Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 287, Junio 1993

1. 335. The complaint which is the subject of the present case is contained in a communication from the Venezuelan Federation of Professional Airline Pilots' Trade Unions (FESPAVEN) dated 6 October 1992. Subsequently, in a communication dated 10 November 1992, FESPAVEN provided additional information. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 10 February 1993.
2. 336. Venezuela has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 337. In its communications dated 6 October and 10 November 1992, the complainant organization alleges that the Government has drawn up a draft regulatory decree concerning the right to strike. According to the complainant, contrary to section 497 of the Labour Code in force (which allows for the exercise of the right to strike without first having recourse to legal proceedings and without the interference of a labour inspector), the decree would grant the labour inspector the authority to accept or reject the list of demands or grievances making legal recourse more of a possibility, which would virtually eliminate the right to strike.
2. 338. Similarly, the complainant organization criticizes the following provisions of the draft decree: the ban on the right to strike for workers employed throughout the health services, and those working in the telephone, electricity and water companies, in transport, street cleaning, the underground railway, in the food and fuel industries, and for air traffic controllers; the powers bestowed on the labour inspector which are not provided for by law, such as verifying and deciding on the exercise of the right to strike, and deciding that work should not be interrupted without a list of workers needed to ensure the continuity of the service having been drawn up by the parties; the labour inspector's authority to appoint members of the conciliation board when any of the parties has not appointed a representative.

B. The Government's reply

1. 339. In its communication dated 10 February 1993, the Government says that the draft regulation mentioned in the complaint has not yet been promulgated by the Executive, as agreement had not been reached in the Council of Ministers when the instrument was tabled. Furthermore, the Government states that it has submitted the draft regulation for consultation with the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation (CTV), which made it quite clear that it opposed the promulgation of the instrument.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 340. The Committee notes that the present complaint relates to the possible promulgation of a regulation amending the Labour Code concerning the exercise of the right to strike. According to the complainant organization, that decree would contravene the principles of freedom of association. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government states that this regulation has not been promulgated, as agreement has not been reached in the Council of Ministers and that the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation clearly expressed its opposition to the promulgation of that instrument.
2. 341. In the circumstances, as there is some uncertainty about the current situation of the draft regulation in question, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in the situation and recalls that the ILO is at the Government's disposal to provide any technical assistance it may deem necessary.