CMNT_TITLE

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (RATIFICATION: 1968)

The Committee takes note of the observations submitted by the following trade union organizations: (1) the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), dated 28 August 2009, referring to the Government’s refusal to discuss collective labour agreements with the workers in certain sectors (health, courts, petroleum, cement, electricity, public sector, etc.); (2) the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 24 August 2010, referring to practices that undermine collective bargaining, such as unwarranted delays in bargaining talks in both the public and the private sectors and collective bargaining violations in various enterprises and sectors in the country; (3) the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI), dated 31 August 2010, likewise referring to delays in the discussion of collective agreements and the absence of social dialogue, and to the failure to renew collective agreements, whose expiry dates back many years, a yearly decrease in the number of collective agreements in comparison to the increasing number of workers and trade unions, the cancellation of one negotiated collective agreement to impose another in its stead, and the requirement that in order to initiate the collective bargaining process, trade union executive committees must be approved by the National Electoral Council (CNE); and (4) the Single National Union of Public Employees of the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (SUNEP–CVG), dated 10 November 2010. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments made by the CSI, the CTV and the ASI.

Article 4 of the Convention. Right to collective bargaining. In its previous comments, in view of the ITUC’s observation that the collective bargaining processes in various sectors had been at a standstill since 2006 (pointing out that 243 collective agreement had not been signed and more than 3,500 had not been discussed), the Committee requested the Government to send its observations on the comments made by the ITUC on the situation of collective bargaining, and to provide information on the cases in which two trade union organizations claimed to be the most representative, and on the administrative decisions taken by the labour authority in accordance with the provisions on trade union referendums, and to send the texts of those provisions.

As regards the cases in which two trade union organizations claimed to be the most representative, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that in order to determine which of two trade union organizations or groups of trade union organizations really represents the majority of the workers for the purposes of collective bargaining, the workers concerned are consulted directly by means of a trade union referendum, which establishes which one has the majority support of the workers. The Committee further notes that the Government cites the occurrence at the Polar Brewery as an example, but has not sent the texts of the administrative decisions rendered by the labour authority pursuant to the provisions on trade union referendums. Consequently, the Committee again requests the Government to provide the texts of the administrative decisions rendered by the labour authority in the last three years pursuant to the provisions on trade union referendums.

With regard to the situation of collective bargaining, the Committee notes the observations sent by the Government responding to the comments by the CTV and the ITUC regarding delays in the talks on collective agreements in the public sector and the absence of social dialogue. The Committee further notes that according to the ITUC’s comments of 2010: (1) the Government’s failure to engage in social dialogue and the refusal to establish tripartite consultations on policies affecting workers’ conditions and living standards led to numerous trade union protests; (2) in 2009, unjustified delays in collective bargaining talks were common practice in both the public and the private sectors; and (3) the delays resulted in the expiry of many collective agreements and the failure to renew them (by June 2009, 243 collective agreements were left unsigned in the public sector, adversely affecting 1.5 million public employees, and more than 3,500 agreements had not been discussed). The Committee notes that according to the ASI, in 2008, 562 collective agreements were approved, a drop as compared to the figure for 2007 (612). The ASI adds that, according to the press, as at November 2009 only 87,821 persons were covered by collective agreements. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government that a number of collective agreements have been concluded (including agreements with the education, underground transportation, electricity, telecommunications, health and petroleum sectors, and with public enterprises) and that there are two collective agreements being drafted for the court workers in the judicial sector. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that between 1999 and 2009, 6,914 collective agreement were approved in the country, with an aggregate total of 6,399,909 workers covered (an average of 629 collective agreements signed per year and 581,810 workers covered); 692 agreements were concluded in 2008 (with 163,528 workers covered) and 484 in 2009 (with 603,920 workers covered). According to the Government, until June 2010, three collective agreements were approved in the public sector covering 42,014 workers; during the same period, in the private sector, four collective agreements were approved covering 803,276 workers, including, as regards the latter, the Industrial Building Rule which covers 800,000 workers in the building sector. The Government adds that far from suffering any delay, standstill or obstruction, collective bargaining has been encouraged and such processes have greatly increased. In view of the considerable discrepancy in the figures supplied by the trade unions and those sent by the Government, the Committee requests the Government to continue to send information and statistics on collective agreements (number, categories covered, number of workers covered, etc.). In the Committee’s view, it would be appropriate for the Government to examine, together with the trade unions, the information the number and coverage of existing collective agreements.

Lastly, the Committee notes the ITUC’s statement that on 8 May 2009 the Government called a meeting to which it invited only the union organizations that support the Government’s policy – the Fuerza Unitaria National Union of the Teaching Profession (SINAFUM), the Venezuelan Federation of Teachers (FVM), and the Venezuelan Federation of Educators (FEV) – and signed a collective agreement with them, leaving aside six other federations (FETRAENZEÑANZA, FETRAMAGISTERIO, FETRASINED, FENAPRODO, FESLEV and FENATEV) on the grounds that they had not met the requirements for holding trade union elections and presenting financial reports to the National Electoral Council (CNE). The Committee notes with concern that in addition, according to the CTV, several large organizations – such as the Single National Union of Public Employees, and Professional, Technical and Administrative Staff of the Ministry of Health and Social Development (SUNEP–SAS), the Federation of Health Workers (FETRASALUD), the Federation of Public Employees (FEDEUNEP) and the Venezuelan Medical Federation (FMV) – have been unable to bargain collectively for the renewal of their collective agreements because of “overdue elections” (they failed to hold elections upon expiry of their executive boards’ terms of office), a situation which bars them by law from exercising the right to bargaining collectively. Pointing out that certain instances of overdue elections have been linked to interference by the CNE, according to the reports issued by the Committee on Freedom of Association in recent years, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that these organizations are able to elect their bodies without any interference whatsoever from the CNE (which is not a judicial body and which may hear any claim from a small group of workers and hold up the endorsement of the elections), so that these major trade union organizations may exercise their right to bargain collectively and defend the interests of their members.