Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, 1962 (No. 118) - Uruguay (Ratification: 1983)

Article 5 of the Convention (branch (g)) (Employment injury benefit) (in conjunction with Article 10). (a) In reply to the Committee's previous comments, the Government states that in order to receive their entitlement abroad, beneficiaries have two options, according to the country of residence. If the beneficiary resides in one of the countries which has concluded a bilateral social security agreement with Uruguay (namely, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain), benefits are transferred by bank order to one of the correspondents of the Bank of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay in the country concerned. In the other cases, a certificado de vida (current identification) is regularly required. The Government adds that a draft text to amend Act No. 16.074 of 1989 respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases is currently under examination and that account will be taken to ensure its compatibility with this provision of the Convention.

The Committee notes this information. However, with regard to beneficiaries who are resident abroad and cannot avail themselves of the terms of a bilateral or multilateral social security agreement, the Committee notes that the report does not contain a reply to the matters raised in its previous direct request concerning section 33(1) and (2) of the above Act No. 16.074 of 1989, under which a pension can be suspended if the beneficiaries go to reside in another country without designating an agent or proposing another arrangement for payment which is accepted by the State Insurance Bank. In this respect, the Committee once again draws the Government's attention to the fact that by virtue of Article 5 of the Convention it must be possible to transfer the employment injury benefit, among other types of benefit, of nationals of Uruguay and of any other State which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of the branch concerned, as well as refugees and stateless persons, when they are resident abroad. The provision of these benefits abroad must therefore be guaranteed ipso jure and without any condition or restriction, irrespective of the country of residence of the beneficiary, even when a bilateral or multilateral social security agreement has not been concluded with that country (subject, where appropriate, to the administrative assistance that States which have ratified this Convention are bound to afford each other, under the terms of Article 11).

The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to state whether the benefits paid to an agent in Uruguay, under the terms of section 33(1) of the above Act, are freely transferable by the agent to the beneficiaries resident abroad and to indicate any other arrangements for payment accepted by the State Insurance Bank under this provision. It also requests the Government to provide the rules adopted respecting the transfer of funds abroad. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures that it intends to take to ensure that the competent social security institution secures direct payment of benefits in the country of residence for beneficiaries entitled to such benefits under the Convention, particularly where they have neither the possibility nor the financial means to appoint an agent. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to take these matters into consideration when preparing the draft amendment to Act No. 16.074 of 1989.

Finally, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to supply statistical information in its next report on the number of beneficiaries residing abroad and the value of any benefits transferred, stating in particular whether the beneficiary's country of residence is a country with which no bilateral agreement has been concluded, since the information referred to by the Government in its report has not been received by the ILO.

(b) In its previous direct request, the Committee drew attention to the incompatibility with Article 5 of the Convention of the residence requirement set out in the last subsection of section 33 of Act No. 16.074 of 1989, under which the dependants of workers who have died as a result of an industrial accident or occupational disease who were living abroad at the time of the accident or the disease are entitled to receive the benefits only from the date on which they settle in Uruguay and for the period during which they reside there. Since the Government's report does not contain a reply on this point, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are contemplated to bring the national legislation into conformity with Article 5 of the Convention and to ensure in all cases the provision of employment injury pension to deceased workers' dependants residing abroad (regardless of whether they are nationals of Uruguay, refugees, stateless persons or nationals of another country that has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of branch (g)).

Article 6. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to a number of provisions of Legislative Decree No. 15084 of 28 November 1980, under which beneficiaries of family allowances provided by the social insurance bank have to meet the requirement of sending their child to school in public or private teaching establishments authorized by the competent bodies. The Committee recalled that, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, each Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention in respect of family benefit has to guarantee the grant of family allowances both to its own nationals and to the nationals of any other Member which has accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i), as well as to refugees and stateless persons, in respect of children who reside on the territory of any such Member, under conditions and within limits to be agreed upon by the Members concerned.

In its reply, the Government states that no legislative measure has yet been taken respecting family allowances. However, it refers to the bilateral social security agreements which have been concluded or are currently being concluded with a number of countries, which also cover family allowances. The Committee notes, however, that of these countries, only Italy has accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i). It is therefore bound to express its hope once again that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future for carrying out necessary amendments in Legislative Decree No. 15084 of 18 November 1980 or for concluding bilateral or multilateral social security agreements with States which have accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i) "family benefit", in so far as there are migratory flows with those States, in order to give full effect to Article 6 of the Convention. (In addition to Uruguay, the following States have accepted the obligations of the Convention for branch (i): Bolivia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, France, Guinea, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Tunisia and Viet Nam.)

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply with its next report statistics on the number and nationality of foreign workers resident in Uruguay.