Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 363, Mars 2012

1. 1241. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2011 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 359th Report, paras 1177–1292, approved by the Governing Body at its 310th Session (March 2011)].
2. 1242. Subsequently, the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) sent new allegations and additional information in communications dated 10 February and 30 June 2011 and 20 February 2012. The Government sent new observations in communications dated 25 February and 18 October 2011.
3. 1243. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 1244. In its previous examination of the case in March 2010, the Committee made the following recommendations on the matters still pending [see 359th Report, para. 1292]:
   • With regard to the abduction and maltreatment of the FEDECAMARAS leaders, Messrs Noel Álvarez, Luis Villegas, Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz (Employer member of the Governing Body of the ILO), the latter being wounded by three bullets, the Committee deplores the offences that were committed, emphasizes their seriousness and requests the Government to take all the steps within its power to arrest the other three persons involved in the abductions and wounding, and to keep it informed of developments in the investigations. The Committee expresses the hope that the persons guilty of these crimes will soon be convicted and sentenced in proportion to the seriousness of the offences in order that such incidents will not be repeated and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
   • As regards the allegations concerning the attacks on FEDECAMARAS headquarters in 2007, the Committee notes that the Government states that there is no complaint pending with the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the representatives of FEDECAMARAS have not filed any complaint. The Committee deplores, whether or not there had been a complaint by representatives of FEDECAMARAS within the country, that the Government has ignored its recommendation to step up the investigations into these attacks on FEDECAMARAS headquarters in May and November 2007. The Committee requests FEDECAMARAS to file an official complaint concerning the alleged facts of the attacks on its headquarters in 2007 with the Public Prosecutor’s Office and hopes that the authorities will collaborate with the organization’s representatives to clarify the facts, identify and convict the guilty persons.
   • As regards the allegation concerning the bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters on 24 February 2008, the Committee firmly hopes that the authors of the bomb attack at FEDECAMARAS headquarters will soon be convicted and sentenced in proportion to the seriousness of the offences. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments.
   • The Committee deplores the lack of observations on the alleged abduction of 25 agricultural and livestock farmers and the death of one farmer (Mr Franklin Brito) as a result of going on a succession of hunger strikes in protest against the Government for the unjust invasion and expropriation of his land. The Committee emphasizes the seriousness of these allegations, requests the Government to reply to them without delay, and to make every effort to secure the release of the 25 abducted agricultural and livestock farmers and should order investigations to be carried out to punish the guilty persons. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments.
   • In general, taking into account the series of allegations examined in this section, the Committee draws the attention of the Government to the principle that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate free of violence, intimidation and fear, as such situations of insecurity are incompatible with the requirements of Convention No. 87.
   • With respect to the allegations of intimidation and harassment of FEDECAMARAS and its leaders, including the invasion and expropriation of farms or companies (in many cases without payment of due compensation) to the detriment of leaders or members of FEDECAMARAS, criminal prosecutions of employers’ leaders and verbal attacks by the authorities against FEDECAMARAS and its leaders, the Committee deplores that the Government has not replied to these allegations and requests it to send detailed observations without delay. The Committee reiterates the principle expressed in the previous paragraph and expresses the firm hope that in the future the authorities will refrain from adopting such an aggressive tone in their statements concerning FEDECAMARAS and its leaders and members, and that these allegations of unjust invasions, expropriations and prosecutions should be investigated.
   • The Committee deplores that the Government has not explained in detail the circumstances of the specific events which resulted in the criminal charge and trial of employers’ leader, Mr Eduardo Gómez Sigala, and requests it to do so and to keep it informed of developments in the trial. The Committee once again requests the Government to return the “La Bureche” farm property to the employers’ leader Mr Eduardo Gómez Sigala without delay and to compensate him fully for all losses sustained as a result of the intervention by the authorities in seizing his farm.
   • ...
   • The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations concerning social dialogue:
     • deeply deploring that the Government has ignored its recommendations, the Committee urges the Government to establish a high-level joint national committee in the country with the assistance of the ILO, to examine each and every one of the allegations and issues in this case so that the problems can be solved through direct dialogue. The Committee trusts that the Government will not postpone the adoption of the necessary measures any further and urges the Government to keep it informed in this regard;
     • the Committee expects that a forum for social dialogue will be established in accordance with the principles of the ILO, having a tripartite composition which duly respects the representativeness of workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard and invites it to request technical assistance from the ILO. The Committee also requests it once again to convene the tripartite commission on minimum wages provided for in the Organic Labour Act;
     • observing that there are still no structured bodies for tripartite social dialogue, the Committee emphasizes once more the importance that should be attached to full and frank consultation taking place 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 detailed consultations with the most representative independent workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that any legislation concerning labour, social and economic issues adopted in the context of the Enabling Act be first subject to genuine, in-depth consultations with the most representative independent employers’ and workers’ organizations, while endeavouring to find shared solutions wherever possible;
     • the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed with regard to social dialogue and any bipartite or tripartite consultations in sectors other than food and agriculture, and also with regard to social dialogue with FEDECAMARAS and its regional structures in connection with the various sectors of activity, the formulation of economic and social policy and the drafting of laws which affect the interests of the employers and their organizations;
     • the Committee requests the Government to ensure that as part of its policy of inclusive dialogue (including within the Legislative Assembly), FEDECAMARAS is duly consulted in the course of any legislative debate that may affect employer interests, in a manner commensurate with its level of representativeness.
   • The Committee requests the Government to indicate the means of recourse available to employers who feel that they are victims of discrimination involving refusal to issue a labour solvency certificate or official foreign exchange authorizations, to initiate a dialogue with FEDECAMARAS on these questions and to inform the Committee of developments.
   • The Committee observes with regret that the Government has not replied to the allegations of discrimination against FEDECAMARAS and its members concerning parallel bodies and organizations close to the Government. The Committee requests the Government to send without delay its observations on these allegations and wishes to emphasize that by favouring or disadvantaging certain organizations compared with the rest, governments can influence the attitude of workers or employers when they choose which organization they wish to join, which is incompatible with the principle contained in Convention No. 87 whereby public authorities must refrain from any interference which would restrict the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure equal treatment for all employers’ organizations in the matter of financing of activities and not to discriminate against members of FEDECAMARAS.
   • With regard to the examination of the international cooperation bill, the Committee hopes that it will provide for rapid recourse in the cases of discrimination and that it will avoid interference by the authorities in access to foreign funds by workers’ and employers’ organizations.
   • The Committee notes the comments of the complainant organization concerning the Organic Act establishing the Central Planning Commission. In this respect, while the legislation establishes strong state intervention in the economy and national economic structure under the aegis of central planning in order to construct the Venezuelan socialist model, the Committee requests the complainant organizations to provide information on the relationship between the allegations and the violation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
   • The Committee notes the additional information sent by the IOE on 10 February 2011 concerning the cases of confiscation of property of employers’ leaders, the alleged physical attacks against employers’ leaders, the lack of social dialogue, as well as other questions, and the Government’s communication, dated 25 February 2011, received two days before the Committee’s meeting. The Committee will review these communications when it will next examine this case.
   • The Committee draws the special attention of the Governing Body to this case because of the extreme seriousness and urgency of the matters dealt with therein.

B. New allegations of the International Organisation of Employers

1. 1245. In its communication dated 10 February 2011, the IOE alleges that, despite the fact that the Committee on Freedom of Association has drawn the Governing Body’s attention to the “extreme seriousness and urgency” of this case, the Government continues to ignore the recommendations made by the Committee at its March 2010 meeting, as well as subsequent recommendations.

Constant serious harassment of the private sector and of FEDECAMARAS

Confiscations

1. 1246. The IOE alleges that, as it reported in its previous complaint, representatives of employers’ organizations, and the private sector in general, are constantly harassed and threatened because of their efforts to defend their members. The IOE provides the following concrete examples of the confiscation of farms belonging to employer leaders of FEDENAGA and the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Association of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS) by the government authorities, in violation of the Constitution and of ILO Convention No. 87:

   • Employers’ leader		Egildo Luján, Director of FEDECAMARAS, Livestock Sector, Vice-President of FEDENAGA
     Farm		La Escondida, State of Barinas
     Number of hectares		1.400 (minus 260 hectares that are not farmed) (second occupation, land declared to be unproductive and uncultivated), 500 hectares are a forestry reserve and the remainder totally productive
     Number of workers		Eight (around 24 workers are recruited to clear pasture land for 90 days a year (three periods of 30 days)
     Production		Cattle, breeding
     Date of occupation		June 2010
     Current situation		Active
     Status		Has not been paid
     Action taken		Through the National Land Institute (INTI), attempts have been made to demonstrate that the land is unproductive, whereas the Government’s own experts stated in their reports that the farm is productive
     Employers’ leader		Eduardo Gómez Sigala, former President of CONINDUSTRIA
     Farm		La Bureche (this is his home in the Lara), State of Lara
     Number of hectares		29 hectares, six of which are pasture land, and two of which are living quarters for family members, employees and a few animals
     Number of workers		There were previously 12 employees working on the farm, who were paid by Mr Gómez Sigala up to September 2010 when they were forced by INTI and the armed forces to leave
     Production		Sugar cane, pasture (18 hectares of sugar cane due for harvesting two months later were destroyed)
     Date of occupation		21 September 2009 (still occupied by the armed forces) Currently being used as a military training centre
     Current situation		Occupied by the national armed forces
     Status		He has not been paid
     Action taken		Complaint lodged with Supervisory Court No. 8, Criminal Assizes of the State of Lara
     Employers’ leader		AGROBUCARE, whose President and legal representative is Vicente Brito, former President of FEDECAMARAS
     Farm		Hacienda Las Misiones Caripe, State of Monagas
     Number of hectares		800 hectares
     Number of workers		Varies with the coffee sowing and harvesting season
     Production		Coffee and pasture land for cattle raising
     Date of occupation		Notice was published in La Prensa de Monagas on 11 September 2009 declaring the farm to be idle, after which it was occupied by the INTI and used for cooperatives
     Current situation		Occupied
     Status		He has not been paid
     Action taken		Appeal against the occupation lodged with the Fifth Higher Agrarian and Civil (Assets) Court of the Judicial Constituency of the State of Managas. The appeal was denied
     Employers’ leader		Rafael Marcial Garmendia, former President of FEDECAMARAS, owner of Hacienda Bucarito
     Farm		Bucarito, State of Estado Lara
     Number of hectares		5.058 hectares (2.767 hectares have been occupied, 2.291 hectares are productive)
     Number of workers		18 permanent and 60 temporary (varies with the harvest season)
     Production		Cattle rearing, raising and fattening for consumption, maize, sorghum, soya, fish farming, beekeeping
     Date of occupation		January 2007
     Current situation		Productive. The land taken over by Government cooperatives is idle.
     Status		He has not been paid
     Action taken		Two requests have been lodged: 1. The first request resulted in the land being declared idle by the Higher Agrarian Court of the State of Lara. 2. Regarding the second request lodged by Mr Garmendia to have the farm declared private property, with submission of proof of ownership since 1926 prior to its becoming the property of the Garmendia family, the judge ruled that the documents submitted by the former owner showed that the farm was private land.
     Employers’ leader		Genaro Méndez, former President of FEDENAGA
     Farm		San Isidro Cattle-Raising Centre, State of Táchira
     Number of hectares		650 hectares
     Number of workers		Five employees
     Production		Milk and reproduction
     Date of occupation		April 2008, by INTI public officials
     Current situation		The land was earmarked for “rescue“ without even being inspected, but an inspection report by five INTI experts found in favour of the owner and the INTI officials’ claim was dismissed
     Status		After Mr Genaro Méndez left his position of President of FEDENAGA in September 2009 the harassment ceased
     Action taken		INTI administrative channels
     Employers’ leader		Manuel Cipriano Heredia, President of FEDENAGA
     Farm		Vieja Elena
     Number of hectares		531 hectares
     Number of workers		Five permanent employees
     Production		Cattle raising, maize, sorghum, pasture, watermelons, fruit, milk, cheese. Also, research into animal health, recognized by national and international laboratories (vaccines against foot and mouth disease, brucellosis and tuberculosis)
     Date of occupation		April 2008
     Current situation		Productive
     Status		Threatened occupation
     Action taken		Mr Heredia, a producer of dual-purpose cattle and of cattle with high genetic value, showed the officials a certificate from INTI declaring that the farm is productive

     >
2. 1247. The IOE further states that, according to Roberto Orta Martínez, President of the Association of Urban Building Owners, the Government, in pursuit of its anti-private property policy, has expropriated a total of 280 urban buildings, for which it has paid compensation in only 5 per cent of the cases.

Further attacks against the President of FEDECAMARAS

1. 1248. The IOE alleges that, in addition to the attacks mentioned in the information it presented on 3 November 2010, the Public Prosecutor’s Office embarked on a new criminal investigation on 23 December 2010 to ascertain whether, in his statement of 22 December 2010, the President of FEDECAMARAS, Noel Álvarez, committed a crime by calling on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) to respect the Constitution and not to accept any orders that they judged might violate the Constitution or any other law.
2. 1249. In his statement the President of FEDECAMARAS asked the members of the FANB to read article 25 of the Constitution: “Any act on the part of the public authority that violates or encroaches upon the rights guaranteed by this Constitution and by law is null and void, and public employees ordering or implementing such an act shall incur criminal, civil and administrative liability, as applicable, without the excuse of having followed the orders of a superior” and declared: “I appeal to them to exercise their freedom of conscience by refusing to carry out any order which they deem to be a violation of the Constitution.” He made this recommendation on the occasion of the military occupation of 47 productive private properties in the Sur del Lago region in the State of Zulia.
3. 1250. President Chávez declared on 24 December 2010 that the FEDECAMARAS President’s appeal to military personnel to respect the Constitution and the law was a “call to war” and expressed the view that it was a “statement that bordered on the criminal”.
4. 1251. Despite these threats, Mr Noel Álvarez said that he would remain in the country to face all the accusations against him and insisted that he was not guilty of any crime since he had at no time called on anyone not to respect the Constitution but rather to respect it.

Physical aggression against the leaders of FEDECAMARAS

1. 1252. The IOE refers to its allegations concerning events on the night of 27 October 2010, when in Caracas a group of armed and masked men machine-gunned, kidnapped and maltreated the President of FEDECAMARAS, Mr Noel Álvarez, the former President, Ms Albis Muñoz, the Executive Director, Mr Luis Villegas, and the Treasurer, Mr Ernesto Villamil. The kidnappers also injured Ms Albis Muñoz, Employer member of the Governing Body of the ILO, shooting her three times.
2. 1253. According to the Venezuelan authorities, two suspects in the kidnapping were arrested in November 2011. The Director of the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigations Body declared that the motive behind the aggression was vehicle theft, but he was unable to explain why the victims had been held for about two hours or why Ms Albis Muñoz, a former President of FEDECAMARAS and Employer member of the Governing Body of the ILO, had been shot three times. Ms Albis Muñoz stated that neither of the suspects had been the instigators of the aggression.
3. 1254. Furthermore, although the names of the people and institutions behind the numerous attacks on FEDECAMARAS are known and despite the Government’s public assurances before the Conference and Governing Body of the ILO, as well as the numerous recommendations made by the ILO’s supervisory bodies, so far none of the attacks have led to the arrest and punishment of the guilty parties.

Lack of social dialogue and tripartite consultation

Adoption of laws without tripartite consultation

1. 1255. In his statements on 22 December 2010, the President of FEDECAMARAS criticized the attitude of the National Assembly at the end of 2010 when in barely two weeks it adopted more laws than during the rest of the year, just before the government party on 5 January 2011 lost the possibility of adopting organic laws with its votes alone.
2. 1256. The President of FEDECAMARAS said that he rejected the legislative haste with which the National Assembly had within the previous few weeks adopted a series of laws that affected essential trade union rights of Venezuelan citizens and modified fundamental aspects of the country’s economic system, without due consultation of the people as required by the Constitution.
3. 1257. For its part the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch described as “a legislative hold-up” the series of laws adopted by the Venezuelan Parliament in the last days of December 2010, which in its opinion was an attack on freedom of expression and on human rights defence groups, especially the law regulating the content of the Internet and giving the State greater control over telecommunications and the law preventing the international financing of NGOs. The executive body of Human Rights Watch said that the Government would now be able to block Internet sites and penalize radio and television stations for encouraging people to join start a peaceful civil disobedience movement or merely for broadcasting news that made people “anxious”.

Adoption of the Defence of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination Act without tripartite consultation

1. 1258. On 3 December the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed its concern at the Venezuelan Government’s proposal, in the Defence of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination Bill, to control the financing of NGOs by international cooperation and to prevent the international financing of political parties. In the Commission’s opinion, the ambiguous wording of certain clauses of the Bill and the broad discretion it conferred on the authorities carried a risk that it might be interpreted restrictively so as to limit the exercise of freedom of association, freedom of expression, political participation and equality.
2. 1259. Despite the views expressed by the Inter-American Commission and by several civil society institutions, and at the solemn request of President Chávez, the National Assembly urgently examined a new draft of the Bill in December 2010. On the night of 20 December 2010, at its second reading, the National Assembly approved the Defence of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination Act, which contains ten articles and, inter alia, prevents Venezuelan employers’ and workers’ organizations from receiving any kind of international financial assistance without prior authorization.
3. 1260. Article 4 of the Act stipulates that the assets and other income of politically motivated or political rights defence organizations must derive exclusively from “national assets and resources”. The Government of Venezuela considers that employers’ and workers’ organizations come under this head and has accused them of receiving “thousands of dollars from North American imperialism, not just to defend human rights but to promote conspiracies and coups d’état”.

Adoption of the Communal Economic System Organic Act without tripartite consultation

1. 1261. On 13 December 2010 the National Assembly approved at its second reading the Communal Economic System Organic Act, which introduces a communal currency unsupported by the Central Bank of Venezuela as an alternative legal tender. The Act provides that socio-productive organizations other than private sector organizations may benefit directly or indirectly from various financial and non-financial resources. Similarly, the Act provides that the Executive must encourage the use of goods and services created nationally and internationally under the Communal Economic System. Article 78 stipulates that “natural or juridical persons that together or separately engage in propaganda or subliminal, false or deceitful publicity regarding the goods, services and know-how of the Communal Economic System and its means of production, trade, distribution, marketing and supply shall be liable to imprisonment for two to four years”. Once again, attention is drawn to the fact that the vagueness of the terms used give reason to fear a broad interpretation that could result in the violation of freedom of expression or of any right of opinion voiced by the private sector.

New Enabling Act

1. 1262. The new Enabling Act adopted by the National Assembly at the end of December 2010 constitutes yet another concession of powers to President Chávez so that he can govern by decree with the status, weight and force of law in nine additional areas: tending to vital needs resulting from the rains, infrastructure, transport and public services, housing and environment, land-use management and the integrated development and use of urban and rural land, finance and taxation, public safety and legal security, integrated security and defence, and international cooperation and the economic system. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has consequently voiced its concern that the Act gravely undermines the principles of separation of powers and freedom of expression. It should be borne in mind that President Chávez has already benefited from three special Enabling Acts in 1999, 2001 and 2007 under which he passed more than 100 laws.
2. 1263. On 29 January 2011 the Land and Housing Emergency Act was promulgated under this new Enabling Act, i.e. without tripartite consultation. The Act authorizes “urban land and non-residential buildings (storehouses, warehouses, industrial plants) that are idle, abandoned or improperly employed to be declared of public utility and expropriated”, and empowers President Chávez to decree emergency areas and vital housing and residential areas. The new Act provides for fast-track expropriation machinery that offers owners no guarantees since there is no provision for compensation. As was stressed by the President of the Real Estate Chamber of Venezuela, Mr Aquiles Martini, the “discretion” left to the Executive to determine that land is idle or improperly employed raises questions as to the criteria used.
3. 1264. The IOE and FEDECAMARAS regret to have to refer once again to the lack of social dialogue and bipartite and tripartite consultation, despite the fact that the Committee on Freedom of Association has repeatedly emphasized “the importance that should be attached to full and frank consultation taking place on any questions or proposed legislation”. Despite the Committee’s recommendations requesting the Government “to ensure that any legislation concerning labour, social and economic issues adopted in the context of the Enabling Act be first subject to genuine, in-depth consultations with the most representative independent employers’ and workers’ organizations”, there has been no change in the Government’s attitude and it continues to adopt reforms and laws affecting the private sector without any prior consultation or dialogue with the social partners.
4. 1265. The IOE concludes by stating that the Government’s totalitarian project based on intimidation restricts the exercise of civil liberties in defence of the individual and collective rights of employers. The constant harassment suffered by Venezuela’s employers is endangering the very existence of independent employers’ organizations, notably FEDECAMARAS and, of course, many of the country’s economic sectors.
5. 1266. In its communication dated 30 June 2011, the IOE recalls that for eight years it has complained to the Committee on Freedom of Association about the Venezuelan Government’s constant harassment of the private sector and of FEDECAMARAS, its most representative organization. It adds that, along with its complaint, the IOE recently expressed its grave concern regarding information that it has sent the Committee, which clearly proves the lack of independence of, and government interference in, the affairs of parallel employer’ organizations it has set up, towards which it has showed favouritism and which for the past five years it has systematically designated as the employers’ delegation to the International Labour Conference. The IOE has decided to forward the that information so that it can be placed before the Committee on Freedom of Association and before the High-level Mission that is scheduled to visit Caracas to examine the complaints of the Venezuelan Government’s non-compliance with Convention No. 87. The information is as follows:
   • – On 14 May 2010 the Director of International Relations of the Ministry of Popular Power for Labour sent an email to the EMPREVEN, Confagan, Fedeindustrias and Coboien organizations containing models of letters for them to send the ILO and IOE in defence of its case at the 2010 Session of the Conference and to establish closer relations with the IOE itself.
   • – On 15 May 2010 a representative of the Venezuelan Government to the ILO and labour attaché of its Permanent Mission in Geneva wrote to the aforementioned Director of International Relations with instructions and suggestions regarding EMPREVEN, Confagan, Fedeindustrias and Coboien’s communications to the IOE and the ILO’s Conference Credential Committee, as follows:
     • The IOE points out that the details contained in the email and the justification given for sending it are clear proof of the Government’s interference in these organizations and of their utter subjection to the Venezuelan authorities.
       • Note: I suggest that each of the employers’ organizations send a letter individually, along the following lines:
         • 1. Wait until all the Conference Committees have been set up on the first day of the 99th Session and then, after having endeavoured to establish their credentials as employers’ representatives on the committees, specify clearly in a letter the names of the committees on which they have been prevented from establishing their credentials by the FEDECAMARAS representatives, and have the letter registered;
         • 2. Introduce the document in broad and general terms as drafted, and then present a more detailed additional text themselves describing the action taken in each of the committees at the 99th Session of the Conference.
       • Both methods are valid, and I believe they will oblige the Credentials Committee to recognize the situation and issue a reply.
       • I suggest deleting the passages highlighted in red.
       • Regarding the suggestions, I would emphasize that we must avoid describing the written document as a complaint since, from the legal standpoint under article 26 of the Rules for the Conference, it might not strictly speaking fit any of the hypotheses contemplated or may otherwise be deemed irreceivable at the outset by the Credentials Committee by virtue of clause (c) of said article 26.
6. 1267. Finally, the IOE has sent a copy of one of the letters that it received from EMPREVEN, containing word for word the Ministry of Labour’s draft text, along with all the recommendations by the Venezuelan Government’s official representative to the ILO. The IOE encloses copies of the emails cited in its allegations and considers that this information proves formally the total dependency of the Government organizations concerned and their lack of credibility within the ILO.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 1268. In its communication dated 25 February 2011, the Government refers to the communications sent by the IOE on 3 November 2010 and 10 February 2011, containing details of the amplification of their complaint against the Government.

Background

1. 1269. The Government respectfully requests the Committee on Freedom of Association to carry out a detailed examination of the so-called extension of the IOE’s complaint, bearing in mind that an “amplification” presupposes the presentation of new allegations, of new facts, whereas the communications sent by the IOE contain the same allegations set out previously in the complaint and already answered in detail by the present representatives of the Government. Moreover, the communication dated 10 February 2011 contains virtually the same arguments as that of 3 November 2010.
2. 1270. This situation merely distracts the Government’s attention, and the Committee’s too, from the matter at hand, and the Government therefore insists that the Committee confine its considerations strictly to its request for the Government’s observations on new allegations or new information, since it has repeatedly answered in ample detail all the allegations in this case, irrespective of the fact that the Committee has expressed little satisfaction in that regard.
3. 1271. The Government also wishes to draw attention to the powers and attributes assumed by the Committee on Freedom of Association in its examination of this case. Before the Committee examines the case further in March, the Government would like to refer to an ILO publication, The Committee on Freedom of Association: Its impact over 50 years by Eric Gravel, Isabelle Duplessis and Bernard Gernigon, which states with regard to the examination of complaints that are of a political nature: “Even though cases may be political in origin or present certain political aspects, they should be examined by the Committee if they raise questions concerning the exercise of trade union rights. It is for the Committee to rule on this issue after examining all the available information, in the same way as it rules on the question of whether the issues raised in a complaint concern penal law or the exercise of trade union rights.”
4. 1272. Many of the allegations in this case are beyond the purview of freedom of association and collective bargaining and concern political or purely economic issues. Elsewhere, they are beyond the purview of freedom of association and collective bargaining and have to do with penal law, specifically in the case of Mr Carlos Fernández. Before the Committee considers some of the allegations in this case and expresses its opinions and recommendations, it should determine whether they have anything to do with trade union rights, in other words whether or not the Committee is competent to examine them. The Government also wonders whether the recommendations made by the Committee, such as those advocating the impunity of certain workers’ and employers’ union leaders who have committed serious crimes against the people of Venezuela, are actually within its powers, come within its mandate or concern its very raison d’être.
5. 1273. Finally, regarding practically all the allegations presented by the complainants, the Government is dismayed and concerned at the Committee’s failure to lend any credit to the arguments, replies and evidence it has advanced, and at the Committee’s readiness to believe the allegations and asseverations of the complainants, even though most of them are baseless. Nevertheless, as a token of its good will towards this international body and in the renewed hope that its reply will be treated with the objectivity that any Member of the ILO expects, the Government hereby responds to some of the points raised by the IOE.

Regarding the alleged harassment of the private sector and FEDECAMARAS by attacking property and occupying farms

1. 1274. The Government wishes to point out once again that the land rescue project being carried out by the National Land Institute (INTI) is not about confiscating, occupying or raiding the property of union representatives or private employers. On the contrary, the process involves land that is lying idle, unproductive or being used illegally, in accordance with the Constitution and the Land and Agrarian Development Act.
2. 1275. To start with, reference must be made to the land rescue process as it is laid down in Chapter VII of the said Act.
3. 1276. Article 86 of the Act states that INTI is empowered to reclaim ownership of land that is illegally or unlawfully occupied, in which case, acting on its own initiative or following a complaint, it embarks upon the appropriate reclamation procedure subject to the guarantees provided for in articles 17, 18 and 20 of the Act.
4. 1277. Article 88 stipulates that land rescue does not apply to agricultural land that is fully productive and in full compliance with the plans and guidelines laid down by the Executive.
5. 1278. Consequently, once the process in engaged, INTI can take over reclaimable land designated as idle or uncultivated in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
6. 1279. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, like many countries throughout the world, is using the agrarian sector to strengthen and extend the values of social development embodied in the Constitution. In this way it hopes to bring about a just and equitable distribution of wealth along with the strategic, democratic and participative planning of land ownership and the development of the agrarian sector as a whole.
7. 1280. The Government notes that it has provided the necessary means and machinery to do away entirely with the latifundista system (under which vast tracts of land are privately owned) as being contrary to justice, equity, equality, the public interest and social peace. Specifically, one of the fundamental principles underlying the adoption of the Land and Agrarian Development Act is to ensure the security and sovereignty of the country’s agro food sector for the benefit of the entire population.
8. 1281. It is important to refer here to the following pronouncements of this worthy Organization on the subject of agrarian reform, affirmations which we trust are still valid today:
   • – The ILO’s Tenants and Share-croppers Recommendation, 1968 (No. 132) of the ILO states that, “in conformity with the general principle that agricultural workers of all categories should have access to land, measures should be taken, where appropriate to economic and social development, to facilitate the access of tenants, share-croppers and similar categories of agricultural workers to land.”
   • – Similarly, the Rural Workers’ Organisations Recommendation, 1975 (No. 149) recognizes that “land reform is in many developing countries an essential factor in the improvement of the conditions of work and life of rural workers and that organizations of such workers should accordingly cooperate and participate actively in the implementation of such reform”.
   • – An ILO press release along the same line issued on 8 December 1997 (OIT/97/32) on boosting agricultural productivity stated: “Most SSA countries are primarily rural and the agricultural economy requires a number of basic changes. The first major requirement is to abandon the age-old system whereby governments impose artificially low prices for staples such as bread and rice, a practice which feeds urban dwellers but keeps farmers in poverty. A second requirement is to diversify production away from large-scale commodity production to areas of greater export potential, such as cut flowers, tropical fruits and vegetables. A third major requirement is land reform. Land is the primary resource in rural SSA and access to land is highly restricted. Ownership is often concentrated in the hands of large proprietors, who often make very poor use of their holdings, either leaving them idle or holding them for speculative purposes, whereas it is well documented that small land holders absorb more labour per acre and are more productive.”
9. 1282. In the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, agrarian productivity has become a juridical concept that serves as a means of measuring the compatibility of privately-owned land with its social function. Thus, there are three level of productivity: idle or uncultivated farmland, farmland where there is room for improvement, and productive farmland. The first level corresponds to land that does not meet minimum production requirements and is therefore subject to occupation or expropriation. The second is land which, while not productive, can be made so in a relatively short period of time and where the owner is encouraged to adapt accordingly and is offered financial assistance. The third level refers to land that is properly managed and productive.
10. 1283. In most cases where land has been reclaimed by the State for the public good, the existing occupants were unable to prove ownership, as they only had dubious deeds or no deeds at all; in many cases the land did not meet production requirements or was simply unproductive or idle. Nevertheless, the Government, through the appropriate channels, complied with established legal procedures and, in those cases, duly compensated the owners for any improvements they may have made. This shows that Venezuela’s policy of complying with the requirements of social justice embodied in the Constitution and in international declarations has in its procedures and execution respected all relevant guarantees, rights and advantages.

Regarding Mr Ángel Eduardo Gómez Sigala

1. 1284. The Committee has already been informed that the law has duly empowered INTI, which is attached to the Ministry of Popular Power for Agriculture and Land, to proceed with the procedure for reclaiming the piece of land known as “Hacienda La Bureche”, Cabudare Parish, Palavecino Municipality, in the State of Lara, essentially to promote the agricultural use of the Río Turbio valley by the immediate revitalization of this otherwise idle piece of land. The entire procedure complied with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Land and Agrarian Development Act and Decree No. 2743 of 10 December 2003 (see Official Gazette No. 331541, 30 December 2003).
2. 1285. The inspection of the farm that was carried out showed clearly that it was underutilized, as it was being used for crops that were not suited to the type of soil and therefore engendering a process of deterioration. The system of management, too, was inappropriate and was thus having a negative impact on the environment that resulted in a total of 83 hectares being left idle on a farm measuring 97.626 hectares in all (not 29 hectares as the IOE states in its communication of 10 February 2011).
3. 1286. Furthermore, regard the situation of Mr Ángel Eduardo Gómez Sigala, he was caught in flagrante delicto and charged by the Public Prosecutor with resisting the authorities and causing light personal injuries (articles 216 and 418 of the Penal Code, respectively), following his assault on a military officer who among other things suffered a dislocated arm. At the time the officer and others with him were carrying out their duties accompanying INTI officials and maintaining public order.
4. 1287. On 26 September 2009 the Criminal Assizes of the State of Lara issued a restraining order, pursuant to article 256.9 of the Criminal Code of Procedure. Mr Gómez Sigala has since been released from custody and all his constitutional rights and guarantees have been respected. He has in fact been elected as a member of the National Assembly for the State of Lara, where he represents the COPEI political party and is currently serving as a Member of Parliament.
5. 1288. The legal proceedings against Mr Gómez Sigala were surrounded by all the procedural guarantees laid down in national and international rules and regulations, and it is therefore unlikely that the courts would withdraw the charges brought against him or that the investigation into the matter be dropped, since the security and judicial bodies involved were merely carrying out their business in strict compliance with Venezuela’s juridical rules and regulations.

Regarding the incidents at FEDECAMARAS headquarters

1. 1289. With regard to the events of 24 February 2008, the IOE states in its communication of November 2008 that, although a complaint was lodged on 26 February 2008 with the Public Prosecutor’s Office requesting “the most comprehensive and exhaustive investigation into the events and the identification of those responsible”, to date no result has been achieved.
2. 1290. Since the IOE claims that on to date no result has been achieved, the Government reiterates what it has already told the Committee about this incident, namely, that the investigation was carried out by the appropriate bodies, that criminal charges were brought against Mr Juan Crisóstomo Montoya González and Ms Ivonne Gioconda Márquez Burgos, and that their arrest was ordered by the courts in 2008, whereupon they were declared fugitives from justice.
3. 1291. The Government also stated before that the suspects, Juan Crisóstomo Montoya González and Ivonne Gioconda Márquez Burgos, were arrested on 6 and 10 May 2010 for their alleged involvement in the incidents that occurred at FEDECAMARAS headquarters and are currently being held at the detention centre in the metropolitan area of Caracas.
4. 1292. That being so, it can hardly be claimed that no result has been achieved, since on the contrary the State, through the appropriate bodies, has undertaken all the relevant investigations and made every effort to catch the suspects as quickly as possible, in full compliance with the law and in the interests of the principles and values of the State.

Regarding the alleged abduction of agricultural and livestock farmers

1. 1293. With regard to the abduction of 25 agricultural and livestock farmers alleged by the IOE in its communication of November 2010, in which it refers to the Government’s irresponsible attitude in not doing anything to have them released, the Government, given the limited and inadequate information and evidence presented, asks the Committee to request that the complainants supply the necessary information so as to establish exactly what incidents and which persons the IOE is referring to.

Regarding the alleged support given to parallel institutions close to the Government

1. 1294. Here again it is clear that Venezuela enjoys complete freedom of association and the right to establish organizations in conformity with the Constitution, other laws and ILO Conventions on the subject. Both employers’ and workers’ organizations are free to form associations without any interference whatsoever. Under no circumstances does the Government encourage or become involved in the establishment or activities of such organizations, let alone show any favouritism or exercise any influence vis-à-vis one or the other.

Regarding the labour solvency procedure and the Foreign Currency Administration Commission (CADIVI)

1. 1295. The juridical basis for the Foreign Currency Administration Commission (CADIVI) can be found in Decree No. 4248, published in Official Gazette No. 38371 on Thursday 2 February 2005. Article 2 of the Decree states that labour solvency refers to an administrative document issued by the Ministry of Popular Power for Labour and Social Security (MINPPTRASS) certifying that employers respect in full the labour and trade union rights of their workers, which is an essential requirement for concluding contracts, agreements and conventions with the State. The document can be obtained rapidly and automatically through the Ministry’s web site at http://www.mintra.gob.ve, where users have access to requirements and other information concerning their request. Employers must register with the National Registry of Enterprises and Establishments on the corresponding web page, for which purpose they are required to submit a number of document concerning the enterprise. Once the request has been submitted and the requisite formalities have been completed, a mere five working days are needed for the Ministry to handle the request, through the appropriate channels. Employers may then collect the solvency certificate from the Labour Inspectorate. As to the procedure, article 4 of Decree No. 4248 stipulates that the Labour Inspectorate must refuse to issue or must revoke a solvency certificate if the employer concerned fails to comply with any MINPPTRASS resolution, refuses to comply properly with an administrative ruling, disobeys any injunction by a competent official, fails to meet the requirements of the Venezuelan Social Security Institute (IVSS) and the National Occupational Prevention, Safety and Health Institute (INPSASEL), fails to comply with a decision of the labour tribunals or infringes workers’ freedom of association, the right to voluntary collective bargaining and the right to strike.
2. 1296. As to resources, should an employer’s application for labour solvency be denied, article 17 of Decree No. 4524 stipulates as follows: “If proof of labour solvency is denied or revoked, the employer concerned may lodge an appeal as provided for in the Administrative Proceedings Act”. As can be seen from the above, the labour solvency procedure provides ample and sufficient guarantees of legality and impartiality for all applicants and entails formalities that are increasingly straightforward and rapid. In other words, the labour solvency procedure is designed not to hamper the economic development or commercial viability of enterprises in any way, let alone to restrict the production and marketing of goods and services. Its purpose is to guarantee the human and labour rights of workers which were all too often violated in the past.
3. 1297. With regard to the procedure for obtaining foreign currency, the Government informs the Committee that the procedure is the same for all enterprises. It is a computerized process to which access may be had through the Government website http://www.cadtvtgob.ve, which contains all the necessary information and requirements for obtaining foreign currency without any discrimination whatsoever. Thanks to this method of administering foreign currency, it has been possible to cope with the fragility and volatility of currency markets and tackle the repercussions of the global crisis, without causing any negative impact on the level of employment or on workers’ wages. Through this procedure CADIVI facilitates the obtention of foreign currency for basic consumer goods (medical supplies and food products) and essential imports. In other words, the State has opted to give priority to requests for foreign currency for the marketing of food products and medical supplies and, in general, for such goods as are considered vital for the wellbeing of the Venezuelan people under the system of centralized planning based on the prior determination of the needs of the population. Consequently, any enterprise that imports vital products or inputs that are necessary but not available in the country have priority for the issue of foreign currency. Similarly, Decree No. 6168 or 17 June 2008, published in Official Gazette No. 38958 of 23 June 2008, introduced another system for speeding up the acquisition of foreign currency for the importation of capital goods, inputs and raw materials for the country’s production and processing sectors. This measure is specifically designed to dispense enterprises from certain CADIVI requirements if their request is for US$50,000 or less in foreign currency and destined for the importation of capital goods, machinery, spare parts or production inputs. These administrative measures, which facilitate the acquisition of foreign currency as approved by the Government, help to boost the country’s production system. (The Government enclosed CADIVI instructions Nos 090, 104 and 106 and Decree No. 6168).
4. 1298. In its communication dated 18 October 2011, the Government confirms its earlier replies, inasmuch as it has already dealt with many aspects of the new allegations presented by the IOE.

Preliminary observations

1. 1299. The Government respectfully requests the Committee to review very carefully the additional material admitted as part of the complaint lodged by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS since, as already noted, they contain allegations to which the Government has already responded in sufficient detail.
2. 1300. The Government again observes that the allegations set out by the complainants go beyond the terms of reference of the Committee on Freedom of Association and in many respects concern political and economic affairs and Venezuela’s legal system. The Government therefore wishes once again to express its dismay on reviewing the Committee’s recommendations, which explicitly request the Government “to revoke the warrant for the arrest of former FEDECAMARAS President Mr Carlos Fernández, so that he may return to the country without risk of reprisals”. The Government wishes to remind the Committee that Mr Carlos Fernández was involved in events that led to the breakdown of constitutional order in the country as a result of the coup d’état that originated in the work stoppage by the employers and the petroleum strike of 2002–03, events that severely disrupted the State of law, severely damaged the Venezuela’s social fabric and caused the county serious economic hardship. It was for these reasons that Mr Carlos Fernández was charged by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the country’s Penal Code.
3. 1301. The Government draws attention most forcefully to the wording used by the Committee, urging compliance with the law in some instances and in others requesting explicitly that legal process be denied. The Government therefore respectfully requests the Committee to reconsider the peremptory tone in which it expresses its recommendations, especially where they run counter to the country’s laws and regulations.
4. 1302. The Government likewise wishes to stress the principles enshrined in Venezuela’s laws and regulations and recognized internationally, such as the presumption of good faith, the right to conduct one’s defence and the impossibility for a party to know whether the Committee is at all concerned about a case that it is examining. For instance, the Committee refers to “the death of one farmer (Mr Franklin Brito) as a result of going on a succession of hunger strikes in protest against the Government for the unjust invasion and expropriation of his land”, where the allegations regarding Mr Franklin Brito are hard to reconcile with the arguments and wording employed by the Committee.
5. 1303. In addition, the Government wishes to make known its displeasure at the way the amplifications adduced by the complainants were considered and given credence in assessing the evidence presented by the Government. The point has been made again and again that employers’ and workers’ organizations have full freedom of association under Venezuela’s legislation and that the Government does not become involved in their establishment or in their activities. Government policy towards these sectors is in no way discriminatory or left to the discretion of the authorities. On social and labour affairs the Government holds regular consultations, meetings and discussions with the employers’ and workers’ organizations, including FEDECAMARAS, and it cannot be held accountable for the decision of a party not to take part in them.

Regarding the aggression denounced by FEDECAMARAS leaders, Mr Noel Álvarez, Ms Albis Muñoz, Mr Luis Villegas and Mr Ernesto Villamil

1. 1304. To begin with, the Government again denies the allegation that it attacked the former President of FEDECAMARAS, Mr Noel Álvarez. The allegations presented by the IOE in its communication of 10 February 2011 state explicitly that it was part of a penal investigation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is in conformity with the law and mandate of the Judiciary and not of the Executive. At the 308th Session of the Governing Body in June 2010, the Government representatives of Venezuela already rejected these unfounded claims presented by the Workers’ group, as the minutes of the meeting show. Moreover, following that 308th Session and at the Office’s request, the Government sent a detailed reply in communication No. 291/2010 of 4 November 2010, which was registered by the ILO’s International Labour Standards Department on 8 November 2010. In that communication the Government duly informed the ILO of the action taken, the investigations conducted and the proceedings engaged by Venezuela’s State bodies in connection with the events involving Ms Albis Muñoz, Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Mr Luis Villegas, former President and executive officers of FEDECAMARAS. On 23 December 2010 the Public Prosecutor’s Office accordingly charged Mr Antonio José Silva Moyega and Jason Manjares with the temporary abduction and attempted aggravated robbery of Ms Albis Muñoz Maldonado. A preliminary hearing was set for 10 February 2011 by the appropriate Supervisory Tribunal, which confirmed the charges and ordered that the accused stand trial on 20 October 2011. As soon as a final ruling on the case has been handed down, the Committee will be duly informed.

Regarding the incidents at FEDECAMARAS headquarters in 2008

1. 1305. The Government states that on 20 June 2010 formal criminal charges were brought of public intimidation and unlawful use of identity papers. The competent State bodies conducted the appropriate investigation, which resulted in charges being brought against Mr Juan Crisóstomo Montoya González and Ms Ivonne Gioconda Márquez Burgos and a warrant being issued for their arrest. A preliminary public hearing was held on 4 November 2011. As soon as a final ruling on the case has been handed down, the Committee will be duly informed.
2. 1306. In both cases the appropriate State bodies immediately carried out all the relevant investigations and made every effort to catch the accused as quickly as possible, in full compliance with the law and with the principles and values of the State.

Regarding the alleged abduction of 25 agricultural and livestock farmers and the death of a farmer (Mr Franklin Brito) in August 2010

1. 1307. With regard to the alleged abduction of 25 agricultural and livestock farmers, the Government repeats the substance of communication No. 028/2011 of 25 February 2011, in which it requested details of the persons and events referred to in the complaint so that, if confirmed, it might order the appropriate investigations. It is still waiting for the complainant to submit that information, failing which the Government explicitly requests the Committee declare that, if the information is not forthcoming by its next meeting, it will not pursue its examination of the allegations and will therefore close the case. It is making this request so to ensure that the Committee’s considerations are uniform, coherent and transparent in all the cases it is examining, just as it ruled on the absence of information from the Government in cases Nos 2674 (paras 1160 and 1165) and 2727 (paras 1179 and 1190) in its 360th report (document GB.311/4/1) adopted at the 311th Session of the Governing Body in June 2011.
2. 1308. With regard to Mr Franklin Brito, the State of Venezuela, through its institutions, guaranteed him the right to health as a fundamental social right and as a legal entitlement closely allied with the right to life, in full compliance with articles 43 and 83 of the Constitution and with the Constitution of the WHO, where it states: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” and “The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.”
3. 1309. Faced with the Mr Franklin Brito’s entirely personal decision not to take any food, and although the petition on which he based his decision was not contemplated by the legislation in force and there was no evidence or legal grounds to support his claims, the State guaranteed that his demands would be dealt with through administrative and jurisdictional channels. The following is a brief account of what happened:
   • 1. On 2005 a Mr Franklin Brito engaged in an act of protest, sewing his mouth closed and declaring that he was on a hunger strike until he received a reply from various State bodies regarding an alleged failure to pay monies owing to him for work done and unjust decisions concerning land belonging to him. The Office of the Public Ombudsman reported that, having looked into the matter fully, it had found no written record of any complaint on the subject. Nevertheless, in order to protect Mr Franklin Brito’s life, the Office, after carrying out all the relevant investigation, established that Mr Brito had not cashed the cheque in payment for his work and had said that he wanted a fixed-term appointment. Following the action taken by the Ombudsman, the Legal Advisory Division of the Ministry of Education and Sport reported that Mr Brito had given up his job as a supply teacher and that it could not keep the post open indefinitely, since by their very nature such posts were to meet a temporary shortage of staff and, when the appointee ceased to fill the post, it was automatically terminated.
   • It should be borne in mind that under national law access to fixed-term appointments in the public service is possible only by a process of public examinations and interviews, as stipulated in article 19 of the Public Service Statutes Act.
   • 2. As part of the land ownership and land use regularization process, Mr Franklin Brito was granted title to 290.20 hectares comprising the Yguaraya farm in the La Tigrera sector of the Municipality of Sucre in the State of Bolívar, by decision of the INTI board of directors (Session 15.99, point 2.123) on 11 May 1999. In 2003 Mr Rafael Gregorio D’Amico Baquero and Ms Concepción de Jesús Antoimas Fajardo were granted farming rights and title to pieces of land adjoining the Yguaraya farm, where they had been living since the end of 1990.
   • Mr Franklin Brito thereupon lodged a complaint against his neighbours for encroaching on part of his land. In 2005 and 2006, following Mr Brito’s complaint, the boundaries in question were verified by the State of Bolívar branch of INTI, which established that there was no such encroachment and recommended that fences be built to delimit the property clearly. It also pointed out that Mr Brito must farm the land, as it was apparent from information obtained that the only productive use he made of it was to rent it out. INTI thus confirmed that Mr Brito owned the land that he had been granted in 1999 and recorded the fact once again in the agrarian register.
   • In 2006 Mr Brito applied to the Second Court of First Instance for Commerce, Agriculture and Rights of Passage, which confirmed that there was no encroachment and declared his complaint irreceivable. The same day Mr Brito lodged another complaint with the Fifth Higher Agrarian Tribunal of the State of Monagas, which was likewise declared irreceivable on the grounds that there was no encroachment. In 2007 Mr Brito appealed against the decision to the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court of Justice, which ruled that his allegations of encroachment and trespassing were unfounded. When his appeal was denied, Mr Brito went back on hunger strike.
   • For humanitarian reasons, even though it was fully aware of the absence of any encroachment as claimed by Mr Brito, the Government decided to award him compensation in the form of repairs, a tractor and the deforestation of 40 hectares of his land so that he could begin farming it. In spite of this, in 2009 Mr Brito requested a large sum of money in compensation, which he was refused. Once again, Mr Brito resorted to a hunger strike to bring pressure to bear on the Government, this time in front of the headquarters of the Organization of American States (OAS).
   • Representatives of a number of international bodies, such as the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations in Venezuela (Alfredo Missair), the OAS, the International Red Cross (Mr Hernán Bongioanni), the International Red Crescent, the Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization acknowledged the Venezuelan Government’s willingness to engage in a transparent dialogue in an effort to save Mr Brito’s life and protect his health, although certain national and international media clearly attempted to present a biased view of the situation and use him for anti Government political purposes.
   • What is quite certain is that the Government did what it could to keep Mr Brito alive until his death from voluntary starvation, which was at no time directed against the Government.
   • It is important to emphasize that the Government did everything it could to protect Mr Brito’s physical integrity, to the extent that while he was still alive it obliged him to receive medical attention strictly to protect his health and life as a fundamental human right.
   • The foregoing account contradicts the allegation of the IOE and FEDECAMARAS that the late Mr Brito’s hunger strikes were “in protest against the Government for the unjust invasion and expropriation of his land”, which is totally false and just one of the tissue of lies concocted by the employers’ organization to sully the good name and action of the Venezuelan Government.

Regarding the alleged harassment and intimidation of the private sector, FEDECAMARAS and its leaders by attacking property and occupying and expropriating farms

1. 1310. The Government states that it has repeatedly denied all the allegations presented by FEDECAMARAS and the IOE, all of which are quite baseless. The Government has always acted and continues to act in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It emphasizes once again that the land rescue process embarked upon by the Government through INTI does not condone any confiscations, occupations or attacks on private property belonging to representatives of employers’ organization or to private employers. On the contrary, the Ministry of Popular Power for Agriculture and Land, in the exercise of its mandate, has embarked upon the rescue and reclamation land suitable for growing vegetables and other strategic produce in order to maximize the soil’s potential from the agrological standpoint. It has thus fostered the cultivation of broccoli, spring onions, leeks, coriander, parsley, lettuce, beetroot, tomatoes, chilli peppers and courgettes, which are considered to be strategic products of social interest, as a means of ensuring Venezuela’s autonomy in agricultural foodstuffs, in order to prevent land from being left idle or unproductive or used unlawfully, in accordance with the Constitution and the Land and Agrarian Development Act. The ultimate objective is for the country to conform to the model of endogenous growth and social economy, based on the Simón Bolívar National Project 2007–13, whereby the Government is pursuing social justice through the gradual inclusion of the least privileged segment of the population in the country’s priority social and economic activities, as stipulated in the Constitution, while focussing on the needs of each sector, encouraging the gradual establishment of organized groups and respecting the right to work.
2. 1311. Currently, the Government continues, the land available for agricultural and livestock production and for forestry has considerably diminished as the urban areas have grown and developed over during the past two decades, and this has rendered it necessary to encourage and maintain a minimum area of agricultural land to meet sectoral needs in the most vulnerable part of the country as part of a process of sustainable development. It is the duty of the State to foster conditions necessary for the development of a sustainable agriculture as the strategic basis of the country’s integrated rural development, not just through legislation but by taking appropriate action to create employment and guarantee the rural population and small and medium-size producers an adequate standard of living, thanks to their participation in the production process through all kinds of community labour associations and collective ownership.
3. 1312. The Government’s action in respect of the cases listed below is based on the provisions of articles 127, 128, 305, 306 and 307 of the Venezuelan Constitution, articles 13.2 and 48.6 to 48.8 of the Environment Act, article 6 of the Land-Use Management Act and articles 2, 68, 82–96 and 115 of the Land and Agrarian Development Act:

   • Case (identification of the farm concerned)		Legal and technical grounds for State action, by farm		Social situation of farm employees at the time of the administrative action
     La Escondida, 904.14 hectares, State of Barinas, Rojas Municipality, San Hipólito sector		Rescue procedure scheduled under articles 82–96 of the Land and Agrarian Development Act and implemented by the National Land Institute (INTI) in 2010. The soil is type II and III, excellent for vegetable growing; however, the land has in the past been used for livestock production, which is unsuited to this type of soil, which is classified worldwide as particularly fertile and ideal for agriculture. Consequently, in line with the political and strategic guidelines for self-sufficiency in agricultural foodstuffs, the land is currently destined for the development of primary production units and the production of strategic goods.		Employees registered with the Venezuelan Social Security Institute (IVSS) and the Compulsory Savings Fund for Housing (FAOV) under employer no. 030928592. The farm does not conform to any kind of industrial safety standards. Wages comply with laws and regulations. No pay for national holidays, overtime or food (of any kind) and no payment in kind.
     Hacienda La Bureche, 97.61 hectares, State of Lara Municipality, Palavecino, El Carabalí sector		Rescue procedure scheduled under articles 8296 of the Land and Agrarian Development Act and implemented by INTI in 2009 as part of the strategic agro-ecological rescue plan of the Turbio valley. The valley includes the aquifers that supply part of the drinking water for the population of Barquisimeto and Cabudare. The Government declared the area a special agricultural exploitation zone under Decree No. 2734 of 30 December 2003. Previously, Decree No. 782 of 1980 established a land-use management scheme for the area with a view to the agricultural development of the Río Turbio valley. The land showed no sign of productive activity, i.e. it is idle and unproductive. The soil is type I and IV, suitable for planting and ideal for agriculture, and is currently being developed by the Venezuelan Food Corporation (CVAL) for the production of strategic agricultural goods.		There has always been a proper labour relationship, with holidays and end-of-year bonuses but the workers are not registered with the IVSS. At the time the administrative rescue action was engaged, they had not signed any contract for the current year.
     Hacienda Las Misiones de Caripe, 536.3 hectares, State of Monagas, Caripe Municipality, Las Misiones sector		Rescue procedure scheduled under articles 82–96 of the Land and Agrarian Development Act and implemented by INTI in 2009. The land showed no signed of productive activity and was entirely idle. The soil is type IV suitable for planting, notably fruit trees, root crops and tubers. The land has been scheduled for the establishment of a primary production unit that will supply Caripe’s fruit-processing plant with raw materials.		No sign of any employees
     Hacienda Bucarito, .377.60 hectares, State of Lara, Simón Planas Municipality, La Tronadora sector		Rescue procedure scheduled under articles 82–96 of the Land and Agrarian Development Act and implemented by INTI in 2010. The land is unproductive. The soil is type IV suitable for agriculture and is being improperly used, in violation of article 115 of the Act and contrary to the agro-food self-sufficiency policy.		No sign of any employees at the time of the inspection.
     Finca Vieja Elena, 531.00 hectares, State of Barinas, Barinas Municipality, Las Matas sector		Rescue procedure scheduled under articles 82–96 of the Land and Agrarian Development Act and implemented by INTI in 2010. Action was taken because the land was being used for livestock production and therefore underutilized. The soil is type I and IV suitable for the agriculture (vegetables and tubers) and is being improperly used, in violation of article 115 of the Act and contrary to the agro-food self-sufficiency policy.		At the time of the implementation of the administrative rescue plan, employees received none of the social benefits provided for by law, except for three meals a day for which they were charged 140 bolivars. Staff responsible for milking and pasture-land had only three days’ leave per month and received only half pay for national holidays.
     Finca Centro de Recría San Isidro, 904.14 hectares, Libertador Municipality, Caño Lindo sector		No State-decreed administrative procedure has been engaged,

     >

Regarding the cases concerning Owens – Illinois, the Turbio steel plant and Agroisleña, SA

1. 1313. The Government states that these cases have nothing whatsoever to do with the allegations contained in the complaint or with the complainants themselves, and it therefore invites the Committee once again to review very carefully the validity and receivability of allegations for inclusion in Case No. 2254. Furthermore, the expropriation procedure provided for in national legislation is quite unrelated to the attacks and harassment aimed at the private sector, FEDECAMARAS and its leaders that they accuse the Government of. The Government repeats that the appropriation procedure is based on article 236.2 and 11 and article 115 of the Constitution, in accordance with article 5 of the Public or Social Utility Expropriation Act and article 6 of the Access to Goods and Services Defence Act. The Government is perfectly willing to provide the legal reasons for the said procedures, but the Committee would be in no position to discuss or oppose its decisions on the matter of public utility, let alone to query the Government’s economic policy in taking such action.

With respect to Owens – Illinois

1. 1314. In strict compliance with the Constitution, the Government decreed the expropriation of the United States glass processing plant located in Venezuela, after establishing that the company had taken over 64 per cent of production in the sector and was therefore operating under an illegal monopoly that constituted a violation of the state of law and justice in the country, inasmuch as it ran counter to the principle of free competition provided for in the Constitution. In addition to combating a monopoly, the decision served to protect the environment, since the company had for over 50 years been damaging the mountain region of Los Guayos y Valera by extracting unlimited quantities of sand, carbonate and limestone for the manufacture of glass. At the same time, the Government guaranteed the labour rights of the employees, set up works’ committees and respected fully the collective agreements covering the great majority of workers in the plants located in Valencia, State of Carabobo and in Valera, State of Trujillo. Moreover, the Government’s decision strengthens the country’s industrial sector thanks to the production of glass containers for food, drinks and medicines, etc., that are necessary for the development of the country and for the wellbeing of the people. The Government wishes to place on the record that in strict compliance with Venezuelan legislation, a legal process is to be initiated following publication of the decree on expropriation which will entail numerous meetings with the company’s executives in a spirit of mutual respect and tranquillity and will result in the payment of a fair price.

With respect to the Turbio steel plant

1. 1315. The Government has decreed the expropriation of the Turbio steel plant (Sidetur) located in the Punta Cuchillo sector of Ciudad Guayana, State of Bolívar, in strict compliance with constitutional principles. The company controlled 40 per cent of the steel bars consumed in the country in construction, metal carpentry and structural reinforcement implements such as steel plates, billets, square or round bars for industrial hardware, etc. The decision will enable the State to guarantee the supply of steel bars, which are a major item in the construction of housing, especially given the strategic and priority needs of thousands of Venezuelan victims of the natural disaster caused by the heavy rains of December 2011. It will also serve to combat the company’s speculative marketing policy and thereby promote the development of the construction sector in line with the needs of the people and the development of the country. Moreover, the measure complies with the State’s decision to take control of all strategic activities linked to the processing of iron in the Guayana region, in order to integrate all the aluminium, iron and steel production processes and, thereby ensure that the country’s means of production serve the interests of all Venezuelan citizens. In this the workers of Venezuela play a fundamental role, in keeping with the status, value and force of the Organic Act governing Enterprises engaged in Activities in the Steel Sector in the Guayana region.

With respect to Agroisleña, SA

1. 1316. The Government has decreed the expropriation of the transnational company Agroisleña, SA, which held the position of a speculative oligopoly engaged in unfair competition by creating unfavourable conditions for others producer for 50 years, in violation of the state of law and justice in Venezuela. The company had imposed an exponential increase in prices for inputs that were up to 250 per cent higher than market prices. That then led to an increase in the price of finished products, the exploitation of rural producers and the generation of a speculative spiral. In addition, it encouraged the use of a series of toxic agro-chemicals, including some whose sale is regulated or banned worldwide. The monopoly under which Agroisleña, SA, operated extended to the agricultural production chain, where it earned high fees for technical assistance, harvesting services and storage of agricultural products, thereby ensuring the financial and technological dependency of small producers on a technology involving a high concentration of insecticides. The company opened up a credit line with the Bank of Venezuela at 8 per cent interest which it passed on to producers at 13 to 15 per cent, without the requisite authorization to operate as a sort of pseudo-bank. Article 3 of the Food Security and Self-Sufficiency Act stipulates the following: “Any assets that ensure the availability and opportune supply of quality foodstuffs in sufficient quantity for the people of Venezuela, together with the necessary infrastructure for them to operate, shall be deemed of public utility and social interest. In cases where the security of agricultural foodstuffs is at stake, the Executive may decree the compulsory acquisition of the assets concerned, subject to fair compensation and opportune payment of all or part of one or more assets needed to execute works or develop activities relating to the production, commerce, distribution and storage of foodstuffs.” The Government has reduced the production costs of agricultural inputs by 30 to 40 per cent, thereby further encouraging the development of the agricultural sector, guaranteeing self sufficiency in agricultural foodstuffs and promoting the distribution chain of agricultural inputs by means of the industrialization, processing, transport, storage and sale of products and by-products derived from agricultural and livestock production. The Government repeats that, once the decree on expropriation has been published and in strict compliance with relevant legislation, a judicial process will result in the payment of a fair price based on a joint review by the company’s board of directors and the Government of each and every operation engaged in by Agroisleña, SA In addition, all the company’s employees have been guaranteed that their labour and social rights will be respected.

Regarding Mr Eduardo Gómez Sigala

1. 1317. Commenting on the legal proceedings brought against Mr Gómez Sigala, now a deputy of the National Assembly, the Government states that from the start he enjoyed all the guarantees provided for under the national and international laws and regulations. Following the interim measures taken by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Government repeats that the investigation indicated that there were no grounds for conviction and the Fifth Public Prosecutor’s Office for the State of Lara decided on 26 August 2010 to dismiss the case. It is thus clear that there was absolutely no question of “personal harassment”, as claimed by the complainant, and that on the contrary the proper legal proceeding were fully adhered to.

Regarding the labour solvency appeals procedure and the Foreign Currency Administration Commission (CADIVI)

1. 1318. The Government states once again that labour solvency refers to an administrative document issued by the body responsible for labour policy, which certifies that employer respect workers’ social, labour and union rights, which have for years been denied in violation of the Constitution, specific laws on the subject and article 2 of Decree No. 4248, published in Official Gazette No. 38371 on 2 February 2008. Standard procedures require that complainants be guaranteed due legal process and impartiality.

Regarding the labour solvency procedure

1. 1319. A labour solvency certificate can be obtained quickly and automatically from the website of the Ministry of Popular Power for Labour and Social Security, http://www.mintra.dov.ve/, where users can access the necessary requirements and information. Employers must first register with the National Registry of Enterprises and Establishments on the web page and present a number of documents concerning the enterprise. Five days later, the Ministry transmits the certificate through the appropriate channels and the employer can collect it from the Labour Inspectorate where he or she is officially domiciled.
2. 1320. In accordance with article 2 of the Decree No. 4248, the labour inspector must refuse to issue or revoke a certificate if the employer has not complied with established legal requirements. Article 17 of Resolution No. 4524 of 21 March 2006, published in Official Gazette No. 38402 of the same date, provides that, if labour solvency is denied or revoked, the employer may appeal against the decision in accordance with articles 49 and 94 of the Administrative Procedures Act. It is clear from the above that the procedure is transparent, non-discriminatory and legal, and that the national laws and regulations provide for the possibility to appeal.

Regarding the procedure laid down by the Foreign Currency Administration Commission (CADIVl)

1. 1321. Concerning the procedure for acquiring foreign currency, the Government repeats that it is the same for all employers and that a computerized application system exists through CADIVl’s webpage http://www.cadivi.gob.ve, which has all the necessary information and requirements. It is important to note that, in order to handle requests for foreign currency for basic consumer goods (medical supplies and food) and for the importation of capital goods, inputs and raw materials, CADIVI has introduced administrative measures to facilitate the Government’s foreign currency system and thus strengthen the country’s production sector and the wellbeing of its citizens.
2. 1322. The Standards and Procedures Manual for registering the documents required by CADIVI sets out the appeals procedure provided for in articles 49 and 94 of the Administrative Procedures Act. The procedure showing the requirements for initiating the computerized appeals process in all transparency is also available on CADIVI’s website.

Regarding the alleged lack of independence of employers’ organizations owing to Government interference Government in their affairs

1. 1323. The Government has emphasizes and reiterates its earlier statement that there is no lack of independence whatsoever among Venezuela’s employers’ organizations, nor is there any discrimination vis-à-vis organizations in the employer sector, where they are all treated equally. It repeats that Government cannot under any principle be held accountable for the decision of some employers to exclude themselves. Furthermore, it wishes to register its dismay at and repudiation of the additional information presented by the IOE in its communication dated 30 June 2011 as a supplement to its complaint in Case No. 2254 presented to the ILO on 4 July. The Government rejects and denies the accusations most categorically and finds it very difficult to express an opinion on the substance of the matter as presented, as it is without foundation. It refutes every word of the additional information, which does not compromise the Government’s position in any way.
2. 1324. The Government categorically refuses to accept the accusation once again that it that it interferes in the affairs of employers’ organizations, especially as it is based on documents that did not emanate from the Government or its representatives and which it therefore considers of doubtful origin and authorship and completely invalid. The fact that the persons alleged by the IOE to have issued the said documents deny all knowledge of them has to be taken up with other bodies and is outside the Government’s sphere of responsibility. In stating its position the Government cannot be expected to discuss so called electronic mail of which it is unaware and which does not in any way compromise or challenge its action, which has always abided by the law. The Government trusts that the Committee will dismiss these unfounded claims in strictest compliance with its principles.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1325. The Committee first of all notes the Government’s statements under the heading “Preliminary observations” where it refers to: (1) the Committee’s alleged failure to lend any credit to the arguments, replies and evidence it has advanced and its readiness to believe the allegations of the complainants, even though most of them are baseless; (2) allegations to which the Government has already replied in detail; (3) its claim that many of the complainants’ allegations are beyond the purview of freedom of association and have to do with the Venezuela’s political, economic, criminal or juridical affairs; and (4) the Committee’s peremptory tone regarding compliance with the law and its request that the legal procedure not be respected, in the form of recommendations that conflict with Venezuela’s laws and regulations. The Committee wishes to point out in this respect that the present case has been included in the category of extremely serious and urgent cases and that the gravity of the situation faced by FEDECAMARAS, Venezuela’s principal employers’ organization, is confirmed by the nature and evidence of alleged incidents such as the temporary abduction of four employers’ leaders (one of them, an employers’ representative on the Governing Body of the ILO, having sustained three bullet wounds), two attacks on FEDECAMARAS headquarters, highly aggressive declarations by the authorities against this organization that are liable to create a climate of intimidation, and serious shortcomings in terms of social dialogue with the organization. To compound the situation the Government has failed to respond to the Committee’s principal recommendations; the Committee regrets, for example that instead of trying to resolve the problems raised through direct dialogue with FEDECAMARAS as requested, the Government states that it “cannot be held accountable” for an organization’s decision to exclude itself. If the Committee sometimes expresses itself forcefully and energetically – as it does in its dealings with other countries – it is because of the seriousness of the problems raised and/or because of the Government’s refusal to comply with the Committee’s recommendations and, ultimately, with the objective of its procedure which is to promote respect for the rights of employers’ and workers’ organizations under Conventions Nos 87 and 98 which Venezuela, moreover, has ratified, by means of a tripartite process offering every guarantee of impartiality.
2. 1326. Regarding the alleged acts of violence against employers’ leaders and members of FEDECAMARAS and against its headquarters, the Committee wishes to refer to the conclusions it reached in March 2011 [see 359th Report, paras 1264–1266]:
   • – The Committee notes with deep concern the allegations of the IOE according to which: (1) on the night of 27 October 2010, in Caracas, a group of five armed and hooded men machine-gunned, kidnapped and maltreated the President of FEDECAMARAS, Mr Noel Alvarez, its former President, Ms Albis Muñoz, the executive director, Mr Luis Villegas and its treasurer, Mr Ernesto Villamil. The kidnappers fired three shots into the body of Ms Albis Muñoz, employer member of the ILO Governing Body. After she had lost a lot of blood, the attackers dragged her from the vehicle in which she was travelling and dumped her near the Pérez Carreño Hospital, where she was taken some time later by a passing police patrol. The other three abducted persons were released two hours later, after the abductors had faked an abduction, expressed their intention to demand a ransom of 300 million bolivars, and stolen their belongings. According to the IOE, the manner of the attack suggests that its purpose was to decapitate the business leadership of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, although it was afterwards disguised as an abduction.
   • – The Committee notes the statements according to which: (1) the Government condemns and investigates any act of violence against persons living in the country. It therefore deplores and condemns what happened on 27 October 2010 to Ms Albis Muñoz and the FEDECAMARAS leaders, Messrs Noel Álvarez, Luis Villegas and Ernesto Villamil; (2) as soon as the facts were known, the competent authorities of the Venezuelan State immediately launched an investigation in order to clarify what had happened, identify those responsible and bring them to trial, in accordance with national legislation; (3) given that the investigation into the incident is in progress, until the results are known, any speculative suggestion such as that expressed by the Secretary-General of the IOE, is unjustified and not serious, when he indicates that “ ... purpose of the attack was to decapitate Venezuela’s business leadership, although it was afterwards disguised as an abduction”. In this regard, no representative of FEDECAMARAS made a similar official complaint in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; the Government categorically rejects the irresponsible, unfounded and false allegations with which, with impunity, they seek to link public institutions, even up to the highest representatives of the State, with acts of violence against Venezuelan business leaders; (4) on 10 November 2010, as a result of the investigations carried out by the competent authorities, two people, Mr Antonio José Silva Moyega and Mr Jaron Manjares, were arrested for their direct participation in the incident which occurred on 27 October. In addition a warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr Cristian Leonardo Castro Rojas, who is currently a fugitive from justice; and (5) a further two persons are suspected of being involved, but they have not yet been identified with certainty and all of these people are members of a criminal gang engaged in and abduction. The arrested persons are being tried in Caracas Metropolitan District Court 35.
   • – The Committee deplores the offences that were committed, emphasizes their seriousness and requests the Government to take all the steps within its power to arrest the other three persons involved in the abductions and wounding, and to keep it informed of developments in the investigations. The Committee expresses the hope that the persons guilty of these crimes will soon be convicted and sentenced in proportion to the seriousness of the offences in order that such incidents will not be repeated and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
3. 1327. The Committee notes with concern the IOE’s statement in its additional information that Ms Albis Muñoz, employers’ leader and one of the victims of aggression, has asserted that neither of the suspects arrested (Mr Antonio José Silva Moyega and Mr Jason Manjares) were the instigators of the aggression, that the four abducted officials were held for about two hours and that Ms Albis Muñoz sustained three bullet wounds, which does not bear out the contention that the motive for the crime was car theft as indicated by the Director of the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigations Unit. The Committee notes the Government’s statement refuting the idea of a supposed attack by the Government and confirming that the criminal investigation is in the hands of the Public Prosecutor. The Government states that on 23 December 2010 the Public Prosecutor’s Office brought charges against Mr Antonio José Silva Moyega and Jason Manjares, accusing them of temporary abduction, that a preliminary hearing was held on 10 February 2011 by the appropriate Supervisory Tribunal, which confirmed the charges and ordered that the accused stand trial on 20 October 2011, and that as soon as a final ruling on the case has been handed down, the Committee will be duly informed.
4. 1328. The Committee wishes to express its grave concern that according to the allegations the suspects have not been identified by Ms Albis Muñoz as being responsible for the crime and that the charges do not include attempted homicide and the wounding of the employers’ leader. The Committee also observes with concern that the Government provides no information on whether Mr Christian Leonardo Castro Rojas (a fugitive from justice) and the two other suspects in the case have been arrested. Consequently, the Committee has no alternative but to reiterate its earlier recommendation as follows:
   • The Committee deplores the offences that were committed, emphasizes their seriousness and requests the Government to take all the steps within its power to arrest the other three persons involved in the abductions and wounding, and to keep it informed of developments in the investigations. The Committee expresses the hope that the persons guilty of these crimes will soon be convicted and sentenced in proportion to the seriousness of the offences in order that such incidents will not be repeated and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
5. 1329. Regarding the allegation that the Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation on 23 December 2010 to ascertain whether, in his statement of 22 December 2010, the President of FEDECAMARAS, Noel Álvarez, committed a crime by calling on the FANB to respect the Constitution and not to accept orders that they judged might violate the Constitution or any other law (according to the Government the President of FEDECAMARAS asked the members of the FANB to read article 25 of the Constitution, which states: “Any act on the part of the public authority that violates or encroaches upon the rights guaranteed by this Constitution and by law is null and void, and public employees ordering or implementing such an act shall incur criminal, civil and administrative liability, as applicable, without the fact of having followed the orders of a superior serving as an excuse,” and declared: “I wish to appeal to them to exercise their freedom of conscience by refusing to carry out any order which they deem to be a violation of the Constitution”). The IOE states that President Chávez declared on 24 December 2010 that the FEDECAMARAS President’s appeal to military personnel to respect the Constitution and the law was a “call to war” and expressed the opinion that it was a “statement that bordered on the criminal”. The IOE concludes that Mr Noel Álvarez is not guilty of any crime since he had at no time called on any one not to respect the Constitution but rather to respect it.
6. 1330. The Committee regrets that the Government has not sent any observations on this allegation. In the absence of a reply, the Committee wishes to state that, given the context, the declarations of the President of FEDECAMARAS do not in its opinion appear to contain any criminal content and, if they were as reported by the IOE should not normally have given rise to a criminal investigation. However, so that it can reach its conclusions in full possession of the facts, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the allegation.
7. 1331. Regarding the alleged attacks on FEDECAMARAS headquarters in 2007, the Committee requested FEDECAMARAS to file an official complaint on the subject with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Committee reiterates that recommendation and states that if the organization has not done so by the Committee’s next meeting, it will not pursue its examination of this allegation any further; noting however that an environment of harassment and lack of confidence in the public authorities is not conducive to the proposed lodging of official complaints.
8. 1332. Regarding the alleged bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters on 24 February 2008, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the persons charged, Mr Juan Crisóstomo Montoya González and Mrs Ivonne Gioconda Márquez Burgos, have confessed in full to the crimes of public intimidation and unlawful use of identity papers, that a preliminary public hearing was set for 4 November 2011 and that, as soon as a final ruling on the case was handed down, the Committee would be duly informed. The Committee emphasizes the importance that the guilty parties should be punished in proportion to the seriousness of the crimes committed and the employer organization compensated for the loss and damage on account of these illegal acts. The Committee is waiting to be informed of the sentence handed down.
9. 1333. Observing the various acts of violence committed against FEDECAMARAS or its officials, the Committee again draws the attention of the Government to the fundamental principle that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate free of violence, intimidation and fear, as such situations of insecurity are incompatible with the requirements of Convention No. 87.
10. 1334. Regarding the alleged criminal charges brought against Mr Eduardo Gómez Sigala and his subsequent trial, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s statement regarding the dismissal of the case by the Fifth Public Prosecutor’s Office on 26 August 2010 when the investigation showed that there was no evidence against him and that he is now at liberty. Moreover, according to the government, Mr Gómez Sigala has been elected to the National Assembly where he is currently exercising his functions.
11. 1335. Regarding the Committee’s recommendation that the Government restore the La Bureche farm to Mr Eduardo Gómez Sigala and compensate him fully for all the damage caused by the authorities in occupying the farm, the Committee notes the Government’s declaration that: (1) the farm measures 97.626 hectares and not 29 hectares as the IOE stated in its complaint; (2) the land rescue procedure involved was carried out in accordance with the law and in view of the fact that 83 hectares of the land was underutilized and being used for crops that were not suited to the type of soil, thereby engendering a process of deterioration and having a negative environmental impact. The Committee notes that there is a contradiction between the allegations and the Government judgment that the expropriated farm of employers’ leader Mr Eduardo Gómez Sigala was idle. Be that as it may, the Committee observes that the Government does not deny the IOE’s allegation that the farm is currently a military training centre (contrary to the Government’s statement that the purpose of the land rescue procedure is to encourage the agricultural use of the Valle del Río) or the allegation that Mr Eduardo Gómez Sigala has not received any compensation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to respond fully to the allegations and in the meantime cannot but maintain its earlier recommendation. The Committee therefore once again calls on the Government to return the “La Bureche” farm property to the employers’ leader Mr Eduardo Gómez Sigala without delay and to compensate him fully for all losses sustained as a result of the intervention by the authorities in seizing his farm.
12. 1336. Regarding the alleged abduction of 25 agricultural and livestock farmers, the Committee notes that the Government needs detailed information on the events and persons referred to by the complainant organizations if it is to make any observations. The Committee therefore requests the IPE and FEDECAMARAS to provide that information and indicates that if the organizations have not done so by the Committee’s next meeting, it will not pursue its examination of these allegations any further.
13. 1337. Regarding the alleged death of a livestock farmer (Mr Franklin Brito) as a result of going on a succession of hunger strikes in protest against the Government for the unjust invasion and expropriation of his land, the Committee notes the extensive information supplied by the Government, and notably its assertion that it did everything it could to protect Mr Brito’s physical integrity, even to the extent of obliging him to receive medical attention. The Committee observes that, according to the Government, Mr Brito’s hunger strike was not directed against the Government or against the occupation and expropriation of his farm but that was apparently linked to the non-payment of some of his earnings (in fact, the Government states, he did not cash the cheque in payment because he wanted a fixed-term appointment as he had given up his job as a supply teacher) and to a border dispute between neighbouring farmers after the land-use and regulation process had been completed and had awarded him title to 290.20 hectares. The Committee duly notes this information and invites the complainants to provide their observations thereon.
14. 1338. In their earlier allegations the IOE and FEDECAMARAS stated the following [see paras 1204–1208]:
    • The IOE and FEDECAMARAS highlight that in the last few months, the Government has multiplied attacks against the private sector, issuing numerous expropriation orders against companies without the slightest legal justification and without any financial compensation. In this regard, on 2 June 2010, President Chávez declared – economic war on the business sector and its representatives, especially FEDECAMARAS. He added – I declare myself in a state of economic war. Let’s see who comes out on top, you bourgeois trash or those who love their country.
    • It should be emphasized that recently, on 3 October 2010, the company Agroisleña SA, which is crucial to the agriculture and livestock industry of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the chief distributor of farming products with 82 sales outlets and eight silos across the country, was nationalized. The order for the expropriation of Agroisleña was widely rejected by producers and company workers. In Barinas, the state police used teargas to disperse a protest by 150 producers. After this action, one producer was arrested and injured.
    • On 25 October 2010, an order was approved for the expropriation for the Venezuelan subsidiary of the United States company, Owen Illinois, the world leader in the manufacture of glass containers for drinks, food, medicines and cosmetics.
    • On 30 October 2010, President Chávez ordered the expropriation of the Siderúrgica del Turbio (Sidetur), a subsidiary of the private Venezuelan steel group SIVENSA, and six urban complexes were paralysed and a further eight were temporarily occupied
    • The announcement concerning Owen Illinois brought the number of expropriated companies in 2010 to 200, most of them without any compensation. In 2009, 139 companies were expropriated, not including companies in the agricultural sector. As highlighted by the firm Eco-analítica and the Venezuelan American Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VenAmCham), nationalizations and state takeovers worth $23,315 million have been ordered since 2007, but only $8,600 million have been paid in compensation, representing one third of the expropriations. The pace of takeovers of private companies by the Government without compensation has been accelerating in recent months. In the last three years, the Venezuelan Government nationalized 371 companies in strategic sectors such as electricity, banking, cement, steel, oil and food. Of this total, half were taken over between January and August 2010. The exponential number and headlong rush of expropriations without compensation by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is seriously endangering the viability, development and national output in key sectors of the economy, which as well as causing heavy economic losses also generates unemployment and poverty across large swathes of the population.
15. 1339. The Committee notes the Government’s assertion that these cases have nothing whatsoever to do with the allegations contained in the complaint or with the complainants themselves and that it invites the Committee once again to review very carefully the validity and receivability of the allegations it includes in Case No. 2254. The Committee emphasizes, however, that the complainant organization’s allegations occur in a general climate of hostility on the part of the Government and of discrimination vis-à-vis FEDECAMARAS and its members.
16. 1340. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, the expropriation procedure provided for in the national legislation has nothing in common with the attacks and harassment aimed at the private sector, FEDECAMARAS and its leaders that they accuse it of, that the appropriation procedure is governed by article 236.2 and 11 and article 115 of the Constitution, pursuant to article 5 of the Public or Social Utility Expropriation Act and article 6 of the Access to Goods and Services Defence Act, and that, although the Government is perfectly willing to provide the legal reasons for the said procedures, the Committee would be in no position to discuss or oppose its decisions on the matter of public utility, let alone to query the Government’s economic policy in taking such action. The Committee notes that, more to the point, the Government states, concerning the Owens–Illinois case that, in strict compliance with the Constitution, the Government decreed the expropriation of the United States glass processing plant located in Venezuela, having established that the company had taken over 64 per cent of production in the sector and was therefore operating under an illegal monopoly that constituted a violation of the state of law and justice in the country, inasmuch as it ran counter to the free competition provided for in the Constitution. In addition to combating a monopoly, the decision served to protect the environment, since the company had for over 50 years been damaging the mountain region of Los Guayos y Valera by extracting unlimited quantities of sand, carbonate and limestone for the manufacture of glass. At the same time, the Government guaranteed the labour rights of the employees, set up works’ committees and respected fully the collective agreements covering the great majority of workers in the plants located in Valencia, State of Carabobo and in Valera, State of Trujillo. Moreover, the Government states that its decision strengthens the country’s industrial sector thanks to the production of glass containers for food, drinks and medicines, etc., that are necessary for the development of the country and for the proper wellbeing of the people. The Government places on the record that in strict compliance with Venezuelan legislation, a legal process is to be initiated following publication of the decree on expropriation, which will entail numerous meetings with the company’s executives in a spirit of mutual respect and tranquillity and will result in the payment of a fair price. The Committee regrets that it has not been informed of the action taken or the outcome.
17. 1341. Regarding the expropriation of the Turbio steel plant, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it has decreed the expropriation of the Turbio steel plant (Sidetur) located in the Punta Cuchillo sector of Ciudad Guayana, State of Bolívar, in strict compliance with constitutional principles. The company controlled 40 per cent of the steel bars consumed in the country in construction, metal carpentry and structural reinforcement implements such as steel plates, billets, square or round bars for industrial hardware, etc. The decision will enable the State to guarantee the supply of steel bars, which are a major item in the construction of housing, especially given the strategic and priority needs of thousands of Venezuelan victims of the natural disaster caused by the heavy rains of December 2011. It will also serve to combat the company’s speculative marketing policy and thereby promote the development of the construction sector in line with the needs of the people and the development of the country. Moreover, the measure complies with the State’s decision to control all strategic activities linked to the processing of iron in the Guayana region in order to integrate all the aluminium, iron and steel production processes, thereby ensuring that the country’s means of production serve the interests of all Venezuelan citizens. In this the workers of Venezuela play a fundamental role, in keeping with the status, value and force Organic Act governing Enterprises engaged in Activities in the Steel Sector in the region of Guayana.
18. 1342. Regarding the expropriation of Agroisleña, SA, the Committee notes that the Government has decreed the expropriation of the transnational company Agroisleña, SA, which held the position of a speculative oligopoly engaged in unfair competition by creating unfavourable conditions for others producer for the past 50 years, in violation of the state of law and justice in Venezuela. The company had imposed an exponential increase in prices for inputs that were up to 250 per cent higher than market prices. This then led to an increase in the price of finished products, the exploitation of rural producer and the generation of a speculative spiral. In addition, it encouraged the use of a series of toxic agro-chemicals, including some whose sale is regulated or banned worldwide. The monopoly under which Agroisleña, SA, operated extended to the agricultural production chain, where it earned high fees for technical assistance, harvesting services and storage of agricultural products, thereby ensuring the financial and technological dependency of small producers on a technology involving a high concentration of insecticides. The company opened up a credit line with the Bank of Venezuela at 8 per cent interest which it passed on to producers at 13 to 15 per cent, without the requisite authorization to operate as a sort of pseudo-bank. Article 3 of the Food Security and Self-Sufficiency Act stipulates the following: “Any assets that ensure the availability and opportune supply of quality foodstuffs in sufficient quantity for the people of Venezuela, together with the necessary infrastructure for them to operate, shall be deemed of public utility and social interest. In cases where the security of agricultural foodstuffs is at stake, the Executive may decree the compulsory acquisition of the assets concerned, subject to fait compensation and opportune payment of all or part of one or more assets required for the execution of works or the development of activities relating to the production, commerce, distribution and storage of foodstuffs.” The Government has reduced the production costs of agricultural inputs by 30 to 40 per cent, thereby further promoting the development of the agricultural sector and guaranteeing self-sufficiency in agricultural foodstuffs as well as the distribution chain of agricultural inputs by means of the industrialization, processing, transport, storage and sale of products and by-products derived from agricultural and livestock production. The Government repeats that, in strict compliance with the relevant legislation, following the publication of the decree on expropriation a judicial process is to ensure that will result in the payment of a fair price based on a joint review by the company’s board of directors and the Government of each and every operation engaged in by Agroisleña, SA In addition, all the company’s employees have been guaranteed that their labour and social rights will be respected.
19. 1343. The Committee requests the complainant organizations to provide their comments on the above information and requests the Government to examine the allegations with FEDECAMARAS and to assess the situation.
20. 1344. Regarding the alleged harassment and intimidation of officials and members of FEDECAMARAS, which according to the allegations include the occupation and expropriation of farms and enterprises (in many cases without due compensation), the Committee reached the following conclusions at its March 2011 meeting [see 359th report, para. 1272]:
    • The Committee notes that, according to the IOE, as a consequence of their work to defend their members, representatives of employers’ organizations, and the private sector in general, are constantly harassed and threatened. The IOE complains of attacks against the property of the former Presidents of FEDECAMARAS, Messrs Vicente Brito, Rafael Marcial Garmendia and Carlos Sequera Yépez, as well as against Mr Manuel Cipriano Heredia, the current President of FEDENAGA (the leading agricultural sector body affiliated to FEDECAMARAS) and its former President, Mr Genaro Méndez, and also Mr Eduardo Gómez Sigala, former President of CONINDUSTRIA (the leading industrial sector body affiliated to FEDECAMARAS). Also, according to the IOE, the National Land Institute (INTI) together with the National Guard constantly occupy productive farms under the so-called “Land Recovery Plan”. The INTI could only reclaim those lands which it owned, and that is not the case of the properties of the expropriated business leader.
21. The Committee also notes the new allegations presented by the IOE which has sent extensive details concerning the alleged confiscation of the La Escondida farm in the State of Barinas owned by Mr Egildo Luján, Director of the livestock section of FEDECAMARAS and vice-president of FEDENAGA; of the Las Misiones Caripe farm in the State of Monagas owned by the AGROBUCARE company, whose President is the former President of FEDECAMARAS, Mr Vicente Brito; and of the Bucarito farm owned by the former President of FEDECAMARAS, Mr Rafael Marcial Garmendia. According to the allegations, none of these farm owners have been compensated for the occupation of their premises. The Committee notes that the IOE also refers to a threatened occupation (Vieja Elena farm owned by the President of FEDENAGA, Mr Manuel Cipriano Heredia; in its reply the Government mentions that a land rescue procedure is scheduled) and of a failed attempt at confiscation (the Cattle Raising Centre in San Isidro, State of Táchira, owned by the former President of FEDENAGAS, Mr Genaro Méndez; since the Government in its reply states that no administrative procedure has been initiated in connection with the Centre, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this point any further unless the complainants provide new information). The Committee also notes that, according to the IOE, the Government has over the past few years expropriated 280 urban buildings for which it has paid compensation in only 5 per cent of the cases.
22. 1345. The Committee notes the Government’s extensive information on the legal basis for the “land rescue” process and on the objectives set (self-sufficiency in agricultural foodstuffs, development of the indigenous populations and social economy, gradual social insertion of the least privileged segments of society, development of sustainable agriculture, total elimination of the “latifundista” regime). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the land rescue procedure conducted by the National Land Institute does not involve the confiscation or occupation of, or attacks on, buildings, but that the Institute can intervene in cases where land is idle or uncultivated and where it is unproductive or being used illegally. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government – which differs widely from that presented by the IOE – on the allegations concerning the owners and why the rescue procedures were initiated (idle or unproductive land, or, in certain cases, land being used for raising cattle when its high fertility is particularly suitable for growing crops) but recalls that its function is not to determine whether or not the authorities’ actions comply with the law. The Committee wishes to emphasize that it is not within its mandate to speak to matters of agrarian reform except in so far as the steps taken constitute discrimination against employers or where they concern enterprises where workers are employed and where breaches of Conventions Nos 87 or 98 are alleged. On this point the Committee cannot but observe that the persons affected by the land rescue procedures include at least five important officials or former officials of FEDECAMARAS or of affiliated associations, and that it is impossible to discount the possibility of discrimination. In its previous allegations the IOE did, moreover, emphasize that four employers’ leaders had not been paid the compensation provided for in the legislation and since they cannot now carry out their productive activities, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that they are granted fair compensation without delay. Moreover, in view of the divergencies between the allegations and the Government’s reply concerning the alleged instances of confiscation/rescue (cited in the previous paragraph) and their legal justification, as well as the significant number of officials and former officials of FEDECAMARAS and its affiliates that are concerned, the Committee requests the Government to initiate a frank dialogue with those affected and with FEDECAMARAS on the confiscations/rescues referred to and to keep it informed of developments. The Committee also requests the Government to send its observations on the attacks on the buildings owned by Mr Carlos Sequera Yépez, former President of FEDECAMARAS.
23. 1346. Regarding the alleged lack of bipartite and tripartite social dialogue with FEDECAMARAS, the Committee notes with concern the IOE’s new allegations concerning the approval without any tripartite consultation of laws that affect the interests of employers and their organizations. In addition to the Defence of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination Act (which will be examined below and which restricts the international operations of NGOs), the IOE refers to laws that allegedly restrict the freedom of association, regulate the content of the Internet, give the State greater control over telecommunications and the possibility of punishing radio and television stations, and the Communal Economic System Act which, in its opinion, is so vague as to leave it open to broad interpretation that would be prejudicial to freedom of expression. The IOE further alleges that at the end of December 2010 a new Act once again confers powers on the President that allow him to govern by decree for the following 18 months. This Act covers numerous fields affecting employers’ organizations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has expressed its concern that the Act constitutes a serious threat to the principle of the separation of powers and to freedom of association. This is the fourth enabling Act under which over 100 laws have been passed, and the IOE adds that under the latest enabling Act the Land and Housing Emergency Act was promulgated without any tripartite consultation despite the fact that it governs the expropriation of urban land and buildings. The Committee notes that the Government refers back to statements made in earlier examinations of this case, adding that it regularly holds consultations, meetings and discussions with employers’ and workers’ organizations, including FEDECAMARAS, that that it cannot be held accountable for an organization’s decision to exclude itself. The Committee regrets that the Government has not responded specifically to these allegations of the IOE or to the Committee’s recommendations of March 2011 and urges it to do so without delay. Moreover, observing that the serious shortcomings in social dialogue continue to exist, the Committee reiterates its earlier recommendation, as follows:
    • – deeply deploring that the Government has ignored its recommendations, the Committee urges the Government to establish a high-level joint national committee in the country with the assistance of the ILO, to examine each and every one of the allegations and issues in this case so that the problems can be solved through direct dialogue. The Committee trusts that the Government will not postpone the adoption of the necessary measures any further and urges the Government to keep it informed in this regard;
    • – the Committee expects that a forum for social dialogue will be established in accordance with the principles of the ILO, having a tripartite composition which duly respects the representativeness of workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard and invites it to request technical assistance from the ILO. The Committee also requests it once again to convene the tripartite commission on minimum wages provided for in the Organic Labour Act;
    • – observing that there are still no structured bodies for tripartite social dialogue, the Committee emphasizes once more the importance that should be attached to full and frank consultation taking place 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 detailed consultations with the most representative independent workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that any legislation concerning labour, social and economic issues adopted in the context of the Enabling Act be first subject to genuine, in-depth consultations with the most representative independent employers’ and workers’ organizations, while endeavouring to find shared solutions wherever possible;
    • – the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed with regard to social dialogue and any bipartite or tripartite consultations in sectors other than food and agriculture, and also with regard to social dialogue with FEDECAMARAS and its regional structures in connection with the various sectors of activity, the formulation of economic and social policy and the drafting of laws which affect the interests of the employers and their organizations;
    • – the Committee requests the Government to ensure that as part of its policy of inclusive dialogue (including within the Legislative Assembly), FEDECAMARAS is duly consulted in the course of any legislative debate that may affect employer interests, in a manner commensurate with its level of representativeness.
24. 1347. The Committee deeply deplores that the Government has once again ignored these recommendation despite the fact that the Committee has been insisting on them for years.
25. 1348. Regarding the alleged discrimination by the authorities against FEDECAMARAS and the allegations of favouritism vis-à-vis parallel organizations close to the Government, the Committee reproduces here its earlier conclusions on the subject [see 359th report, paras 1288–1289]:
    • The Committee notes that the IOE alleges that the finances parallel organizations to FEDECAMARAS with official subsidies. It attaches, in this regard, an extract from the financial report of the Economic and Social Development Bank (BANDES) of 30 June 2007. This report indicates that Entrepreneurs for Venezuela (EMPREVEN) was granted an allocation of 2,267,846 bolivars and a further allocation of 438,378 bolivars. Furthermore, national financial institutions give priority to cases processed by EMPREVEN (the organization backed by President Chávez) to the detriment of those which are not affiliated to it. The Foreign Exchange Commission (CADIVI) allocated dollars for imports in 91 per cent of the cases processed by EMPREVEN. The Government’s support to official companies was also expressed by the investment of three billion bolivars in the Bicentenary Fund which finances “social production companies” which participate in export and import substitution plans, but not to private enterprises represented by FEDECAMARAS. According to the IOE, the intention to replace private companies, which are being strangled by legal constraints and requirements, with socialist enterprises which obtain preferential credits, is a fact. The consequence of this situation is that since the President of the Republic came to power, the number of companies in the country fell from 11,000 to 7,000.
    • The Committee observes with regret that the Government has not replied to these allegations of discrimination against FEDECAMARAS and its members concerning parallel bodies and organizations close to the Government. The Committee requests the Government to send without delay its observations on these allegations and wishes to emphasize that by favouring or disadvantaging certain organizations compared with the rest, governments can influence the attitude of workers or employers when they choose which organization they wish to join, which is incompatible with the principle contained in Convention No. 87, whereby public authorities must refrain from any interference which would restrict the rights enshrined in the Convention.
26. 1349. The Committee regrets that the Government once again has not responded specifically to these allegations and confines itself to asserting that it does not encourage or become involved in the establishment or activities of employers’ organizations, to denying across the board that there is no favouritism, discrimination or lack of independence with respect to any Venezuelan employers’ organization and affirming that the Government cannot by any principle be held responsible for the self-exclusion of certain members of the employers’ sector. The Committee therefore reiterates its earlier conclusions, recommendations and principles.
27. 1350. Furthermore, the Committee notes the IOE’s new allegations denouncing the lack of independence of, and the Government’s interference in, parallel employers’ organizations that it has been supporting for the past five years as part of the employers’ delegation to the International Labour Conference. The Committee observes in this respect that the IOE is referring to correspondence (electronic mail which it attaches) from a senior official of the Ministry of Popular Power for Agriculture to an official representative diplomat of the Venezuelan Government in Geneva and to the EMPREVEN, Confagan, Fedeindustrias and Coboien organizations – which it describes as being under Government influence – which includes instructions and suggestions for these organizations in their dealings with the IOE and with the Conference Credentials Committee.
28. 1351. The Committee notes the Government’s statements concerning these allegations, according to which: (1) there is no lack of independence among Venezuela’s employers’ organizations nor any discrimination vis-à-vis organizations affiliated to the employers’ sector but that all such organizations are treated on an equal footing, and that the Government cannot by any principle be held accountable for some members of the sector deciding to exclude themselves; (2) the Government expresses its dismay at and repudiation of the additional information presented by the IOE; it repudiates and rejects categorically any such accusation and finds it very difficult to express an opinion on the substance of the matter as presented, as it is without foundation; it refutes every word of the additional information which does not compromise the Government’s position in any way; (3) the Government also categorically refuses to accept the accusation once again that it interferes in the affairs of employers’ organizations, especially as they are based on documents that were not issued by the Government or its representatives and which it therefore considers of doubtful origin and authorship and completely invalid; (4) the fact that the persons alleged by the IOE to have issued the said documents deny all knowledge of them has to be taken up with other bodies and is outside the Government’s sphere of responsibility; (5) in stating its official position the Government cannot be expected to entertain so-called electronic mail of which it is unaware and which does not in any way compromise or challenge Government action that has always abided by the law; (6) the Government trusts that the Committee will dismiss these unfounded claims in strictest compliance with its principles.
29. 1352. In this respect, and noting that the complainants’ allegations also concern alleged denial of rights before the ILO, the Committee calls on the Government to verify without delay with the senior officials concerned whether or not they or their representatives sent the electronic mail attached to the IOE’s deposition.
30. 1353. Regarding the Committee’s question as to the means of recourse available to employers who feel that they are victims of discrimination involving refusal to issue a labour solvency certificate (a document issued by the Ministry of Popular Power for Labour certifying that employers respect in full the labour and trade union rights of their workers which is an essential requirement for concluding contracts with the State) or official foreign exchange authorizations, the Committee duly notes the Government’s statement concerning the functioning of the system and, in particular, the existence of means of recourse for anyone who feels victimized.
31. 1354. Regarding the Bill on international cooperation (Defence of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination Bill), the Committee had hoped in its earlier recommendation that the Bill would provide for some form or rapid appeal in cases of discrimination (among organizations) to avoid interference by the authorities in the access of workers’ and employers’ organizations to external funds. In this respect, the Committee notes that in its new allegations, the IOE states that the National Assembly approved at its second reading the Defence of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination Act, which prevents Venezuelan employers’ and workers’ organizations from receiving any kind of international assistance, inasmuch as article 4 of the Act stipulates that the assets and other income of politically motivated or political rights defence organizations must derive exclusively from national assets and resources. According to the IOE, the Government considers that employers’ and workers’ organization are included in this category. The IOE emphasizes that the Act was approved at its second reading despite the objection voiced by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights to the ambiguity of the wording of certain clauses of the Bill and the broad discretion it left the authorities responsible for implementing the Act. In this respect, the Committee regrets that the Government has not responded to these allegations and that the IOE has sent the Committee the text of the Bill approved at its second reading but that it appears that the Act itself has not yet been adopted.
32. 1355. Under these circumstances, the Committee wishes to draw attention to the principle whereby all national organizations of workers and employers should have the right to receive financial assistance from international organizations of workers and employers respectively, whether or not they are affiliated to the latter [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 744]. However, the Committee is unable to determine whether the Bill applies to employers’ and workers’ organizations and calls on the Government to ensure respect for the above principle and, if the Bill does indeed apply to them, to take the necessary measures without delay to amend the Bill (or the Act) so as to guarantee explicitly the rights of employers’ and workers’ organizations to receive international financial assistance without prior authorization from the authorities for activities related to the promotion and defence of the interests of their members.
33. 1356. Regarding the complainant organization’s comments on the Central Planning Commission Act, the Committee had observed in its earlier examination of the case that the legislation establishes strong state intervention in the economy and national economic structure under the aegis of central planning in order to construct the Venezuelan socialist model and had requested the complainant organizations to provide information on the relationship between the allegations and the violation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The Committee reiterates this recommendation and indicates that if the organizations have not done so by the Committee’s next meeting, it will not pursue its examination of these allegations any further.
34. 1357. Finally, as regards the High-level Tripartite Mission decided upon with the consent of the Government in connection with the issues raised, the Committee observes that this question is dealt with in Governing Body document GB.313/INS/INF/5. Also, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations in relation to the recent IOE communication dated 20 February 2012 alleging repeated failure to engage in tripartite consultations with respect to legislative matters.