Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) - Spain (Ratification: 1984)

The Committee has taken note of the Government's report and of the information supplied in response to its previous observation. That observation mentioned the comments received from the General Union of Workers (UGT) concerning failure to apply Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the Convention.

The Committee points out that the trade union organisation alleged, in essence, the absence of consultation prior to the choice of procedures; the summary nature of consultations held at unduly short notice and with a frequency left to the Government's sole discretion; and the absence of arrangements made for the financing of the necessary training of participants in the consultation procedures.

The Government supplies detailed information in reply to each of the points previously raised. The procedure of consultation through written communication is not the outcome of a unilateral decision on the Government's part but is a continuation of an already established procedure even before the ratification of the Convention; such communications, used on all questions concerning the ILO, were regarded as "appropriate and sufficient" within the meaning of paragraph 2(3)(d) of Recommendation No. 152 and had not been contested hitherto. The Government describes the modus operandi of the procedure for consultation on the matters referred to in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention and points out with regard to the frequency of consultations, which is the subject of paragraph 2, that the "appropriate intervals" are in practice determined by the cycle of ILO activities. As to training of participants in the procedures, for which provision is made in Article 4, paragraph 2, it appears from the Government's report that the Government does not consider it "necessary", because the persons concerned are heads of industrial organisations who regularly participate in ILO activities and in particular in the work of the Conference.

Lastly the Committee notes that one of the reasons for the choice of written communications was that there has hitherto been no coordinating body at the state level. In that connection it observes that the Government refers in its report to the forthcoming establishment of the Economic and Social Committee, which would be able to examine the question of choosing another mechanism of consultation to apply Convention No. 144 from among those suggested by Recommendation No. 152.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to supply information on all developments with regard to the way in which it ensures "effective" consultations within the meaning of Article 2 on each of the matters referred to in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention.