Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928 (No. 26) (Ratification: 1944)
Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) (Ratification: 1982)

Follow-up to the decisions of the Government Body (complaints made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

The Committee notes that a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance of Conventions Nos 87, 95 and 111 by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, made by several Workers’ delegates to the International Labour Conference in 2016, was found receivable by the Governing Body in November 2016. In March 2017, the Governing Body decided, in relation to Convention No. 95 that, as all aspects of the complaint relating to the Convention had not been examined recently by the Committee of Experts, the corresponding allegations would be transmitted to the Committee of Experts for their full examination.

The Committee also notes that the complaint under article 26 of the Constitution alleging non-compliance with Conventions Nos 26, 87 and 144 by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, made by several Employers’ delegates to the International Labour Conference in 2015, of which the Committee took note in its previous comment on Convention No. 26, is still pending before the Governing Body, which last examined it in November 2017.

The Committee also notes the joint observations made by the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in relation to the application of Convention No. 26, received on 31 August 2017, and the Government’s reply. Finally, the Committee notes the observations of the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI), received on 31 August 2017, and the joint observations of the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA), on the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 95, received on 18 September 2017, and the Government’s reply. The Committee notes that the observations made by employers’ and workers’ organizations relate to matters raised in the complaints referred to above.

In view of the links between the subjects addressed within the framework of these procedures in relation to the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 95, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in the same comment.

Minimum wage

Article 3 of Convention No. 26. Participation of the social partners in minimum wage fixing. In its previous comment, the Committee once again requested the Government to ensure that full effect is given to Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the consultation and participation on an equal footing of the most representative organizations of workers and employers in the establishment and operation of the minimum wage system. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern that both FEDECAMARAS and the IOE and UNETE, CTV, CGT and CODESA, as well as the CTASI, indicate that the most recent increases in the minimum wage were decided upon unilaterally by the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report and its replies to these observations that: (i) during the period 2015–17, due to the problems faced by the Venezuelan economy, including the high inflation rate, it was required to take urgent measures to protect workers, adjusting the minimum wage on the basis of the loss of purchasing power; (ii) for the determination of the minimum wage, account is taken of the increase in the cost of the basic basket, which is a technical criterion and is not suited to negotiation; (iii) consultations and social dialogue are carried out in the National Council for Productive Economy, in which the participants include chambers affiliated to FEDECAMARAS and other important employers’ organizations in the country, as well as workers’ confederations; and (iv) in February 2017, the Government organized a consultation on the issue of the minimum wage through written communications. The Committee notes that, when examining these matters in the context of the 2015 complaint, the Governing Body in November 2017 expressed serious concern at the lack of progress with respect to the decisions taken at its previous sessions and deeply regretted this situation. The Governing Body: (a) urged the Government to engage in good faith in a concrete, transparent and productive dialogue based on respect for employers’ and workers’ organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations; (b) urged, for the last time, the Government to institutionalize before the end of 2017 a tripartite round table to foster social dialogue for the resolution of all pending issues, and to invite to that effect an ILO high-level mission led by the Officers of the Governing Body to meet with government authorities, FEDECAMARAS and their member organizations and affiliated companies, as well as trade unions and leaders from all social sectors; (c) requested the Director-General of the ILO to make available all necessary support in that regard and the Officers of the Governing Body to report back on the ILO high-level mission at its 332nd Session (March 2018) on the determination on whether concrete progress had been achieved by means of the social dialogue fostered by the round table; and (d) suspended the approval of a decision on the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry pending the report of the high-level mission at its 332nd Session (March 2018). In this context, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the current process will allow the achievement of positive results and lead to full compliance with the Convention in future. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

The Committee observes that both the Government and all the organizations which provided observations also referred in their communications to the system of the “Socialist Cestaticket”. The Committee considers that issues relating to this system do not lie within the scope of Convention No. 26 and that it is appropriate to address this subject within the framework of Convention No. 95.

Protection of wages

Article 1 of Convention No. 95. Components of remuneration. The Committee notes that in the 2016 complaint a phenomenon of “desalarization” in the country is denounced, particularly in relation to the “Socialist Cestaticket”. The Committee notes the Government’s confirmation in its reply that the national legislation provides for this system as a food benefit to protect the purchasing power of workers in relation to food, to strengthen their health, prevent occupational diseases and promote greater labour productivity (section 1 of the Legislative Decree on the Socialist Cestaticket for men and women workers, Decree No. 2066 of 23 October 2015). The Committee also notes that Decree No. 2066 provides that this benefit shall be provided to workers by the employer (section 2). The Committee further notes that the Decree provides, in accordance with section 105(2) of the Basic Labour Act (LOTTT), that the benefit shall not be considered as wages, unless it is so recognized in collective agreements or individual contracts of employment. The Committee recalls that the subject of “desalarization” in relation to food benefits in the country has already been examined in the past (General Survey on the protection of wages, 2003, paragraph 47). In this context, the Committee recalled that, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention, all the components of workers’ remuneration, irrespective of how they are denominated or calculated, are protected by the Convention. In light of the characteristics of the “Socialist Cestaticket” (sections 1 and 2 of Decree No. 2066), the Committee considers that, for the purposes of the Convention, this benefit is a component of the remuneration of workers. Accordingly, even though the national legislation provides that the “Socialist Cestaticket” is not in the nature of a wage, this benefit has to be examined in light of the provisions of the Convention.

Article 4. Payment in kind. The Committee notes that, in accordance with Decree No. 2066: (i) the employer may choose between various modalities for the provision of the “Socialist Cestaticket”, including the provision of food at the workplace or the provision of food tickets or electronic cards (section 4); (ii) in certain exceptional cases, the benefit may be paid in cash (sections 5 and 6); and (iii) when so required for reasons of social interest, the national executive may order modifications in the modalities, terms and amounts applicable for the provision of the benefit (section 7). In this regard, the Committee notes that, in a series of decrees adopted within the context of the state of emergency and economic urgency since 2016, the amount of the “Socialist Cestaticket” has been increased regularly. The Committee notes that both FEDECAMARAS and the IOE, and the UNETE, CTV, CGT and CODESA, as well as the CTASI, indicate in their observations that since 2016 the value of the “Socialist Cestaticket” has been higher than the minimum wage and that the overall remuneration of workers (the minimum wage and the “Socialist Cestaticket”) does not cover the basic basket. The Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that the partial payment of wages may be authorized in the form of allowances in kind and that in cases in which such payment is authorized, appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure that: (a) allowances in kind are appropriate for the personal use and benefit of the worker and her or his family; and (b) the value attributed to such allowances is fair and reasonable. The Committee also recalls that it has considered that governments, before authorizing the payment in kind of a high proportion of workers’ wages, should carefully assess whether such a measure is reasonable based on its possible repercussions for the workers concerned, having regard to national circumstance and the interests of the working people (General Survey on the protection of wages, 2003, paragraph 118). The Committee considers that these considerations are particularly significant in the case of workers who receive the minimum wage. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the increase in the amount of the “Socialist Cestaticket” has been necessary to maintain the purchasing power of workers in the context of the problems faced by the Venezuelan economy, and particularly the high rates of inflation, and that this benefit would be paid in cash since May 2017, in accordance with the temporary modalities adopted in the context of the state of emergency and economic urgency. Nevertheless, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to engage in dialogue without delay at the national level involving all the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned so as to examine possible solutions that are sustainable over time, including any necessary adjustment to the “Socialist Cestaticket” system, with a view to ensuring full conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee invites the Government to consider the possibility of having recourse to ILO technical assistance.

Finally, the Committee notes the indication by the UNETE, CTV, CGT and CODESA, and the CTASI, in their observations that the non-wage nature of the “Socialist Cestaticket” has an impact on other social benefits which are calculated in relation to the level of workers’ wages. In this regard, the Committee observes that, although this subject could be addressed appropriately in the context of the supervision of other ratified Conventions respecting social protection, it is not regulated by Convention No. 95.

The Committee is raising other matters concerning the application of Convention No. 95 in a request addressed directly to the Government.