Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2003, publiée 92ème session CIT (2004)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and the information attached.

1. The Committee notes with interest the amendment made to section 2 of the Labour Code by Act No. 19812 of 13 June 2002, broadening protection against discrimination in employment on grounds of previous debts, with the exception of workers who have general administrative responsibilities or whose functions relate to the collection, administration or management of funds or assets. It also notes the administrative decision dated 18 November 2002, which found to be discriminatory the requirement of a certificate attesting to any penal or criminal record for labour purposes, and the ruling of 11 February 2003 which found to be discriminatory and penalized job offers referring in their requirements to some of the conditions envisaged in section 2 of the Labour Code (grounds of discrimination).

2. The Committee notes that the Government has not replied in its report to the request for information in its previous comment concerning discrimination on grounds of political opinion. The Government once again reiterated that the Legislative Decrees (Nos. 112 and 139 of 1973, 473 and 762 of 1974, and 1321 and 1412 of 1976) which grant broad discretionary powers to the vice-chancellors of universities to terminate the contracts of employment of academic and administrative personnel are no longer in force and that the necessary conditions do not currently exist for their application, as they were issued under absolutely exceptional historical circumstances, which have now been superseded. Despite the fact that the Civil Code in sections 52 and 53 provides for the tacit repeal of a law through the enactment of new provisions which cannot be reconciled with the previous legislation, the Committee repeats its previous comments and emphasizes that in its view the best way of ensuring that there is no uncertainty with regard to the positive law that is in force is to explicitly repeal provisions which are not effectively in force. Furthermore, with regard to section 55 of Legislative Decree No. 153 of 19 January 1982 issuing the statutes of the University of Chile and section 35 of Legislative Decree No. 149 of 7 May 1982 regulating the statutes of the University of Santiago de Chile, the Committee notes that they still have not been amended or repealed, as it requested in previous comments. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Framework Bill respecting state universities submitted in 1997 has currently been put aside. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

3. The Committee notes that the Government has not replied to its comments concerning the amendment of section 349 of the Commercial Code, which provides that a married woman who is not covered by the marital regime of the individual ownership of property may only enter into a commercial partnership agreement with her husband’s special authorization. The Committee hopes that the Government will once again consider the possibility of amending section 349 of the Commercial Code so as to ensure that women, irrespective of their civil status and the marital property regime that they and their spouses have selected, may conclude commercial partnership agreements without the prior authorization of their spouse and exercise their professional activities under equal conditions with men. The Committee refers to this matter in greater detail in a direct request.

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