Government to adopt as soon as possible the measures needed to ensure that this class of worker enjoys freedom of association and the right to organize within the shortest time possible.

C. The requirement that an excessively high number of workers give their agreement in order to constitute a trade union (50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise)

The Committee notes that, in its earlier report, the Government, stated its intention of carrying out the amendment requested by the Committee, but that the Central of Bolivian Workers raised politico-ideological objections at the time. The Committee notes that the Government provides no information in its latest report on the desired amendment of this section which, according to the Government, will be considered under the Modernization of Labour Relations Programme, which will be duly submitted to the social partners with a view to adoption by consensus.

The Committee considers that section 103 of the said Act sets a percentage which, in itself, is too high and could hinder the constitution of a trade union in an industry; it also has the indirect result of making it impossible to establish other organizations representing workers’ interests in an enterprise. It therefore again asks the Government to bring its legislation into line with the Convention as soon as possible, by means of wording acceptable to the social partners, which would, for example, include the concept of more representative trade unions.

II. Article 3 (the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, without interference by the public authorities)

A. Wide powers of supervision conferred on the labour inspectorate over trade union activities

The Committee recalls that the Government, in its earlier report, stated that a Supreme Decree had been promulgated which regulated the participation of Ministry of Labour inspectors in the deliberations of trade unions, and that under this Decree, inspectors shall only take part at the express and duly established request of the interested party. The Committee may now only express its surprise at learning from the latest report of the Government that the abovementioned Decree is once again at the drafting stage and, moreover, is under study by the Political and Social Analysis Unit.

The Committee again requests the Government to supply a copy of this Supreme Decree. It further stresses the need to adopt the necessary measures to bring the legislation into line with the Convention as soon as possible.

B. The requirement of Bolivian nationality for eligibility to a trade union office (the right of workers’ organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom) and of having permanent employment in the enterprise

The Committee recalls that the Government, in its last report, stated that the requirement of holding permanent employment in the enterprise was ineffective and non-applicable in the country, but that provisions were being prepared in relation to both requirements to incorporate them in the new Bolivian legislation. The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government, without giving information on the abolition of these sections, indicates that this question will be considered under the Modernization of Labour Relations Programme, which will be submitted to the social partners with a view to its adoption by consensus.

The Committee again urges the Government to take steps to ensure the rapid harmonization of the legislation with this Article of the Convention, by the express removal of these restrictions.

III.  Article 4 (the right of workers’ organizations not to be liable to dissolution by administrative authority)

The Committee recalls that, according to the Government’s earlier report, a Supreme Decree of 11 June 1999 provides that a ministerial decision dissolving a trade union organization must be transmitted automatically to the labour courts. The Committee notes from the latest report of the Government, that this order of dissolution will not be in force until the judicial authority has given its decision.

However, recalling that under this Article of the Convention workers’ organizations may not be liable to be dissolved by administrative authority, the Committee firmly hopes that in the very near future the Government will take steps to amend its legislation such that dissolution may only be ordered by a legal authority, and not by an administrative authority.

IV. Articles 3 and 10 (the right of workers’ organizations to formulate their programmes to defend the professional and socio-economic interests of   their members, without administrative interference)

A. Restrictions to the right to strike

The Committee notes that in its earlier report, the Government indicated that this question would be handled during the updating of the current labour legislation, a process which had already begun. The Committee is therefore surprised to learn from the latest report that these matters are only "to be considered under the Modernization of Labour Relations Programme, which will be submitted to the social partners with a view to its adoption by consensus".

The Committee again urges the Government to ensure that the various provisions which hinder the free exercise of the right to strike be amended without delay in order to align its legislation with these principles of freedom of association.

V. Observations submitted by the Central of Bolivian Workers (COB)

The Committee trusts that the arbitration decision in favour of the airport workers at the SABSA enterprise has been applied, and requests the Government to supply information in this connection.

The Committee firmly hopes that the Government’s next report will contain all information regarding the concrete measures adopted to amend the legislation (with copies of the pertinent legislation) on which it has been commenting for many years, and that this legislation will reflect the requirements of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report. The Committee also notes the comments submitted in June 1999 by the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB) regarding the dismissal of workers after a strike held to demand application of an arbitration decision.

The Committee takes due note of the information supplied by the Government in reply to the comments it has made for many years which concerned the following:

(1) The exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the General Labour Act and thus from the rights and guarantees of the Convention in regard to agricultural workers (section 1 of the General Labour Act and Regulatory Decree). The Committee noted that, according to the Government, section 4 of the final provisions of the Act of the National Institute of Agricultural Reforms provides for these workers to be included in the scope of the General Labour Act and that, with ILO assistance, there had been consensus with the social partners on a draft supreme decree on the regulations on salaried workers which would abolish section 1 of the Act in question. The Committee requests the Government to send it copies of the Act and of the draft supreme decree in question.

(2) The refusal of the right to organize for public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the Statute on the Public Service is currently being elaborated and will confer the right of association, assembly and absence of transfer. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the Statute in question.

(3) The requirement that 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise give their agreement in order to constitute a trade union (section 103 of the General Labour Act). The Committee notes the Government's information that it is prepared to make the requested amendment but that there is political and ideological opposition from the Bolivian Central of Workers. The Committee nevertheless considers that section 103 has the indirect result of making it impossible to establish another organization representing workers' interests in an enterprise. The Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation to bring it into conformity with the principles of freedom of association, seeking a solution acceptable to the social partners, for example by embodying the concept of more representative trade unions.

(4) The wide powers of supervision conferred on the labour inspectorate over trade union activities (section 101 of the General Labour Act). The Committee notes the Government's information that a decree has been promulgated that regulates participation of Ministry of Labour inspectors in the deliberations of trade unions. Under this decree, the inspectors shall take part only at the express request of the duly established interested party. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of this decree.

(5) The requirement of Bolivian nationality for eligibility to trade union office (section 138 of the implementing decree of the General Labour Act) and of having permanent employment in the enterprise (sections 6(c) and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 2565 of June 1951). The Committee notes the Government's statement that the requirement of having permanent employment in the enterprise is ineffective and non-applicable but that provisions are being prepared in relation to both requirements for appropriate incorporation in the new Bolivian legislation. The Committee hopes that the sections in question will be repealed in the near future.

(6) The possible dissolution of trade union organizations by administrative decision (section 129 of the decree issuing the General Labour Act of 1943). The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Supreme Decree No. 25421 of 11 June 1999 providing that a ministerial decision dissolving a trade union organization must be transmitted automatically to the labour courts. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the ministerial decision must be held in suspense until the judicial authority has given its decision.

(7) Restrictions in respect of the right to strike (a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike) (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the issuing decree); the unlawful nature of general and sympathy strikes which are liable to penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951); the unlawful nature of strikes in banks (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1959 of 1950); and the recourse to compulsory arbitration by decision of the executive power to put an end to a strike (section 113 of the General Labour Act). The Committee notes that the Government states that this matter will be handled during the current updating of labour legislation and has announced that the process has already begun. The Committee hopes that in the near future the sections in question will be repealed.

(8) The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the comments submitted by the COB.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will communicate in its next report any information on concrete measures adopted to amend the legislation which has been the subject of comments for many years.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its reports as well as the statement made by the Minister of Labour of Bolivia and the discussions which took place during the 1998 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards.

The Committee recalls that the comments which it has been making for several years in respect of the following points were examined during the direct contacts mission in October 1997:

(1) the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the General Labour Act (section 1 of the General Labour Act and its Regulation);

(2) the denial of the right to trade union rights for public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act);

(3) the impossibility of establishing more than one trade union in an enterprise (section 103 of the General Labour Act);

(4) the wide powers of supervision conferred on the labour inspectorate over trade union activities (section 101 of the General Labour Act);

(5) the fulfilment of certain requirements for eligibility to trade union office (section 138 of the Regulation of the General Labour Act stipulates the requirement of Bolivian nationality and sections 6(c) and 7 of the Legislative Decree of June 1951 stipulate the requirement of permanent employment in the enterprise);

(6) the possible dissolution of trade union organizations by administrative decision (section 129 of the Regulation of the General Labour Act of 1943);

(7) the imposition of certain restrictions in respect of the right to strike (a majority of three-quarters of the workers of the enterprise to call a strike (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the Regulation)); the unlawful nature of general and sympathy strikes which are liable to penal sanctions (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951); the unlawful nature of strikes in banks (section 1(c) of the Supreme Decree No. 1959 of 1950) and the recourse to compulsory arbitration by decision of the Executive Power to put an end to a strike (section 113 of the General Labour Act);

(8) the lack of provisions to protect workers who are not trade union leaders against anti-union discrimination;

(9) the lack of provisions to protect against any act of interference by employers' organizations in workers' organizations and vice versa;

(10) the need to promote and develop collective bargaining to ensure that collective bargaining is not restricted to fixing wage rates but is, in practice, extended to other conditions of employment.

In respect of section 1 of the General Labour Act and its Regulation, the Committee notes that, in accordance with the Minister of Labour's statement, section 4 of Act No. 1715 respecting the National Institute of Agricultural Reforms, of 18 December 1996, provides for wage-earning agricultural workers to be included in the scope of the General Labour Act. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the text in question and to inform it whether this category of workers may negotiate their conditions of employment through collective bargaining and whether they may go on strike.

The Committee considers that self-employed rural workers should also enjoy the right to organize to defend their occupational interests and requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures in this respect.

The Committee also notes with interest the Minister of Labour's statement to the effect that the Social Dialogue Programme is being pursued by a tripartite Committee with a view to amending the national legislation and that the essential questions raised by the Committee which have obtained tripartite consensus shall be amended by Decrees issued by the Executive Power. In this respect, the Minister of Labour confirms the agreement in respect of the amendments to the following questions, for which a tripartite consensus had already been reached during the direct contacts mission, namely:

-- section 101 of the General Labour Act which confers wide powers of supervision of the labour inspectorate over trade union activities;

-- section 129 of the Regulation of the General Labour Act of 1943 respecting the possible dissolution of trade union organizations by administrative decision;

-- the inclusion of provisions to protect workers who are not trade union leaders against acts of anti-union discrimination and against any acts of interference by employers' organizations in worker' organizations and vice versa.

The Committee takes due note of the Minister of Labour's statement to the effect that the Government has neither imposed nor allowed the imposition of penal sanctions in the event of general or sympathy strikes (section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951). Nevertheless the Committee notes that this Legislative Decree, as well as section 234 of the Penal Code (which also lays down sanctions for unlawful strikes), which imposes sanctions such as prison sentences of one to five years and fines of 100 to 500 días, remain in force.

In respect of the above comments, the Committee takes due note that the Minister of Labour has expressed a commitment to ensure the amendment of all of the provisions which are not in conformity with the Convention, which shall be examined within the framework of the Social Dialogue Programme with a view to reaching a consensus, and for these provisions to be incorporated in the text of the new General Labour Act.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will provide information in its next report in respect of the measures adopted to amend the national legislation as indicated during the direct contacts mission and confirmed by the Minister of Labour.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1999.]

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

The Committee has noted the report on the direct contacts mission to Bolivia which took place from 6 to 9 October 1997, with reference to the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, and the receptive and constructive attitude shown by the authorities and the social partners.

The Committee notes with interest that the authorities and the mission found formulae likely to resolve all the problems raised by the Committee and that the Ministry of Labour indicated that it would immediately set in motion the legal amendments requested, provided a consensus existed between the social partners. The authorities made it clear, however, that "(1) the recognition of the right to organize for public servants (excluding the right to strike) was not currently possible for politicial reasons but that the Government had no basic objections to granting such a right; and (2) the amendment of legislation to allow more than one trade union per enterprise was totally rejected by the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB); such an amendment would give rise to misunderstandings and was not therefore advisable for reasons of expediency and owing to a lack of consensus". The Committee emphasizes that both restrictions are incompatible with the requirements of Convention No. 87 and hopes that these problems in the application of the Convention may be overcome soon.

The Committee notes with interest that, according to the mission report, "as a result of the consensus which the mission identified between the Government and the social partners in relation to five important points to which objections were raised by the Committee of Experts, the Ministry of Labour undertook to submit the text of legal reforms to the Council of Ministers as soon as possible and to try to have the reforms adopted before the meeting of the Committee of Experts in December 1997". The five points on which the amendments proposed by the Committee of Experts are acceptable are as follows:

(1) Section 101 of the General Labour Act (wide powers of supervision of the labour inspectorate over the activities of trade unions).

(2) Section 129 of the Decree issued under the General Labour Act of 1943 (possibility of dissolving trade unions by administrative authority).

(3) Absence of provisions to protect workers who are not trade union leaders against acts of anti-union discrimination.

(4) Absence of provisions offering protection against all acts of interference by employers' organizations in workers' organizations and vice versa.

(5) Penal sanctions in case of general and solidarity strikes (section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951). The consensus refers to the elimination of penal sanctions (the Bolivian Confederation of Private Employers (CEPB) maintains, however, that the strikes in question are illegal and that the penalties provided for in the General Labour Act in case of the infringement of its provisions are applied).

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted with a view to amending the legislation in relation to these five points on which there is complete consensus.

As regards the criticism towards the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of section 1 of the General Labour Act, the Committee notes that, according to the mission report, "a broad consensus exists on the amendment of the law, although the Government and the social partners must modify their points of view a little more. The Ministry of Labour undertook to call, as soon as possible, a tripartite meeting in order to try and obtain a complete consensus and to be able to take measures to reform the law referred to in this connection". The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the tripartite meeting referred to.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that agricultural workers' unions exist in certain enterprises (although the authorities did not give examples of collective agreements in the agricultural sector), and that the vast majority of agricultural workers are self-employed.

The Committee observes that, according to the mission report, complete consensus does not exist among the social partners on the amendment of the remaining provisions which it criticized. These provisions refer to the refusal of the right to organize for public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act); the impossibility of having more than one trade union in an enterprise (section 103 of the General Labour Act); certain requirements to be a trade union leader (Bolivian nationality (section 138 of the Decree issued under the General Labour Act) and to be employed by the enterprise (sections 6(c) and 7 of the Legislative Decree of June 1951)), and certain restrictions on the right to strike (majority of three-quarters of the workers for the declaration thereof (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the Decree issued under the Act)); the unlawful nature of general and solidarity strikes (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951); the unlawful nature of strikes in banks (section 1(c) of Supreme Decree No. 1959 of 1950) and the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration by a decision of the executive authority in order to put an end to a strike (section 113 of the General Labour Act).

The Committee notes that, according to the mission report, with regard to the provisions on which complete consensus does not exist for their amendment, "the Ministry of Labour undertook to summon the social partners as part of the social dialogue to examine these matters once again (covering eight points) and to propose new amendments, once the Committee of Experts has formulated its comments on the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, and information is available on the direct contacts mission report". The Committee emphasizes the importance of amending the legislation in relation to these matters and requests the Government to inform it of the results of the meeting with the social partners.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the mission report, judicial remedies exist which are resolved rapidly in the case of a refusal to grant legal status to trade union organizations, and that under section 4 of the Legislative Decree of 1994 trade unions are established "without prior authorization".

Similarly, the Committee notes that "the authorities indicated to the mission that public markets (in which strikes are forbidden) are supply centres for cheap food and essential basic products for the most underprivileged sector of the population, and that in Bolivia these markets which are closely linked to the life and health of part of the population provide an essential service where strikes may be prohibited (when the mission raised this point with the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB), the Central did not contradict the statements made by the authorities)".

Furthermore, the Committee notes that between January and October 1997 1,143 collective agreements were concluded in the country, although the majority of these agreements are restricted to establishing wage rates without regulating other working conditions. The Committee invites the Government to take measures to develop collective bargaining, including in the agricultural sector, so as to ensure that such bargaining is not limited to setting wage rates but in practice covers other conditions of employment.

The Committee hopes that in its next report it will be able to observe that substantial progress has been made in the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 86th Session.]

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. The Committee hopes that a report will be transmitted for examination at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which referred to:

- the requirement of prior authorization for the establishment of a trade union (section 99 of the General Labour Act of 1939 and section 124 of the Decree of 1943).

The Committee noted that, according to the information provided by the Government, section 4 of the Legislative Decree of 7 February 1944 provides that any professional association or trade union may be freely established without the need for prior authorization for the purposes of section 125 of the Decree of 23 August 1943. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to specify whether section 4 of the Legislative Decree of 7 February 1944 renders void the need for the executive authority to grant legal personality by a supreme decision for a trade union to be considered as legally established, as set out in section 124 of the Decree of 23 August 1943.

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

The Committee notes that it has not received the Government's report. The Committee notes the information supplied by a Government representative and the discussions held in the Conference Committee in 1995, as well as the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association (see the 300th Report, paragraphs 392-398, approved by the Governing Body at its 264th Session in November 1995).

The Committee recalls that, for many years, its comments have referred to:

- the denial of the right to unionize to public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act of 1939);

- the impossibility of setting up more than one union in an enterprise (section 103 of the above Act);

- the wide powers of supervision of the labour inspectorate over the activities of trade unions (section 101 of the Act);

- the prohibition from holding trade union office placed upon persons who do not normally work in the enterprises and are not included in wage and salary lists (section 6(c) of the Legislative Decree of 1951);

- the termination of the mandate of trade union leaders when they retire from their job (section 7 of the above Legislative Decree);

- the requirement that members of the executive board have to be of Bolivian nationality (section 138 of the Decree issued under the General Labour Act);

- the possibility of dissolving trade unions by administrative authority (section 129 of the Decree);

- the requirement (of three-quarters of the employees who are in service) to call a strike (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the Decree issued thereunder);

- the prohibition of strikes in all public services (section 118 of the Act), including banks and public markets (section 1(c) and (d) of Supreme Decree No. 1958 of 1950);

- the recourse to compulsory arbitration as a means of ending a strike (section 113(c) of the Act);

- the prohibition of general and solidarity strikes under penalty of six months' detention and six months' internal exile, with a doubling of these sentences in the event of a repetition of the offence (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951).

The Committee of Experts, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, profoundly regrets the massive numbers of sentences of imprisonment and internal exile imposed upon trade unionists, as well as the various anti-trade union acts that have been committed in recent years against numerous trade union leaders (see the 300th Report, paragraph 398). In this respect the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee respect of basic human rights and the full exercise of trade union rights.

With regard to the numerous comments that it has been making for several years, the Committee regrets to note that, despite the fact that these comments were the subject of long discussions in the Conference Committee in 1993 and 1995, and that the Government representative had given assurances that the draft legislation currently being prepared with the technical assistance of the ILO would be adopted in the near future, no progress has yet been made in the application of the Convention.

The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible to examine all of the matters raised in its comments with a view to modifying its legislation, with the assistance of the ILO if it so wishes, and bringing it into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee hopes that it will soon be able to note concrete progress in this respect.

Furthermore, the Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the 85th Session of the Conference and to report in detail in 1997.]

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and recalls that its previous comment referred to:

- the requirement of prior authorization for the establishment of a trade union (section 99 of the Act and section 124 of the Decree of 1943).

The Committee notes with interest that, in accordance with the information provided by the Government, section 4 of the Legislative Decree of 7 February 1944 provides that any professional association or trade union may be freely established without the need for prior authorization for the purposes of section 125 of the Regulatory Decree of 23 August 1943. The Committee requests the Government to specify whether section 4 of the Legislative Decree of 7 February 1944 renders void the need for the executive authority to grant legal personality by executive decision for a trade union to be considered as legally established, as set out in section 124 of the Regulatory Decree of 23 August 1943.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report, the information supplied by a Government representative and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee in 1993. The Committee recalls that for many years its comments have been referring to the following points:

-- the denial of the right to unionize to public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act of 1939);

-- the impossibility of setting up more than one union in an enterprise (section 103 of the above Act);

-- the wide powers of supervision of the labour inspectorate over the activities of trade unions (section 101 of the Act);

-- the prohibition from holding trade union office placed upon persons who do not normally work in the enterprises and are not included in wage and salary lists (section 6(c) of the Legislative Decree of 1951);

-- the termination of the mandate of trade union leaders when they retire from their job (section 7 of the above Legislative Decree);

-- the requirement that members of the governing board have to be of Bolivian nationality (section 138 of the regulatory decree issued under the General Labour Act);

-- the possibility of dissolving trade unions by administrative authority (section 129 of the Decree issued under the Act);

-- the excessive number required to call a strike (three-quarters of the employees who are in service) (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the Decree issued thereunder);

-- the prohibition of strikes in all public services (section 118 of the Act), including banks and public markets (section 1(c) and (d) of Supreme Decree No. 1958 of 1950);

-- the recourse to compulsory arbitration as a means of putting an end to a strike (section 113(c) of the Act); and

-- the prohibition of general and solidarity strikes under penalty of six months' detention and six months' internal exile, with a doubling of these sentences in the event of a repetition of the offence (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951).

The Committee takes due note of the statements by a Government representative during the Conference Committee in 1993 to the effect that the first three matters raised by the Committee of Experts were taken into account in the preliminary draft text of the new General Labour Act and that the other provisions referred to in the Committee's remaining comments have fallen into abeyance and are not applied in practice. By way of illustration, in recent years there is no known case of a trade union which has been dissolved by administrative authority. In practice workers, including employees in the public sector, can call a strike without needing to comply with the requirements and arbitration is no longer compulsory. Over the past ten years, many strikes have been held in the various sectors of the economy, including general and solidarity strikes. The Government is making every endeavour to ensure that the preliminary draft text of the new Act can be submitted to Parliament in the next session, after consultation with the social partners.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that all its comments have been taken into account in the drafting of the preliminary draft text of the new General Labour Act and once again hopes that the adoption of the new Act, which has been announced on so many occasions, will take place in the near future.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on any positive development in this respect and trusts that it will finally be able to note that the new legislation has been brought into conformity with the principles and provisions of the Convention.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

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

Restrictions on exercising the right to elect trade union officers in full freedom. (1) With regard to the Committee's proposal to relax the restrictions on exercising the right to elect trade union officers in full freedom (sections 6 and 7 of the Legislative Decree of 1951) with a view to allowing persons who have previously worked in the occupation to stand for office, the Committee notes the Government's indications that this proposal will be envisaged in the draft text of the General Labour Act.

(2) The Committee nevertheless notes that in its reply to the general observation, the Government points out that section 138 of the Decree issued under the General Labour Act provides that members of the governing board have to be of Bolivian nationality. In this context, the Committee considers that foreign workers should have access to trade union office, at least after a certain period of residence in the host country. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure that it has adopted in this respect.

Dissolution of trade unions by administrative authority and the prohibition of establishing more than one trade union in an enterprise. With regard to Presidential Decree No. 07204 of 1965 (which provided for the dissolution of trade unions by decision of the labour courts) and No. 07634 of 1966 (which permitted the creation of more than one trade union in an enterprise), the Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government, the above Decrees were repealed by Decree No. 07822 of 1966, which was in turn repealed by Decree No. 08937 of 1969, with the effect that the corresponding sections of the General Labour Act of 1939 remain in force.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that both section 129 of the Decree of 1943 issued under the General Labour Act (concerning the dissolution of trade unions by administrative authority), and section 103 of the General Labour Act (prohibiting the establishment of more than one trade union in an enterprise) have been the subject of the Committee's comments due to their incompatibility with the Convention (Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention).

The Committee notes that, according to the Government's reports, the Committee's comments were taken into account when preparing the draft text of the new General Labour Act, which will be submitted to the National Congress when the most representative organizations of employers and workers have made their comments on it.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the concrete results obtained and hopes finally to be able to note that the new legislation has been brought into conformity with the principles and provisions of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and recalls that for many years its comments have been referring to the following points:

- the denial of the right to unionize of public servants (section 104 of the General Labour Act of 1939);

- the requirement of previous authorization for the establishment of a trade union (section 99 of the above Act and section 124 of the Decree issued thereunder of 1943);

- the impossibility of setting up more than one union in an enterprise (section 103 of the Act);

- the wide powers of supervision of the labour inspectorate over the activities of trade unions (section 101 of the Act);

- the possibility of dissolving trade unions by administrative authority (section 129 of the Decree);

- the excessive number required to call a strike (three-quarters of the employees who are in service) (section 114 of the Act and section 159 of the Decree);

- the prohibition of strikes in all public services (section 118 of the Act), including banks and public markets (section 1(c) and (d) of Supreme Decree No. 1958 of 1950);

- the recourse to compulsory arbitration as a means of putting an end to a strike (section 113(c) of the Act); and

- the prohibition of general and solidarity strikes under penalty of six months' detention and six months' internal exile, with a doubling of the sentences in the event of a repetition of the offence (sections 1 and 2 of Legislative Decree No. 02565 of 1951).

The Committee once again notes that, according to the information provided by the Government on other occasions, the Committee's comments concerning the above provisions were taken into account by the commissions which prepared the draft text for the new General Labour Act and that this text is now awaiting the observations, amendments and comments of the most representative organizations of employers and workers before being submitted to the National Congress.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on the progress achieved in the adoption of the above draft text and trusts again that in its next report it will be able to note real progress in bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government.

[The Government is asked to provide full particulars at the 80th Session of the Conference.]

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

1. Restrictions on exercising the right to elect trade union officers in full freedom

The Committee recalled the need to relax the provisions that prohibit a person who is not a regular worker from being a trade union officer and those that terminate the trade union functions of officers who have ceased their activities (sections 6 and 7 of the Legislative Decree of June 1951) with a view to allowing persons who have previously worked in the occupation to be candidates.

2. Dissolution of trade unions by administrative authority

The Committee also pointed out that section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 07204, of 3 June 1965, amended section 129 of the Decree of 1943 issued under the General Labour Act of 1939, concerning dissolution by administrative authority, so as to provide that trade unions may be dissolved only by decision of the labour courts, thus bringing the legislation into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. Since several successive repeals have subsequently taken place, the Committee requested the Government to state whether section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 07204, of 3 June 1965 (which amended section 129 of the Decree of 1943 to replace the administrative dissolution of trade unions by dissolution by the courts) is currently in force and, if not, it requested it to take the necessary steps to guarantee that trade union organisations can be dissolved only by the courts.

3. Prohibition of establishing more than one trade union in an enterprise

The Committee also noted that section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 07634, of 18 May 1966, amended section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 07204, of 3 June 1965, under which, in each enterprise of firm, only one trade union shall be organised with the name "Workers' Trade Union", comprising all the manual and non-manual workers in cases where there are less than the 20 employees required under section 3 of the Decree in order to be able to organise two trade unions in the same enterprise. The Committee requested the Government to state whether this provision was still in force and, if not, to take the necessary steps to bring it into force once again.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, a draft text of a new General Labour Act has been prepared with the technical assistance of the ILO and that this text takes account of the Committee's comments and will be submitted to Congress before 15 July 1991.

The Committee requests the Government to supply specific information in its next report on the matters raised above, and on the progress made as regards the draft text of the General Labour Act, which was prepared with the technical assistance of the ILO in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

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

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the denial of the right to unionise of public servants (section 1 of the General Labour Act of 29 May 1939); the requirement of previous authorisation for the establishment of a trade union (section 99 of the Act and section 124 of the Decree issued thereunder, of 23 August 1943); the impossibility of setting up more than one union in an enterprise (section 103 of the Act); the wide powers of supervision of the labour inspectorate over the activities of trade unions (section 101 of the Act); the possibility of dissolving trade unions by administrative authority (section 129 of the Decree); and the excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike.

Regarding this last point, the Committee recalled the need to reduce the majority that is currently required to call a strike, namely a minimum of three-quarters of the employees who are actually in service (section 114 of the General Labour Act of 1939 and section 159 of the Decree issued thereunder, No. 244 of 23 August 1943) and to fix it at a simple majority of the workers present in an enterprise and voting for the calling of a strike. The Committee also criticised the prohibition of strikes in all public services (section 118 of the Act), including banks and public markets (section 1(c) and (d) of Supreme Decree No. 1958 of 16 March 1950), the recourse to compulsory arbitration as a means of putting an end to a strike (section 113(c) of the Act) and the prohibition of general and solidarity strikes under penalty of six months' detention and six months' internal exile for trade union officers and one year's detention for the initiators of strikes, with a doubling of the sentences in the event of a repetition of the offence (sections 1 and 2 of the Legislative Decree of June 1951).

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. The Committee notes in particular that, with ILO collaboration, a draft text for a new General Labour Act, which takes account of the Committee's comments has been prepared and will be submitted to Congress before 15 July 1991.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on the progress made on the adoption of the draft text of the General Labour Act, which was formulated with ILO technical assistance to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. Taking into account the fact that it has been repeating its comments for many years, the Committee trusts that at its next session it will be able to note real progress as regards bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government concerning restrictions on the right to elect trade union officers in full freedom.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 78th Session and to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1991.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

1. Restrictions on exercising the right to strike and the right to elect trade union officers

The Committee recalls the need to reduce the majority that is currently required to call a strike (section 114 of the General Labour Act of 1939 and section 159 of the Decree issued thereunder, No. 244 of 23 August 1943) and to fix it at a simple majority of 50 per cent of the workers present in an enterprise during the vote on calling a strike. It would also be desirable to confine the prohibition of strikes in the public services (section 118 of the Act), including banks and public markets (section 1(c) and (d) of Supreme Decree No. 1958 of 16 March 1950), the recourse to compulsory arbitration as a means of putting an end to a strike (section 113(c) of the Act) and the prohibition of general and solidarity strikes under penalty of imprisonment (sections 1 and 2 of the Legislative Decree of June 1951), except in the three cases in which a strike may be restricted or prohibited, that is (1) in the essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services where a strike would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; (2) for public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority; and (3) in an acute national crisis.

The Committee also recalls the need to relax the provisions that prohibit a person who is not a regular worker from being a trade union officer and those that terminate the trade union functions of officers who have ceased their activities (sections 6 and 7 of the Legislative Decree of June 1951) with a view to allowing persons who have previously worked in the occupation to be candidates.

2. Dissolution of trade unions by administrative authority

The Committee points out that section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 07204 of 3 June 1965 modified section 129 of the Decree of 1943 issued under the General Labour Act of 1939, concerning dissolution by administrative authority, so as to provide that trade unions may be dissolved only by decision of the labour courts, thus bringing the legislation into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. Since several successive repeals have subsequently taken place, the Committee requests the Government to state whether section 21 of Presidential Decree No. 07204 of 3 June 1965, which amended section 129 of the Decree of 1943 to replace the administrative dissolution of trade unions by dissolution by the courts, is currently in force and, if not, requests it to take the necessary steps to give effect once more to this provision so that it is in conformity with the Convention on this point.

3. Prohibition of establishing more than one trade union in an enterprise

The Committee also notes that section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 07634 of 18 May 1966, amended section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 07204 of 3 June 1965 under which, in each enterprise or firm, only one trade union shall be organised with the name "workers' trade union", comprising all the manual and non-manual workers in cases where there are less than the 20 employees required under section 3 of the Decree in order to be able to organise two trade unions in the same enterprise. The Committee requests the Government to state whether this provision is still in force and, if not, requests it to take the necessary steps to bring it into force again.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the refusal of the right to organise to public servants (section 1 of the General Labour Act, of 29 May 1939); the requirement of previous authorisation for the establishment of a trade union (section 99 of the Act and section 124 of the Decree issued thereunder, of 23 August 1943); the impossibility of setting up more than one union in an enterprise (section 103 of the Act); the wide powers of supervision of the labour inspector over the activities of trade unions (section 101 of the Act); the possibility that trade unions may be dissolved by administrative authority (section 129 of the Decree); and the power of the executive to prohibit strikes by imposing compulsory arbitration (section 113(c) of the Act).

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, particularly concerning the setting up of a commission to formulate a draft of the new General Labour Act, with the technical assistance of the ILO, and the Government's clear intention that this draft of the Act should be in complete conformity with the ILO Conventions on which the Committee of Experts has made observations.

1. Public servants

The Committee wishes once again to request the Government to supply information in its next report on the current situation regarding the Bill on the right to organise of public servants, which was drafted on 22 February 1983 and approved by the Chamber of Deputies.

2. The impossibility of setting up more than one trade union per enterprise (section 103 of the Act)

The Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that section 103 does not prevent the establishment of more than one trade union in an enterprise, but that the social situation and the history of the trade union movement in the country are such that only one trade union is formed in an enterprise. The Government adds that such "freedom" would only result in a weakening of the trade union movement and could be used by those who seek to divide it and diminish its achievements.

The Committee notes the Government's argument regarding the risk of weakening the trade union movement within the enterprise, but once again points out that section 103 of the Act provides that it is not possible to set up a trade union with fewer than 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise. In the view of the Committee, the obligation to assemble such a high percentage of workers to form a trade union constitutes an obstacle to the right of workers to set up organisations of their own choosing. The Committee recognises that bargaining privileges may be granted to the most representative union in an enterprise, but has always considered that national laws should not prevent workers from coming together in more than one trade union organisation in an enterprise should they so wish. In such cases, minority trade union organisations should be able to defend the individual interests of their members and to assert their representativity in accordance with objective criteria laid down in advance. The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on the subject of setting up more than one trade union in an enterprise.

3. The wide powers of supervision over the activities of trade unions conferred on the labour inspector (section 101 of the Act)

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the provision that labour inspectors shall be present at discussions and supervise the activities of the executive committees of trade unions has fallen into abeyance.

In view of this situation, the Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will be able to bring its legislation into conformity with current practice and will repeal the above-mentioned provision in the near future.

4. Dissolution of trade union organisations by administrative authority (section 129 of the Decree)

The Committee notes the Government's statement that this provision is not applied. The Committee is once again addressing a direct request to the Government concerning section 129 of the Decree.

5. Compulsory arbitration (section 113(c) of the Act)

The Committee had noted that, according to the Government, sections 105 et seq. of the Act and section 150 of the Decree issued thereunder provide that workers' claims shall be submitted to conciliation and arbitration and that, during this procedure, neither workers nor employers may call a strike or effect a lock-out.

However, the Committee considers that the possibility left to the executive to make the decision of an arbitration court compulsory by special order (section 113(c) of the Act) is equivalent to prohibiting recourse to strikes, which should only occur in relation to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in an acute national crisis.

Furthermore, the Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government concerning restrictions on the right to strike and the election of trade union officials.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that have been adopted, in particular within the context of the general labour legislation drafted with the assistance of the ILO, to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.