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

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2024, Publication: 112nd ILC session (2024)

Written information provided by the Government

Spain has been included in the list of individual cases based on a series of observations made some years ago by the social partners on the application of the Convention.

First, reference is made to an observation of 2017 by the social partners in which they requested the inclusion of the Confederation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CEPYME) in the tripartite consultation procedures on the preparation of reports on ratified ILO Conventions. This matter has been resolved as the CEPYME is traditionally part of the consultation procedures. This was specified in the report on the Convention presented by Spain in 2022 after the Government had ensured, in consultation with the social partners, that this issue had been effectively resolved. This can be verified in the observations on the reports prepared by the employers, where the CEPYME is included as a participant.

Second, reference is made to a request by the Committee of Experts to provide updated and detailed information on the manner in which consultation is guaranteed with the social partners in the procedures required under the Convention.

In this respect, it should be highlighted that in the case of Spain, the Government and the social partners have made efforts in recent years in the area of social dialogue, including in relation to the consultations to be carried out with the social partners on international labour matters.

More generally, social dialogue agreements have been reached on important matters such as the short-term work scheme regulations during the coronavirus (COVID) pandemic (2020), the labour reform (2021), which changed the recruitment model in Spain, and the Fifth Agreement for Employment and Collective Bargaining (2023). In this regard, the Committee of Experts 2024 General Survey, entitled Labour administration in a changing world of work, states that “in Spain, the Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organizations (CEOE) and the Spanish CEPYME indicated that business organizations have considered social dialogue to be an extraordinarily useful tool for dealing with difficult situations. For instance, during the COVID19 pandemic, the social partners reached an agreement in record time which established a series of urgent measures to address the consequences of the crisis in the labour and business sphere.

This drive towards social dialogue showed up, in previous years, in the willingness to continue improving consultation procedures with the social partners on matters relating to ILO activities.

With regard to the consultation procedure with the social partners concerning reports on ILO Conventions, since 2017 work has been carried out to extend the timelines for trade unions and employers’ organizations to enable them to analyse the content of the reports effectively, and prepare comments and observations on them.

Further, the final published texts of the reports on ILO Conventions have included, since 2017, the observations of the social partners and the Government’s replies to those.

In addition, it should be noted that consultation with the social partners in the process of both preparing reports on ILO Conventions and their ratification is ensured in the following way: first, the Government prepares the documents and files, then sends them to the social partners for their comments and observations, giving enough time for this process. Once the comments and observations of the social partners have been received, they are distributed to the executive bodies competent in the relevant areas, where they are closely examined and the response to these observations is prepared. That response is included in the report documents together with the comments of the social partners.

In the case of files for the ratification and submission of international labour instruments, the social partners receive the administrative file and can make comments on it, and their views are included in the submission and ratification files sent to the Cortes Generales.

As regards the International Labour Conference, the Government holds an annual meeting with the social partners regarding preparation of the items on the Conference agenda. In addition, after consultations with the social partners, a series of procedural modifications are being implemented with the aim of further improving reinforced tripartite consultation procedures with the social partners on ILO matters.

Thus, in 2024, for the consultation procedure on reports relating to ILO Conventions, the Government will send the social partners the observations of the other partners so that all parties are apprised of the various contributions throughout the process and not just once it has been completed.

Moreover, the final drafts of reports will subsequently be sent to the social partners, immediately before their dispatch to the ILO, in order to receive any final reactions before the end of the process.

Furthermore, a meeting will be held before the final documents are sent to the ILO to enable an exchange of information and views between the social partners and the Government.

Regarding the timelines for the procedure, the Government will continue to send the draft reports on ILO Conventions in sufficient time for validation by the social partners and the formulation of observations.

These specific improvements will be applied to the processes for the preparation of reports on both ratified and unratified Conventions, without distinction, and also to reports relating to ILO Recommendations.

In addition, in a meeting held with the social partners aimed at improving these procedures, it was agreed that the Government was prepared to convene additional meetings to deal with any other matters referred to in Article 5 of the Convention:

(a) government replies to questionnaires concerning items on the agenda of the International Labour Conference and government comments on proposed texts to be discussed by the Conference;

(b) the proposals to be made to the competent authority or authorities in connection with the submission of Conventions and Recommendations pursuant to article 19 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization;

(c) the re-examination at appropriate intervals of unratified Conventions and of Recommendations to which effect has not yet been given, to consider what measures might be taken to promote their implementation and ratification as appropriate;

(d) questions arising out of reports to be made to the International Labour Office under article 22 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization;

(e) proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions.

In these meetings, it will also be possible to raise other matters, such as those covered by Paragraph 6 of the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152): ILO technical cooperation activities; resolutions and conclusions of ILO conferences and other meetings; or promotion of a better knowledge of ILO activities.

Thus, this constantly evolving consultation procedure demonstrates the manner in which account is being taken of the views expressed by the representative organizations of workers and employers on the functioning of the effective prior consultation procedures required by ILO Convention No. 144, and also on the updating of procedures in a form which responds to the concerns expressed by the representative organizations in their observations.

In light of the above, our Government considers that, although improvements are needed in the tripartite consultation procedure, account should be taken of the constant efforts being made in relation to social dialogue to conclude the major social agreements which have enabled our country to progress.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – I have the honour to invite the representative of the Government of Spain, the Secretary of State for Labour, Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, to take the floor.

Government representative – It is a great honour for me to be in this Committee, even though clearly no one ever likes being included on the short list. For a country such as Spain, which sets as a political priority its relationship with the ILO and its membership of an Organization that disseminates fundamental principles and rights at work and standards, and which flies the flag of decent work, social dialogue and the ILO model of tripartism. This examination of Convention No. 144 also gives me the opportunity to address a specific case and, in particular, in one way or another, allows me to make use of the meeting to emphasize the importance of maintaining a close relationship with the Organization, as well as with the ILO supervisory bodies and standards system.

Spain ratifies ILO Conventions with a view to giving effect to them faithfully and to the letter. It therefore has no problem in appearing before this Committee to show the progress made in compliance with Conventions, in giving effect to Recommendations and in social dialogue in general. For us, this is an opportunity to explain that submission to ILO supervision and its cases and to strict compliance with all ILO Conventions is a priority for the Government of Spain.

Spain is the country that has ratified the most ILO Conventions in the world, with the number standing at 139 ratified Conventions following the two ratifications that will certainly be deposited tomorrow by the Second Vice-President of the Government in this building. We will be ratifying the Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167), and the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184). And we will also announce the ratification of the Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183).

We have ratified decisive and important Conventions, such as the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), for which I feel special pride, as it has been transposed through the recognition for domestic workers of all the protective social rights enjoyed in any other common labour relationship.

We have ratified the Home Work Convention, 1996, (No. 177), the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188), and the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190).

The history of Spain and its relations with the ILO is therefore an exemplary story. But, I should tell you that a decade ago Spain froze its policy of the ratification of Conventions and we have now reactivated the ratification policy because it was no longer acceptable for a country that shares the values of decent work and fundamental standards and principles at work, and which proclaims through its academic institutions, legal doctrine and administrative bodies that fundamental principles and rights at work have to be given effect whether or not the respective international Conventions were ratified. The country therefore had to continue offering the example of the ratification policy, which had been provisionally suspended for over a decade.

It is a country that, over the past four years, has carried out an intense policy of social dialogue based precisely on the relations between the social partners through the trade unions and employers’ organizations in my country.

I believe, and I am sure that the national social partners that are with us in this room will not let me lie, that I have spent the best part of my life over the past four years sitting round the social dialogue table in the Ministry of Labour, where we have achieved over ten agreements with the social partners. Indeed, in one way or another, with all the social partners, employers, unions and the Government. On other occasions, it has only been with the unions, following a very intensive process of social dialogue which has also taken into account the contributions of employers’ organizations, as was the case with the inter-occupational minimum wage and, for example, unemployment, where we also reached bipartite agreements. The past four years in Spain have been marked by almost 20 social dialogue agreements.

I would like to take advantage of this forum to give thanks to the social partners in my country for the very great contribution that they have made to saving our country during the worst crisis that we have ever experienced.

Today, Spain has record employment levels, with stable work, and more women working than ever before, more stable and decent work, with rights, than ever before. This is a result of the social partners in Spain and the Spanish Government, through tripartite agreements, overcoming the crisis of the pandemic. We reached a whole series of agreements following many hours of negotiation, through which we managed to find appropriate mechanisms to overcome the great difficulties affecting labour at that time.

The major agreement on the labour reform in Spain has changed the Spanish labour market, which used to be characterized by very acute instability in employment and very high levels of temporary work. It has been changed radically due to a major agreement on the labour reform, in which the social partners, unions and employers’ organizations also participated.

We have just concluded an agreement a few days ago guaranteeing the rights of lesbian, gay, transexual, bisexual and intersex (LGTBI) persons in enterprises. It is a major agreement to prevent discrimination against this group in Spanish enterprises, which has also been subscribed to by employers’ organizations and unions. That is, we have made very much progress through social dialogue and we will continue to do so.

At the moment in Spain, there are currently three social dialogue forums that are open. One is for the prevention of occupational risks, as we want to reform our occupational safety and health legislation through agreement and social dialogue.

There is a decisive forum that is open on a very important debate, namely the reduction of working time. The Spanish Government wishes to reduce statutory working time through social dialogue to ensure better well-being for workers with a view to addressing a special kind of poverty, time poverty, suffered by most people who do not consider that they have time to live. This is also the subject of social dialogue. And, as I told you a very short time ago, there is the subject of the protection of LGTBI persons at work, which reflects collaboration with the ILO, with which we worked closely to produce the first guide on LGTBI persons at work.

So what actually happened in the case that is bringing the Spanish Government here today in relation to Convention No. 144. It is a case that has dragged on in Spain for over a decade and in relation to which we have made significant progress, which I would like to describe to you.

First, we had a problem with the Convention. One of the Spanish employers’ organizations, the CEPYME, felt excluded from consultations. This is something that we can consider perfectly substantiated and settled, as there is no tripartite process in Spain that does not include the employers’ organization for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Not only do we do this regularly under the Convention, but we also do it in all social dialogue forums.

Social dialogue forums in Spain, on the employer side, always include the CEOE, as the representative of large and medium-sized enterprises, but also regularly include the CEPYME, as the representative of SMEs.

There are no communications from the Spanish Government that do not include both employers’ organizations. As a result, this criticism, which was already explained in the 2022 report, can be seen as totally resolved.

Second, details were requested on how consultations are held with employers’ organizations within the framework of the Convention. With regard to this tripartite consultation, which had normally always been raised by trade unions, it was a little surprising for the Spanish Government that employers’ organizations also felt excluded from the system of tripartite consultation, as the issue had not normally been raised in internal communications. But we have taken it very seriously that the procedures under the Convention are in scrupulous compliance with ILO tripartism.

We have improved the time available so that workers’ and employers’ organizations can have sufficient time to analyse the reports.

We have included in the reports the comments made by both employers’ and workers’ organizations, which we also do in the files for the ratification and submission of Conventions. In Spain, no Convention is ratified without first opening tripartite dialogue with the most representative social partners, which we also do for the preparations for the Conference, for which we hold an annual meeting with our national social partners on the preparations for the Conference.

But we have made further progress in clarifying the operation of the Convention, which in practice had not been operating adequately for over ten years. We prepared a paper which was submitted for consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, which we call the reinforced information and tripartite consultation mechanism for ILO matters.

What does this mean? Not only are we improving the time limits, so that we are not only providing the information beforehand, but we also share with all the social partners the comments that they each make. We send out the draft reports before they are submitted to the ILO and we hold a meeting before sending the report to the ILO, which allows any appropriate comments to be made.

This shows that the Spanish Government feels an absolute commitment to the Convention, as it feels towards the other fundamental principles and rights at work.

For Spain, there is no less important Convention. All ILO Conventions are equally important. And if what is at stake in a country that is characterized by respect for social dialogue, its commitment to the ILO and its commitment to fundamental principles and rights, if there is any shadow of doubt that the social partners are not present in any of the procedures that relate to the ILO, we will be absolutely delighted and willing to resolve those problems.

In the specific case of the Convention, we have succeeded in resolving all of these problems through a paper that has been the subject of dialogue, with an improvement in the time available and ensuring the exchange of information, and holding a prior meeting in which the social partners can express their views on the report before it is sent to the ILO.

And so, once again, I thank you for this opportunity, not only to participate in this meeting, but also to hear that to a large extent the case involving the Convention has been or is being fully resolved. And therefore, I would like to express my thanks to you and assure you that the tripartite spirit of the ILO, respect for fundamental principles and rights at work and for decent work is a banner for the world, and continues to be a banner that brings together States and the social partners, and I would like to thank the ILO for leading this noble civilizing endeavour.

Employer members – The Employer members have taken note of the oral and written information on this case provided by the Government and would like to thank the distinguished representative for the explanations.

Spain ratified the Convention in 1984. The Committee of Experts has made observations on this case in 2014, 2017 and 2023. Today is the first time that the Committee on the Application of Standards has examined the application of the Convention by Spain.

From the outset, the Employer members want to highlight the importance of the Convention, which is one of the four ILO governance Conventions, which has received 157 ratifications. The Convention promotes at the national level the application of the principle of tripartism through effective consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations on international labour standards.

The case consists of two parts. The first is about the effective consultation of representative employers’ organizations. The representative employers’ organizations in Spain are the CEOE and the CEPYME. The Employers argue that the Government did not apply the Convention correctly, as the SME organization was not included on the Government’s report on international labour standards as a consulted organization. On 5 July 2022, the CEOE and the CEPYME requested the Government to include the SME organization in the Government report on ratified ILO Conventions.

The request was based on Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention according to which States must operate procedures which “ensure effective consultations” between representatives of the Government, employers and workers on issues covered in Article 5, paragraph 1. In addition, under the terms of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Convention Employers and Workers must “be represented on an equal footing on any bodies through which consultations are undertaken”.

The General Survey on Convention No. 144 and Recommendation No. 152 of 2000 stressed that, for consultations to be meaningful, they should not be merely a token gesture, but should be given serious consideration by the competent authority. In order to be “effective”, consultations should take place before final decisions are taken, irrespective of the nature or form of the procedures adopted. The General Survey highlighted that the effectiveness of consultations presupposes in practice that employers’ and workers’ representatives have all the necessary information far enough in advance to formulate their own opinions. 

Regarding the frequency of the consultations, Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention foresees that “consultation shall be undertaken at appropriate intervals fixed by agreement, but at least once a year”. The purpose of the wording “at least once a year” in this respect is to ensure against the possibility that no consultations are held for years at a time. According to the report of the Committee of Experts, the Government argued that it sent copies of the report on ratified Conventions to the CEPYME. However, according to Recommendation No. 152, Paragraph 2(3)(d), consultations through written communications should be undertaken only “where those involved in the consultative procedures are agreed that such communications are appropriate and sufficient”. In this case, the Employers believe that it is not sufficient for the Government to send to employers’ and workers’ organizations copies of the reports they send to the ILO Office.

It should also be noted that the Committee of Experts in 2023 and the 2000 General Survey recalled that the obligation to consult the representative organizations on the reports concerning the application of ratified Conventions must be clearly distinguished from the obligation to communicate these reports under article 23, paragraph 2,of the ILO Constitution. Instead, consultations with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations have to be held during the preparation of the Government’s reports

For all these reasons, the Committee of Experts requested, in its recent report, the Government to provide updated and detailed information on how consultation is guaranteed with employers’ organizations, including the Confederation of SME enterprises, in the procedures required by the Convention.

The second part of this case deals with effective tripartite consultations. The Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO) and the General Union of Workers (UGT) argued that the Government continues to conduct consultation procedures in writing, despite the opposition expressed by the workers’ organizations in this respect. Also, they claimed that employers’ and workers’ organizations are not aware of the other parties’ observations and the Government responses to those until they receive the final version of the reports. They considered it useful to explore procedures to guarantee effective tripartite consultations. The Committee of Experts noted the detailed information provided by the Government concerning the consultations held with the social partners between June 2017 and June 2022 on matters relating to international labour standards. The Employer members welcome such information and urge the Government to resume such social dialogue and double its efforts regarding tripartite consultations on international labour standards. Specifically, the period given to workers’ and employers’ organizations to analyse the texts of reports effectively and prepare comments on them should be sufficient. However, last year the Government sent 24 reports to the social partners in the months in which many workers enjoy their vacation period, more specifically: nine reports dated 26 June, requesting observations before 7 August; five reports on 11 July, asking for contributions before 16 August; ten reports on19 July, asking for observations before 18 August. The Employer members emphasize that employers’ and workers’ organizations must have sufficient time to analyse the reports and prepare relevant and quality observations and to carry out consultations with their respective member organizations, which takes a fair amount of time. Already the General Survey in 2000 highlighted that governments should “ensure effective prior consultations within reasonable time limits” with a view to the preparation of reports on the application of ratified Conventions.

Moreover, as already mentioned, according to the Recommendation No. 152, Paragraph 2(3)(d), consultations through written communications should be undertaken only “where those involved in the consultative procedure are agreed that such communications are appropriate and sufficient”.

To conclude, the Employer members would like to stress that for this part of the case the Committee of Experts recommended in its recent report the following: first, the Committee of Experts requests the Government to indicate how it takes into account the opinions expressed by the representative workers’ organizations on the working of effective prior consultative procedures provided for in the Convention, as well as on the possibility of establishing amended procedures in response to the concerns expressed by the trade union organizations in their observations. Second, the Committee of Experts also requests the Government to continue to provide detailed and updated information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all matters related to international labour standards covered by the Convention. Third, the Committee of Experts also requests the Government to indicate whether, in accordance with Article 6, it has consulted the representative organizations to draft an annual report on the working of the consultative procedures provided for in the Convention and, if so, to indicate the outcome of these consultations and provide a copy of the relevant report.

Worker members – We have the opportunity today to discuss the application of Convention No. 144 by Spain. As we know, this Convention sets out clearly and precisely the subjects that have to be covered by tripartite consultation. In the present case, the report of the Committee of Experts essentially raises two issues.

The first relates to the participation of the CEPYME in tripartite consultations. The Committee of Experts notes that it is not sufficient to merely communicate reports to this organization.

However, it should be recalled that this confederation is a member of the CEOE. There is no question that the CEOE participates fully in tripartite consultations, as is well known. Article 1 of the Convention provides that, when reference is made to representative organizations, that means “the most representative organisations of employers and workers enjoying the right of freedom of association”.

The question can therefore arise as to, in view of its affiliation with the CEOE, the CEPYME is not duly consulted under the Convention. We leave it to the Committee of Experts to assess the consequences and draw conclusions. In any case, we have taken due note of the Government’s statements indicating that this issue has been resolved.

The report also refers to a second issue. Indeed, in recent years, Spanish unions had expressed concern at the manner in which tripartite consultations were undertaken.

The Worker members have noted with interest the explanations provided by the Government of Spain. In particular, we wish to emphasize certain elements relating to improvements in the consultation procedure. Several changes have been introduced to improve the process. For example, the Government has indicated that it will communicate to the social partners the comments made by the other social partners. In that way, all the parties will be aware of the various contributions made throughout the process, and not only when it is completed. Similarly, it should be noted that a meeting will henceforth be held before the final documents are sent to the ILO so that the social partners and the Government can exchange views and information.

The Worker members are convinced that the Government will make every effort to put these commitments into practice.

Employer member, Spain – It is an honour for me to take the floor in my capacity as Employer delegate for Spain, on behalf of the CEOE and the CEPYME. Spanish employers also have a fundamental commitment to the principles and values of tripartism that inspire the ILO and are proud of the 17 agreements concluded through tripartite social dialogue in our country since 2020, to which reference has been made earlier.

We have worked loyally in situations of the greatest difficulties, first to maintain employment, and then to improve conditions of work and the competitivity of our enterprises. And yes, together we have managed to make the Spanish labour market more resilient, stable, inclusive, secure and diverse.

They are very different types of agreements, ranging from occupational safety and health, to remote working and innovatory regulations on the use of algorithms and the rights of platform workers. The latest, as already indicated, concluded only a few days ago, covers LGTBI persons in enterprises.

In the final analysis, agreements that are very laborious and extraordinarily difficult to conclude.

Bipartite social dialogue has also been productive for everyone. I will refer to the Agreement on employment and collective bargaining concluded with the unions in 2023, for which I take the opportunity to express our consideration in public. An agreement for the period 2023–25 on which, as we hoped, tremendous leadership was deployed to promote the modernization of collective bargaining in Spain and wage increases in a highly inflationary context.

We feel proud of the legitimacy earned through loyalty and endless work, which today have led us to this discussion of the Convention adopting a constructive approach of constant improvement.

As the Employer spokesperson said in his statement, there can be a broad variety of procedures and methods for tripartite consultation which are in compliance with the objectives of the Convention, but to be effective they cannot be confined to merely formal procedures and, as provided in Article 2(1), they must receive the full attention of the representative organizations of employers and workers.

What is clear is that, in relation to the reports on ratified Conventions requested from Spain by the Office, the current Government has only given effect in formal terms to the requirement of consultation. I am sad to say so, but that is how it is.

The time limits set are very short and prevent us from consulting our organizations and our advisory bodies in a manner that would allow the development of a collective position, as should be done by our organizations, which defend and represent the interests of enterprises in all the regions and sectors of the country.

For example, in 2023, over 24 summer days, 24 reports for the ILO, amounting to almost 1,000 pages, were sent out for comment between the last two weeks of July and the first two weeks of August, which are traditionally holiday periods in Spain.

Individual and separate consultations were held with employers’ organizations and the unions. In no case are we aware of the comments made by the other social partners, nor the responses by the Government. Nor are we provided with the final report, for which reason it is difficult for this procedure to be considered effective tripartite consultations within the meaning of the Convention.

The Government has informed the Committee of a new strengthened information and tripartite consultation procedure with the social partners that it was intended to introduce as of 13 May, but a few days later consultations were once again overlooked on the content of its submission to the International Court of Justice in relation to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

We would not be here if this had not been the Government’s usual practice since 2022.

The selective and optional use of social dialogue, including consultation procedures, has become common practice for the Government in the final stages.

Since the objectives related to the Recovery and Resilience Plan have been achieved, which tied the Spanish Government to Europe, there have been around 30 legislative texts that have not been subject to social dialogue, or even consultation. And when, on an exceptional basis, this has been done, the time limits set have been very short.

By way of illustration, consultations were not held on the texts modifying the provisions on justification which have substantially altered the rules governing termination of employment, or those creating a new criminal liability for enterprises in relation to recruitment.

Another example, particularly in light of its clear importance, was that we were only given eight days to make comments on the Act on recruitment incentives.

But the most surprising recent case has been the imminent modification by the Government of the texts governing the validity of collective agreements set out in a Legislative Decree published on Wednesday 22 May this year, and which came into force the next day.

The national media reported this occurrence, which was denounced by the employers’ organizations which I have the honour to represent, as well as by the unions:

“On 23 May, the Government muddied the social dialogue process for the finalization of the unemployment subsidy.”

“On 21 May last, employers and unions attack the Government for approving changes to collective agreements that had not been negotiated.”

This interference by the Government in the independence of the social partners gives priority to independent agreements, and regional agreements in certain circumstances, instead of sectoral agreements at the State level and national agreements, despite the fact that the approach had been explicitly refuted by the social partners during the work on the labour reform agreed in 2021.

This amounts to unprecedented interference by the Government in collective bargaining, which is in clear contravention of Article 7 of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), ratified by Spain in September 1985, which specifies that: “Measures taken by public authorities to encourage and promote the development of collective bargaining shall be the subject of prior consultation and, whenever possible, agreement”.

As if that was not enough, the same Legislative Decree amends the composition of the employers’ group on the Economic and Social Council through the inclusion of organizations which, although may be more representative at their level, are in violation of the requirements set out in the Workers’ Charter, once again without consulting the social partners or the Economic and Social Council, despite being prescriptive, as indicated in its regulations.

The Economic and Social Committee (CES) has criticized the unilateral action taken by the Government for the modification of its internal rules.

I will close my intervention with the conclusions of the Resolution concerning the second recurrent discussion on social dialogue and tripartism, adopted by the Conference in 2018, which specify that: “Social dialogue, based on respect for freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, has a crucial role in designing policies to promote social justice. It is a means to achieve social and economic progress. Social dialogue and tripartism are essential for democracy and good governance.” “Free, independent, strong and representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, together with trust, commitment and respect by governments for the autonomy of the social partners and social dialogue outcomes are key conditions for effective social dialogue.”

Social justice and social and economic progress are shared objectives of the social partners and the Government of Spain, as are the principles that inspire the ILO. But it is important to understand that social dialogue and tripartism cannot be selective or subject to the interests of Governments, as they are essential for democracy and good governance.

We therefore urge the Government of Spain to comply with ILO Conventions and to improve consultation procedures so that tripartism can be truly effective in accordance with democratic principles.

Worker member, Spain – We thank the Committee of Experts for having received the repeated complaints that Spanish trade unions have been making systematically since 2012 in their observations on the action taken and effect given to the Convention. We are also very grateful to the Employer spokesperson for his surprising and praiseworthy interest in the complaints made by the unions.

More than 12 years ago, the conservative Government engaged in the absolute destruction of tripartism, social dialogue and collective bargaining, which was examined here. The same Government that restricted the participation by workers in ILO Conferences, and led to the Credentials Committee intervening.

In the comments provided by my organization in 2022, we noted an improvement in relation to previous years, when we indicated that we could not even make any comments on the reports provided by Spain. We indicated that since 2017, the Government has been providing us with the reports so that we can make our comments and attach them. However, it is true that the full implementation of the spirit and content of the Convention lacks a regulated mechanism which, for example, goes beyond written communications, as already indicated, and establishes the mechanism indicated in the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), which indicates that consultations should only be carried out through written communications in certain circumstances.

We understand that the regrettable situation of social dialogue and collective bargaining in Spain at that time made it necessary to focus on the national situation, even though the Government should not have disregarded, as has been recalled, the obligations arising out of the ratification of an ILO Convention.

But it would not be just if, in relation to this criticism that goes back to the time of the devastating conservative Government, we did not add that the quality of social dialogue and collective bargaining in my country has changed radically, as indicated by the Director-General of the ILO, and the Employer delegate of Spain just now. And in relation to the Convention, as already indicated, a mechanism was introduced in May this year, when it became known that Spain was one of the countries that could be selected for examination by this Committee, which not only restored the system of tripartite consultations covered by the Convention, but also, as a result of the process of information and consultation, I would dare to say goes beyond that.

By way of illustration, where proposals are made by trade unions, any of the social partners may call a meeting to examine not only any ILO matter that they consider appropriate, including instruments, initiatives and proposals made by the organization.

The introduction of this mechanism, which had been called for by the unions for so many years, will ensure full compliance with the Convention and the case that is being examined here should therefore be considered satisfactorily resolved.

I recall that the quality of social dialogue in Spain has improved enormously following almost a decade during which it shone by its absence. And as a result of the labour reform that has been agreed, the social partners have engaged in dialogue on a daily basis, as will be explained.

We consider that there is still room to continue making progress and I take this opportunity to remind the Government loyally that information and consultation, on matters beyond ILO subjects, must govern each and every one of its political acts, especially those directly affecting trade unions, so that they do not consider that the Government is engaging in what could be considered as interference in their independence and activities.

If it is well understood that through collaboration we can ensure that all our efforts are going in the same direction, my country will continue to achieve admirable figures in many areas.

In this spirit, and as the instigators of recurrent complaints on the failure of the Government to comply with the Convention, I call on the Committee to consider the subject of this complaint as already being resolved.

Worker member, Spain – The Spanish trade unions wish to make reference in this session of the Committee to the very recent decision issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social Economy of Spain, which was delivered to the ILO on 16 May 2024. We refer to it due to its crucial importance in relation to the subject that we are discussing here today. The decision establishes a strengthened mechanism for tripartite information and consultation with the social partners on matters relating to the ILO, which resolves the deficit that existed in compliance with the ILO Convention in relation to effective tripartite consultations on the activities of the Organization, which we had called for repeatedly in our comments on the reports submitted by Spain.

The women and men workers of Spain who are represented at the 112th Session of the Conference therefore consider that the Government of Spain has taken a very innovative step forward in the application of the Convention which meets our expectations in this regard, that is if we are really discussing the application of the Convention, and not other matters that go beyond the scope of this Committee.

The satisfaction lies, in the first place, in the fact that this mechanism responds to the requirements set out in the Convention. Second, it is characterized by continuity in time. And third, it provides for meetings at the request of any of the parties to address any of the matters covered by Article 5 of the Convention.

It is essential to emphasize to this Committee that the Government of Spain has implemented a mechanism, through prior information and consultations with the social partners, which responds to the concerns raised by the unions when expressing our views on effective consultation procedures.

It is necessary to give its true worth to the institution of social dialogue in Spain.

Tripartite agreements, and I repeat “tripartite”, in our country have contributed to the achievement of social progress, improvements in the labour market and living and working conditions, and at the same time improvements in the economy.

Although there are still difficulties and improvements can be made, social dialogue in Spain offers an example for other countries around us.

Many tripartite agreements have been concluded in recent years in Spain, ranging from emergency measures to respond to the crisis caused by the pandemic, and thereby maintain economic activity and employment, to the social pact that provided a basis for the labour reform, which has proved to be very positive for workers, through the improvement of employment, and particularly the quality of employment contracts in Spain, and which has at the same time contributed to an increase in enterprise profits.

Without overlooking the successive improvements in pensions, the regulation of remote working, platform sharing work and the control of algorithms, among many others.

The social partners and the Government are currently engaged in negotiations, as already indicated, on the reduction of working hours.

For all of these reasons, we reiterate that the tripartite consultation envisaged in the Convention is already guaranteed in our country, and accordingly reinforces the benefits of social dialogue that have already been acquired.

Employer member, France – What are we doing here? We are obliged to meet every year, because too many Member States are still negligent in applying ILO standards. Today, we are examining the case of Spain, in violation of Convention No. 144. The legal aspects have already been explained, so I shall simply make a few observations. The Convention, ratified by Spain in 1984, covers tripartite consultations on international standards that are binding on all Member States. What is tripartism, if not the ILO’s DNA? To ignore the rules of tripartism is to trample underfoot a fundamental principle.

First, Spain is excluding the organization representing SMEs, the CEPYME, from the consultations, and the CEOE, the other employers’ organization, is calling for it to be included in the tripartite consultation procedures. The Government of Spain confined itself to replying that it had sent copies of the reports on the Conventions to the CEPYME. However, the Committee of Experts recalls that the obligation to communicate to employers’ organizations the reports provided to the Office under article 23(2), of the ILO Constitution must not be confused with the obligation to consult representative organizations to enable them to participate actively in the formulation of their respective views. Why then sideline the organization representing SMEs, when we know that SMEs account for 95 per cent of enterprises in all the economies of the world?

Second, the Government is continuing to conduct written consultation procedures, despite the objections expressed by employers and workers. Clearly, this model is by no means tripartite, as it does not allow for discussion on an equal footing between the three parties, as employers and workers are not informed of the comments made by the other party, or of the Government’s responses, before the final version of the report. The Committee of Experts recalls that, in accordance with Article 2(3)(d) of Recommendation No. 152, written consultations, if deemed appropriate and sufficient, are only possible with the consent of the parties, which is not required in this case.

In short, we request Spain to include all representative organizations, in particular the one representing SMEs, and to establish effective tripartite consultation procedures, with the agreement of the other parties.

Worker member, Finland – I am speaking on behalf of the workers in the Nordic countries and the French trade union (CFDT). As enshrined in the ILO Constitution, tripartite cooperation at the international level presupposes that it is supported by analogous dialogue at the national level. The established interpretation of government obligations to communicate their reports to the representative organizations of employers and workers does, at the very least, favour the active role of the social partners in supervising the application of standards.

It is not a coincidence that the Convention is to be considered a priority one. Tripartism within the meaning of the Convention is drawn, in essence, from the spirit of the ILO and transformed into a legally binding instrument concerning tripartite consultation on international obligations.

In comparison with the obligations deriving from the Constitution, however, the Convention goes much further. Consultation can be established in law and practice in different ways. What is required is that the methods chosen by the governments are considered acceptable and appropriate by the parties involved, which is, with respect to the current circumstances in Spain, materializing to a large extent. In other words, the States are expected to consider the opinions of the parties and here the Government of Spain is currently succeeding.

While the present-day consultation procedures in Spain should be considered satisfactory, we would like to use the opportunity to emphasize the importance and proper application of these principles. There are effectively no consultations unless they take place before final decisions are taken, irrespective of the nature or form of the procedures adopted. Under national practice, consultation can translate into exchanging communications, the active formulation of proposals by tripartite bodies, or other means considered appropriate by the parties. The essential element is that the consultations must exist prior to the final decision of the Government.

Unfortunately, and usually when inadequacy is detected, it is at the expense of the trade unions. In fact, this is well demonstrated by the situation under the previous Government and which is reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts concerning this case, basically describing the situation as it existed in Spain only a few years ago. It is not enough to issue statements on behalf of Member States if the process is deficient and does not take into account the views, opinions and concerns of the most representative social partners.

We welcome with gratitude the recent positive developments, as reported by the CCOO and the UGT, the major trade unions in Spain. Nevertheless, we would like to note that, as expressed during the time of the reporting period and thus reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts, that the very existence of tripartite consultation cannot be taken for granted. Active promotion and recognition from governments is not automatic. And, as we have regrettably witnessed in certain occasions lately, circumstances can deteriorate quickly and thereby endanger the purpose and legitimate aims of the Convention.

Employer member, United States of America – I speak in my capacity as the Employers’ delegate for the United States of America. This case involves Spain’s voluntary ratification of Convention No. 144. The Convention is a governance Convention that very much underlies all of the tripartite work done here in the ILO and it enshrines those principles of effective tripartite consultation on the implementation of international labour standards under national law. Non-compliance with this Convention jeopardizes the ability of national employers’ and workers’ organizations to meaningfully conduct their good work on international labour standards.

This case, as our able spokesperson has explained, focuses on what it truly means – in law and practice and per the text of the Convention – to “ensure effective consultation” with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. Having voluntarily ratified the Convention, the Government was and is obliged to meet this standard.

The representative employer organizations in Spain are CEOE and CEPYME.

We align with our Employer colleagues that “effective” consultation did not previously occur here, at least in part because it is not sufficient for the Government to simply send to employers’ and workers’ organizations copies of the reports they sent to the ILO Office. Simply sending reports (without more) is not sufficient, as the Committee of Experts has opined and as the basic tenets of common sense and mutual respect should instruct.

Proper and effective consultation deserves and demands more. We should always recall that we can do rich work in this House. But we need to go further and always recall that this rich and meaningful work requires us to engage with one another with respect and humility and, of course, that every effort be made to comply with the Convention.

Employer member, Canada – I present this statement on behalf of Canadian employers. Tripartism is a foundational principle of our work here at the ILO. This institution is built on a shared understanding of the critical importance of cooperation between governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations, in fostering social and economic progress. We therefore note with concern the comments of the Committee of Experts with respect to the apparent lack of meaningful tripartite consultation by the Government of Spain with its social partners, including the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations in that country.

The Committee of Experts, in its report, highlighted in particular the important distinction to be made between mere communication and real consultation. Consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations requires their active participation in the formulation and communication of their respected views, before the Government finalizes its work.

As emphasized in paragraph 92 of the General Survey, 2000, on tripartite consultation, and I quote, the obligation to consult the representative organizations on the reports to be made concerning the application of ratified conventions, must be clearly distinguished from the obligation to communicate these reports under article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. To fulfil their obligations under this provision of the Convention, it is not sufficient for governments to communicate to employers’ and workers’ organizations, copies of the reports that they sent to the Office, since any comments that these organizations may subsequently transmit to the Office on these reports cannot replace the consultations, which have to be held during the preparation of the reports.

We, therefore, urge the Government to develop sustainable procedures to facilitate meaningful, active and robust consultations with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations in the country regarding, at a minimum, matters concerning the activities of the ILO, in compliance with the Convention.

Employer member, Norway – In this particular case, the Norwegian employers wish to highlight the importance of social dialogue as a factor for economic progress and social cohesion. Tripartite social dialogue in Spain has led, in the past, to far-reaching agreements in the socio-labour field that have enabled progress towards a more dynamic, equal and inclusive labour market. This demonstrates that social dialogue is the key tool for reaching consensus that builds trust and leads to policies that contribute to creating favourable conditions for the creation of decent jobs, inclusive economic growth and sustainable development. We encourage the Government to resume the path of social dialogue with the most representative employers’ and trade union organizations in the country, to honour agreements and to implement effective tripartite consultations on national labour issues. We stress the need for the Government to respect and safeguard the representativeness of the employers’ organizations, both the CEOE and the CEPYME, in order to achieve effective social dialogue that will allow to continue forging compromises between the tripartite partners in a context of great complexity and uncertainty.

Worker member, Republic of Korea – Convention No. 144 is a priority governance Convention. To date, it has been ratified by 157 States. The Convention is based on the principle that the proper functioning of tripartite cooperation on international labour standards requires similar tripartite dialogue at national level. Tripartite consultations on international labour standards also need the development of institutional procedures for regular social dialogue, which can help the social partners to resolve conflicts and consolidate democracy.

In its General Survey of 2000, the Committee of Experts noted the wide dissemination of these procedures, including in countries that had not ratified the Convention. In particular, the Committee of Experts cited the questions linked to the choice of the most appropriate forms of consultation, and the determination of the representativeness of employers’ and workers’ organizations, such as those posed today in the case of Spain.

In its observation on this case, the Committee of Experts points out that the consultation of representative organizations must allow for the active participation of the social partners and must take place at the stage when the report is being drawn up by the State concerned. This should not be just a formality, but must be a genuine process which should be done before making the final decision. Providing information and sharing a report to be sent to the Office is not sufficient to satisfy the obligation of effective consultation, given the already definitive nature of the Government’s position. The form of consultation should be determined in accordance with national practice, after consultation with representative organizations.

Recommendation No. 152 proposes several examples: via a committee specially set up for ILO matters; via a body with general competence in the economic, social or labour field; via several bodies with special competence; or by means of written communications where these are accepted as appropriate and sufficient by the participants. In most cases in the Republic of Korea, for example, prior consultation with the social partners on matters related to the ratification and application of international labour standards is done by written communication. The Spanish workers have expressed the view that the solution recently adopted in Spain, consisting of organizing a tripartite meeting before sending the final documents to the ILO, is appropriate.

We take note of the technical solutions and improvements implemented and wish to stress once again the importance of ensuring effective tripartite consultations in accordance with the Convention.

Employer member, Colombia – I would like to refer to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the need for effective tripartite consultations. In this regard, we would like to underline that effective consultations are based fundamentally on social dialogue and are an essential tool for the formulation of joint proposals, between workers, employers and Governments, that promote growth, peace and general well-being.

Effective consultation involves not only the written communication of information and the Government’s position on compliance with Conventions, but also genuine dialogue with the most representative social partners, in which the different views can be presented and tripartite discussion take place on fundamental labour-related matters.

According to the Committee of Experts, in order to comply with the obligations under this provision of the Convention, it is not sufficient for the Government to communicate to workers’ and employers’ organizations a copy of the reports that it sends to the Office. The consultation of workers’ and employers’ organizations implies their active participation and the formulation and communication of their respective views. In this regard, a climate of trust, based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations, is required to achieve genuine dialogue and effective consultations.

We therefore call on the Government to ensure the establishment of mechanisms for tripartite social dialogue and the holding of effective tripartite consultations, with recognition of the most representative employers’ organizations.

Employer member, Argentina – The employers of Argentina welcome the information provided by the Government of Spain, and the commitment indicated with regard to compliance with the Convention under discussion. However, now that we have heard from the social partners, we understand that there are still shortcomings in the application of the Convention.

Through its work, the Committee has repeatedly indicated that the recognition of the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, and their involvement in effective mechanisms for consultation and social dialogue, are fundamental factors in the functioning of the ILO’s standard-setting and standards review mechanisms.

The definition of strategic priorities at the national level should only be undertaken after discussions with representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, in order to identify challenges, opportunities and needs related to the application of international labour standards.

In this regard, we reiterate the Committee of Experts’ observations on how the obligation to consult the representative organizations on the reports that must be communicated on the application of ratified Conventions must be clearly distinguished from the obligation to communicate these reports under article 23(2) of the Constitution.

The written communication of reports, together with an invitation to comment in writing, does not amount to effective consultation under the terms of the Convention.

The quality of the supervision of international labour standards is related to recognition of the experience and views of constituents on the subjects covered and the building of general consensus on the strategy for the application of a Convention in the country.

In the present case, it is of paramount importance for genuine and effective consultations to take place through institutionalized tripartite dialogue bodies where the organizations are represented on an equal footing. In particular, it is necessary to heed the request by the CEOE for the inclusion of the CEPYME in the consultations, as the representative organization of the country’s SMEs.

We hope that, in light of this discussion, the Government of Spain will take appropriate measures for the holding of effective consultations under the terms of the Convention and will provide detailed information on such consultation processes. In particular, we encourage the Government to take measures to ensure the functioning of institutionalized and transparent consultation mechanisms, with the participation of representative workers’ and employers’ organizations represented on an equal footing, to ensure compliance in law and practice with the Convention.

Interpretation from Portuguese: Employer member, Portugal – The Portuguese employers fully support the arguments of the Spanish employers, the CEOE and the CEPYME concerning the interpretation of the Convention. This Convention has been ratified 157 times and was ratified by Portugal in 1981. As a result of this Convention and the integration of the European Social Model, which is based on a set of fundamental principles, Portugal created the Standing Committee for Social Dialogue (CPCS) in 1984.

The tripartite social dialogue model serves two purposes: it enables consultation on national and international reports, and also tripartite social dialogue. This role in dialogue presupposes the collective autonomy and independence of the social partners and the credibility of institutions, as well as mutual trust between the social partners and Governments. This means that the participation of the social partners in the design of policies must be such as to ensure that these measures are realistic and pragmatic. Only in this way can the social partners, from their position near to the grassroots, negotiate solutions for tripartite social dialogue.

Solutions agreed between all the parties are more likely to be accepted than solutions imposed without consideration of the parties’ respective interests. Tripartite dialogue cannot be detached from national strategies.

The social partners must establish programmes and assume their commitments with the Government. This is essential for social peace.

Employer member, Mexico – First, we thank the Government of Spain for the information provided in this case and, in view of the significance of the Convention, we note that Spain ratified it on 13 February 1984.

In relation to this case, it should be emphasized that one of the aspects relates to an observation made in 2017 by the social partners requesting the inclusion of the CEPYME in the tripartite consultation procedures for the preparation of reports on ratified ILO Conventions.

On the official website of the CEPYME, there is a publication entitled, “The CEPYME’s proposals for the new Government”, and in the press release related to this publication, the CEPYME calls for enterprises to be considered when drafting legislation, and for the development of a more SME-friendly fiscal, labour and administrative context, in order to facilitate greater investment in support of production, business growth, employment and the welfare state.

Regarding social dialogue, the press release also indicates that, “in labour matters, the CEPYME advocates promoting social dialogue and collective bargaining as pillars of the modernization of the labour market, and improving active and passive employment policies, and considers it necessary to place greater emphasis on vocational training, reskilling and continuous training to address the problem of labour shortages affecting key sectors of the Spanish production system”.

Clearly, the CEPYME is expressing concern for the strengthening of social dialogue and, despite the fact that the Government of Spain, in the information previously provided to this Committee, indicated that the complaint is considered to have been resolved, as the CEPYME is traditionally part of the consultation process, a number of measures still need to be taken in order to generate effective social dialogue.

As the Mexican employers have previously indicated, it should not be forgotten that social dialogue is a means of harmonizing conflicting interests and, as both employers and workers are the main providers of goods and services, and creators of wealth, they are two important stakeholders in any market economy and should be given due consideration.

In light of the above, and in view of the importance of strengthening tripartite consultation and thus social dialogue, we respectfully request the Government of Spain to review the time afforded to trade unions and employers’ organizations to enable them to examine the texts of the reports on ILO Conventions.

Employer member, Costa Rica – Employers in Costa Rica are concerned at the violation by the Government of Spain of the Convention, which the ILO considers to be a governance Convention.

The purpose of consulting the most representative employers’ organizations in boards, committees and other forums within government institutions is to contribute to the’ development of countries through monitoring and accountability, transparency and democracy. It also contributes experience and knowledge, enriching discussions and providing solutions to various issues.

Regarding the consultation of reports, the Committee of Experts has requested the Government to provide updated and detailed information on the manner in which consultation is guaranteed with all the representative employers’ organizations, including the CEPYME, in the procedures required under the Convention. The CEPYME plays a fundamental role in representing SMEs, which are the productive base of our countries and important generators of decent work. The CEPYME defends, represents and promotes the interests of SMEs and selfemployed workers and is recognized as the country’s most representative business organization.

Tripartite consultation can boost productivity and competitiveness, while ensuring decent work. We therefore respectfully request the Government of Spain to take the necessary measures to consult the most representative employers’ organizations in the country, taking into consideration the necessary logistical aspects to ensure that this consultation guarantees the effective and genuine participation of Spanish employers. Undoubtedly, respect for social dialogue through tripartite consultation is a basic element for the development of any democracy.

Employer member, New Zealand – I want to emphasize the importance of the Convention, which promotes at the national level the application of the principle of tripartism through effective consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations on international labour standards. Tripartism is only effective when it exists in an environment of free and open social dialogue.

However, this appears to be somewhat lacking in that the CEPYME was not systematically informed or consulted on the Government’s reports on international labour standards, while the CEOE was. And this was despite the CEOE having requested the inclusion of the CEPYME in the tripartite consultation process. The Convention sets out clear requirements about the quality and frequency of consultation. These requirements have already been enunciated so I will not repeat them here.

Here we note the Committee of Experts observation that the Government sent copies of the report on ratified Conventions to the CEPYME. However, while sending reports is informative, it cannot be considered to be consultation. We recall earlier comments by the Committee of Experts that the obligation to consult representative organizations on the reports concerning the application of ratified Conventions must be clearly distinguished from the obligation to communicate these reports under the ILO Constitution. We accordingly urge the Government to consult the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations during the preparation of Government reports.

In relation to concerns that employers’ and workers’ organizations have not been aware of the other parties’ observations and the Government responses to these until they receive the final version of reports, we similarly urge the Government to be proactive and inclusive in its consultation with the social partners over international labour standards.

In this regard, the Employers’ group also emphasize that employers’ and workers’ organizations must have sufficient time to analyse the reports and prepare relevant and quality observations and to carry out consultation with their respective member organizations.

Observer, Confederation of Workers of the Universities of the Americas (CONTUA) – The role of the trade union movement is to identify situations in which there is a serious and manifest violation of international labour standards so that the cases can be dealt with by this Committee. We were therefore surprised that Spain was chosen for examination in relation to this Convention. The reason is that we believe objectively that if we were to make a weighted global ranking of the 157 countries that have ratified the Convention since 1976, Spain would be among the most select group in matters of social dialogue and tripartite consultation, despite the oscillations of its Government over the past decade.

If the criteria consisted of countries without consultation and dialogue, countries with consultation and dialogue deficits, countries with acceptable levels of compliance and countries that are in compliance, Spain would definitely rank among the latter. However, over and above this initial observation, international labour standards, including this Convention, form part of human and labour rights as they relate to the protection of the right to freedom of association. As such, we must always strive for better compliance with and the improvement of standards.

Perhaps, then, this discussion is about how, even in a country where social dialogue and tripartite consultation are functioning acceptably, we must always work together to deepen the democratic decision-making process and active, timely and enabling social participation practices.

The Convention is based on the principle that effective and functional tripartite cooperation requires the implementation of tripartite dialogue mechanisms at the national level. At the international level, we agree to submit to consultation and dialogue processes. We consult the information available, share it and engage in dialogue to understand each other’s positions, reach agreements and design road maps to overcome the problems identified.

Compliance with the standard does not end with the procedural formality of the communication of documents.

It should be emphasized that these consultations also foster the development of social dialogue through the establishment of regular tripartite dialogue procedures. They can also contribute to resolving conflicts and consolidating democracy, a value that we must promote and protect.

In my country, Argentina, if we had the situation that prevails in Spain, we could talk about a case of progress. We are still several steps behind, but paradoxically, at least until the arrival of the present Government, we were among the countries in the region with the greatest dialogue.

The Spanish workers considered that the solutions recently adopted in Spain, consisting of holding a tripartite meeting before communicating the final documents to the ILO, were adequate. We believe that, while it is always possible to improve the situation, the case we are examining here does not involve serious aberrations.

We note the technical solutions and improvements implemented and wish to emphasize once again the importance of ensuring effective tripartite consultations in accordance with the Convention.

Chairperson – I can see no more requests for the floor, so I now invite the Government representative of Spain, to take the floor for his concluding remarks.

Government representative – I would like to say that I have the strange feeling of a vacuum as if my initial intervention had not been heard by any of the speakers, especially the employer representatives, who all referred to defects in the application of the Convention that the Government of Spain has resolved.

And I am going to insist briefly on focusing on the Convention, as reference has been made to many other Conventions. In the specific case of Spain, in practice it is possible to refer to nearly all ILO Conventions because, I re-emphasize, we are the country in the world that has ratified the most Conventions.

But I would like to insist that the CEPYME is not excluded from any system of consultations in Spain, and that it is included and participates fully at the same level as the CEOE in social dialogue, and particularly in the tripartite consultations held under the Convention. It is therefore our understanding that this has absolutely been resolved and that there is no such exclusion.

All the employers who spoke reiterated the importance of substantive and effective consultations. The Government of Spain agrees. Consultations are not a mere formality, not a mere delivery of papers or files. Consultations are real, and it is necessary to listen carefully and take into account what is said by the social partners and, in so far as possible, integrate it. This also occurs in Spain under the Convention, with the report that is negotiated, and the comments that are made by the social partners are shared so that everyone knows what the others are saying. Draft papers are shared before being sent to the ILO, the comments of the partners are incorporated and a meeting is held before the reports are sent to the ILO.

The Government of Spain does all this and has been doing it in recent years. The time limits set in July and August are almost necessary in view of the schedule of the ILO meeting, which is held immediately after the summer period. And holidays in Spain do not last for two months. We have ratified the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132), and we guarantee one month of paid holidays for all workers in the country. But we cannot consider July and August as non-working months during which the social partners do not work.

I honestly believe that this is a closed case and, as some of the speakers said, it has been resolved. But the Government of Spain will listen carefully to any recommendations that the Committee may make which can help us improve still further the effect given to the Convention.

Look at the last four years, when the Government and the country that I am representing here, in the social dialogue agreements that have been concluded with unions and employers’ organizations, has respected social dialogue to such an extent that what has been agreed through social dialogue has been reflected precisely in the Official Journal. That is to say that social dialogue agreements have been transposed into legislation.

In all humility, I believe that it constitutes a model of agreed labour legislation, which is unusual in all countries, because there has basically not been any public influence. The agreements concluded in a tripartite context have been converted into rules, legislation, laws, with amendments to the Workers’ Charter. The first law has been adopted setting out the labour conditions governing work on digital platforms, we have created an Act on remote work, we have introduced a system for the reduction of working ours to address enterprise crises and the health crisis, and we will transform into legislation the measures to prevent discrimination against LGTBI persons. I insist that we place great value on what we negotiate with the social partners that we have converted the agreements directly into public rules, regulations and binding texts applicable to the whole of the production system.

What I would really like to say, and repeating once again what I said in my intervention, is that Spain has a constant and permanent commitment to social dialogue, based on real and effective social consultation through which agreements are reached. Moreover, Spain has a particularly intense commitment to the ILO, and therefore has no difficulty in submitting whenever necessary to examination by the supervisory bodies in order to be able to learn and improve its social dialogue systems.

Indeed, Spain has a firm commitment which it sees as a specific characteristic of the country to human labour rights, as indicated by the last Workers’ representative.

Human labour rights are what separate us from barbary, they are the foundation of civilization in the world, a world that guarantees human labour rights in all countries, which prevents the race to the bottom for working conditions, and which in the final analysis flies the flag for the ILO and its Declaration of Philadelphia.

Spain shares the idea that labour is not a commodity, and that for labour not to be a commodity there has to be social dialogue, which acts as a guarantee for human rights and for all the fundamental principles and rights at work.

And let me finish, moreover, as the case of Spain has given rise to such interest for all employers throughout the world, by saying that one of the elements of the social dialogue that will be undertaken in Spain over the next few weeks will be something that was recommended by the Committee of Experts in a very important report a year ago, namely the development of public policies for the reduction of working hours and that we are starting to ensure healthy labour standards that allow people to reconcile their private and family lives with their working life.

This has to be done within the context of social dialogue, and we hope that the employers, who today are so concerned by effective consultations, will participate, as I am sure they will do in Spain, in reducing the working day so that we can go forward towards a world of greater well-being at work

I will end here, and I will not use up all the time available to me, but I would once again like to thank you for the opportunity that you have given us to be heard and to say in all humility that the Government of Spain is ready to learn from any recommendations that are made by the Committee of Experts. We firmly believe in tripartism, we believe in the ILO system, we believe in social dialogue and we believe in human labour rights above everything. You can always find an ally in Spain for the implementation of ILO policies.

Unfortunately, a case of a certain urgency requires me to return to Madrid. I have to catch a flight in around 50 minutes and I will not be able to listen to the replies of the Employers and Workers. I offer sincere apologies, and it will be for the Spain team to listen to them carefully. I once again thank them and I am fully at their disposal because we believe that it is a closed case, which in any case has given us the opportunity to renew our commitment to the ILO, which we will do once again tomorrow with the ratification of the new Conventions by the Second Vice-President of the Government.

Worker members – I would first like to thank all the speakers for their participation in this discussion. I particularly welcome the many interventions by the Employers’ group, who have recalled the value that they place on the comments of the Committee of Experts and who have made plentiful references to General Surveys. I also thank the Government for its clarifications and constructive approach.

We would also like to react to some of the issues raised. Certain speakers criticized the Spanish Government for its involvement in the collective bargaining process. These comments are worthy of interest, but fall outside the scope of the Convention and therefore of today’s discussion.

The same applies to the reflections on the intervention of Spain to the International Court of Justice concerning the right to strike. This is not one of the subjects listed under Article 5 of the Convention. Indeed, as I said at the beginning, this provision makes a precise enumeration of the various subjects, and the positions taken by Governments in the ILO Governing Body are not in that list. I repeat, they do not include the positions taken up by Governments in the ILO Governing Body.

In contrast with what seemed to be said by some speakers, the Convention does not cover tripartism and the promotion of social dialogue in general terms. Its objective is more limited. As its title clearly indicates, it specifically covers tripartite consultations on international labour standards. We may regret or deplore that, but, in the meantime, it is the real situation to which we have to adapt.

No one here can deny the existence of social dialogue mechanisms in Spain. The discussion that we have just had was able to illustrate the efforts made by the Government to give effect to the Convention in law and practice. The Government has also made specific commitments in relation to the matters raised by the Committee of Experts. The Committee will have the occasion to assess the situation when it receives the next report from the Spanish authorities. In the meantime, we encourage the Government to continue its efforts for the implementation of the Convention.

Employer members – The Employer members would like to thank the Government and the various speakers who took the floor for their interventions and the information provided, of which we have taken full note.

We reiterate the importance of Convention No. 144 as one of the four governance Conventions with a very high ratification rate, which promotes the application of the principle of tripartism through effective consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations at the national level. Tripartism is one of the pillars of the ILO, which distinguishes the ILO from any other international organizations.

The Employer members recall that it was within this Committee that the possibility of adopting an instrument dealing specifically with the creation of national tripartite bodies was first suggested in 1972, with the aim of involving more closely employers’ and workers’ organizations in the standard-setting process. The Convention has the merit of including flexible elements. However, to be effective, consultations should not be limited to purely formal approaches, and representative employers’ and workers’ organizations should receive full attention. The Employer members consider it essential that the input of employers’ and workers’ organizations should be given serious consideration by the competent authority. Therefore, we welcome the willingness of the Government to further improve the process of tripartite consultation and encourage the Government to report on the progress made.

The Employer members recommend that national authorities take the necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that effective consultations are carried out with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Specifically, we recommend that the Government:

• first, guarantee effective consultation with representative employers’ organizations;
• second, proceed to implement the announced mechanisms;
• third, adopt other complementary measures so that effective and permanent consultations are held on issues related to international labour standards; and
• finally, provide information to the Committee of Experts before its next meeting on the issues discussed and the frequency and content of tripartite consultations.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee recalled that tripartite consultation to promote the implementation of international labour standards is of paramount importance.

Taking the discussion into account, the Committee requested the Government to continue to guarantee effective consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in the procedures required under the Convention and to provide information on the frequency of those consultations and working methods.

The Committee requested the Government to provide the information requested as well as information on the measures taken to implement the above recommendations in accordance with the regular reporting cycle.

Government representative – We thank the Committee for these conclusions, which request the Government to continue to guarantee effective consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in the procedures required under the Convention.

Spain wishes to affirm as a matter of principle its respect for the ILO supervisory system. We recognize and support the independence of the Committee of Experts. We have at all times defended its mandate and functions in the ILO supervisory system, and we consider the role of the Committee of Experts to be indispensable in undertaking an impartial technical examination of the manner in which Member States apply Conventions in law and practice.

Our country wishes to continue being a reference point in defence of the standard-setting mandate of the ILO in the context of multilateral cooperation, which the Organization of course represents through its tripartite composition, and as also demonstrated by the tripartite agreements concluded at the national level in recent years between Governments and the social partners.

We wish to give thanks to the Workers’ Group and the Employers’ Group for their interventions, and to the members of Spanish unions and employers’ organizations.

We have taken note of the conclusions in relation to the provision of information in accordance with the regular reporting cycle on the frequency of tripartite consultations and the working methods, as well as information on the measures adopted.

In light of the above, and in our conviction that human rights and labour standards are fundamental for relations between persons and nations, we thank all those who through their presence have contributed to the achievement of the Organization’s objectives of social justice and its standard-setting mandate.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO), received on 4 August 2022. The Committee also notes the observations of the Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organizations (CEOE) and the Spanish Confederation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CEPYME), as well as those of the CCOO and the General Union of Workers (UGT), transmitted by the Government in its report.

Article 1 of the Convention. Representative organizations. The Committee notes that, in its observations, the CEOE requests the inclusion of the CEPYME in the tripartite consultation procedures on the preparation of reports. In this respect, the Government indicates that it sent copies of the reports on ratified Conventions to the CEPYME. In this context, the Committee recalls that “the obligation to consult the representative organizations on the reports to be made concerning the application of ratified Conventions must be clearly distinguished from the obligation to communicate these reports under article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. To fulfil their obligations under this provision of the Convention, it is not sufficient for governments to communicate to employers’ and workers’ organizations copies of the reports that they send to the Office. The consultations of the employers’ and workers’ organizations implies their active participation in the formulation and communication of their respective views. The comments on the reports that these organizations may subsequently transmit to the Office cannot replace the consultations which have to be held during the preparation of the reports” (see General Survey 2000 on Tripartite Consultation, paragraph 92). The Committee requests the Government to provide updated and detailed information on how consultation is guaranteed with all the employers’ organizations, including the CEPYME, in the procedures required under the Convention.

Articles 2, 5 and 6. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government concerning the consultations held with the social partners between June 2017 and June 2022 on matters relating to international labour standards covered by the Convention. With regard to the consultations concerning the reports on ratified Conventions, the Government indicates that such reports, once drafted, were sent to the social partners to enable them to make observations they considered important, and to which the Government responded. Subsequently, the observations of the social partners were sent, together with the reports, to the Office. The Government indicates that the views of the social partners are also included in the files for submitting and ratifying international labour instruments, which are sent to the Cortes Generales.

The Committee notes that the workers’ organizations - the CCOO and UGT - state that, while the timelines for the social partners to make their observations and contributions to the reports have improved, the Government continues to conduct consultation procedures in writing, despite the opposing position expressed by the workers’ organizations in this respect. The CCOO states that this consultation model is not tripartite, as the employers’ and workers’ organizations are not aware of the other parties’ observations and the Government’s responses to those until they receive the final version of the reports. The CCOO and UGT consider that it would be useful to explore procedures to guarantee effective tripartite consultations. In this regard, the CCOO maintains that such consultations could take place in in-person meetings with the three constituents, while the UGT has requested that the possibility be explored of establishing a tripartite committee specifically in charge of matters relating to international labour standards, or of holding consultations within a tripartite body with general economic, social or labour-related competence. The UGT highlights the failure to implement the Convention, as long as a new procedure to guarantee effective tripartite consultation is not established. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that paragraph 2(3) of the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152) sets out the possibilities available to Member States to undertake the tripartite consultations required by the Convention. Under the terms of paragraph 2(3)(d) of the Recommendation, consultations may not be undertaken in writing except “where those involved in the consultative procedures are agreed that such communications are appropriate and sufficient” (see 2000 General Survey on Tripartite Consultation, paragraph 71). Lastly, the Committee notes the CCOO’s statement that it may be useful to draft an annual report on the working of the procedures provided for in the Convention, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention. Therefore, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how it takes into account the opinions expressed by the representative workers’ organizations on the working of effective prior consultative procedures provided for in the Convention, as well as on the possibility of establishing amended procedures in response to the concerns expressed by the trade union organizations in their observations. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide detailed and updated information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all matters related to international labour standards covered by the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether, in accordance with Article 6, it has consulted the representative organizations to draft an annual report on the working of the consultative procedures provided for in the Convention and, if so, to indicate the outcome of these consultations and provide a copy of the relevant report.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO) and the General Union of Workers (UGT), received on 11 and 17 August 2017, respectively. The Committee also notes the Government’s replies to the previous observations of the CCOO and the UGT, included in its report.

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the detailed information provided in the Government’s report regarding the consultations carried out with the social partners between 2014 and 2017. With regard to the previous observations of the trade union organizations, the Government indicates that, between 2014 and 2016, the reports on ratified Conventions were sent to the social partners at the same time as they were provided to the ILO. The Government indicates that, on occasions, the reports were not sent first to the social partners, owing to the high number of reports to be drafted and their complex preparation, which entails requesting reports from various ministries. However, it states that it will undertake, as far as possible, to send the reports to the social partners before they are sent to the ILO so that their observations can be incorporated into the corresponding report and that the Government can respond to them. In this context, the UGT indicates in its observations that this year, the Government sent the reports on the ratified Conventions to the social partners on 7 July 2017. The UGT appreciates this change in the Government’s approach. Additionally, the UGT and CCOO maintain that the procedure of written consultation is inadequate to guarantee the effective consultation with the social partners required under the Convention. The UGT therefore refers to the need to study the possibility of applying a new consultation procedure, through either a committee specifically in charge of matters relating to ILO activities or a body with general competence in the economic, social or labour fields. The CCOO indicates that no consultations were held with the social partners on the implementation or functioning of the procedures envisaged in the Convention. In its reply, the Government refers to the establishment of the Economic and Social Council in 1991, a governmental consultative body dealing with socio-economic and labour issues, attached to the Ministry of Employment and Social Security. The Government adds that the tripartite consultations were held in a way deemed appropriate, through written communication, and that the social partners did not request that meetings should be held on matters related to the reports. The Committee recalls that in Paragraph 2(3) of the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), the possible ways for member States to carry out the consultations required by the Convention are listed. Under the terms of the Recommendation, the consultations should not be undertaken through written communications except “where those involved in the consultative procedures are agreed that such communications are appropriate and sufficient” (see 2000 General Survey on tripartite consultation, paragraph 71). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing up-to-date information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all matters related to international labour standards covered by the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate how it takes into account the opinions expressed by the representative workers’ organizations on the functioning of effective prior consultative procedures required under the Convention, as well as the possibility of establishing amended procedures in response to the concerns expressed by the trade union organizations in their observations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 5(1) of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in December 2014 and the observations made by the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CCOO) and the General Union of Workers (UGT), which were transmitted to the Government in September 2014. These two confederations, inter alia, express their concern over the fact that they only receive copies of reports on the application of ratified Conventions either very late (as from the second week of September) or only once the Government has sent them to the Office. The Committee invites the Government to send any comments that it considers appropriate on the observations of the CCOO and the UGT.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report, which describes the written communications made to the representative organizations on the matters covered by the Convention. With reference to the previous observation, the Government states that many practical and ad hoc meetings have been held on issues of an international nature, particularly before the Council of Ministers of the European Union and in the context of technical cooperation with Latin America. The Government indicates its readiness to look into the possibility of a schedule of periodic meetings with general objectives, which could be in addition to written communications, for all the representative organizations of employers and workers in relation to ILO matters. The Committee trusts that the Government will continue providing information in its reports on developments relating to the consultation procedures required by Article 2 as it relates to the issues addressed in Article 5.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the observations made by the General Union of Workers (UGT), in a communication addressed to the ILO in January 2000 and transmitted to the Government, on the failure of the latter to organize the meeting with the social partners, that it had requested, to study the establishment of more appropriate consultation procedures to give effect to the Convention. The UGT indicates that the comments it has been making for many years on application of the Convention remain unchanged. The Committee requests the Government to make any comment it deems appropriate in reply to these observations.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted that the Government undertook to consult the social partners in order to find an appropriate solution to the practical problems of application raised by the UGT and the Trade Union Federation of Workers’ Commissions (CC.OO.). The Committee expresses the hope that the Government’s next report would supply information on real progress achieved in establishing an effective consultation procedure, as required by Article 2 of the Convention, to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and the information provided in reply to its previous observation. It notes that the consultation procedures, on which the General Union of Workers (UGT) and the Trade Union Federation of Workers Commissions (CC.OO.) commented, have remained unaltered since the previous government report. However, it observes that the Government has undertaken to consult the two representative organizations mentioned above so as to study alternative procedures to find an appropriate solution to the problems raised concerning application in practice. In view of the Government's positive attitude, the Committee trusts that its next report will bear witness to real progress in the elaboration of a consultation procedure within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention to the satisfaction of all interested parties.

The Committee further notes with interest the detailed information submitted by the Government on consultations undertaken during the reporting period on each of the questions under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the comments formulated by the General Union of Workers (UGT) in its communication addressed to the ILO in January 1998, a copy of which was transmitted to the Government. The UGT emphasizes that the Government has made considerable effort to communicate the reports due under article 22 of the ILO Constitution to the representative organizations. However, the time-limits granted to organizations are too short to ensure effective consultations. The UGT, moreover, reiterates its previous comments concerning the lack of consultations on the re-examination of the unratified Conventions, as provided for under Article 5, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention. The Committee refers to its previous observation, in which it recalled that in the General Survey of 1982, it distinguished the simple exchange of information from consultation which constitutes a process assisting in decision-making (paragraph 42) and requests the Government to respond, where it deems appropriate, to the comments made by the UGT. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed responses in its next report to the questions raised in its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the comments received from the Trade Union Federation of Workers' Commissions (CC.OO.) in May 1995 and from the General Union of Workers (UGT) in July 1995. The Committee also notes the Government's report, received in August 1995, which refers to the comments made by the UGT and provides information in response to the Committee's previous observation.

1. The Committee notes that the General Union of Workers (UGT) reiterates its previous comments, alleging that the Government still does not hold effective consultations on ILO standards and activities. In particular, the UGT denounces the lack of consultations on the re-examination of unratified Conventions (Article 5, paragraph 1(c) of the Convention) and the difficulties encountered in holding effective consultations on the Government's reports due under article 22 of the ILO Constitution (Article 5, paragraph 1(d)). The workers' committees consider that the Economic and Social Council is not an appropriate body to supervise the application of the Convention and that the trade unions have not been consulted on the required procedures. The CC.OO. recalls in particular that Article 2 of the Convention lays down the obligation to ensure effective consultations which, under the terms of Article 5, paragraph 2, shall be undertaken at appropriate intervals fixed by mutual agreement.

2. The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that it is ready to find any solution that resolves the practical problems of application raised. The Government emphasizes that it has established direct personal contacts in order to ensure that all written communications are received by the competent bodies of all the social and economic organizations. It also refers to a possible change in the system of consultation, provided that this is explicitly accepted by all the parties involved.

3. The Committee recalls that the Convention lays down that the nature and form of the consultation procedures shall be determined in accordance with national practice. Member States are obliged only to ensure that they are "effective", as required by Article 2, paragraph 1. With reference to its General Survey, the Committee points out once again that effective consultations are consultations which enable employers' and workers' organizations to have a useful say in matters relating to the activities of the ILO referred to in the Convention and the Recommendation. In the case under consideration, it observes that the above-mentioned workers' organizations do not consider written communications to be sufficient to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention. In these circumstances, and taking into account the positive attitude of the Government, the Committee considers it appropriate to suggest that the parties concerned would study the other possible methods proposed by Recommendation No. 152, though the list of such methods is not exhaustive. In addition, the Committee also recalls that Article 6 provides for the issue of an annual report on the working of the procedures "when this is considered appropriate after consultation with the representative organizations".

4. The Committee trusts that the Government will supply, in its next detailed report on the application of the Convention, information on the progress achieved with a view to operating appropriate procedures in order to ensure effective consultations to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, taking into account the observations made, on the one hand, and the national practice, on the other hand.

The Committee requests the Government once again to take the measures necessary, as soon as possible, to bring its practice into full conformity with the essential provisions of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information which it contains in reply to its previous observation. The Government refers to the exchanges of information which have taken place during the period covered by the report. In addition, it indicates that no action has been taken as a result of the Committee's previous comments, since no alternative consultation procedure has been proposed by the representative organizations of employers and workers. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that in its 1982 General Survey it distinguished the simple exchange of information from consultation which constitutes a process assisting in decision-making (paragraph 42). Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government's report contains insufficient information in response to its previous comments and trusts that in its next report it will provide complete replies to the questions raised in its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the comments received from the Trade Union Federation of Workers' Commissions (CC.OO.) in May 1995 and from the General Union of Workers (UGT) in July 1995. The Committee also notes the Government's report, received in August 1995, which refers to the comments made by the UGT and provides information in response to the Committee's previous observation.

1. The Committee notes that the General Union of Workers (UGT) reiterates its previous comments, alleging that the Government still does not hold effective consultations on ILO standards and activities. In particular, the UGT denounces the lack of consultations on the re-examination of unratified Conventions (Article 5, paragraph 1(c) of the Convention) and the difficulties encountered in holding effective consultations on the Government's reports due under article 22 of the ILO Constitution (Article 5, paragraph 1(d)). The workers' committees consider that the Economic and Social Council is not an appropriate body to supervise the application of the Convention and that the trade unions have not been consulted on the required procedures. The CC.OO. recalls in particular that Article 2 of the Convention lays down the obligation to ensure effective consultations which, under the terms of Article 5, paragraph 2, shall be undertaken at appropriate intervals fixed by mutual agreement.

2. The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that it is ready to find any solution that resolves the practical problems of application raised. The Government emphasizes that it has established direct personal contacts in order to ensure that all written communications are received by the competent bodies of all the social and economic organizations. It also refers to a possible change in the system of consultation, provided that this is explicitly accepted by all the parties involved.

3. The Committee recalls that the Convention lays down that the nature and form of the consultation procedures shall be determined in accordance with national practice. Member States are obliged only to ensure that they are "effective", as required by Article 2, paragraph 1. With reference to its General Survey, the Committee points out once again that effective consultations are consultations which enable employers' and workers' organizations to have a useful say in matters relating to the activities of the ILO referred to in the Convention and the Recommendation. In the case under consideration, it observes that the above-mentioned workers' organizations do not consider written communications to be sufficient to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention. In these circumstances, and taking into account the positive attitude of the Government, the Committee considers it appropriate to suggest that the parties concerned would study the other possible methods proposed by Recommendation No. 152, though the list of such methods is not exhaustive. In addition, the Committee also recalls that Article 6 provides for the issue of an annual report on the working of the procedures "when this is considered appropriate after consultation with the representative organizations".

4. The Committee trusts that the Government will supply, in its next detailed report on the application of the Convention, information on the progress achieved with a view to operating appropriate procedures in order to ensure effective consultations to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, taking into account the observations made, on the one hand, and the national practice, on the other hand.

The Committee requests the Government once again to take the measures necessary, as soon as possible, to bring its practice into full conformity with the essential provisions of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report and the comments made by the General Union of Workers (UGT). The UGT states that the Government has never provided it with copies of its reports, but each year has sent only a copy of the questionnaires it receives from the ILO and asks the representative organizations for relevant comments, but gives them very little time to reply. The UGT acknowledges that this last matter can be remedied since the workers' organizations are able to send their observations directly to the ILO. However, it adds, the Government's failure to send the reports means that the unions do not know what steps the Government claims to be taking to ensure compliance with international standards, and are unable to make any comparison with their own positions. In a communication of 30 September 1994 the UGT asked the Government for the reports drawn up by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The Government asserts that it has treated the UGT in the same way as the other industrial organizations and lists the measures taken - giving their dates - which include the sending of reports. The Committee points out that one of the subjects to be dealt with in the consultations provided for in the Convention is matters arising out of reports to be made to the International Labour Office under article 22 of the ILO Constitution (Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention). It also points out that for such consultations to be effective it would be appropriate for employers' and workers' organizations to become acquainted with the content of the reports due under the ILO Constitution. The Committee notes that the reports requested must reach the International Labour Office within a prescribed time-limit. Consequently, the Committee is bound to ask the Government once again, under procedures "which ensure effective consultations" (Article 2), to take measures necessary to facilitate consultations between representatives of the Government, the employers and the workers on the items covered by the Convention (Article 5, paragraph 1), to the satisfaction of all the parties. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the nature of any reports and recommendations produced as a result of the consultations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the comments received from the Trade Union Federation of Workers' Commissions (CC.OO.) in May 1995 and from the General Union of Workers (UGT) in July 1995. The Committee also notes the Government's report, received in August 1995, which refers to the comments made by the UGT and provides information in response to the Committee's previous observation.

1. The Committee notes that the General Union of Workers (UGT) reiterates its previous comments, alleging that the Government still does not hold effective consultations on ILO standards and activities. In particular, the UGT denounces the lack of consultations on the re-examination of unratified Conventions (Article 5, paragraph 1(c) of the Convention) and the difficulties encountered in holding effective consultations on the Government reports due under article 22 of the ILO Constitution (Article 5, paragraph 1(d)). The workers' committees consider that the Economic and Social Council is not an appropriate body to supervise the application of the Convention and that the trade unions have not been consulted on the required procedures. The CC.OO. recalls in particular that Article 2 of the Convention lays down the obligation to ensure effective consultations which, under the terms of Article 5, paragraph 2, shall be undertaken at appropriate intervals fixed by mutual agreement.

2. The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that it is ready to find any solution that resolves the practical problems of application raised. The Government emphasizes that it has established direct personal contacts in order to ensure that all written communications are received by the competent bodies of all the social and economic organizations. It also refers to a possible change in the system of consultation, provided that this is explicitly accepted by all the parties involved.

3. The Committee recalls that the Convention lays down that the nature and form of the consultation procedures shall be determined in accordance with national practice. Member States are obliged only to ensure that they are "effective", as required by Article 2, paragraph 1. With reference to its General Survey, the Committee points out once again that effective consultations are consultations which enable employers' and workers' organizations to have a useful say in matters relating to the activities of the ILO referred to in the Convention and the Recommendation. In the case under consideration, it observes that the above-mentioned workers' organizations do not consider written communications to be sufficient to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention. In these circumstances, and taking into account the positive attitude of the Government, the Committee considers appropriate to suggest that the parties concerned would study the other possible methods proposed by Recommendation No. 152, though the list of such methods is not exhaustive. In addition, the Committee also recalls that Article 6 provides for the issue of an annual report on the working of the procedures "when this is considered appropriate after consultation with the representative organizations".

4. The Committee trusts that the Government will supply, in its next detailed report on the application of the Convention, information on the progress achieved with a view to operating appropriate procedures in order to ensure effective consultations to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, taking into account the observations made, on the one hand, and the national practice, on the other hand.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

1. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report and the comments made by the General Union of Workers (UGT) which considers, among other things, that consultation procedures should not be limited to written communications. It notes Act No. 21 of 17 June 1991 establishing the Economic and Social Council which, according to the Government's previous report, would be able to examine the matter of selecting a different consultation procedure. It notes the Government's indication that the above Council only came into operation in October 1992. The Committee observes that the Act of 1991 does not establish the participation of government representatives in the Council which acts in an advisory capacity for the Government particularly when legislation is prepared to regulate labour matters. Furthermore, according to the Government, since the Council is an autonomous body, there is nothing to prevent it from dealing with matters concerning international labour relations.

2. The Committee also notes that other observations made by the UGT reiterate its previous comments on a number of points to which the Government has replied: the Committee notes the Government's reply concerning the financing of any necessary training of participants in the procedures (Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention), and consultations on questions arising out of reports to be made to the International Labour Office under article 22 of the ILO Constitution (Article 5, paragraph 1(d)).

The Committee also observes that, according to the UGT, despite the fact that it expressly requested them, no consultations were held to examine the ratification of certain Conventions, particularly the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) (Article 5, paragraph 1(c)).

3. The Committee notes the Government's statement that it is open to any proposals from employers' and workers' representative organizations to make the consultations more effective (Article 2). It would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on any progress made in this respect, indicating in particular the extent to which the above-mentioned Economic and Social Council is consulted on matters concerning ILO standards and activities.

4. Lastly, the Committee asks the Government in its next report to provide the information required on consultations on each of the subjects listed in Article 5, paragraph 1, particularly points (c) (re-examination at appropriate intervals of unratified Conventions) and (d) (consultations on reports to be made under article 22 of the Constitution).

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

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.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

With reference to its previous observation, the Committee notes the Government's report on the application of the Convention, particularly as regards the measures taken to give effect to Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention concerning consultations on the reports made under article 22 of the ILO Constitution. It also notes the comments made by the General Union of Workers (UGT). The UGT alleges, in the first place, that the procedure of holding consultations by means of written communications, which is currently being used, was decided upon unilaterally by the Government without prior consultation with the representative organisations of employers and workers, as required by Article 2, paragraph 2. The trade union organisation also states that no arrangement has been made, in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2, between the competent authority and the representative organisations for the financing of any necessary training of participants in consultation procedures. Finally, the UGT considers that consultations on the points set out in Article 5, paragraph 1, are held in a summary manner and generally within too short a period, and that paragraph 2 of the same Article is not given effect in practice since the frequency of these consultations is left for the Government to fix alone.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply the Office with information containing replies to these allegations.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1991.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee takes note of the Government's reply to the comments submitted by the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Commissions concerning the application of the Convention. In a communication dated 7 February 1989, the above organisation alleged, inter alia, that the representative trade union organisations were not consulted on the content of the reports which were due in 1988, under article 22 of the Constitution, which is an infringement of Article 5 of the Convention.

In its reply, the Government expresses the opinion that Article 5, paragraph 1(d) does not imply that there must be prior consultations on the substance of the reports in question, and that the preparation of the reports is exclusively the responsibility of the Government. The Government concludes that the questions calling for consultations with the occupational organisations are questions raised once the reports have been drawn up. It adds that it is always ready to receive comments from the occupational organisations and that it never fails to transmit them without delay to the ILO.

In the first place, the Committee wishes to point out, as it does in its General Survey of 1982 (paragraph 124) on Convention No. 144 and Recommendation No. 152, that the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1(d) go beyond the obligation for member States to communicate reports that is stipulated in article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. Consultations are called for not on every report but only on those concerning Conventions whose application poses problems. In the case of reports on the application of ratified Conventions, due under article 22 of the Constitution, the consultations are often concerned essentially with the substance of the reply to comments by the supervisory bodies.

Lastly, and at a more general level, the Committee feels that it is useful to recall its position regarding the scope of the obligation to hold prior consultations provided for by the Convention. The principle generally accepted during the preliminary work on the Convention is that the outcome of the consultations should not be regarded as binding and that the ultimate decision rests with the Government. However, the consultations in the meaning of the Convention are none the less compulsory and should be held before the proposed measures are ultimately decided upon (see the above-mentioned General Survey, paragraphs 42 to 45).

The Committee trusts that the Government will take the above comments into consideration and that, in future, it will hold the required consultations on "questions arising out of reports" due under article 22 of the Constitution, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

Further to its previous comment, the Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its last report, and in particular the information concerning the application of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Committee also notes the information concerning the application of Article 6, to the effect that, until now, it has not been deemed appropriate to produce an annual report on the working of the procedures covered by the Convention. It requests the Government to state whether, in accordance with this provision, the employers' and workers' representative organisations have been consulted on this matter.

Finally, the Committee notes the comments submitted by the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Committees alleging, among other points, that the Government has not consulted the representative trade union organisations on the questions which might arise from the reports to be presented to the ILO under article 22 of the Constitution, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1(d). These comments were received on 28 February and forwarded to the Government on 2 March 1989. The Committee requests the Government to indicate its opinion on this subject.