Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2010, publiée 100ème session CIT (2011)

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 24 August 2010, the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS), dated 31 August 2010, the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), dated 3 June 2010, and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), dated 8 November 2010 (the Government replied to the latter comments a few days later). The Committee also notes the comments of the Single National Union of Public Employees of the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (SUNEP-CVG), dated 10 November 2009, and of the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI), dated 31 August 2010. The Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in the cases presented by national and international organizations of workers (Cases Nos 2422 and 2674) and employers (Case No. 2254) and observes that three more cases are currently under examination (Cases Nos 2711, 2727 and 2736). The Committee observes that Cases Nos 2254 and 2727 have been included by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the category of serious and urgent cases which it specially draws to the attention of the Governing Body of the ILO. The Committee notes the discussion in June 2010 on the application of the Convention in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference. The Committee of Experts observes that the Conference Committee requested the Government to accept high-level technical assistance from the International Labour Standards Department and regrets that the Government has not responded to this request. The Committee notes the Government s replies to the comments of the ITUC of 26 August 2009 and 24 August 2010, of the CTV of 3 June 2010, of the ASI and of FEDECAMARAS of 31 August 2010, and of the IOE of 8 November 2010, and requests it to send its observations on the communication from SUNEP-CVG and ASI.

Murders of trade union leaders and members and issues relating to compliance with the human rights of trade unionists and employers leaders

In its comments in 2009, the Committee noted that, according to the ITUC, four trade union leaders were murdered in December 2008 in the State of Aragua, for whom the names were supplied. Furthermore, according to the ITUC, the murders were also committed of 19 trade unionists and ten workers in the construction and petroleum sectors in the context of disputes relating to the negotiation and sale of jobs (according to the ITUC, there were 48 homicides in 2007, for which no investigations were conducted). According to the ITUC, new sections 357 and 360 of the reformed text of the Penal Code repress and punish with sanctions the right of peaceful demonstration and the right to strike, while the Special People s Defence Act against hoarding, speculation and boycotts restricts labour protest action and other forms of social mobilization. According to the ITUC, the authorities have made use on 70 occasions of sections 357 and 360 of the Penal Code and section 56 of the Basic Security Act in the context of strikes and demonstrations. The CTV indicated in its 2009 comments that hundreds of workers and trade union leaders were the victims of murders in the construction sector, without any arrests being made up to then. The CTV indicated that over 2,000 workers, including trade union leaders, had been brought before the criminal courts under a probationary system under which they have to report regularly to the judicial authorities. They are then released, but are prohibited from engaging in any protest activities. Eleven workers in the metropolitan town hall were detained for engaging in protests against the Special Act respecting municipal authorities. The Committee takes note of the Government s reply to the alleged detentions, which is examined below.

FEDECAMARAS, in its 2009 comments, indicated that employers who, in the context of their sectoral representative activities, protest against the kidnapping of their members or the fall in national production as a result of government policies are the victims of threats by the authorities (such as in the case of the President of FEDENAGA) and of the occupation and expropriation of land or interference with their enterprises and property. Various important enterprises have been the victims of harassment and fines, and the closure has been ordered of television enterprises which gave air time to employers. The food and agricultural sectors are subject to discretionary practices by the authorities. Furthermore, the investigations by the authorities into the attack on the premises of FEDECAMARAS on 26 May 2007 and the attempted bomb attack on 24 February 2008 (carried out by an inspector of the metropolitan police, whose explosive device blew up and killed him) on its headquarters have not produced any results (according to the Government, arrest warrants have however been issued against two persons).

In its previous comments, the Committee noted with concern the various provisions of the Penal Code and other legislation which tend to restrict the exercise of the right to demonstrate and the right to strike and which criminalize legitimate trade union activities, as well as the allegations that a climate of intimidation is being intensified towards workers and employers organizations and their leaders which do not support the Government.

In its comments prior to 2010, the SUNEP-CVG transcribes a series of procedural and penal provisions which in its view restrict trade union rights and it refers to restrictive measures and sentences of detention against trade unionists given by criminal courts as an automatic response to requests by the Office of the Public Prosecutor when they engage in demonstrations or protest action. The SUNEP-CVG indicates that demonstrators who are detained frequently end up under probation having to report regularly to the courts without knowing what they are charged with (certain workers also have cover long distances to report to the judicial authorities). Furthermore, the so-called basic state enterprises or essential services are defined in terms that are too broad and strike action in them can give rise to prison sentences under the Act respecting individual access to goods and services or under the provisions respecting boycotts, agro-food sovereignty or products of primary necessity or those subject to price controls, which may result in the imprisonment of strikers, as occurred for example in a private coffee factory. SUNEP-CVG requests the Committee to ask the Government to provide information on measures of detention or restricting freedom of movement applied to trade unionists for participating in demonstrations and strikes.

According to the ITUC, various institutions are expressing concern at the statements by the State Prosecutor of Miranda, Omaira Camacho, in which she threatened to take legal action against unions in the education sector which insisted on the stoppage of teaching as a measure of pressure to demand the pensions clause, in relation to the call by the Union of Education Workers (SINTRAENSEÑANZA) and the Union of Education Workers of the State of Miranda (SITREEM) to give effect to the collective agreement which establishes a period of 20 years of service to benefit from the retirement pension. According to the ITUC, 52 workers were also detained because of a 48-hour stoppage organized by the union SUTTIS.

In its 2010 comments, the CTV refers to the detention and physical aggression against nurses who are trade union members, on 25 May 2010, who were referred to the judicial authorities for the offence of disregard for authority for having exercised their right to demonstrate. The Committee notes the Government s statements that the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Republic has indicated in this respect that investigations were opened into a labour dispute in the Concepción Palacios maternity unit in which a violent protest erupted, resulting in two police officers being injured. The judicial authorities ordered the immediate release of the two nurses, who were freed on 27 May 2010.

In its communication of 31 August 2010, the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI) indicates that there currently exist high levels of violence affecting the trade union movement. The 46 murders are a cause for concern, added to the 29 murders during the previous period. Furthermore, 16 trade union leaders were attacked and five others received death threats. Even though those responsible are not state agents, and in general they consist of departures from the exercise of freedom of association, it is the duty of the State to safeguard the physical integrity of its citizens. Moreover, the question of impunity arises, as arrest warrants were only issued in nine cases, and only one person was brought to the courts. According to the ASI, over the most recent period, 473 persons have been dismissed for reasons of a trade union nature in both the public and private sectors.

FEDECAMARAS indicates in its 2010 communications that various of its representatives and former representatives (of whom it supplies the names) have been harassed, threatened or detained, prosecuted and sentenced to the probationary measure of having to report regularly to the judicial authorities. The President of FEDECAMARAS is being prosecuted for an interview. FEDECAMARAS indicates that it is the victim of insults and threats by the President of the Republic, who has repeatedly stated that FEDECAMARAS is the enemy of the people and of the country. Moreover, the authorities have closed important radio and television stations, including the CNB network, which belongs to the President of the Venezuelan Chamber of the Broadcasting Industry, which suffered theft, including the theft of computers. The television broadcaster Globovisión is threatened with closure and its president and his son were the victims of a detention order. All of these communication media were used by FEDECAMARAS. In its 2010 communication, the IOE alleges that during the night of 27 October 2010 a group of five armed and hooded men attacked with machine guns, kidnapped and ill-treated in Caracas the President of FEDECAMARAS, Noel Álvarez, the former President Ms Albis Muñoz, the Executive Director, Luis Villegas, and the Treasurer, Ernesto Villamil. The kidnappers also wounded Ms Albis Muñoz, Employer member of the Governing Body of the ILO, with three bullets to her body. After losing blood, the attackers pulled her out of the vehicle in which they were travelling and left her abandoned near the Pérez Carreño hospital, where she was taken some time afterwards by a passing police patrol. The other three persons who had been abducted were freed two hours later, after the kidnappers had made a pretence at kidnapping and expressed the intention of demanding a ransom of bolívares 300 million, after first relieving them of their belongings. According to the IOE, in view of the form taken by the attack, everything would appear to indicate that its objective was to eject the employers leaders of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, even though the pretence was then made that it was a kidnapping. The IOE adds that the climate of aggression and hostility towards the private sector, and particularly towards FEDECAMARAS and its leaders, which is constantly displayed by the highest institutions of the State, and particularly by the President of the Republic himself, and the increasing situation of insecurity in the country, mean that the State is responsible for this new episode of violence against Venezuelan employers leaders.

The Committee notes the Government s reply in which it condemns the attack against the persons referred to above, indicates that the competent authorities immediately launched investigations to bring those responsible to justice, and that two of them have been detained and three others identified. Moreover, one of the presumed authors has been fatally wounded after an assault with the public servants of the criminal scientific investigation services. It adds that they are all members of a gang engaged in robbery and abduction. The Government refutes the IOE s speculation that the attack was intended to remove the Venezuelan employers leaders. The Government refutes the allegations against the public authorities made by the IOE, which it qualifies as political strategies. The Committee notes that the Government refutes the statements by employers organizations concerning threats and alleged harassment, and the claims that there will be reprisals for the statements made by Employers delegates to the International Labour Conference in 2010.

With reference to the assassinations of trade union leaders and members, the Government refers to the deep concern expressed by the Committee of Experts in its previous observation at, particularly taking into account the high number of assassinations of trade union leaders and members, the apparent impunity of those responsible . The Government wishes to emphasize that there has not been a high number of assassinations , but rather isolated cases, and specifically that the ILO has received denunciations of five cases (in Tigre and Anaucos), concerning which the Government has provided all the information requested by the various ILO supervisory bodies. All of these cases are under investigation and, where it has been possible to identify those responsible, they have been referred to the respective courts and detained by judicial order (one of those responsible died while committing another crime).

With regard to the murder of the trade union leaders Wilfredo Rafael Hernández, Jesús Argenis Guevara and Jesús Alberto Hernández, members of the Bolivarian Union of Construction Industry Workers, in Tigre, Anzoátegui State, on 24 June 2009, the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Republic, with the assistance of the police, succeeded in determining the responsibility of Pedro Guillermo Rondón, who died while committing another crime.

With regard to the ITUC s allegation in 2009 that the murders were also committed of 19 trade unionists and ten workers in the construction and petroleum sectors , the Government indicates that these are unfounded allegations and reports without any supporting evidence, and moreover that no formal complaints have been made concerning the alleged murders. The Government therefore does not have full and reliable information to provide in reply on this subject. The Government respectfully suggests that the ILO supervisory bodies, before issuing any judgement on a country, should request complainants to provide evidence of their allegations. The Committee observes that in its 2010 comments the ITUC does not provide further details on the acts of anti-union violence alleged in 2009, but indicates that various trade union leaders were assassinated as a result of disputes in the construction and petroleum sectors. The Committee invites theITUC and the ASI to provide further details on the cases of the murders of trade unionists to which they referred (names, offices held in the trade unions, date of the murder, criminal charges brought, etc.).

The Government also categorically refutes indications by the Committee of apparent "impunity" which it understands to mean a denial of justice and a lack of the will to punish those responsible. The Venezuelan State, through its competent institutions, has undertaken the respective investigations and made the necessary efforts to find those responsible for criminal acts in the shortest possible time, in so doing seeking to comply with the provisions of the law and accordingly with the principles and values of a State governed by the rule of law and justice. It is therefore difficult to speak to impunity.

The Government adds that in May 2010 the Working Group was established on trade union violence in the construction sector, with the participation of the four existing workers' federations (two of which are affiliated with the CTV) and two employers' chambers (one affiliated to FEDECAMARAS), as well as representatives of all the competent authorities. Furthermore, at the request of the National Federation of Workers, a Special Commission was established with the Ministry of the Interior and Justice with a view to following up cases of violence in which the victims are trade union leaders and agreeing upon measures to prevent acts and crimes against the trade union movement. The Special Commission held meetings in each State of the country, reviewed cases of violence against trade union leaders, followed up the investigations conducted and the situation with regard to prosecutions and examined proposals to make protection for trade union activities more effective. The Committee welcomes this information and requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the Working Group and Special Commission referred to above.

With regard to situations of "hired murderers" and the alleged absence of the detention of those responsible and of the respective procedures, the Government indicates that in recent years groups have been captured whose objective and firm instructions were to destabilize the country, causing levels of violence and crime never before seen in the country. The victims of "hired murderers" have included not only workers in the construction industry, but also rural workers and trade union members, among others. The national Government, the trade unions, men and women workers, communities and social movements have engaged in determined measures to bring to an end this abhorrent practice and catch those responsible for these crimes. The crime of "hired assassination" is defined in section 12 of the Basic Act to combat organized crime, which provides that "any person who kills another individual under contract or in compliance with orders from an organized crime group, shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of between 25 and 30 years. The same penalty shall be applied to any person who takes out a contract for a murder, and the members of the organization which issued and applied the contract". The Government adds that, on the grounds of his alleged involvement in the death of trade union member Manuel Felipe Araujo Fuenmayor (February 2009), the 22nd Office of the Public Prosecutor brought formal charges against the police officer from the State of Aragua, Víctor Salazar. It adds that Luis Serrano, Pablo Yépez, Eudis Inojosa, Noel Armas, Douglas Granadillo, Edison Santamaría and Rony Pacheco (trade union members) were also charged by the sixth Court of the State of Aragua and were placed under probation with the requirement to report to the court every 30 days. They were also prohibited from being in the vicinity of the place where the crime was committed and to be ready to respond to any request by the prosecutor or the court. On 27 February 2010, those allegedly responsible for the "hired killing" of the rural leader Nelson López Torrealba were detained by officers of the Forensic, Penal and Criminal Investigation Unit (CICPC), in accordance with the arrest warrants issued against them. At the request of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, three citizens were detained who were allegedly involved in the death of rural leader Nelson López Torrealba, which occurred on 12 February 2009. During the initial hearings, the 58th National Prosecutor's Office, the 14th Office of the State of Yaracuy, and the auxiliary Prosecutor, charged Ángel Jesús Vargas, Rolando Arsenio Díaz and Alberto Ramón Mendoza with "hired killing" and unlawful association for the purpose of committing offences of organized crime. In addition, Rolando Arsenio Díaz was also charged with the concealment of a firearm and enrichment from goods resulting from the crime. The fifth Tribunal of the State of Yaracuy ordered the detention, as requested by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, and agreed that those charged should remain in custody. In February 2009, the alleged murderer was detained for the "hired killing" of Yunior Hermoso, a member of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, and was referred to the Office of the Public Prosecutor with a view to the corresponding procedure. The person who ordered the crime was also identified, although the competent bodies did not succeed in arresting him. In April 2009, the CICPC caught Deivis José Sabino Hernández, suspected of murdering Orangel Rafael Marchán Olivero, a trade union member in the construction industry. In April of this year, the Office of the Public Prosecutor approved the charges against Julio César Arguinzonez, the principal suspect of the murder of trade union leaders Richard Gallardo, Carlos Requena and Luis Hernández on 27 November 2008. During the preliminary hearing, the 22nd (E) Office of the Public Prosecutor of the State of Aragua approved the charges against that person for alleged involvement in the crimes of aggravated homicide and the concealment of a firearm and ammunition, as envisaged and penalized in the Penal Code and the Act respecting firearms and explosives. When the evidence had been assessed, the ninth Tribunal of the State of Aragua found the charges receivable and authorized oral public hearings. Accordingly, Julio César Arguinzonez remains in detention, as ordered by the above Court. The CICPC is investigating the murders of two trade union leaders (Keler Orangel Maneiro (Sutrabolívar) and Sergio Bladimir Devis (Sutic Municipio Piar)), committed in May 2009. In the same month, six persons allegedly involved in the murder of rural leader Juan Bautista Durán, who died on 3 December 2008 in the State of Portuguesa, were detained. The third Office of the Public Prosecutor of this jurisdiction charged Aquilino Pontón and Santiago Hernández Pérez with ordering the murder, and Johan David Hernández Castillo with committing the crime of "hired killing". The public prosecutor in the case also charged Gerardo José Noguera Valera, Gustavo Miguel Suárez Méndez, Jorge Alfonso Dueño and José Francisco Guevara with the alleged crime of being associates in homicide. The first Tribunal of the State of Portuguesa granted preventive custody as requested by the Office of the Public Prosecutor and ordered the detention of those charged. In the same month, in the State of Zulia, Isdelvy Parra was detained, and the case was referred to the fourth Tribunal of Merida, which ordered detention for the crimes of criminal association, "hired killing" and obstruction of freedom of trade. In June 2009, 24 police officers from Anzoátegui were prosecuted for their alleged responsibility for the murders (in January 2009) of workers José Javier Marcano and Pedro Suárez of the MMC Automotriz de Barcelona (Mitsubishi) and Macusa.

During the same month, at the request of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, seven members of the Construction Union of the State of Mérida (SINEITRACOM) were detained for their alleged involvement in the murders of three citizens in 2006 and 2008. The dead were identified as: José Luis Romero Castillo, Carlos Alberto Méndez and Jorge Coromoto Barreto Arellano. During the preliminary hearing, the 41st Office of the National Public Prosecutor, and the 2nd Office of the State of Mérida, charged Juan Carlos Mendoza, Giovanny Oviedo, Orlando Mendoza, Pablo Puentes, María Sosa, Jean Carlos Ramírez, Darwin Ortega, Gregorio Medina and Luis Guillén with the alleged crimes of criminal association, "hired killing" and obstruction of the freedom of trade, as envisaged and penalized by the Act to combat organized crime. The fourth Tribunal of the State of Merida ordered the detention of Juan Carlos Mendoza, Giovanny Oviedo, Orlando Mendoza, Pablo Puentes, María Sosa and Jean Carlos Ramírez. It placed on probation Darwin Ortega, Gregorio Medina y Luis Guillén. In October 2010, officials of the CICPC of the State of Yaracuy dismantled a criminal gang known as "Los carasucias", devoted to "hired killings".

The Government adds that all these are some of the results achieved in the incessant fight against criminality, and particularly against what is known as "hired killing", by the Government and its institutions jointly with citizens, social organizations, rural inhabitants and men and women workers. Despite these major efforts, the Government is continuing to take the necessary measures to prevent this abhorrent practice being imposed in the country. The Committee appreciates the Government's information on the detention and criminal prosecution of persons involved in acts of violence against trade union leaders and members. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all the cases of anti-union violence in the country, the opening of investigations and criminal prosecutions against those responsible, the arrest warrants issued and the sentences applied. With regard to the attack against the headquarters of FEDECAMARAS in February 2008, the Government indicates that on 6 and 10 May 2010 the auxiliary judicial bodies detained the two persons charged with committing the alleged acts, who are currently in detention. With regard to the alleged acts that occurred in May and November 2007 (the attack against the headquarters of FEDECAMARAS) the corresponding authority, in this case the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic, informed the Labour and Social Security Office that it had not received any complaint or information to launch an investigation into any act that had occurred at the headquarters of the employers' organization during the year 2007. The Committee invites FEDECAMARAS to bring criminal charges for the attack against its headquarters in 2007.

With regard to the alleged "provisions of the Penal Code and other legislation which tend to restrict the exercise of the right to demonstrate and the right to strike and which criminalize legitimate trade union activities", the Government affirms that the National Constitution and the law set forth the right of all men and women workers in the public and private sectors to strike in accordance with the conditions established by the law, which regulate the exercise thereof and protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, etc.). The Basic Labour Act establishes the procedure to be followed to call and hold a strike, where applicable and when such stoppages do not give rise to irreversible damages to the population or to institutions (section 496).

With reference to the provisions of the Venezuelan Penal Code, and particularly sections 357 and 360, the Government indicates that these provisions govern illicit and unlawful conduct prejudicing the safety of the means of transport and communication of the Venezuelan population, thereby complying with the obligation of the State to protect the guarantees and rights of the citizens of the country. Accordingly, in no case do these provisions refer to the application of penalties or sanctions for demonstrations or peaceful activities, but on the contrary govern illicit and unlawful conduct. The types of conduct classified in these provisions as illicit are also considered to be crimes in the penal legislation in many countries at the global level, with the imposition of penalties and sanctions against those committing crimes against means of transport and communication. Consequently, the establishment of these crimes in the Penal Code, far from restricting the right to strike and to peaceful demonstration, protects public security and the guarantees of men and women citizens. For these reasons, the full exercise in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of the right to strike and to peaceful demonstration is endorsed once again and in no case do there exist restrictions on these rights, nor in particular are legitimate trade union activities criminalized.

With reference to the laws that are criticized, the Government states that the Basic Act on Security and Defence provides that national security and defence are the competence and responsibility of the State and that the necessary measures for that purpose are of a permanent nature. Similarly, all Venezuelan individuals and associations, wherever they may be, are also responsible for the security and defence of the Republic. Furthermore, the very recent Act to defend the access of persons to goods and services is intended for the defence, protection and safeguard of individual and collective rights relating to the access of persons to goods and services for the satisfaction of their needs.

The Government adds that the Special Peoples' Defence Act against hoarding, speculation, boycotts and any conduct which effects the consumption of food or products subject to price controls (LECAEB) is intended to restrict speculation by the enterprise sector, which increases the cost of food and other goods and services under pretexts which are not related to the current economic situation. Accordingly, the Act is intended to combat hoarding, speculation, boycotts and any other conduct which prejudices the food security of Venezuelan citizens. The principal objective of the Act consists of the establishment of mechanisms for the defence of the people against such illegal acts and against conduct which is prejudicial to the consumption of food and products subject to price controls, which are considered contrary to the food security and the social peace of the Venezuela people. Finally, in October 2000, various sections of the Venezuelan Penal Code were amended: sections 358-359 refer to the prohibition upon blocking and/or damaging thoroughfares and means of transport and establish the corresponding sentences and penalties for committing such crimes and violations of the legal provisions.

According to the Government, by virtue of the above considerations, it is clear that the spirit and objective of these provisions is far from criminalizing the claims of men and women workers and restricting the broad constitutional right to strike which exists in the country, and that they are intended to regulate and prohibit unlawful conduct, establishing the respective offences, procedures and penalties. All of this is intended to guarantee social peace, justice and the rights and guarantees of the Venezuelan people.

With regard to the detention of workers who were engaged in alleged protests against the Special Act respecting municipal authorities, the Government indicates that on 26 August 2009, a number of men and women workers from the metropolitan town hall engaged in protest action with the intention of lodging an appeal for amparo (the protection of constitutional rights) with the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) against the Special Act respecting municipal authorities at two levels of the metropolitan area, which was subsequently approved by the National Assembly. During the course of the protests, 11 of the workers were detained for causing, according to the investigations of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, "breaches of public order and injuries to a metropolitan police officer (PM)". The following were detained: Carlos Lozada Villegas, Abello Álvarez, Omar Rodríguez, Gustavo Aponte, Gerardo Jesús Gonzales, Xisto Antonio Gomez, Jaer Antonio Pulido, Yumar Oscar Figueroa, Alexander Ronald, Viña Figueroa and Lixido José Solarte. Subsequently, during the preliminary hearing, the 72nd Public Prosecutor's Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas ordered the 11 detained workers to be retained in custody, charging them, on the one hand, for certain of them, of the alleged crime of serious injury, resistance to authority and obstruction of the public thoroughfare, set out in the Venezuelan Penal Code, and for others, offences against systems based on information technology, under the Special Act on information technology crimes. The 50th Tribunal of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas found the prosecutor's charges receivable, approved the application for judicial custody and ordered the detention of those charged until the final prosecution within the time limits set out in the Basic Code on Penal Procedure. Finally, after the necessary procedures had been followed, on 29 October 2009, the 11 workers of the metropolitan town hall who had been detained for various alleged crimes set out in the national legislation were released. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the authorities definitively renounced the charges against these trade union members.

With reference to the situation of certain radio and television stations and the procedure followed by the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL), the Government states that the radio-electric spectrum is the public property of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in accordance with the Constitution and the Basic Act on Telecommunications. The use of the spectrum is subject to the granting of the respective concession by CONATEL, an institution which grants a specific person a right (which cannot be ceded or transferred and is for a limited period of time) to use and exploit a specific portion of the spectrum, subject to compliance with the requirements set out in the Constitution and the Basic Act referred to above. Article 58 of the Constitution provides that communication is free and pluralistic, and involves the duties and responsibilities set out by law. Accordingly, everyone is entitled to appropriate, truthful and impartial information without censorship in accordance with the constitutional principles. The Basic Act on Telecommunications also sets out the principles governing telecommunications with a view to guaranteeing the right to communication of all citizens in the country. The Government adds that CONATEL is responsible for the administration, regulation, ordered use and supervision of the radio-electric spectrum and that its function is to make possible the effective, efficient and peaceful use of telecommunications resources, as well as ensuring compliance with the obligations deriving from this service. For this purpose, it makes use of the procedure of administrative authorization, which is granted for the establishment and exploitation of networks and for the provision of telecommunication services to those complying with the requirements and conditions established by CONATEL for such purposes. Accordingly, CONATEL is the institution which grants approval and concessions to engage in telecommunication activities which make use of the radio-electric spectrum. This all involves compliance with a series of essential requirements for the provision of an appropriate service and the proper establishment or exploitation of a network, including the obligation to apply to CONATEL for the corresponding administrative authorization. If this is not done, the penalties which may be applied for violations and offences set out in the Basic Act on Telecommunications are public warning, fines, withdrawal of administrative authorization (or a concession), the cessation of clandestine activities, prohibition of operation, the decommissioning of materials and equipment used for the activity or imprisonment, depending on the violation committed, and in compliance with the procedure for the determination of such violations. Such procedures may be instigated automatically, upon denunciation or at the initiative of the institution, which is empowered to apply penalties in accordance with the principles of legality, impartiality, rationality and proportionality. It should also be emphasized that CONATEL launched a procedure for the review of 240 means of telecommunication and established a period for those operators of radio-electric media to bring their data up to date with the institution and/or to remedy various irregularities which had appeared. When the time period had elapsed and the procedure was completed, CONATEL proceeded to revoke, withdraw or not to renew broadcasting permits for certain radio and television channels, and more specifically for 34 media which either had not updated the data submitted to the institution or for which administrative irregularities had emerged such as: the death of the holder of the transmission licence, the renunciation of the previous licence holder, the operating permit was no longer valid or notification that the change in ownership of the licence was invalid, or they had committed various violations or breaches of the respective laws. Accordingly, the administrative procedures followed by the institution were a consequence of the failure to comply with the obligations and requirements set out in national law for the appropriate use of the national radio-electric spectrum and telecommunication services. According to the Government, the measures adopted by CONATEL, in addition to being in accordance with the law and the legally established procedures, are intended to guarantee the right of the Venezuelan people to appropriate, truthful and impartial information.

In general, the Committee deplores the high number of assassinations of trade union leaders and members and expresses its deep concern at this situation and at the fact that the figures on the number of alleged assassinations provided by trade union organizations differ considerably from those emerging from the information provided by the Government. The Committee takes due note of the Government's indication that those responsible are "hired killers" and are involved in organized crime. It also notes the identification and detention of a number of those responsible, and the establishment of a Working Group on violence in the construction sector and of a Special Commission at the request of the UNT. Nevertheless, the Committee is bound to emphasize that it is the responsibility of the Government to guarantee the life and safety of all trade union leaders. The overall situation described by the trade union organizations also includes allegations of the repression of demonstrations, detentions, death threats and many anti-union dismissals, as well as restrictions on the right to strike and individual liberty based on the application of a series of laws, ranging from the Penal Code to other laws which are intended to guarantee the right of persons to have access to goods and services, to combat hoarding, to defend agricultural and food sovereignty, and laws respecting products of primary necessity or those subject to price controls. The Committee observes that the comments of the trade union organizations also refer to a very high number of probationary measures involving the need to report regularly to the judicial authorities, which have an intimidating effect on the exercise of trade union rights.

The Committee also observes with deep concern that the principal employers' federation, FEDECAMARAS, has reported serious acts of violence against four of its leaders, including its President and a member of the Governing Body of the ILO, who was hit by several bullets (according to the Government, two of those presumed to be responsible have been detained, and three others have been identified, who are members of a criminal gang engaged in kidnapping), it has also reported acts of violence against its headquarters, including measures which, according to the allegations, are discriminatory against the property of certain of its leaders, including cases of arbitrary expropriation, and the closure of radio and television stations belonging to certain of them, or which were used by employers' organizations, and the criminal prosecution of employers' leaders. The Committee believes that there are sufficient elements to support the allegation of intimidation. The Committee requests the Government to guarantee the right to life and safety of employers' leaders and the exercise of their civil liberties, including the right of expression, and to ensure that they are not the victims of discrimination in their property as a result of their status as employers' leaders or their activities as such.

The Committee notes that the Government provides a detailed description of the legislation respecting the requirement to report regularly to the judicial authorities (probationary judicial measures) and the various laws which, according to the allegations are used for the detention of leaders or to restrict the right to demonstration and the right to strike. It also notes that, according to the Government, the high number of cases reported (of assassination or other matters, such as probationary judicial measures restricting their freedom) are unfounded and have not been documented by the trade union organizations.

The Committee considers that, in view of their gravity, it is the responsibility of the Government in respect of the matters referred to above, to provide detailed information on each and every assassination of trade union members (the numbers, victims, those responsible, prosecutions, the state of the investigations, the detention of those responsible and the sentences applied), the number of probationary judicial measures ordered restricting the freedom of trade unionists and employers' leaders, and the persons detained, with an explanation of the specific reasons for them, without prejudice to the consultation by the Government in this task of workers' and employers' organizations. In the view of the Committee, it is also necessary for these issues relating to fundamental human rights to be examined by the tripartite partners at the national level with the most representative organizations of workers and employers. In this respect, the Committee regrets that, despite the call that has been made for years for the establishment of a national tripartite committee with the most representative organizations for the examination of issues affecting them directly, the Government is denying the national social partners the opportunity to find solutions to the current problems through dialogue with the Government. The Committee urges the Government to create a national tripartite committee on situations of violence and the violation of the fundamental rights of trade unionists and employers' organizations and their leaders, including the review of the penal provisions (and their application) criticized by the trade union organizations, and to provide information in this respect. The Committee wishes to refer to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference in 2010, which read as follows:

The Committee on the Application of Standards recalled that the rights of workers' and employers' organizations could only be enjoyed in a climate of absolute respect for human rights, without exception. Recalling that trade union rights and freedom of association could not exist in the absence of full guarantees of civil liberties, in particular of freedom of speech, assembly and movement, the Committee emphasized that respect for these rights implied that both workers' and employers' organizations had to be able to exercise their activities in a climate free of fear, threats and violence and that the ultimate responsibility in that regard lay with the Government. The Committee observed in that respect that the employers in FEDECAMARAS felt intimidated by the actions and verbal aggression of the authorities. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the right to life and security of the person, the right to demonstrate and the right to freedom of expression are guaranteed, and to ensure that the probationary system referred to above is not used for the purpose of controlling and intimidating trade union and employers' leaders. The Committee further requests the Government to ensure that trade union rights, such as the right to strike, are not restricted through the use of ambiguous legal provisions claiming to defend other constitutional rights. The Committee requests the Government to evaluate with the most representative organizations of workers and employers the impact of such provisions on their rights and those of their leaders, and to provide information on this matter.

Legislative issues

The Committee recalls that it previously emphasized the need to adopt the Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act so as to eliminate the restrictions placed on the exercise of the rights granted by the Convention to workers' and employers' organizations. On this issue, the Committee previously made the following comments:

The Committee previously noted that a Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act took account of the requests for amendment that it had made on the following points: (1) it deletes sections 408 and 409 (over-detailed enumeration of the mandatory functions and purposes of workers' and employers' organizations); (2) it reduces from ten to five years the required period of residence before a foreign worker may hold office in an executive body of a trade union organization (it should be noted that the new Regulations of the Basic Labour Act establish that trade union statutes may provide for the election of foreign nationals as trade union leaders); (3) it reduces from 100 to 40 the number of workers required to establish a trade union of independent workers; (4) it reduces from ten to four the number of employers required to establish an employers' organization; (5) it provides that the technical cooperation and logistical support of the electoral authority (the National Electoral Council) for the organization of elections to executive bodies of trade unions shall be provided only where so requested by the trade union organizations in accordance with the provisions of their statutes, and that elections held without the participation of the CNE and which comply with the statutes of the trade unions concerned shall have full legal effect once the corresponding reports are submitted to the appropriate labour inspectorate (this is addressed further below). The Committee also noted that the Bill provided that "in accordance with the constitutional principle of democratic changeover, the executive board of a trade union organization shall discharge its functions during the period established by the statutes of the organization, but in no case may a period in excess of three years be established". Although the Government provided information indicating that trade union leaders are re-elected in practice, the Committee hoped that the legislative authority would include in the Bill a provision explicitly allowing the re-election of trade union leaders;

The Committee of Experts notes that the Conference Committee, after hearing the Government representative indicate that in May 2009 a new process of consultations had been commenced on the draft Basic Labour Act, adopted the following conclusion:

The Committee regretted the Government's apparent lack of political will to pursue the adoption of the Bill in question and the lack of progress despite visits by several ILO missions to the country.

With regard to the "need to adopt the Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act", the Government indicates that an intense process of consultation has been held on the reform of the Basic Labour Act and its most relevant aspects, with the holding of discussions and meetings with practically all the sectors of the national economy, including workers' and employers' organizations. The Integral Social Development Commission of the National Assembly is currently reviewing the observations and proposals made by public institutions and the social partners. The Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act is now ready for its second reading by the National Assembly in accordance with the legislative agenda. The Bill has been broadly discussed and debated, as part of the process of street-level parliamentarianism developed by the Venezuelan State through the National Assembly, through which it is intended that workers' and employers' and their representative organizations, as well as all men and women citizens and social institutions interested, can make proposals and raise issues to enrich this legislative initiative, which will constitute a major advance in social, labour and representative rights for the men and women workers in the country and which therefore needs to attain the highest possible level of consensus. The Government emphasizes that the provisions criticized by the ILO supervisory bodies relate to the Basic Labour Act which entered into force in 1991 and have been criticized by the International Labour Conference since 1992. The Government affirms that it fully agrees that the provisions criticized have to be amended on the occasion of the reform of the Basic Labour Act, and that there exists full consensus between the national Government, legislators and workers' and employers' organizations for the amendment of those provisions. Furthermore, none of those provisions are applied, nor have they resulted in any restriction on the exercise of freedom of association.

Under these circumstances, the Committee regrets that for over nine years the Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act has still not been adopted by the Legislative Assembly, despite enjoying tripartite consensus. Taking into account the significance of the restrictions which remain in the legislation in relation to freedom of association and the freedom to organize, the Committee once again urges the Government to take measures to accelerate the examination by the Legislative Assembly of the Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act.

With regard to the Committee's comment on "the need for the National Electoral Council (CNE) to cease interfering in trade union elections and to no longer be empowered to annul them, and the need for the statute for the election of the executive bodies of national (trade union) organizations to be amended or repealed", the Government reiterates that in 2009, the standards of the CNE were amended to bring them into line with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. In accordance with the new standards of 2009, the role of the CNE was limited to: (i) receiving previously from the trade union organization the electoral timetable and the provisions governing it, in accordance with its statutes; (ii) offering those trade union organizations which voluntarily request it, and in full respect for their autonomy, technical advice on the holding of their elections; and (iii) examining cases of complaints concerning the internal electoral process by worker members, once the channels of recourse established by their statutes have been exhausted.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the CNE, for the purposes of offering technical advice and logistical support, where it is so requested, examines and determines "appeals lodged against acts, omissions and abstentions from the electoral board, respecting the electoral process of trade union organizations" (clause 9 of the standards on technical advice and logistical support in relation to trade union elections). The Government adds that the electoral board is the body in the trade union responsible for organizing and directing the process for the election of the representatives of the trade union organization and that the CNE only acts as a body to which the members of the trade union can turn if they have any complaint against the actions of the electoral board. The Government therefore emphasizes that the CNE does not interfere in trade union elections. Notwithstanding the above, the Government indicates that a communication was recently addressed to the President of the CNE informing it of the comments of the Committee of Experts in relation to the new standards on technical assistance and logistical support in relation to trade union elections.

The Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has continued to examine cases concerning interference by the CNE in trade union elections. The Committee of Experts observes that the 2009 standards of the CNE, although providing that the intervention of the CNE in trade union procedures in terms of technical assistance is voluntary, continue empowering this body, which is not a judicial body, to examine complaints and appeals by "members of the trade union" relating to trade union elections, thereby facilitating interference of all types to impede the validity of the trade union elections. It therefore requests the Government to take measures so that the standards in force provide that appeals respecting trade union elections are determined by the judicial authorities and for the standards in force not to require, as requested by one of the trade union organizations which has made comments, the publication in the Electoral Gazette of the results of trade union elections as a requirement for their recognition, nor the requirement to provide the electoral timetable to the CNE. The Committee also recalls that, when the new Constitution of the Republic was adopted, trade union organizations were required to amend their statutes so as to recognize the intervention of the CNE in their elections. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the organizations which at the time had to change their statutes to accept the participation of the CNE in the holding of their elections are obliged to submit to the CNE.

Other legislative issues

The Committee previously noted the Government's statements concerning certain legislative issues, and particularly the possibility of compulsory arbitration in certain public services that are not essential in the strict sense of the term (section 152 of the Regulations of the Basic Labour Act). The Committee previously requested the Government to supplement its statements by indicating the cases in which arbitration had been imposed.

With regard to the scope of the Regulations of the Basic Labour Act in relation to compulsory arbitration in basic and strategic services, the Government indicates that the right to strike is fully protected in Venezuelan law. Nevertheless, to prevent the exercise of the right to strike by workers causing irreparable damage to the population and to institutions, it is established that the indispensable minimum services that have to be maintained on the occasion of stoppages of activities by workers have to be determined beforehand. The determination of minimum services is an indispensable requirement for the exercise of the right to strike and has to be agreed between the parties, workers and employers, in accordance with the provisions of the national legislation. Nevertheless, the Government adds that it has been the reiterated practice of employers, when workers exercise their right to strike, to refuse to reach agreement on the minimum indispensable services in a conciliatory manner, with a view to delaying or preventing the calling of the strike by the workers. It is precisely to prevent this indispensable procedure becoming an obstacle to the exercise by workers of their right to strike that compulsory arbitration is provided for only in those cases in which all the possibilities of reaching agreement between the workers and employers have been exhausted. In such cases, the People's Ministry for Labour and Social Security undertakes a technical assessment of the enterprise or establishment in which the workers are to initiate the stoppage, reviews the claims made by workers and employers and, by ministerial decision, determines the indispensable minimum services which may not be stopped on the occasion of the strike. The Committee emphasizes that, in the case of disagreement between the parties, it should be an independent body that enjoys the confidence of the parties or the judicial authorities which determine the minimum services, particularly in cases of strikes in public enterprises or institutions, and it requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation in accordance with this principle, particularly in the public sector.

Finally, with regard to the Committee's comment on the resolution of the Ministry of Labour of 3 February 2005 giving trade union organizations 30 days to provide information on their administration and the register of their members in a form that includes each worker's full identity, place of residence and signature (an issue criticized by the ITUC for years), the Committee previously emphasized that the confidentiality of trade union membership should be ensured. It recalls that it may be appropriate to develop a code of conduct with trade union organizations covering the conditions in which data on their members are to be provided, and making use of appropriate techniques for the use of personal data which guarantee absolute confidentiality. The Committee noted in its previous observation the Government's statement that it has guaranteed the privacy of data, has not been informed of the existence of cases of abuse and that there have not been any complaints.

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that the resolution referred to is based on section 430 of the Basic Labour Act, which establishes the obligation for organizations to provide to the competent body on an annual basis a report on its administration and the list of its members, all for the purpose of demonstrating the number of members of the trade union organization and accordingly its representative status. As there were trade union organizations which were not in compliance with the obligations set out by these provisions, the People's Ministry for Labour and Social Security drew attention to the need to give effect to these provisions guaranteeing trade union representativeness contained in the Basic Labour Act. This in turn enables the Ministry to provide the respective labour statistics annually to the various bodies of the public authorities, draw up its report and indicate the number of trade union organizations established and the number of men and women workers covered by the respective protection. The Committee notes the Government's statement concerning its obligations in relation to statistics, but once again emphasizes that the obligation of trade unions to provide the list of their members to the Ministry of Labour must be accompanied by sufficient guarantees of confidentiality. It requests the Government to adopt measures in line with the indications in its previous observation.

Shortcomings in social dialogue

In successive observations in recent years, the Committee has identified considerable shortcomings in social dialogue. The ITUC, the CTV, the General Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CGT) and FEDECAMARAS indicated that the authorities only hold formal consultations, without the intention of taking into account the views of the parties consulted, and that there is no authentic dialogue. The Committee observes that in its 2009 comments the ITUC indicated that the absence of dialogue between the Government and trade union organizations meant that workers had little or no participation in the nationalization of enterprises in the steel and cement sectors. According to the ITUC, the Government is promoting "parallel" trade unionism at all levels, with emphasis on the establishment of a new trade union confederation (the Bolivarian Socialist Workers Force) as a counterweight to organizations that are not close to the policies of the Ministry of Labour or which oppose the Government. This "parallelism" has given rise to a high number of trade unions with a low number of workers covered by collective agreements, with the result that the proportion of workers covered by collective bargaining has continued to decline in relation to previous years. The lack of social dialogue and tripartite meetings in the public sector is a recurrent practice, and 243 collective contracts in the sector have not been signed. The CTV indicated in 2009 that the national executive authorities do not recognize trade union organizations which are not close to them and disregard federations in the health and education sectors, thereby creating an obstacle to collective bargaining or interfering with it.

FEDECAMARAS emphasized in 2009 the absence of social dialogue and of bipartite or tripartite consultations by the Government and the adoption without previous consultation of important laws which affect the interests of workers and employers, despite the principle of participatory democracy enshrined in the law. In its view, this is giving rise to numerous controls, legal barriers for the productive sector and new taxes which are endangering the productive sector and employers' organizations. It adds that the Government has still not convened the National Tripartite Commission envisaged in the Basic Labour Act for the determination of minimum wages, which are established by the Government without due consultation with any sector. With reference to the Employers' delegation to the Conference, FEDECAMARAS affirms that the Government is promoting the parallelism of employers' organizations by encouraging and financing those which are close to it, and that it imposed the inclusion as Employers' technical advisers of representatives of CONFAGAN, the Venezuelan Federation of Small, Medium and Artisanal Industries (FEDEINDUSTRIA) and EMPREVEN, which follow government policy and are not representative, despite the reports of the Credentials Committee of the International Labour Conference on objections concerning the nomination of the Employers' delegation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

In its 2010 comments, the ITUC reiterates the absence of social dialogue and the refusal of the authorities to establish tripartite dialogue machinery.

The Committee previously noted the Government's indications in 2009 that: (i) social dialogue has been broad and inclusive; the national, regional and local governments have held innumerable meetings and discussions with the participation of various members and leaders of the different employers' and workers' organizations which form part of the life in the country; the confederations and federations of employers and workers of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela have been convened to national dialogue round tables and their comments and observations have been sought on different types of subjects, which has given rise to an inclusive, participative and productive exchange with all the social actors; (ii) the various types of action undertaken by the Government have shown its interest, unequivocal action and will to promote dialogue and seek agreement with employers, workers and the productive sectors of the population, without the exclusion of or discrimination against any organization or sectoral association, through dialogue that has been broad and inclusive; (iii) in addition, the Government has maintained and continues to maintain dialogue and negotiations with the sectors of small and medium-sized enterprises, which have traditionally been excluded from political, economic and social decisions, which were previously undertaken only by a group of employers or organizations within a highly monopolistic and oligarchic structure subordinated to transnational interests; (iv) emphasis needs to be placed on the innumerable attempts by the national, regional and local executive authorities to establish discussion round tables for economic and social decision-making, which have been repeatedly rejected in view of the lack of readiness and will of certain employers' sectors; (v) as a result of this social dialogue, in the first half of 2009, a total of 255 collective labour agreements were approved, covering 537,332 workers in various sectors; (vi) similarly, in 2008, over 600 new trade union organizations were established freely and democratically, while in the first half of 2009 a total of 152 have been established, thereby rebutting any argument claiming to insinuate violations of freedom of association in the context of Convention No. 87 (these figures have been revised upwards in the Government's information provided in 2010 in the context of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)); (vii) the existence of isolated cases, which have been presented as generalized and inappropriate conduct by the Government, of alleged violations of freedom of association are fabrications presented out of context, and fail to take a comprehensive view of all the respective information; (viii) it is necessary to reiterate that the Venezuelan State guarantees, respects and protects the exercise of freedom of association at both the individual and collective levels, and consequently guarantees political and ideological freedom; (ix) the national Government, on 26 May 2009, following the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies in relation to the determination of objective and verifiable criteria with regard to representativeness, convened a meeting which was attended by representatives of FEDECAMARAS, EMPREVEN, CONFAGAN and FEDEINDUSTRIA, with a view to the adoption of positive measures to determine the level of representativeness and the membership of employers' organizations, chambers of commerce, industry, agriculture and any other branch; (x) subsequently, on 30 June 2009, a second meeting was held with the representatives of the Ministry and of the employers' organizations referred to above with a view to continuing the discussions of aspects relating to the determination of criteria of representativeness; no representative of FEDECAMARAS attended this meeting; and (xi) the People's Ministry for Labour and Social Security is currently engaged in a process of broad consultation with a view to the amendment of section 11 of the Social Security Act, with a view to extending maternity and paternity benefits, and invitations were sent to the employers' organizations referred to above with a view to their commenting on the leave provisions of the above Act; during these meetings, the organizations referred to above engaged in an open dialogue.

The Committee notes the 2010 comments of FEDECAMARAS concerning social dialogue, indicating that the situation described in 2009 has worsened, particularly through the adoption of numerous laws without consultation which, among other matters, promote forms of "social ownership", the compulsory purchase of properties by the State, forced expropriation, the forced cession of urban and rural properties, the violation of the separation of powers in the administration of justice, the nationalization of enterprises, including in the oil sector, discriminatory public contracts, restrictions on banking through greater state control, the promotion of the communal economic system and other laws in relation to employment guarantees. These laws, on which FEDECAMARAS was not consulted, seriously affect the interests of employers, apply a more ideological approach, increase control of civil society and establish greater centralization.

The Committee notes that, in its 2010 comments, the ITUC reiterates its views concerning the absence of social dialogue and the refusal of the authorities to establish tripartite dialogue machinery.

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its present report that, in addition to meetings with the employers' organizations of the country, including FEDECAMARAS, concerning the determination of criteria of representativeness and respecting the Social Security Act, various meetings were also held prior to the 99th session of the International Labour Conference, in which the participants in the discussion included representatives of the national Government and various employers' organizations, such as EMPREVEN, FEDEINDUSTRIA, CONFAGAN, COBOIEM and FEDECAMARAS. Meetings have also been held between the national executive authorities and employers on various subjects of national interest, such as the cost and production of foodstuffs and the consumption of electricity, as well as various meetings with a view to developing relations of confidence between the Government and the private sector and hearing the proposals of employers and producers in the country. The Government adds that tripartite dialogue exists in the occupational safety and health sector, including a tripartite body.

The Government adds that, with a view to achieving the sovereignty of the country in the fields of agricultural and food production, industry and sustainable development, and moreover in accordance with the recommendations and guidance of international bodies, solidarity financing policies and programmes are being implemented, with low interest rates, intended for enterprises, irrespective of the organization of which they are members, as well as for independent entrepreneurs and producers.

The Government also indicates that, through the establishment of the Bicentenary Fund, the national Government is encouraging strategies to make progress in the selective replacement of imports and the stimulation of the export sector in the country, through joint action with men and women workers, employers in the productive sector, and in close coordination with the leaders, mayors and communal governments of the people's authorities, with the firm intention of meeting the fundamental needs of the Venezuelan people.

The Government further notes that the socialist productive round tables initiated by the national executive authorities in January 2010 included the participation of representatives of all productive sectors, social production enterprises, cooperatives, micro-, small, medium and large enterprises, many of which are members of FEDECAMARAS, which confirms the participation of this employers' organization in the inclusive, constructive and productive social dialogue promoted by the national Government. In January 2010, the People's Ministry for Labour and Social Security sent communications to employers' organizations, including FEDECAMARAS, and to workers' organizations, seeking views concerning the fixing of the national minimum wage for the current year of 2010. These organizations responded to the requests and sent their observations on the national minimum wage to the Office for Labour and Social Security. The national executive authorities, taking into the account the considerations of employers' and workers' organizations, and of the respective agencies, decreed the increase in the national minimum wage by 25 per cent for the year 2010. On various occasions, communications have been sent to workers' organizations, including the CTV, CODESA, CGT, CUTV and UNT, and employers' organizations, including FEDECAMARAS, EMPREVEN, FEDEINDUSTRIA and CONFAGAN, and to various national agencies, with a view to obtaining their views concerning the fixing of the national minimum wage. The Government also provides updated statistical data on the coverage of collective bargaining in the public and private sectors, which are reflected in detail in the observation on Convention No. 98.

The Government therefore expresses concern at the Committee's continued indication "that the Government has not promoted the conditions for social dialogue in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with the most representative organization". This is, firstly, because the Government has indicated on innumerable occasions that there does not exist one single and exclusive most representative organization of employers, and secondly, because the national Government has made every relevant effort for the construction, promotion and development of much broader social dialogue, with the intervention of all the most representative organizations of employers and workers, and not a single organization, as it would appear that it is the intention to impose. The national Government also indicates that it does not engage in acts of favouritism towards any organization or group in the country, as denounced without justification to the ILO. The Government favours the inclusion of all actors in the development of the socio-economic life of the country, in which there has always been an important trade union movement, of both employers and workers, alongside the two organizations which monopolized representation for decades. There are workers' organizations, such as the Single Central Organization of Workers of Venezuela (CUTV), which dates from the 1960s, and employers' organizations, such as FEDEINDUSTRIA, which was founded 38 years ago, and which are also representative in the country.

The Government emphasizes that it will not apply the criterion according to which a sole organization assumes exclusive representativeness, thereby conditioning the destiny and participation of all other organizations which are also representative in the various sectors of the economy in the country. Moreover, such a criterion does not correspond with the fundamental principles of the ILO, nor with social justice or the common good.

Furthermore, in its 2010 report, the Committee of Experts "deplores the fact that there has been no follow-up to the high-level mission of 2006". In this respect, the Government refers to a communication dated 8 September 2009 sent to the ILO with a detailed report of the action taken on each of the recommendations made by the mission in 2006.

The Committee concludes that, although the Government has held some consultations with FEDECAMARAS (or with member employers or organizations) or has invited it to meetings (concerning the determination of the criteria of representativeness, the Social Security Act, meetings for the determination of the composition of employers in the ILO Conference and on minimum wages) with employers or organizations affiliated to the above organization, the Government has not consulted it, or at least does not deny FEDECAMARAS' allegations, concerning a whole series of vital laws which directly affect the rights of employers and which pursue fundamental changes in the social and productive system and place limitations on the private sector. The Committee also observes that the comments of the trade union organizations do not share the Government's vision concerning the existence of true dialogue, and that it is not shared by FEDECAMARAS either. In particular, the Committee has not received information allowing it to note efforts by the authorities to achieve in so far as possible to joint solutions with the most representative workers' and employers' organizations on matters that directly affect them.

The Committee notes with regret, with reference to certain of its previous requests and those of the Conference Committee and the Committee on Freedom of Association, that the National Tripartite Commission on minimum wages envisaged in the Basic Labour Act has not been established and that a national forum for social dialogue has not been created in accordance with ILO principles with a tripartite composition and which respects in its membership the representative status of workers' organizations. The Committee further observes that the Government has repeatedly disregarded the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in relation to the important problems encountered by employers and their organizations, in which it requested direct dialogue with this organization, and more specifically its recommendation urging the Government to establish in the country a high-level joint national commission (Government-FEDECAMARAS) assisted by the ILO to examine each and every one of the allegations and matters that are pending so that such problems can be resolved through direct dialogue. As it is not a complex or costly measure, the Committee concludes that the Government is still failing to promote the conditions for social dialogue in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with the most representative organization of employers. The Committee emphasizes the conclusions of the Conference Committee in 2009 in which it observed that the Government was continuing to ignore its urgent calls to promote meaningful dialogue with the most representative social partners and it called on the Government to intensify social dialogue with the representative organizations of workers and employers, including FEDECAMARAS, and to ensure that this organization was not marginalized in respect of all matters of concern to it. In 2009, the Conference Committee requested follow-up action to the 2006 high level mission to assist the Government and the social partners to improve social dialogue, including through the creation of a national tripartite committee, and to resolve all of the outstanding matters brought before the supervisory bodies. The Committee deplores the fact that this tripartite committee has not been established and that there has been no conclusive progress on the determination of the criteria of representativeness. The Committee recalls that the Government may request ILO assistance for determining the criteria of representativeness in accordance with the principles of the Convention.

The Committee, noting that there are still no structured bodies for tripartite social dialogue, once again emphasizes the importance that should be attached to full and frank consultation without hindrance on any questions or proposed legislation affecting trade union rights and that it is essential that the introduction of draft legislation affecting collective bargaining or conditions of employment should be preceded by full and detailed consultations with the independent and most representative workers' and employers' organizations. The Committee also requests the Government to ensure that any legislation adopted concerning labour, social and economic issues which affects workers, employers and their organizations should be the subject of real in-depth consultations with the independent and most representative employers' and workers' organizations, and that sufficient efforts are being made, in so far as possible, to reach joint solutions, since this is the cornerstone of dialogue.

The Committee once again invites the Government to request the technical assistance of the ILO for the establishment of the dialogue bodies mentioned above. In this context, the Committee emphasizes once again that it is important, taking into account the allegations of discrimination against FEDECAMARAS, the CTV and their member organizations, including the establishment or promotion of organizations or enterprises close to the regime, that the Government is guided exclusively by criteria of representativeness in its dialogue and relations with workers' and employers' organizations, and that it refrains from any form of interference and complies with Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any developments in social dialogue and its outcome, and it strongly hopes that it will be in a position to note progress in the near future.

The Committee notes that the Government denies the allegations concerning favouritism in relation to certain workers' and employers' organizations. The Committee indicated previously that it is also important, in relation to social dialogue, for an independent investigation to be conducted into the allegations concerning the promotion by the authorities of parallel organizations of workers and employers that are close to the Government, and of favouritism and partiality in relation to such organizations. The Committee requests the Government to take steps necessary for this investigation to be conducted and to provide information on this matter. Furthermore, the Committee regretted previously that the former President of FEDECAMARAS, Carlos Fernández, is still covered by an arrest warrant which prevents his return to the country without fear of reprisals. The Committee notes the Government's extensive statements in its report, which basically reiterate those made previously. The Committee will not re-examine this issue in substance, which moreover has also been addressed by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous conclusions.

Finally, the Committee once again emphasizes the importance of the Government accepting the ILO mission requested by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards and expresses the firm hope that the Government will be able to provide information on tangible and concrete progress on the issues that have been raised.