Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Uruguay (Ratification: 1954)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted the comments of the Workers’ National Congress of Uruguay (PIT-CNT) on the application of the Convention.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. The PIT-CNT indicates that dismissals for trade union reasons are common in Uruguay and emphasizes the lack of effective procedures for the reinstatement of trade union leaders and workers dismissed because of their trade union membership or activities, or for endeavouring to establish trade union organizations. The PIT-CNT also indicates that rapid and effective machinery has not been established to protect workers’ organizations and workers in the exercise of lawful trade union activities.

In this respect, the Government states that Uruguay has complied with the obligations deriving from the Convention and that reinstatement has not been applied as a sanction in the event of anti-union dismissals due to the absence of legal standards requiring such a measure. The Government adds that the prohibition of dismissal does not necessarily imply that the latter is null and void. Dismissal makes the employer liable to sanctions which, in the case of anti-union dismissals, are supplemented with a view to discouraging such dismissals and providing better protection to workers who are in a more delicate situation. The Government also indicates that practical factors prevent reinstatement, especially in the case of Uruguayan enterprises, which are generally small. The Government had indicated that in 1999 only one denunciation was received for anti-union acts, which was dismissed.

The Committee notes these statements and requests the Government to provide more particulars on the average time which elapses between the initiation of the investigation of denunciations of anti-union discrimination and the imposition of sanctions, or the closure of the case.

Article 4. The PIT-CNT states that collective bargaining is currently impossible in major sectors in Uruguay. Instead of real collective agreements, the practice has become generalized among some employers of requiring all the workers to sign giving their consent at the end of a document establishing conditions of work.

The PIT-CNT adds that, as from 1992, the tripartite councils established by the executive authorities to approve agreements negotiated by employers and workers to make them compulsory for the whole sector are no longer convened, rendering it impossible to conclude collective agreements at the sectoral level. Negotiation has only been possible since then at the enterprise level. Finally, the PIT-CNT states that in Uruguay public servants and teaching staff do not have the right to collective bargaining.

In this regard, the Government indicates that there are no legal restrictions of any type on collective bargaining. Concerning the failure to convene the tripartite councils, it recognizes that as from the establishment of democracy a system had been introduced for the negotiation of wages every four months, but that this was a transitional stage in the promotion of collective bargaining rendered necessary by the period of time for which it had not existed. Nevertheless, with the re-establishment of individual and collective freedoms, it was understood that this stage had been completed. In its view, this does not imply that the right to collective bargaining is restricted. Finally, with regard to collective bargaining in the public sector, the Government indicates that not only is it not prohibited, but that it exists in practice.

The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded by enterprise and by sector, including the public sector, with an indication of the sectors and numbers of workers covered.