Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 383, Octobre 2017

1. 687. The Committee last examined this case at its May–June 2017 session, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body [see 382nd Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 330th Session (June 2017), paras 602–627].
2. 688. The complainant organizations presented new allegations in a communication dated 8 May 2017.
3. 689. The Government sent its observations in a communication received on 2 October 2017.
4. 690. 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. 691. At its June 2017 meeting, the Committee made the following interim recommendations regarding the allegations presented by the complainant organizations [see 382nd Report, para. 627]:
   • (a) While once again expressing its deep concern at the various and serious forms of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, their leaders and affiliated companies, the Committee insists on the urgency of the Government taking strong measures to prevent such actions and statements against individuals and organizations that are legitimately defending their interests under Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which have been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The Committee strongly urges the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that FEDECAMARAS is able to exercise its rights as an employers’ organization in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against its leaders and members and to promote, together with that organization, social dialogue based on respect.
   • (b) As regards the abduction and mistreatment in 2010 of FEDECAMARAS leaders Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz (the latter sustained three bullet wounds), the Committee urges the Government to send a copy of the ruling by which one of the accused was sentenced and to state whether other people were charged (providing information on any related proceedings and the outcome thereof) and whether FEDECAMARAS and the leaders concerned received compensation for the damage caused by these illegal acts. As regards the February 2008 bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters, the Committee again insists that the Government send its observations on the points raised by FEDECAMARAS and, in particular, on the outcome of the appeal against the closing of the case and on any investigation carried out in order to determine whether anyone else was involved in the attack, and thus to shed light on its motive and to prevent any recurrence.
   • (c) As regards the structured bodies for bipartite and tripartite social dialogue that need to be established in the country, the plan of action to be established in consultation with the social partners with stages and specific time frames for implementation with the technical assistance of the ILO, as recommended by the Governing Body, and the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders, the Committee deeply deplores the lack of information and further progress in this regard. It recalls that the conclusions of the mission refer to a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, and a tripartite dialogue round table, with the participation of the ILO and an independent chairperson. The Committee also recalls that at its March 2017 session, in examining the complaint presented under article 26 of the ILO Constitution against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela alleging non-compliance with Conventions Nos 26, 87 and 144, the Governing Body urged the Government to institutionalize without delay a tripartite round table, with the presence of the ILO, to foster social dialogue for the resolution of all pending issues, including matters relating to the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders. The Committee insists on the urgency of the Government adopting immediately tangible measures with regard to bipartite and tripartite social dialogue as requested by the high-level tripartite mission and the Governing Body. Deeply deploring that the Government has not yet provided the requested plan of action, the Committee once again urges it to implement fully without delay the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission endorsed by the Governing Body and to report thereon.
   • (d) The Committee, in line with the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission, again urges the Government to take immediate action to create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations. The Committee urges the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this regard.
   • (e) The Committee, having noted the Government’s observations concerning the allegations of detention and trial of employers and leaders in various sectors, deeply deplores that once again a full answer has not been provided in relation to the individuals who are the subject of investigation procedures. As regards the cases of the meat processing company and the supermarket chain, the Committee urges the Government not merely to give an indication of general criminal offences but to indicate the specific allegations against each of the people under investigation or trial by the judicial authorities and to provide precise information on the progress of the respective judicial proceedings. Furthermore, in the case of the meat processing company, the Committee urges the Government to state whether these employers and leaders have been subjected to precautionary or detention measures and again requests the authorities to consider lifting any preventive detention measures imposed on them.
   • (f) As regards the adoption by the President of the Republic of numerous decree-laws on important economic and production-related issues without consulting FEDECAMARAS, deeply deploring that the Government has not made any observations concerning their impact on social dialogue and the persistent nature of this situation, the Committee firmly urges that full consultations on draft legislation covering labour, economic or social matters that affect their interests and those of their members be held without delay with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, including FEDECAMARAS.
   • (g) The Committee expresses its deep concern at the lack of information and progress on the above issues and urges the Government to take all the requested measures without delay.
   • (h) The Committee will examine the new allegations, made by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS and the reply of the Government thereto at its next meeting and requests the Government to send further relevant observations in this respect.
   • (i) The Committee draws the special attention of the Governing Body to the extremely serious and urgent nature of this case.

B. The complainants’ allegations

1. 692. In their communication of 8 May 2017, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS denounce new violations of the principles of freedom of association and the absence of effective social dialogue. The complainants denounce that spokespersons for or linked to the Government have continued to attack FEDECAMARAS, its leaders and the business sector. They provided numerous examples of unsubstantiated and intimidating accusations and threats made through the media by, among others, the Deputy Chairperson of the government party – a member of parliament who was appointed to the Government as co-leader of the National Anti-Coup Committee for Peace and Sovereignty – and the President of the Republic himself. The complainants also denounce attacks on the employers’ sector by government authorities, including threats of imprisonment, assaults, arrests of leaders, employees and shareholders, accusing them of corruption or economic destabilization and subjecting them to public ridicule without guaranteeing due process and their right of defence: they refer, in particular, to the imposition of orders to reduce prices (with detention of employees) and confiscation of goods (combined with threats to initiate criminal proceedings against the President of FEDECAMARAS, alleging that the latter described one of the cases of confiscation as theft, which is untrue); looting in the stores of the State of Bolívar, and the detention and referral for trial before the military courts of representatives of the leading credit card transaction company, in relation to faults in the operation of the system (accusing them of treason); and arbitrary measures against bakeries with the support of the security forces (without respecting the right of defence and resulting in the occupation of some bakeries).
2. 693. The complainant organizations also denounce the absence of effective dialogue and reiterate that the dialogue processes which the Government had announced before the Governing Body of the ILO have not been put in place (neither the action plan that provided for social dialogue nor the inclusion of FEDECAMARAS in a socio-economic dialogue round table have taken place). The complainants denounce that FEDECAMARAS has been excluded through new governmental measures having an impact on business performance and undermining freedom of association. In this regard, the complainants referred to the approval, without consultation, of the purchase from farmers of 50 per cent of agro-industrial production for use by local supply and production committees. The complainants also denounce the creation, without consultation, of the Workers’ Production Boards (WPBs), with three employees’ representatives from the enterprise and four from the State, which constitutes an additional mechanism for state interference (as these are subject to the guidelines of the Government, with the presence and support of the armed forces). The complainants further pointed out that among the representatives of the State, one belongs to the Bolivarian Armed Forces, one to the Bolivarian militias, one is a youth representative and one belongs to the National Women’s Union. The complainants denounce the presentation of the WPBs by the People’s Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MPPPST), according to which the WPBs have been conceived as a civil–military union for the professional, technical and political training of workers and they must have the support of all trade union organizations. The complainants refer to Decree No. 17 of 8 November 2016 on the creation of the WPBs, issued under the state of emergency for economic hardship. The complainants further denounce the creation of the General Staff of the Working Class (a government organization to strengthen the WPBs) and the Labour Feminist Brigades (a body to promote control of the entire social process of work in each company), as well as other strategies for using the country’s labour movement in support of the Government and against employers, in violation of freedom of association. In addition to these bodies, the complainants referred to the complex structure of highly politicized state organizations with which companies must interact (including various supervisory bodies such as the National Superintendence for the Defence of Socio-economic Rights) thereby limiting the freedom of action of employers and workers, making it virtually impossible for enterprises to conduct normal business activities and rendering ineffective the exercise of freedom of association. The complainants also stressed that heavy state intervention and interference limit the operational capacity of employers and have led to a decrease in the number of enterprises and the consequent loss of decent jobs – largely because of the absence of social dialogue with the most representative actors in the country in relation to the adoption of macroeconomic measures and of policies that ensure the sustainability of enterprises and jobs. The complainants further denounce that another economic emergency decree was enacted on 13 September 2016 (and, once again, its wording is part of the Government’s campaign to stigmatize the business and trade union sectors – attributing the poverty suffered by the Venezuelan population to an economic war allegedly waged by certain sectors of the national economy – including repressive measures against the employers), as well as the approval, without consultation, of increases in the minimum wage and the cestaticket (food voucher) in January and April 2017 and February 2017, respectively.
3. 694. The complainants allege that notwithstanding the fact that written communications were exchanged and meetings held between FEDECAMARAS and the MPPPST (specifically, on 11 and 31 January and 27 April 2017), these meetings, which were held in a climate of institutional respect, were purely formal in nature, did not take place within structured dialogue mechanisms or in a climate of sufficient trust between the parties to support the realization of effective dialogue and were carried out simultaneously with the aforementioned intimidating attacks on FEDECAMARAS, its affiliated organizations and its leaders, adding that the invitations to attend these meetings were couched in intimidating terms by the Minister in the media. The complainants further state that: (i) although the MPPPST admitted at the meeting of 9 January 2017 that the consultation regarding the increase in the minimum wage in January 2017 had been omitted and that, by a letter of 14 February 2017, FEDECAMARAS had been requested to express its views on the policy of minimum wage increases (to which FEDECAMARAS responded on 23 February 2017), on 24 February, the increase impacting the food benefits was published without due tripartite consultation; and (ii) although at the meeting held on 27 April 2017 the Minister asked for suggestions regarding the following salary increase, FEDECAMARAS was unable to express specific considerations or participate in an effective dialogue thereon because the MPPPST did not transmit to it any specific terms or elements regarding the increase under consideration and, again, an increase in the minimum wage was adopted on 30 April 2017 without tripartite consultation. Despite this, FEDECAMARAS reiterates once again its general complaints that isolated wage increases do not solve the problem of the workers’ loss of purchasing power and that comprehensive measures are required. Finally, the complainants point out, in relation to the National Council on the Productive Economy, that while it is possible that one of its chambers of commerce or employers might participate in a meeting on a one-time basis, FEDECAMARAS as an institution is still not a member of the aforementioned Council.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 695. In a communication dated 23 May 2017, the Government had provided its observations replying to the allegations of the complainant organizations of 8 May 2017. Regarding the allegations of intimidating attacks on FEDECAMARAS, its affiliated organizations and its leaders, the Government referred to the information it provided to the Governing Body during its 329th Session (March 2017). Furthermore, in its observations, the Government affirmed that: (i) the various measures that allegedly constituted attacks on various business sectors were not arbitrary and were carried out in accordance with the law and with the goal of protecting the population (in relation to allegations of arrests and intimidation of leaders and shareholders of a consortium of credit card transaction companies, the Government indicates that upon proof that faults in the electronic payment platform had been deliberately caused as a form of financial sabotage, the competent authorities proceeded to arrest the perpetrators, and that it was in no way an act of intimidation against Venezuelan businessmen); (ii) the purchase of 50 per cent of agro-industrial production was carried out in accordance with the constitutional mandate to ensure the availability of commodities within the context of economic warfare and the creation of WPBs was carried out to promote the participation of the working class in the management of production, without replacing or opposing the trade union organization; and (iii) the increase in the cestaticket (food voucher) was the result of its natural annual adjustment and the MPPPST had asked FEDECAMARAS, in its communication dated 14 February 2017, to submit its proposals concerning the salary increase that was customary for Labour Day. The replies, received from FEDECAMARAS on 23 and 27 April 2017, did not contain any concrete proposals.
2. 696. In its communication dated 29 September 2017, the Government sent its observations concerning the aforementioned recommendations of the Committee.
3. 697. Concerning recommendation (a), the Government once again denies that FEDECAMARAS, its affiliates or its leaders have been persecuted, pressured, threatened or subjected to any act of violence as a result of their condition and exercise of trade union activity. The Government alleges that it has not refused to recognize FEDECAMARAS as one of the most representative employers’ organizations. The Government argues that, however, while at the international level FEDECAMARAS wishes to legitimize its status as a representative organization of employers, at the national level it acts as a political organization in opposition to the legitimately elected Government. The Government submits that the acquiescence of FEDECAMARAS with regard to the destabilizing political activities that have been taking place in the country since April 2017 was clear and evident, in an attempt to disregard the institutional framework and forcefully put an end to the established constitutional order, ignoring the democratically elected authorities. It also alleges that FEDECAMARAS made public calls to suspend the election process of the National Constituent Assembly on 30 July 2017. Based on these arguments, the Government once again requests the Committee to stop examining these matters, which it considers to fall outside its scope, and that particular political interests should no longer be allowed to be used in the campaign of attacks against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
4. 698. With regard to recommendation (b) of its previous examination of the case, the Government reiterates that since September 2015, by virtue of a final ruling, which is currently being enforced, the perpetrator of the acts that took place in 2010 against the representatives of FEDECAMARAS was sentenced to 14 years and eight months’ imprisonment. The Government indicates that the facts in question were chance acts completely unrelated to the trade union status of the affected persons, and therefore requests the Committee to refrain from further examining this matter. As regards the granting of compensation to FEDECAMARAS and the leaders concerned in the case, the Government indicates that it will act to the extent appropriate and where so determined by a final judicial ruling.
5. 699. With regard to recommendations (c) and (d) of its previous consideration of the case, the Committee notes that the Government emphasizes its commitment to advancing consensus and dialogue in maintaining peace. The Government emphasizes that FEDECAMARAS has been invited by the highest Governmental bodies to join the honest and politically disinterested dialogue at a time when individual economic and political interests, both internal and external, attempt to ignore the institutional framework and the rule of law in the country. In this regard, the Government transmits its response to the communication of 2 August 2017 from FEDECAMARAS (reporting on the appointment of the new Management Committee of this organization), in which the MPPPST welcomed the suggestion of dialogue made by FEDECAMARAS in its letter. In this letter of reply, the Minister calls on FEDECAMARAS to deal without distractions with the contribution of the business sector in this process, as well as to renounce individual and political interests that have historically been used to justify actions contrary to the Constitution and the laws of the Republic (also inviting FEDECAMARAS to condemn any action, internal or external, that contributes to the destabilization of the country or attempts to infringe on national sovereignty). The Government indicates that the National Constituent Assembly having been formed, the invitation for FEDECAMARAS to participate remains open, free of demands and agendas. Nevertheless, the Government reports that, unfortunately, FEDECAMARAS refuses to recognize the full powers of the National Constituent Assembly and has disregarded the Government’s efforts to engage in direct and honest bipartite dialogue.
6. 700. The Government also recalls that, previously, at the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2017, the Minister of MPPPST requested the support of the Director-General to hold a tripartite meeting at ILO headquarters in the presence of his representatives, in addition to the representatives of FEDECAMARAS and the Bolivarian Socialist Confederation of Urban, Rural and Fisheries Workers (CBST), as the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in the country. The Government indicates that, unfortunately, FEDECAMARAS, ignoring, with a hint of arrogance, the CBST as the most representative workers’ organization and claiming that it has political ties with the Government, coupled with the destabilizing situation that was emerging in the country at that time, decided not to attend the meeting a few minutes before its commencement. The Government emphasizes that this attitude is at odds with FEDECAMARAS’ continual and constant requests to the ILO for technical assistance for the implementation of social dialogue with the Government.
7. 701. With regard to recommendation (e) of its previous examination of the case, the Government provides, in relation to the case of the meat processing company, the following information on the criminal investigations initiated: (i) in March 2015, charges were filed against Ms Tania Carolina Salinas Rebolledo and Ms Delia Isabel Rivas Colina in relation to the commission of the crimes of speculation, boycotting, fraudulently misrepresenting the quality of goods, price rigging, selling expired foodstuffs and criminal conspiracy; these persons are currently waiting for the relevant preliminary hearing to be held while their bank accounts have been suspended and frozen as a result of a provisional injunction granted at the national level; (ii) Ms Delia Isabel Rivas Colina, as well as Ms Anllerlin Guadalupe López Graterol, Mr Yolman Javier Valderrama and Mr Ernesto Luis Arenad Pulgar are subject to precautionary measures alternative to imprisonment; and (iii) a preventive detention measure was imposed on Ms Tania Carolina Salinas Rebolledo (who is a fugitive from justice). Regarding the supermarket chain, the Government reports that: (i) in May 2015 charges were brought against Mr Manuel Andrés Morales Ordosgoitti and Mr Tadeo Arriechi Franco for the commission of the crimes of boycotting and destabilization of the economy; (ii) in November 2015, the competent court replaced the detention of accused persons with alternative precautionary measures; (iii) on 23 January 2017 the preliminary hearing was held and the court ordered the closing of the case (and consequently the cessation of the precautionary measures ordered); and (iv) the Public Prosecutors’ Office filed an appeal against the decision ordering the closing of the case on 30 January 2017.
8. 702. With regard to recommendation (f) of its previous consideration of the case, the Government indicates that, as the ILO is aware, the Government has conducted consultations and convened meetings on the issue of wages and other labour matters with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations (including FEDECAMARAS and its affiliated organizations) but FEDECAMARAS has refused to take part in those consultations and meetings and has ignored this dialogue, acting in a way that is not in accordance with the law, showing no respect or consideration for the other participating sectors. The Government refers in particular to FEDECAMARAS’ refusal to take part in the dialogue to which it has been invited, within the framework of the work of the National Constituent Assembly, to contribute to the country’s economic and social development (the Government refers to the decree of 31 August of the National Constituent Assembly calling for a national constituent dialogue of the productive sectors throughout the country). The Government states that the fact that there has been no progress on social dialogue in the country was due to the expression by FEDECAMARAS of political-partisan interests, which are unrelated to labour and business matters and not in accordance with the constitutional and legal order. In this regard, it points out that FEDECAMARAS has refused to engage in dialogue with the Government and the most representative workers’ organizations (remembering that it did not participate in the ILO-sponsored meeting during the International Labour Conference in 2017). The Government expresses the hope that FEDECAMARAS recognize the institutional framework of the country and leaves the door open to engage in dialogue in conditions of public recognition, either within the framework of the National Constituent Assembly or any other governmental body.
9. 703. Finally, the Government indicates that it reserves the opportunity to continue to report on the other conclusions and recommendations of the Committee, while at the same time stating that it does not agree with them and that it will expand its reply in due course.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 704. As regards recommendation (a) from its previous examination of the case (allegations of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, its leaders and affiliated companies), the Committee notes with deep regret that the Government is again using its reply to accuse the complainant organization to be linked to those who carried out destabilizing actions in the country and gives no indication that it has taken any measures to prevent acts and statements of stigmatization and intimidation, as the Committee recommended. The Committee notes once again with regret the persistence of attacks, threats and interference in the country’s employer sector and against its leaders, impairing the capacity of the employers’ organizations to defend the interests of their members. Under these circumstances, the Committee regrets that it must reiterate its previous recommendation and urges the Government to take the requested measures without delay. In this regard, the Committee is bound to reiterate that for the contribution of trade unions and employers’ organizations to be properly useful and credible, they must be able to carry out their activities in a climate of freedom and security. This implies that, in so far as they may consider that they do not have the basic freedom to fulfil their mission directly, trade unions and employers’ organizations would be justified in demanding that these freedoms and the right to exercise them be recognized and that these demands be considered as coming within the scope of legitimate trade union activities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 36]. The Committee again notes that, throughout its examination of this case, it has been witness to many serious accusations levelled against FEDECAMARAS by the Government and has noted with great concern the many allegations of attacks against this organization, emphasizing that, taken as a whole, these allegations create a climate of intimidation of employers’ organizations and their leaders that is incompatible with the requirements of Convention No. 87. In this regard, the Committee regrets that it is bound to recall once again the principle whereby the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 44]. It firmly urges the Government to take all the necessary measures in this regard and with a view to the promotion of social dialogue based on respect. The Committee recalls that, according to the Declaration of Philadelphia, which is part of the ILO Constitution, the war against want requires to be carried on by an effort in which the representatives of workers and employers, enjoying equal status with those of governments, join with them in free discussion and democratic decision with a view to the promotion of the common welfare.
2. 705. As regards recommendation (b) from its previous examination of the case (allegations of violence, specifically, the abduction and mistreatment of FEDECAMARAS leaders Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz in 2010), the Committee regrets that the Government neither sends, despite repeated requests by it, a copy of the ruling issued (in its previous examination of the case, the Government indicated that it had sent a request to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to obtain a copy thereof) nor provides more detailed information on the granting of compensation. The Committee urges the Government to send it a copy of the ruling issued and to state whether other people were charged (providing information on any related proceedings and the outcome thereof). The Committee also requests the Government to inform it of the status and possible outcome of any claims or judicial proceedings (submitting a copy of any relevant judgments) relating to the granting of compensation to FEDECAMARAS and the leaders concerned for the damage caused by these illegal acts. As regards the February 2008 bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters, the Committee regrets that it has not received any reply from the Government and again insists that the Government send its observations on the points raised by FEDECAMARAS and, in particular, on the outcome of the appeal against the closing of the case and on any investigation carried out in order to determine whether anyone else was involved in the attack, and thus to shed light on its motive and to prevent any recurrence.
3. 706. Recommendations (c) and (d) of the previous examination of the case by the Committee concern: the establishment of structured bodies for bipartite and tripartite social dialogue and an action plan, with a view to resolving all outstanding issues, including issues relating to the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders, as well as actions that create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations. The Committee observes that the Government provides information on an attempt to hold a tripartite meeting during the International Labour Conference and indicates that it has invited FEDECAMARAS to join the dialogue processes relating to the transformation and reorganization of the State, which are linked to the work of the National Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the complainant organizations still report that there is no effective dialogue beyond certain formal exchanges and reiterate that there have been no dialogue processes in the country to which the Government had committed itself before the Governing Body of the ILO. The Committee notes with regret that, beyond the attempt to hold a meeting during the International Labour Conference, it is not apparent from information provided by the Government that it has followed up on the measures it had announced before the ILO Governing Body (an action plan that provided for the establishment of a round table for dialogue between representatives of the Government and of FEDECAMARAS, with a schedule of fortnightly meetings and the inclusion of FEDECAMARAS in the future socio economic dialogue round table). The Committee also notes with regret that the Government does not report having taking any concrete steps to follow up on the Committee’s recommendations concerning the establishment of structured bodies for bipartite and tripartite social dialogue, as well as an action plan to be established in consultation with the social partners with stages and specific time frames for implementation with the technical assistance of the ILO – an action plan recommended since 2014 by the Governing Body as a result of the high-level tripartite mission. While deeply deploring the lack of information and progress in this regard and in light of the Governing Body’s decision of 24 March 2017 (in the examination of a complaint presented by virtue of article 26 of the ILO Constitution against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela alleging non-compliance with Conventions Nos 26, 87 and 144), in which the Government was urged to institutionalize without delay a tripartite round table, with the presence of the ILO, to foster social dialogue for the resolution of all pending issues, including matters relating to the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders, the Committee reiterates its recommendation and insists on the urgency of the Government taking the requested measures without delay, including taking immediate action to create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations.
4. 707. As regards recommendation (e) from its previous examination of the case (allegations of detention and trial of employers and leaders in various sectors), the Committee takes due note of the fact that, in relation to the supermarket chain, the cases against the accused were closed (the preventive detention measures against them have consequently been lifted) but that the Prosecutor’s Office appealed the decision in January 2017. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this appeal. With regard to the meat processing company, the Committee notes that, while some of the charges against some of those under investigation are specified, the Government does not indicate, as requested by the Committee, the specific allegations against each of the people under investigation or trial by the judicial authorities. The Committee is therefore bound to reiterate its previous recommendation and urges the Government to provide precise information on the progress of the respective judicial proceedings. Noting that only one preventive detention would remain in force, the Committee calls on the authorities to consider lifting or replacing this preventive detention measure. Finally, regarding the complainants’ allegations of 8 May 2011 (assaults and arrests of leaders, employees and shareholders of a consortium of credit card transaction companies by government authorities, subjecting them to public ridicule without guaranteeing due process and their right of defence), the Committee notes that the Government indicates that the acts in question were a response to financial sabotage, that the competent authorities proceeded to arrest the perpetrators, and that it was in no way an act of intimidation against businessmen. In the absence of more detailed information and in the light of the grave nature of the allegations, the Committee invites the complainant organizations to provide any additional information at their disposal and requests the Government to send a detailed reply in the light of such information, indicating the specific allegations against each of the persons under investigation or trial and to provide information on the progress and status of the judicial proceedings concerned.
5. 708. As regards recommendation (f) from its previous examination of the case (referring to the holding of full consultations with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, including FEDECAMARAS, on draft legislation covering labour, economic or social matters that affect their interests and those of their members), the Committee notes that, with regard to consultations at the national level, the Government indicated that it had requested FEDECAMARAS to provide in writing comments on the increase in the minimum wage and that, in its most recent observations, it referred to a broad call for dialogue with the productive sectors within the framework of the Constituent National Assembly. Furthermore, the Committee notes that complainant organizations continue to denounce the lack of effective dialogue (in relation to the invitation to provide comments on the increase in the minimum wage, FEDECAMARAS indicates that it was unable to make specific considerations, as the Government did not transmit to it any specific terms or elements on the increase under consideration, and therefore the increase was approved without consultation). The Committee emphasizes that it is important that consultations take place in good faith, confidence and mutual respect, and that the parties have sufficient time to express their views and discuss them in full with a view to reaching a suitable compromise. The Government must also ensure that it attaches the necessary importance to agreements reached between workers’ and employers’ organizations [see Digest, op. cit., para. 1071]. The Committee further notes that, as claimed by the complainant organizations and not denied by the Government, important governmental measures affecting the interests of employers’ organizations, such as the establishment of Workers’ Production Boards (WPBs), have continued to be taken without consultation with the social partners concerned, including FEDECAMARAS. Deeply deploring the persistent nature of this situation, the Committee firmly urges that full consultations on draft legislation covering labour, economic or social matters that affect their interests and those of their members be held without delay with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, including FEDECAMARAS.
6. 709. The Committee also notes with concern the allegations of the complainant organizations regarding the establishment, without consultation, of bodies that would infringe on the freedom of association, in particular the WPBs (formed of three employees’ representatives from the enterprise and four from the State, and which is in charge of reviewing, approving, controlling and monitoring the fundamental programmes and projects of the productive process of the work entities), as an additional mechanism of state interference. The complainant organizations also refer to other strategies and institutions for state interference (like the General Staff of the Working Class (a government organization to strengthen the WPBs) and the Labour Feminist Brigades (a body to promote control of the entire social process of work in each company)). The Committee takes note that the Government states that: (i) WPBs are an institution in accordance with the Organic Labour and Workers Act which was established to promote the participation of the working class as a key actor in the management of production; and (ii) that the creation of WPBs in no way replaces or opposes the trade union organization, but rather it is conceived as a form of primary participation of workers in the real and effective monitoring of the productive processes of their work entities. The Committee notes with great concern, however, that Decree No. 17 of 8 November 2016 establishing the WPBs, which is applicable to all labour entities in the country, both public and private and issued under the state of emergency for economic hardship states in its preamble, with a view to justifying the introduction of the WPBs, that: (i) “the Ministry ... has the obligation to organize the working class starting from the work entities themselves”; (ii) Article 1 states that the scope and purpose of the WPBs is “to promote the participation of the working class as a key actor in the management of production from both public and private work entities”; and (iii) that the WPBs are created with a pre-established composition that comprises representatives of the public authorities, including the armed forces and the Bolivarian militias. The Committee considers that the establishment of the WPBs constitutes a violation of the freedom of association and an interference in the free development of collective relations between workers’ organizations and employers and their organizations. The Committee is bound to recall that a government should not adopt measures such as the creation by decree of institutions to organize workers into bodies established and controlled by public authorities, which may interfere with the right of workers to organize freely and the freedom of negotiation between independent organizations of workers and of employers. In this regard, the Committee considers that the establishment of public bodies that may involve government control over the representation of the workers’ sector also constitutes interference in the freedom of action and of negotiation of the employers and their organizations and is incompatible with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures, including the repeal or reform of regulations or legislation with a view to eliminating any institutions or provisions established or promoted by public authorities – including the WPBs or other bodies such as the General Staff of the Working Class and the Labour Feminist Brigades – which may supplant independent trade union organizations or interfere in the freedom of negotiation between independent workers’ organizations and employers’ organizations. In view of the fact that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has ratified Conventions Nos 87 and 98, the Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) and requests the Government to keep the CEARC informed of any measures adopted in this regard.