Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Ecuador (Ratification: 1967)

A Government representative wished to recall that a new administration was to assume power on 10 August 1988; it would be up to this new Government to take decisions in relation to the matters being addressed by the present Committee. He asserted that there was full freedom of association in Ecuador, as guaranteed by its Constitution and labour laws, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. For many years now, the ILO had been informed of this; he stressed that the Labour Code predated the adoption of the present Convention by ten years, and that it incorporated the ideals promoted by the Convention. He stated that in Ecuador the provisions of Convention No. 87 were applied on an active and intensive basis in everyday life; the Convention was not a mere legal fiction, but rather a tool in daily use. He said that the Government had encouraged dialogue between labour and management, promoted the conclusion of collective agreements as the proper instrument for governing labour relations and speeded up wage-fixing procedures, all of which showed trust in the effectiveness and usefulness of trade unionism. In the past eight months, 157 labour organisations had been registered, which showed that the current Government's term (1984 to 1988) had been a period of labour harmony. This was true in spite of the picture painted by some in paying attention to so-called general "stoppages" which involved no labour demands whatsoever and which the Government had felt obliged to carefully control in order to avoid vandalism and to ensure the protection of the country's citizens. The Government representative indicated that the situation could be improved and that the Government was open to taking account of the observations made by the Committee of Experts in relation to the present Convention, without implying any compromise of the country's independence or national sovereignty or of the uppermost interests of the people, such as public peace, internal order and security from outside threats. Reasonable observations would be given full attention. The Government representative enumerated the observations made by the Committee of Experts and called attention to the fact that although the Committee had referred to the Government's reply to the first four points of the observation, it had not indicated whether the reply was sufficient or not, since the Executive Branch had not been able to exercise its right to put legislative proposals before Congress meaning that these four points had not been definitively resolved. Now the current Government found itself in the situation that these matters were in the hands of the recently elected Government which would be exercising power within a few weeks. Finally, in regard to the observation on the need to have provisions guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment, his Government believed the Committee of Experts had to clarify its position so as to state what they were really asking. In the Government's view, the legislation in force was effective and more than sufficient, since if a contract of employment contained any clause contrary to freedom of association, it would be null and void; moreover, if anti-union acts took an extreme turn, the matter would be dealt with in the penal sphere because a violation of constitutional rights would be involved. The Government representative concluded by saying that Ecuador was fully complying with all provisions of the Convention and that the Government had taken into account the Committee of Experts' observations with the intention of translating them into practice within the possibilities and means of the internal legal order.

The Workers' members saw many contradictions in the Government representative's statements: the Government recognised that changes were needed, yet everything was in order; the Committee of Experts had not clearly explained what the Government needed to do, yet the representative had quoted from the list of shortcomings set forth in the observation. In short, nothing had been done. Direct contacts had taken place in 1980 and 1985, leading to recommendations, but unfortunately no progress had been made. While it was true that free trade unions existed in Ecuador, those very unions had pointed out the need for legislative changes. The Government was interfering in trade union affairs and this was impermissible under the Convention. Public officials were denied the right to establish trade unions, a nationality requirement was applied to trade union leadership, works councils could be automatically dissolved if membership fell below a certain level, and collective work stoppages could be punished by imprisonment. The Government's argument that all of this was necessary in the interests of order, security and protection of the population was simply unacceptable. In the years since the last direct contacts, the Government had done nothing to ensure conformity with the Convention. Now that a new administration was coming in, the Committee ran the risk of facing the same lack of progress next year.

The Worker member of Ecuador declared his solid support for the statement made by the Workers' members. He also thought that the Government's statement was full of contradictions, which did not help in finding a solution to the problems of divergencies in relation to the Convention. The Government's statement was general and contradictory and did not mention any progress made in relation to the matters raised in the Committee of Experts' observation. It was no excuse to say that legislative improvements could not be made since the Government's term was ending and that it was up to the new Government to act. The conditions faced by workers had not only failed to improve, they had worsened. There was freedom of association but there were explicit prohibitions on the right to establish trade unions, on collective bargaining and on strikes in the public service. The situation had become more acute as well because of the current economic crisis, as reflected in the figure of more than 2 million persons unemployed or underemployed, which had led to the creation in certain enterprises of parallel enterprises which took advantage of the high unemployment rate by contracting workers at wages lower than those stipulated in collective agreements. The workers of Ecuador had lost faith in the Government. The speaker indicated that in 1987 the Government had proposed amendments to the Labour Code which would have limited the right to engage in sympathy strikes and which, in relation to part-time work, would have violated express provisions on equality of treatment of various forms of work. Congress had fortunately rejected these amendments. The Worker member also referred to the legal minimum wage which in 1984 amounted to US$ 96 and today was only the equivalent of US$ 30 for a typical family of five. He said that the Government's statement alleging that absolute and total freedom of association existed in the country was not true. As an example he cited the demands of workers presented by the three central trade union organisations which made up the Unified Workers' Front (Frente Unitario de Trabajadores), categorised by the Government as an illegal political activity, which had sought wage increases, the resolution of labour disputes, a price freeze on food products, loans and technical assistance for small-scale farmers, improvements in the social security system, no increase in transport fares and non-payment of the foreign debt. To support these demands, a nation-wide strike had been called on 1 June 1988 which had let to the arrest of six workers, including José Chavez, President of the CEOSL, of which the speaker is a member. In conclusion, he stated that Ecuador's social problems needed to be resolved as a priority in the face of the foreign debt. Although, given the severe economic crisis, the workers did not hold out much hope with the new Government which was to take Office on 10 August 1988, they were hopeful that it would respect human rights.

The Employers' members considered that it was clear that there had been no progress in this case. The Government had indicated in its report that it was prepared to make changes in three of the six problem areas (public servants' right to organise, foreigners' eligibility to become members of executive committees of trade unions and non-dissolution of works councils), but the Government representative had not mentioned that any Bill or decree had been submitted to a competent authority to correct these difficulties. The direct contacts mission in 1985 had prepared draft legislation in all of these areas. The case was in the same posture as last year, with no indication of any real will on the part of the Government to correct the deficiencies.

The Government representative had been unable to recognise his own country in much of what had just been said. He admitted that while his country was poor and wages were low, the average wage was in fact three times more than the legal minimum wage. Congress was now discussing an increase in the minimum wage, so the work stoppage mentioned by the Worker member of Ecuador had been called just in case that increase was not adopted. The stoppage had been occasioned by an increase in transport fares, which were very low. The speaker referred to overall economic conditions in the country, which he said were not the worst in the region. He denied that the Government had committed economic crimes against the workers, whose situation was, if not good, at least stable. The workers had freedom of association and freedom of expression; as an example he referred to a newspaper account of a trade union leader referring to the "stupidity of the Minister of Labour" in connection with demands made by transport workers. The Convention was adhered to by the latter in his country although the changes recommended by the direct contacts missions had not been made. Noting that the Ecuador Central of Working Class Organisations had made comments (referred to in footnote 1 to paragraph 79 of the Committee of Experts' general report) in relation to this Convention, he stated that the Government had a clear idea of what needed to be done. The Government was open to amending its legislation but it could not do so every day. Due to opposition, it had not been possible to make the changes. He admitted that there were certain contradictions in the situation.

The Workers' members stated that in view of the importance of the Convention and the long period during which this problem had been under discussion, the deplorable situation justified mentioning this case in a special paragraph of the present Committee's report. The Employers' members agreed with this proposal, given the importance of the issues involved and the evident lack of progress.

The Committee took note of the explanations provided by the Government representative and of the indications supplied in relation to questions posed by the Committee of experts. The Committee noted that the Government had accepted several of the recommendations which had been made in the course of the direct contacts mission. The Committee hoped that the other discrepancies would be eliminated on an urgent basis so as to bring the legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention. It requested the Government to provide full information in reply to all the points raised by the Committee of Experts and in particular, regarding any measures taken or envisaged in connection with the application of the Convention. It decided to mention this case in the appropriate part of its report.