Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928 (No. 26) - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (Ratification: 1944)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2014, Publication: 103rd ILC session (2014)



A Government representative recalled that the Convention had been ratified in 1944 and it had only been 35 years later that the minimum salary had been fixed for the first time, without any governments being invited during that period to the Committee on the Application of Standards. He indicated that the 1991 Labour Act had established a tripartite committee, with the legal mandate to adjust the minimum wage annually, consisting solely of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) and the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS). He noted that in the committee, the employers’ position had prevailed and the minimum wage had been adjusted only on four occasions. He added that the latest of those adjustments had been in 1997, in exchange for eliminating the system of calculation of social benefits and compensation for unfair dismissal. Therefore, in 1998, an increase had been decided outside the framework of the committee, since it had not taken any decisions itself. The process of drafting a new Constitution had begun in 1999 and had entailed 17,346 assemblies, bringing together over 5 million workers. In over 90 per cent of those assemblies the request had been put forward for a mandatory annual adjustment of the minimum wage and the abolition of the tripartite committee. The Constitution established the obligation to guarantee workers a minimum living wage which had to be revised and adjusted each year. Within five years, the minimum wage had been standardized at the national level, removing differences in regions and activities, and extending coverage to the informal economy. All the above appeared in the General Survey on minimum wage systems. He added that there were collective agreements that included provisions to adjust the agreed salary scale once the minimum wage had been adjusted. Over 15 years of the application of the constitutional obligation in question, 26 adjustments had been made, with an average year-on-year growth rate of the minimum wage of 26.4 per cent, which was 3.5 percentage points above inflation for that period. In addition, the unemployment rate had fallen from 15.2 to 7.2 per cent and the gross domestic product had continued to grow at a steady rate. He observed that the current system of minimum wage fixing surpassed the requirements set out in Convention No. 26, making it strange that now that an effective and efficient system was in place the Government had been called before the Committee on the Application of Standards. He firmly rejected the repeated observations which amounted to alleging that in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela there was an absence of social dialogue on the fixing of the minimum wage. He indicated that for the purpose of minimum wage fixing, technical and not political criteria were taken into account, such as the cost of a basic basket of goods. Additionally, he mentioned the intrinsic connection between the minimum living wage and the amount of pensions, the adjustment of which benefited over 2.5 million people.

Every 1 May the trade union with the largest worker representation, which was currently the Bolivarian Socialist Workers’ Confederation, and the workers’ federations of the principal economic sectors were consulted. That consultation was sent in written form to other trade unions, despite their scant representativity, in order to express their opinion in that regard. In respect of the employers’ organizations, consultations were held with the Venezuelan Federation of Small, Medium and Artisanal Industries (FEDEINDUSTRIA), an organization which grouped the sectors most affected by minimum wage fixing, and the Farmers’ Confederation (CONFAGAN). The same report was sent, without fail, to FEDECAMARAS so that it could express its opinion. He emphasized that the consultation on the minimum wage had always been conducted in equal conditions, of which there was proof. With reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts, he stated that there was no mention of non-compliance, but rather of a request for information on methods of consultation. In his view the Committee on the Application of Standards should not be politized. He noted that in the past it had been FEDECAMARAS which had been absent from the dialogue, as it had shown little interest in the minimum wage. He recalled that when, in the framework of the reform of the Basic Labour Act, the methods of consultation on the fixing of minimum wages were revised in the National Assembly, not only did FEDECAMARAS not participate, but it also promoted a national strike and an oil boycott to demand the stepping down of President Chávez. Only recently had the current leaders of FEDECAMARAS expressed interest and requested that consultations on the minimum wage should take place with more advance notice. He stated that there were standing working groups with many employers’ chambers in which representatives of FEDECAMARAS were included, and concluded that the above organization should decide if it would continue to engage in dialogue or would prefer to nurture such inconsistency.

The Employer members recalled that the list of cases adopted in the Committee on the Application of Standards was initially the subject of bipartite negotiations, with subsequent tripartite approval from all the ILO’s constituents. It was on this basis that they were commenting on the non-compliance of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with Convention No. 26, which was the result of a lack of tripartite consultation on fixing the minimum wage. They observed that, since 2008, five observations of the Committee of Experts had dealt with application of the abovementioned Convention by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. A new Labour Act, promulgated in May 2012, had abolished the tripartite committee comprising representatives of the Government, the employers and the workers, and had replaced it with “broad consultation of social organizations and institutions in socio-economic matters”. The reform had given even more discretionary powers to the Government to choose the parties consulted, without expressly providing for the inclusion of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in the broad consultation. In 2014, the minimum wage had been increased twice, on 6 January and 29 April, respectively, without due or effective consultation of the most representative employers’ organization in the country, which included some 300 chambers representing the 14 main economic sectors. They referred to the call made by the Committee of Experts in its 2014 report to carry out real and effective consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations, with their participation in equal numbers and on equal terms. They recalled that the Committee on the Application of Standards had already indicated the fundamental importance that it attached to real consultations in good faith with the social partners in minimum wage fixing, and they emphasized that “consultation” had a different connotation from mere “information”, as well as from “co-determination”.

They also recalled that the fixing of increases in the minimum wage without due consultation had been considered in the report of the high-level mission which had visited the country at the end of January 2014. The report, which had subsequently been approved by the Governing Body at its 320th Session (March 2014), recommended that dialogue with the participation of the tripartite bodies should be restored. That was fully consistent with the broad consultation required by Venezuelan law. Despite this, with respect to the increase in the minimum wage carried out in April 2014, the Government had sent a communication to FEDECAMARAS requesting that it adopt a position within 15 days. That communication had been received on 21 April 2014, at the end of the Easter week, leaving only six working days until the deadline. In spite of the very limited time, FEDECAMARAS had replied to the communication on the final day of the allotted period. That day, on 21 April 2014, before the expiry of the deadline, the Government had announced a 30 per cent increase in the minimum wage, published in the Official Gazette on that date. They understood that real and effective tripartite consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations were essential for the application of both Convention No. 26 and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). They therefore proposed that the Committee should urge the Government to give full effect to the tripartite consultations prescribed by Convention No. 26 and take steps to secure full observance of the obligation to consult employers’ and workers’ organizations on an equal footing in decision-making on minimum wages.

The Worker members considered that the involvement of all the social partners, in the form of a consultation, was a vital component of minimum wage fixing, the adjustment of minimum wages and their enforcement. The discussion on the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), in the context of the General Survey, had demonstrated that the participation of the social partners was also an important issue in the context of that Convention. They therefore reminded the Government that consultation, or the offer of participation to the social partners, was not to be confused with mere information, or with negotiation. Neither did the concept of full consultation necessarily imply that an agreement would be reached. The country had not ratified Convention No. 131, but the wage-fixing machinery had been guaranteed by the Constitution since 2000. According to the explanations given by the Government, it intended, by means of the mechanism it had put in place, to resolve one of the issues brought up by the Worker members in their intervention on the General Survey when they had referred to the Declaration of Philadelphia. The minimum wage did not represent a balancing price between the supply and demand for labour; but it was the level of income that allowed a person to live in dignity in a specific country. They added that, in view of the fact that the rules for minimum wage fixing in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela were in line with the most important principles of ILO standards, the Worker members considered that the Government should ensure widespread consultations on wages, their rates and adjustments on equal terms with all the social partners without exception. Indeed, this specific issue, in relation to the minimum wage, had been raised during the tripartite high-level mission to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which had visited Caracas from 27 to 31 January 2014. While it had emerged following the mission that the concept of an inclusive consultation should only be understood in this respect if FEDECAMARAS was granted a right to be consulted every time the interests of its members were at stake, and they emphasized that this should also apply to trade union organizations and other existing independent employers’ organizations. The Worker members said that the Government could easily establish the conditions for broad and inclusive consultation procedures. Finally, they reminded the Government that it had undertaken to find a solution to the 30 cases of violations of workers’ rights submitted by the unions to the high-level mission.

The Employer member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recalled that the Act adopted in 2012 provided for broad consultations with social organizations and socio-economic institutions, but did not expressly include the most representative organizations of workers and employers. The Government was creating an alternative mechanism which did not comply with the Convention. The lack of social dialogue had been emphasized by the high-level tripartite mission that had visited the country in January 2014. Nevertheless, the Government had once again failed to send consultation letters at the appropriate time, and the organizations had not had the effective opportunity to give their opinions. The Government had consulted the Bolivarian Socialist Workers’ Federation, FEDEINDUSTRIA and CONFAGAN, but had not properly consulted FEDECAMARAS, because it had adopted the decision on the new minimum wage and published it in the official gazette prior to the expiry of the deadline for responding. Consultation on minimum wages was carried out in a discretionary manner. In 15 years, FEDECAMARAS had not been convened to discussions on the issue of minimum wages. The current difficult economic situation in the country meant that discussion on minimum wages was even more necessary. FEDECAMARAS had raised several questions with the Government, but had not been heeded. The high inflation rate (59 per cent annually), the exponential rise in consumer basics (more than four minimum wages) and the increase in the poverty index (27.3 per cent) showed that the purchasing power of the Venezuelan people had been seriously affected. FEDECAMARAS had also indicated to the Government the need to adopt measures to adjust economic and monetary policies so that the minimum wage would provide a basis for establishing fair remuneration. Sincere, in-depth, effective and constructive dialogue was necessary to find solutions. Without appropriate government policies, employment and businesses were at risk.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recalled that since 1999 the minimum wage had been increased on 26 occasions and collective bargaining had been widely promoted in various sectors. The minimum wage also covered workers in the informal sector and in agriculture. He expressed his surprise at the discussion of non-observance of the Convention by his country and at the methods used for the selection of cases. Since the adoption of the national Constitution in 1999, consultation and social dialogue had had constitutional status. With respect to the preparation of the Basic Labour Act (LOTTT), the workers had held 2,500 assemblies. The minimum wage had been adopted taking account of the cost of the basic consumer basket, the consumer price index and inflation. Since 1999 there had been broad social dialogue in the country with the participation of all sections of society, resulting in improved tripartite dialogue. Owing to the participation of the workers, the social wage had been complemented with, among other things, the monthly food bonus, the food purchase subsidy, the provision of books and computers for students, workers’ housing, low-cost recreation facilities and free health care. He condemned the violent assaults on workers, as a result of which 42 persons had died, and also the attack on public and educational institutions. He called the Committee to give its views on that subject.

The Government member of Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), referred to the information provided by the Government on the development of the minimum wage in the country and actions it had carried out in accordance with the Constitution. He also noted the labour law provisions regarding the obligation of the executive authorities to revise and annually adjust the national minimum wage, following broad consultation and the gathering of opinions from different social and institutional organizations on socio-economic matters. Noting also the 2014 General Survey of the Committee of Experts which reported the positive progress made by the country on this issue, he expressed GRULAC’s hope that the Government would continue to fulfil the requirements of Convention No. 26, which granted States parties the freedom to decide the nature and form of the minimum wage fixing machinery, and the methods to be followed for its application.

The Employer member of Colombia, speaking also in his capacity as a member of the Committee on Freedom of Association, expressed the concern of the Employer members at the Government’s disregard for social dialogue, which was the heart of the tripartite system. Social dialogue should be encouraged by workers, employers and governments. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was a member of the ILO and as such should respect its obligations. The LOTTT had modified the consultative mechanism and excluded FEDECAMARAS from social dialogue, even though it was the most representative employers’ organization. The high-level tripartite mission, which had taken place in January 2014, had recognized the most representative nature of FEDECAMARAS. However that organization could not participate in the Labour Advisory Council. The issue was also examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2254. The Committee on Freedom of Association, in its Digest of decisions and principles, emphasized that the process of consultation on legislation and minimum wages helped to give laws, programmes or measures adopted or applied by public authorities a firmer justification and helped to ensure that they were well respected and successfully applied.

The Government member of Brazil recalled the experience of his country with regard to minimum wage fixing. As a result of the efforts of the labour movement and social pressures for the revaluation of the minimum wage, a public policy was developed after 2000 for the regular and progressive increase of the minimum wage. This policy contributed to increasing domestic consumption and helped the country recover from the recession. This positive result was not due only to the Government, but to the joint work of the social partners, and reinforced the importance of Convention No. 26. The creation of fixation methods for the minimum wage was the responsibility of governments, pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention. Article 91 of the Constitution established the procedure to fix the minimum wage, in line with Article 1 of the Convention. Article 3 of the Convention provides that Members are free to decide the nature and form of the minimum wage fixing machinery in consultation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations. However, it still had not been demonstrated that such consultations had not taken place. During the discussion, there had been only rhetorical assertions that the Government was not complying with the Convention as by setting the minimum wage unilaterally, with no facts demonstrating this to be the case. Without such facts, it was difficult for this Committee to effectively examine breaches of the Convention, unless it was the intention of the Employer members to stress the utility of minimum wages or of setting a higher minimum wage through the selection of this case. Should that not be the case, the Government, employers and workers of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela should strengthen social dialogue in order to find a solution.

The Government member of Algeria noted with interest the statement made by the Government representative. Since 2000, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had been committed to genuine consultations with the social partners in good faith regarding the issue of setting the minimum wage. Referring to paragraph 202 of the 2014 General Survey of the Committee of Experts, he recalled that the consultation required under the Convention was not negotiation to reach an agreement, but a process to assist the competent authority in taking a decision. On the basis of the information provided by the Government, it was evident that it had been acting in conformity with the Convention, guided by a willingness to provide decent jobs to the workers in the country. The conclusions of the Committee should therefore only refer to issues relating to the Convention.

The Employer member of Mexico emphasized the importance of the discussion, which dealt not only with the violation of a Convention, but also with the ILO standards system as a whole. The Government recognized that it had not complied with the Convention with regard to the obligation of consultation. That also implied a violation of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), which had been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in 1983. The Committee should not merely request explanations on the way in which compliance was ensured with the obligation to consult workers’ and employers’ organizations regarding minimum wage fixing, but it should demand full compliance with that obligation. The tripartite system was at stake. In its observation of 2012, the Committee of Experts had already referred to existing deficiencies in social dialogue on the part of the Government and to the lack of consultation, particularly with regard to the adoption of labour and social legislation. That demonstrated the Government’s constant lack of compliance with the provisions of the Convention, which prescribed consultation of the representative organizations of workers and employers. In conclusion, the speaker called for the seriousness of the circumstances to be reflected in the Committee’s conclusions.

The Worker member of Uruguay stated that it was undeniable that social dialogue existed in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Each country had the right to establish the system of social dialogue that best suited it. The Government had increased the minimum wage on 26 occasions since 1999, taking account of the consumer price index and inflation. Discussion of the present case went beyond compliance with the Convention. The Employer members who were calling for compliance with this Convention, were the same who were jeopardizing the whole ILO standards system.

The Government member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia stated that his country endorsed the statement made on behalf of the GRULAC countries and that the measures taken by the Government with a view to increasing the minimum wage should be duly noted, each country being free to determine its own minimum wage fixing methods. The efforts made by the Government in favour of tripartite dialogue, despite the divergent interests of the social partners, should also be noted.

The Employer member of Guatemala observed that there were two aspects to the case: the lack of legal conformity and problems of implementation in practice. The lack of legal conformity had been highlighted through the enactment of the 2012 Act, the wording of which referred to social and institutional organizations dealing with socio-economic matters, instead of the most representative organizations of employers and workers. This wording confirmed the Government’s lack of interest in dialogue. It had not sought the opinion of the most representative employers’ organization in the country (FEDECAMARAS), and had only consulted it only formally after the decision had been taken to increase the amount of wages. He emphasized that the concern of the employers’ was for the absence of effective social dialogue in the country, which was one of the pillars of democracy. The ILO supervisory bodies therefore needed to ensure that the ILO’s fundamental principles, and particularly social dialogue, as guaranteed by Convention No. 144, were fully respected in the country.

The Worker member of Cuba indicated that the discussion had allowed him to understand the real situation faced by Venezuelan workers. In a context of crisis and its adverse impact on the workers, it would be strange to criticize a Government for taking protection measures in line with the Convention in response to the demands of the workers. It was rare to see so many measures taken in favour of workers. The regrouping of different existing minimum wages and extending the minimum wage level to the minimum pension had made for greater equality among the workers and had benefited approximately 2.5 million retirees. Since 2000, the periodic revision of the minimum wage had been driven by the objective of social justice, and had resulted in the replacement of a situation where 65 per cent of workers had not received the minimum wage to one of total coverage in 2014. In addition, extensive tripartite social dialogue demonstrated the Government’s commitment to finding solutions and strengthening social cohesion and the rule of law, in accordance with international labour standards. The selection of political cases would damage the Committee’s credibility.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran thanked the Government for the information indicating how it intended to secure the full observance of the obligation to consult workers’ and employers’ organizations on an equal footing with regard to minimum wage fixing. Since 2000, the minimum wage had been reviewed and fixed annually on the basis of recommendations made by the social and economic organizations, as well as workers’ and employers’ organizations, without affecting the other rights of workers. This revision demonstrated a willingness to engage in constructive consultations on minimum wage fixing with the social partners. It was positive that the Government was enhancing consultations with workers’ and employers’ organizations, after which it would fix a minimum wage that could cover the basic needs of workers. He called the Government to continue its efforts.

The Worker member of Nicaragua regretted that FEDECAMARAS did not want to accept the social, economic and political changes which had taken place in the country. The employers of the country did not have arguments to counter the Government’s efforts to distribute wealth. The Government had increased minimum wages to reverse the delay in the evolution of wages. Those same employers, who called for compliance with the Convention, viewed workers as “collaborators” so as not to pay them, evaded payment of social benefits by outsourcing and threatened to reinterpret international labour standards with new rules. The statistics and the policies carried out by the Government and the development of social dialogue demonstrated that the Government was in compliance with the Convention.

The Government member of Cuba indicated that the information provided by the Government reflected its continuous concern to ensure the social protection of workers and their families, and the particular attention given to the minimum wage fixing policy. For over 14 years, the Government had steadily increased the minimum wage to benefit workers and guarantee decent levels of remuneration that adequately covered basic needs. The General Survey reflected progress achieved by various Latin American countries regarding minimum wage fixing, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had been mentioned several times as a positive example in areas such as the protection and equal minimum wages for migrant workers, domestic workers, apprentices and persons with disabilities, the policies on periodic revision of minimum wages, and the system of penalties for cases of non-compliance. The level of minimum wage protection in the country had still not been reached by many developing countries. He concluded by expressing support for the statement made by GRULAC.

The Government member of the Russian Federation observed that the issues on which the Government had to reply were simple: how would consultations with the workers’ and employers’ organizations proceed and how would the latter participate on equal terms in determining the minimum wage? The Government had provided detailed information on the manner in which it fulfilled its obligations under the Convention. The discussion should therefore not be used as an opportunity to level additional accusations that were not related to the case under discussion and there should be no interference in the details of existing procedures in the country and the time frames for consultations. The Government had the capacity to resolve such matters itself.

An observer speaking on behalf of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) emphasized the importance of the minimum wage in the redistribution of wealth, the increase in consumption, the promotion of development and recovery from crises. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was the leader in Latin America in terms of social, economic and democratic attainments, but its employers were trying to sabotage the country’s revolutionary process by engaging in violent attacks that had caused 42 deaths and wounded 800 people. In the country social dialogue existed and had the support of most of the governments and workers’ federations in Latin America. She paid tribute to the efforts of the Bolivarian Socialist Confederation.

The Government member of Myanmar commended the efforts made by the Government to resolve the issue, particularly the fact that annual consultations were held with the employers’ and workers’ organizations, in accordance with the Convention. He further praised the Government for the measures taken to provide workers with a sufficient minimum wage, which enabled them to live with dignity and to cover their social, intellectual and material needs and those of their families. The efforts made by the Government should be recognized by the Conference Committee. In conclusion, he indicated that the case should not have been brought before the Conference Committee and expected that it would be resolved sooner rather than later.

The Government member of Nicaragua endorsed in full GRULAC’s statement on this issue. His Government was concerned at the fact that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had unjustifiably and for political reasons once again been brought before the Conference Committee. He drew attention to the Venezuelan Government’s cooperation, dialogue and commitment in its dealing with the ILO, and its efforts to review and fix a minimum wage in line with the recommendations of social and economic organizations and of workers’ and employers’ organizations, without undermining their rights in any way. In an appeal to countries that had shown their willingness to speak up in defence of the rights of their citizens, he reiterated his Government’s support for the Venezuelan Government in the hope that the Conference Committee would cease its age-old practice of politicizing the debate.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), speaking on behalf of the workers’ organizations affiliated to the Trade Union Action Unit of Venezuela, regretted that the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was failing to comply with Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, which emphasized consultation of the social partners. Wages and salaries included all gross remuneration including bonuses, holidays and sick leave. Consultation should be broad and participative. Wages and salaries in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela currently met none of those criteria and was imposed unilaterally. The minimum wage should at least cover the cost of a basic basket of goods, as required by article 91 of the Constitution. Despite the conclusions of the report of the high-level tripartite mission that took place in January 2014, there was no social dialogue in the country. He was prepared to enter into a dialogue on a vital adjustable minimum wage that was sufficient to meet the cost of food, housing, transport, health and leisure. Inflation in January 2014 was running at 59.24 per cent and it was expected to reach 73 per cent for 2014 as a whole. What was needed was for the country’s production system to be strengthened and for the workers and their organizations, on an equal footing with the employers and the Government, to be guaranteed full participation in any decisions taken with regard to the minimum wage.

The Government member of Uzbekistan believed that the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was fulfilling its obligations under the Convention, in so far as there was a minimum wage fixing machinery in place, the minimum wage was being established in consultation with workers and employers and the workers’ interests were protected. The existing system allowed the Government, after consultation, to establish a minimum wage, notwithstanding inevitable disagreements on certain issues, such as inflation. He concluded that his Government would like to see the case successfully resolved.

The Government member of China welcomed the efforts made by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela since 2000 to establish a system for the consultation of the social partners on minimum wages. The Government of China hoped that cooperation between the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Office would be strengthened with a view to consolidating this system.

The Government member of Ecuador aligned himself with the statement by GRULAC and welcomed the explanations provided by the Venezuelan Government and the measures adopted. He indicated that, together with GRULAC, the Government of Ecuador trusted that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela would continue to comply with the Convention, and in particular with Article 3, which provided that representatives of the employers and workers concerned should be consulted, and that it would continue to take into account the opinions of the social stakeholders. He noted and encouraged the commitment of the Government to provide all workers with an adequate minimum wage to meet the basic needs of themselves and their families regarding health, work, housing and education, and to live a life in dignity.

The Government member of Argentina commended the attention given to a Convention with so much social significance and noted the interventions by the representatives of the social partners. She emphasized that the Convention required consultation, but did not specify the machinery to be adopted, leaving that to be determined by national legislation, provided that it ensured that the opinions of workers and employers were taken into account (Article 3). It was important to emphasize that minimum wage fixing had been incorporated into the Venezuelan Constitution and that, even during times of crisis, the rates had continued to be increased in line with the needs of workers. That had not been the case in other countries faced with economic problems. Based on the interventions of the social partners, it had to be concluded that the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela promoted effectively the consultation machinery set out in the Convention. The main question concerned the opportunities granted to employers’ representatives who had nevertheless been able to express their views and agree with the increase that had been approved, according to the comments of FEDECAMARAS in the press. Her Government hoped that the intensification of social dialogue would guarantee the effective maintenance of the minimum living wage, which was fundamental for workers in all countries, and which was the objective of the Convention.

The Government representative said that he would restrict his comments to Convention No. 26, even though other speakers, in view of the lack of substance, had raised other issues. The Convention allowed total freedom in fixing the guaranteed minimum wage, which was guaranteed in his country, where over 52 per cent of the members of a workers’ confederation had been consulted. If the other workers consulted were included, over 80 per cent of the total workforce had been consulted. He acknowledged that, due to its roots, it was easier for his Government to talk to workers, but it was also restoring dialogue with employers. That was no easy matter in view of the attempted coups d’état. Indeed, the President of the employers had visited offices of the Government and the Ministry of Labour in 2014, something that had not happened since the attempted coup. Referring to the minimum wage, he indicated that there had initially been a 10 per cent increase in response to inflation and that FEDECAMARAS had considered it moderate and reasonable on the day it was announced, and the next day it had declared that consultations had been held sufficiently in advance. He therefore considered that what FEDECAMARAS said in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was quite different from what was said by the Employer members in the Conference Committee. If the employers wanted to increase the minimum wage further, that could be considered. For the past 15 years, the minimum wage had increased every 1 May in the country. Knowing that, the employers should not have waited until April, but should have acted much earlier. The tripartite commission had ceased functioning in 1998, and the Constitution of 1999 had introduced the minimum wage system. He wondered what issue exactly was being raised, and whether the effectiveness of the minimum wage in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was being challenged. The Convention provided that the minimum wage had to provide a decent remuneration that was as non-discriminatory as possible, and that was what his Government was doing. Turning to Articles 1 and 3 of Convention No. 26, he emphasized that, in accordance with Article 3, every Member ratifying the Convention was free to decide the nature and form of the minimum wage fixing machinery and that the representatives of the employers and workers concerned were to be consulted. He emphasized the word “concerned” and the need for them to have a direct interest in the fixing of the minimum wage. He read out a press release relating to the increase in the minimum wage on 1 May 2014 entitled “FEDECAMARAS considers the wage increase responsible”, and indicated that the President of FEDECAMARAS had said that this year they had been consulted sufficiently in advance and had sent a communication to the Ministry of Labour. The Government was working with FEDECAMARAS, with which it had no problem. It held weekly meetings with most of the chambers of employers, and he indicated that the week before he had left for Geneva, he had held a meeting with many of the chambers represented in FEDECAMARAS, at which the subject of the minimum wage had not even been raised. In other words, the employers spoke with one voice in the Conference Committee and another in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. However, the Government was prepared to give them more time and to listen to them, just as it listened to everybody. He concluded that the Convention was fully implemented, and it was to be hoped that that would be reflected in the Conference Committee’s conclusions.

The Employer members deplored the unparliamentary language used in certain statements and thanked the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for the information provided. They reiterated that the shortlist of individual cases was negotiated by the Employer and Worker members, and was then adopted on a tripartite basis by the Conference Committee. Convention No. 26 was a technical Convention that had been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in 1944, and this was the fifth observation that had been made in relation to it since 2008. They considered that it had been demonstrated that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was not in full compliance with the Convention and had not held real and effective consultations, which required good faith and not mere information. The social partners should be given ample opportunity to express their views, which should be given in-depth consideration, even if the final decision-making power lay with the Government. There was a failure to give effect to Article 2 of the Convention, under which the Government could decide to whom the minimum wage would be applied and what method would be used to fix it, although that always had to be done in prior consultation of the social partners, which had not been the case. Article 3 established the freedom to fix the minimum wage, but also required consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned. Article 5 required governments to communicate to the Office on an annual basis a list of the trades and parts of trades in which the minimum wage fixing machinery was applied, indicating the methods as well as the results of the application of the machinery. The Committee’s conclusions should call on the Government to comply with the terms of Article 5 and to send the required information to the Office. The Employer members recalled the 368th Report (June 2013) of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA), and particularly the conclusions of Case No. 2254 (paragraph 985(g)), in which the CFA stated that it expected that social dialogue would be held and once again requested the Government to convene the tripartite commission provided for in the Basic Labour Act. That conclusion was perfectly applicable to the present case. They also referred to paragraph 52 of the report of the high-level mission that had visited the country in January 2014, which had called for respect for freedom of association, efforts to find shared solutions and inclusive dialogue. In light of the above, the Employer members called for the Government to be urged to ensure full compliance with Convention No. 26, particularly with regard to real and effective consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations; and for the Government to be requested to comply with Article 5 of the Convention by supplying annual reports to the Office on the methods adopted and consultation. To ensure closer follow up, they urged the parties to continue requesting specific technical assistance on the Convention and on consultation.

The Worker members thanked the Government and the other speakers for the valuable information they had provided. The report of the high-level tripartite mission that had visited the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had been submitted to the Governing Body in March 2014 and contained a series of conclusions constituting guidelines on ways to resolve the case. The aim must therefore be to implement these guidelines. Social dialogue included consultation with representative organizations, negotiations and, depending on the country concerned, the establishment of bodies to resolve disputes that might arise between the social partners. In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, it was important to create the necessary conditions to be able to engage in the inclusive dialogue called for by its National Constitution, which should also be fully compatible with the existence of functional tripartite bodies. The Government should accept ILO technical assistance to establish effective social dialogue and a legal framework that defined the role of the respective parties through objective and democratic procedures. During the high-level mission, the Government had stated its willingness to have recourse to technical cooperation programmes. It should give effect to that as soon as possible.

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

Previous comment

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on wages, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 26 (minimum wage) and 95 (protection of wages) together.

The Committee notes the observations concerning Convention No. 26 made by the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS), received on 1 September 2023. The Committee also notes the observations made by the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA), the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations of Venezuela (FAPUV), the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI), the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the United Federation of Workers of Venezuela (CUTV) and the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) regarding Conventions Nos 26 and 95, received on 30 August 2023.

Follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

A. Minimum wage

Article 3 of Convention No. 26. Participation of the social partners in minimum wage fixing. With regard to its previous comment, the Committee notes the discussions at the 347th and 349th Sessions (March and November 2023) of the Governing Body on the follow-up report on further developments concerning the Social Dialogue Forum and the implementation by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of the agreed plan of action to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as well as the corresponding decisions adopted. In particular, the Committee notes that: (i) the third session of the social dialogue forum was held between 30 January and 1 February 2023 with ILO technical assistance, chaired by the Minister of Popular Power for the Social Process of Labour, with the participation of the following employers’ and workers’ organizations: FEDECAMARAS, the Venezuelan Federation of Craft, Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Business Associations (FEDEINDUSTRIA); the Bolivarian Socialist Confederation of Men and Women Workers in Urban and Rural Areas and Fishing of Venezuela (CBST-CCP), the CTASI, the CTV, and the CGT; during this meeting, the follow-up to and updating of the agreed plan of action to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in respect of Conventions Nos 26, 87 and 144 was adopted; (ii) between 16 February and 24 August 2023, 13 tripartite meetings were held, with the support of the ILO, to address the question of determining methods for fixing minimum wages; (iii) from 3 to 7 October an ILO mission to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela took place, with a view to participating in the fourth session of the forum, and to promote dialogue but, due to a series of communications sent by various employers’ and workers’ organizations to the Government, the latter considered that conditions were not conducive to the holding of the session; both the ILO delegation and the Minister held, each in turn, bilateral meetings with the employers’ and workers’ organizations; (iv) on 6 October, a private tripartite meeting was held at the headquarters of the Ministry of the People’s Power for the Social Process of Labour and attended by the employers’ and workers’ organizations cited above. The meeting agreed that the fourth session of the forum would be held at the beginning of February 2024.

The Committee notes that at the 349th Session of the Governing Body, the Government indicated that, with the firm intention of formulating a consensual proposal on the method of fixing the minimum wage, a meeting was held on 19 October 2023 with the participation of FEDCAMARAS, FEDEINDUSTRIA, the CBST-CCP, the CTASI, the CTV and the CGT, and explanations of the proposal were given. The Government states that the main issue elucidated at the meeting was the selection of the spokespersons for the employers and workers, whose organizations, based on their autonomy, would develop the necessary agreements, and share information to complement the method. The Government also indicates that it provided these organizations with the final text and concept note of the method and that, to date, no comments thereon have been received, which will allow further progress in consolidating this important method.

The Committee notes that the Governing Body is to return to the consideration of progress made by the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry at its 350th Session (March 2024).

Furthermore, pursuant to its previous comments on this subject, the Committee notes that the Government, in its report: (i) indicates that it has been complying with each of the agreed activities in the action plan, as updated in February 2023, with the participation of the different organizations of employers and workers; (ii) indicates that a tripartite technical body was constituted to draw up the proposed method of consultation to fix the minimum wage. That body finished its work at its thirteenth meeting, thus completing the task of formulating the proposal, which would be taken up at the highest level; and (iii) reiterates its commitment to continue to progress with the agreements adopted in the social dialogue forum, and to continue working with the timetable of activities, which so far have allowed significant progress to be made between the parties, given the serious impact that the unilateral coercive measures had on workers’ wages.

The Committee observes that the updated plan of action adopted by the social dialogue forum in February 2023 includes: (i) the establishment of a technical body on the wage-fixing machinery and on effective consultation procedures; and (ii) the determination by the technical body of the dynamic method for fixing the minimum wage (taking account of the relevant economic and social and labour indicators and variables and the external factors already referred to in the text of the statement).

The Committee notes that FEDECAMARAS, in its observations, indicates: (i) at two tripartite meetings with remote ILO technical assistance, held on 15 and 24 August 2023, the document sent by the Ministry entitled “method for fixing the national minimum wage”, including the Ministry’s observations on the proposed methodology for consideration in the final document, was discussed and revised; and (ii) the final document, containing the definitive ministerial proposal which was to have been submitted on 25 and 28 August 2023 for final review and adoption, has not been received. FEDECAMARAS indicates that although a proposal formulated by the Ministry already exists, but is yet to be approved, the dialogue process needs to be more effective and structured, and requires permanent follow-up, since the technical body has now been functioning for seven months, yet the official economic and social and labour indicators including external factors, have still not been presented, although they were included in the social dialogue forum’s plan of action and are fundamental to speeding up the social dialogue process for fixing the minimum wage.

The Committee also notes, from the joint observations submitted by the CODESA, the CTV, the FAPUV, the CTASI, the UNETE, the CUTV and the CGT, that those organizations agree that outside the formal sessions of the forum, the activities to which the Government refers, which were intended to provide a greater understanding of the consultation method for fixing a minimum wage, were carried out and did reach agreement. In this regard, those organizations regret that: (i) in 2023, the hoped-for increase in the minimum wage did not materialize, a fact made more painful by the daily fall in its value resulting from the continuous devaluation of the bolívar and that (ii) on 1 May 2023 there was an increase in the “socialist cestaticket” benefit, and the approval of a “bonus against the economic war”, with no consultation of the social partners, as these were non-wage payments; and (iii) the Government has not delivered the economic, social and labour indicators called for by all the confederations and which are essential to progress towards the objectives identified by the technical body required for determining the method of fixing the minimum wage.

While duly noting the statements from the Government, as well as the activities and tripartite meetings held throughout the year, with ILO assistance, which addressed the question of establishing the method for fixing the national minimum wage, the Committee notes with concern that it has still not been possible to establish this method. In this context, the Committee regrets that 2023 did not see a wage increase, preceded by a consultation process. Finally, the Committee regrets the rescheduling of the fourth session of the social dialogue forum, while dully noting the continued agreement of the Government and the social partners to participate in social dialogue and that the fourth session of the forum will take place in early 2024.

The Committee firmly hopes that, in the framework of the opportunities opened up by the process set in motion with the establishment and follow-up of the social dialogue forum, that all the measures envisaged in the plan of action updated in February 2023, as well as the timetable of activities presented by the Government will be implemented and that the fourth session of the social dialogue forum will take place as planned. It also hopes that those measures will yield tangible progress in the development and application of methods for fixing the minimum wage, as required by the Convention and as follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In particular, the Committee requests the Government, at the next increase of the minimum wage in the country, to take the necessary measures to ensure that the increase is preceded by a thorough consultation process, conducted sufficiently in advance, within a framework of structured, informed and effective discussions, in which due account is taken of the proposals made on this matter by the employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to report on all developments in this regard.

B. Protection of wages

Article 4 of the Convention No. 95. Payment in kind. “Socialist cestaticket”. With regard to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the value of the “Socialist Cestaticket” was increased as of 1 May 2023, and will be adjusted each month, on the basis of the exchange rate published by the Banco Central de Venezuela; (ii) roundtables have been set up for collective bargaining with the active participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations, and these have reached agreements regarding these benefits and further benefits, such as canteens, the provision of food for the basic food basket and other allowances.

The Committee also notes that the CODESA, the CTV, the FAPUV, the CTASI, the UNETE, the CUTV, and the CGT indicate in their joint observations that: (i) payment of wages with bonuses of various sorts, or provision of food, is common in the public and private sector, which makes it hard for workers to determine the exact amount of their real wage, and also to keep the wage constant; (ii) the Government refuses to refer to wages, but uses the term “comprehensive minimum income”, which includes the minimum wage and the socialist cestaticket; (iii) many workers do not receive the cestaticket in cash, as do the public administration workers, while some enterprises have adopted the measure of providing one meal a day to comply with the food allowance; and (iv) the organizations are unaware of the bargaining to which the Government refers, indicating that, in the public sector, the State suspended collective bargaining on the promulgation of Memorandum No. 2792 of 11 October 2018. In this regard, the Committee once again regrets that on the basis of the information presented by the Government, and the observations of the abovementioned workers’ organizations, it cannot be concluded that progress has been made in resolving this issue. While referring back to the analysis it has made in previous years on this matter (see in particular the observation adopted in 2017), the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay, through dialogue with the representative organizations of the employers and workers, to find solutions that allow the full application of Article 4 of the Convention.

Articles 5 and 14. Electronic payment of wages. Information on constituent elements of wages. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous comment, the Government indicates that: (i) unilateral coercive measures affected the flow of bolivars, obliging the Government to develop technological platforms to ensure that workers were able to access their wages, but that this situation is now resolved; (ii) many public and private enterprises have digitalized their wage slips, enabling workers to access this information by any electronic means at any time; and (iii) in cases where it is difficult for workers to have access to their wage slips, employers were under an obligation to provide such information in tangible form, under penalty of sanctions, as provided by section 106 of the Basic Act concerning labour and male and female workers. The Committee also notes that the CODESA, the CTV, the FAPUV, the CTASI, the UNETE, the CUTV and the CGT indicate that: (i) the electronic payment of wages has made difficulties for workers receiving their wages in localities without banking facilities or which are not covered by internet, and these difficulties are compounded by frequent interruptions in digital banking services; (ii) it has become complicated for workers to obtain detailed and precise information on their wages and their composite elements; (iii) payroll management through the “istema patria”, a platform used by the Government to pay its employees, but which was created and used for purposes other than wage payment, presents difficulties in respect of the calculation and proof of payment of wages, and makes it impossible to claim for discrepancies or omissions at the moment of payment; the Government should explain the legal regime and scope of the istema patria and provide a copy of its regulatory texts. The Committee once more regrets that no progress has been made regarding this issue. The Committee again requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take effective measures to address both the question of electronic payment of wages, and that of providing information to workers concerning the constituent elements of their wages, in conformity with the Convention, and to provide information in this respect.

Article 12. Delayed payment of wages. The Committee notes that the CODESA, the CTV, the FAPUV, the CTASI, the UNETE, the CUTV and the CGT indicate with regard to the health sector, that there have on various occasions been: (i) delays in the payment of wages, which have been explained by the human resources department, as arising from weaknesses in the “istema patria” and (ii) repeated non-payment of certain elements, such as night work, holidays and Sundays worked, among others. Recalling the importance of the payment of wages at regular intervals, the Committee requests the Government to communicate its comments in this regard.

[ T he Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2024.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on wages, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 26 (minimum wage) and 95 (protection of wages) together.

The Committee notes the observations concerning Convention No. 26 made by the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS), received on 11 February 2022. The Committee also notes that the Bolivarian Socialist Confederation of Men and Women Workers in Urban and Rural Areas and Fishing of Venezuela (CBST-CCP) sent observations concerning Convention No. 26 that were received on 24 April 2022. The Committee also notes the following observations communicated with the Government’s report, formulated by: (i) FEDECAMARAS, on Convention No. 26; (ii) CBST-CCP, on Convention no. 26; and (iii) jointly, from the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations of Venezuela (FAPUV) and the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI), on Conventions Nos 26 and 95. The Committee also notes the observations formulated by the National Union of State and Public Service Workers (UNETE), on Convention No. 26, received on 5 September 2022.

Minimum wage

Follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

Article 3 of Convention No. 26. Participation of the social partners in minimum wage fixing. With regard to its previous comment, the Committee notes the discussions at the 344th, 345th and 346th Sessions (March, June and November 2022) of the Governing Body on the progress report concerning the operation of the social dialogue forum in giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as well as the corresponding decisions adopted. In particular, the Committee notes that: (i) the inaugural session of the social dialogue forum (the forum) was held in a virtual format on 7 March 2022, chaired by the Minister of Popular Power for the Social Process of Labour, with the participation of the Director-General of the ILO and of the following employers’ and workers’ organizations: FEDECAMARAS; CBST-CCP; the Venezuelan Federation of Craft, Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Business Associations (FEDEINDUSTRIA); CTASI; CTV; UNETE; the General Confederation of Labour (CGT); and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA). The inaugural session adopted the terms of reference for the forum, which included addressing all pending questions concerning the application of Conventions Nos 26, 87 and 144; (ii) the first in-person session of the forum was held in Caracas from 25 to 28 April 2022, with ILO technical assistance. It produced a plan of action including a timetable of activities related to compliance with the cited Conventions; and (iii) a follow-up session of the forum was held in Caracas from 26 to 29 September 2022, with ILO technical assistance; it assessed the activities undertaken as part of the implementation of the plan of action adopted in April and agreed on updating the plan of action. The Committee notes that the Governing Body will again examine the progress made by the Government in ensuring compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry at its 347th Session (March 2023).

Further to its previous comments on this matter, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that: (i) on 20 December 2021, formal written consultations were undertaken, that included relevant statistical data for analysis, as a basis for opinion and response, with FEDECAMARAS, FEDEINDUSTRIA, CBST, CTASI, CTV, UNETE, CGT, and CODESA; (ii) on 3 March 2022, the President of the Republic publicly announced the proposal for an increase in wages equivalent to half a Petro (cryptocurrency), and this was made effective by Decree No. 4653, published in Official Gazette No. 6691, Special Edition of 15 March 2022; and (iii) on 4 March consultations were held with the abovementioned social partners regarding the impact of the President’s announcement. The Government also indicates that, in line with undertakings made at the April and September 2022 meetings of the forum, the following activities related to compliance with the Convention were carried out: (i) in the week of 13 to 19 July, a round of dialogue meetings were held with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned regarding compliance with the Conventions, including Convention No. 26; (ii) on 7 and 12 September 2022, meetings were held with the workers’ organizations (CBST-CCP; CTASI; and CTV) and employers’ organizations (FEDECAMARAS and FEDEINDUSTRIA) respectively, to exchange views on the method for fixing minimum wages, including the criteria and source of the relevant economic, social and labour reference data; (iii) on 20 October 2022, a tripartite meeting was held to discuss the constitution of a working party with regard to fixing the minimum wage; and (iv) on 25 October a workshop was held on indicators related to the minimum wage, with the support of the Minister of Popular Power for Planning. The Government also indicates that it has drawn up a timetable, included as an annex to its report, for tripartite and bipartite activities to be conducted between the second half of November 2022 and February 2023, which include: (i) the holding of a tripartite workshop on minimum wage methodology with ILO technical assistance (22 November 2022); (ii) dispatching formal invitations for consultations on minimum wage increases to the workers’ and employers’ organizations (15 December 2022); (iii) the organization of bipartite sectoral meetings to exchange views on proposals for the minimum wage (18 January 2023); and (iv) the holding of a tripartite meeting on methods of defining the minimum wage (25 January 2023). Lastly, the Government indicates that the third in-person session of the forum will be held in the week of 6 to 10 February 2023, with ILO technical assistance.

In this regard, the Committee notes that in its observations, FEDECAMARAS indicates that: (i) in November 2021, the Ministry of Popular Power for the Social Process of Labour (MPPPST) forwarded to FEDECAMARAS the rules established for the consultation process on the minimum wage (broad consultation once annually, meetings during the first quarter of each year with the social partners and relevant institutions and bodies, and a written communication accompanied by elements of the national and international context that impact on the socio-economic reality and relevant official indicators, such as the cost of the basic food basket); (ii) by a communication dated 20 December 2021, the MPPPST submitted several economic, poverty and labour force indicators to FEDECAMARAS; (iii) by a communication of 23 February 2022, the MPPPST requested FEDECAMARAS to present additional, updated information concerning the increase of the minimum wage; (iv) on 3 March 2022, without organizing the consultation and meetings foreseen for the first quarter of 2022, the President of the Republic announced publicly an increase in the minimum wage; (v) on 4 March 2022, the MPPPST sent a communication to FEDECAMARAS requesting the organization’s opinion and recommendations on the impact and implications of the measures announced; on the same day, a meeting took place between the MPPPST with the participation of FEDECAMARAS and FEDEINDUSTRIA, at which FEDECAMARAS expressed concern at the failure to comply with the proposed methodology, and in particular at the lack of real discussion and effective dialogue between the tripartite actors on this matter; and (vi) the announced wage increase became effective after publication in the Official Gazette of 15 March 2022.

For its part, the CBST-CCP indicates in its observations that the Government regularly sends, once or twice annually, written communications to the workers’ and employers’ organizations regarding the minimum wage consultations.

The Committee also notes that in their joint observations, the CTV, the FAPUV and the CTASI indicate that by official letter No. 502/2021, the MPPPST requested their opinions, expectations, and suggestions on how the wages dynamic within the country should be aligned with the Convention; the CTASI, while considering this approach inappropriate, put forward a proposal, but received no response. In this regard, the abovementioned organizations state that the steps taken are insufficient and cannot be considered as complying with the Convention, since in practice no account is taken of proposals and contributions made by the trade union organizations, and the national executive simply and unilaterally determines the increase in the national minimum wage.

The Committee also notes that FEDECAMARAS, the CTV, the FAPUV and the CTASI all concur that the meeting to discuss wage indicators, scheduled for July 2022 in the timetable annexed to the plan of action adopted in April 2022, did not take place.

Finally, the Committee notes that the UNETE indicates in its observations that the Government has not adopted a single measure requiring consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations on fixing the minimum wage.

Regarding the March 2022 wage increase, the Committee observes that: (i) while it was preceded by communications sent several months previously requesting the social partners’ opinions on the issue, it did not comply with the methodology established previously by the Government, consisting of structured meetings intended to result in full compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry; and (ii) FEDECAMARAS, the CTV, the FAPUV, the CTASI and also the UNETE all agree that their proposals and contributions are not truly taken into account in final decision taking. Regarding the plan of action for Convention No. 26 adopted in April 2022, the Committee notes that it did not follow the programmed timeframe, since only two meetings were held on indicators, and those were out of sync with the schedule that had been fixed, prior to the September forum meeting. Finally, the Committee observes that the plan of action adopted in September 2022 includes: (1) setting up a series of technical round tables to devise the methods of fixing the minimum wage, with ILO technical assistance; (2) implementing a timetable drawn up by the Government to that end, to be completed by February 2023; (3) dispatching of formal invitations to consult on increasing the minimum wage; (4) the holding of meetings to discuss proposals for the minimum wage; and (5) the holding of a tripartite meeting to devise methods for fixing the minimum wage. In light of the above, the Committee notes with regret the MPPPST’s failure to comply with the proposed methodology for the consultation process on fixing the increase of the minimum wage that was decreed in March 2022. The Committee firmly hopes that, in the framework of opportunities opened up by the process begun with the establishment and follow-up of the social dialogue forum, all measures provided in the plan of action updated in September 2022 will be implemented, including the timetable of activities presented by the Government. It also hopes that these measures will yield tangible progress in the development and application of methods of fixing the minimum wage, as required by the Convention and in following the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In particular, the Committee urges the Government, at the next increase of the minimum wage, to take the necessary measures to ensure that the increase is preceded by a thorough consultation process, conducted sufficiently in advance, within a framework of structured, informed and effective discussions, in which due account is taken of the proposals made on this matter by the employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Protection of wages

Article 4 of Convention No. 95. Payment in kind. “Socialist cestaticket” (food voucher). With regard to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that: (i) regarding payment of the “socialist cestaticket” benefit, roundtables have been set up with active participation of the employers’ and workers’ organizations, and these have concluded agreements that are beneficial for the workers; and (ii) as of 15 March 2022, the value of the “socialist cestaticket” was increased, without affecting the benefit provided by the Local Supply and Production Committees (CLAP) in the distribution of subsidized foodstuffs. The Committee also notes that the CTV, FAPUV and CTASI state in their joint observations that payment of wages with various types of vouchers or with food is common in the public and private sector. In this regard, the Committee notes with regretthat, on the basis of the information presented by the Government, and the observations of the abovementioned workers’ organizations, it cannot be concluded that progress has been made in resolving this issue. While referring back to the analysis it has made in previous years on this matter (see in particular the observation adopted in 2017), the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay, through dialogue with the representative organizations of the employers and workers, to examine solutions that allow the full application of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect, in particular with regard to the composition and operation of the abovementioned roundtables, and the agreements reached following the debate held within them.

Articles 5 and 14. Electronic payment of wages. Information on constituent elements of wages. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in response to its previous comment, that it is providing information and instructions to the workforce regarding the correct use of electronic means to obtain their wages. The Committee also notes that the CTV, the FAPUV and the CTASI indicate that the electronic payment of wages causes immense problems for workers, especially for those who live in localities where there are no banking services, no electricity and no transport to take them to another locality. The abovementioned workers’ organizations particularly stress that workers have serious difficulty in withdrawing sums sufficient to cover their most basic needs, and meanwhile the money that they are unable to withdraw from their accounts falls in value every day. The Committee notes with regret that no progress has been made regarding this issue. The same workers’ organizations indicate that the payrolls are managed by the “sistema patria”, which makes it impossible for the worker to obtain a receipt detailing their income and payroll deductions, a method that is tantamount to an attack on the worker’s wages, given the absence of an office to which to make claims regarding omissions or errors in the payment of wages. The Committee once more requests the Government to take effective measures in consultation with the social partners to address the issues both of the electronic payment of wages, and of providing information to workers concerning the constituent elements of their wages, in conformity with the Convention, and to provide information in this respect.

Article 12. Delayed payment of wages. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in response to its previous comment, that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling No. 5 of 19 January 2017, ordered the National Budget Office (ONAPRE) of the National Executive, to pay the wages owed to workers of the national legislative body, and the wage claims were subsequently settled through the Ministry of Finance.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2023.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues related to the application of ratified Conventions on wages, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos. 26 (minimum wage) and 95 (protection of wages) together.

The Committee takes note of the observations of the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) on the application of the Convention No. 26, received on 1 September 2021. The Committee also takes note of the joint observations regarding Convention No. 26 of the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations of Venezuela (FAPUV), the Federation of Higher Education Workers in Venezuela (FETRAESUV), the National Federation of Administrative Professionals and Technicians of the Universities of Venezuela (FENASIPRUV), the National Federation of Labour Unions of Higher Education Workers in Venezuela (FENASOESV) and the Unfederated Unions of University Workers, received on 7 and 19 July 2021. The Committee also notes the joint observations of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI), the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations of Venezuela (FAPUV) regarding Conventions Nos 26 and 95, received on 30 August 2021. The Committee further notes the observations of the following workers’ organizations regarding the application of Conventions Nos 26 and/or 95: MOV7 The Voice of Alcasa, received on 5 April 2021, the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI), received on 1 September 2021 and the Bolivarian Socialist Confederation of Men and Women Workers in Urban and Rural Areas and Fishing of Venezuela (CBST-CCP), received on 8 September 2021.

Follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

Article 3 of Convention No. 26. Participation of the social partners in minimum wage fixing. In its previous comment the Committee took note of the conclusions contained in the report of the Commission of Inquiry regarding the allegations of approval without tripartite consultation of increases to the minimum wage, as well as the recommendations of that Commission.

The Committee notes the discussion held at the 343rd Session (November 2021) of the Governing Body on the consideration of all possible measures, including those foreseen in the ILO Constitution, required to ensure the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as well as the decision adopted in this regard. The Committee observes that the Governing Body will return to the assessment of progress made by the Government in ensuring compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry at its 344th Session (March 2022) and will continue its consideration of all possible measures for this purpose.

With regard to its previous comments on this matter, the Committee also notes the Government’s indication in its report that: (i) despite regularly addressing, two or more times a year, written communications to the various employers’ and workers’ organizations regarding consultations on the minimum wage, certain organizations refrain from participating in the process, while others seek to turn the discussion towards changing the economic model rather than the minimum wage; (ii) in April and July 2021 consultations were held on fixing the minimum wage with the various employers’ and workers’ organizations: the July consultations were held sufficiently in advance, and pertinent information was brought to the table to allow the organizations consulted to carry out an analysis and formulate proposals; and (iii) following the holding, from 21 May to 23 June, of the large-scale meeting for national dialogue on the world of work (Gran encuentro de diálogo nacional del mundo del trabajo), technical round table meetings were organized, one of which concerned the methods and procedures set out in the Convention, and explored issues related to the economic and social indicators which must be part of the analysis when considering increasing wages. In this connection, the Committee again notes with concern that FEDECAMARAS and FETRAESUV, FENASIPRUV, FENASOESV, FAPUV, the CTV and the CTASI alike are in agreement that: (i) wage increases for 2021 were decided by the Government unilaterally; and (ii) the bipartite and tripartite technical round tables on methods of application of the Convention were not standing bodies providing for structured dialogue and did not operate according to the conditions recommended by the Commission of Inquiry for the holding of effective consultations (no minutes were taken of the different meetings; an agenda and work-programme were not adopted; an independent chair and secretariat were not appointed; recourse to ILO technical assistance was not taken). FEDECAMARAS adds that, following the unilaterally imposed wage increase of 1 May, although consultations were held in two meetings (July and August) between that organization and government representatives, the conditions required for effective consultations mentioned above were not respected on either occasion. The Committee again deplores the failure of the Government to fulfil its obligation to consult in respect of fixing the national minimum wage. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures without delay, including by taking into account the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, to ensure full compliance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in that regard.

Article 4 of Convention No. 95. Payment in kind. “Socialist cestaticket” (food voucher). In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to engage in dialogue without delay at the national level, involving all the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, so as to examine possible solutions that are sustainable over time, including any necessary adjustment to the “socialist cestaticket” system, to ensure full conformity with this Article of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government restricts itself to indicating that broad dialogue is being held with the various employers’ and workers’ organizations, without giving details of the solutions found to resolve this issue. The Committee also notes that the FAPUV, the CTV and the CTASI have provided figures showing that the “socialist cestaticket” continues to represent a high percentage of workers’ remuneration and add that, in addition to that voucher, workers receive other vouchers which, taken together, exceed the amount of the minimum wage. The Committee regrets to note that no progress has been made in seeking sustainable solutions to this matter. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to engage in dialogue with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned to examine solutions that will allow full application of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Article 5. Electronic payment of wages. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the observations of the workers’ organizations regarding the difficulties that generalized electronic payment of wages imposed on workers in certain areas of the country when seeking to obtain the amount corresponding to their wages in cash. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this situation has been resolved, however the FAPUV, the CTV and the CTASI reiterate that electronic payment of wages prevents workers, especially those in areas where there are no banking services or no electricity, from withdrawing cash from the banks or institutions to obtain the full amount of their wages. The Committee requests the Government to take effective measures in consultation with the social partners to address this issue and to provide information in that regard.

Article 12. Delayed payment of wages. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its request for information regarding several cases of delayed payment of wages, particularly in respect of National Assembly workers, that the wages of those workers have been paid. The Committee notes that the FAPUV, the CTV and the CTASI indicate that the Government, through the official electronic platform known as “sistema patria”, delays greatly and/or only effects partial payment of the wages of university staff. Recalling once again the importance of the payment of wages at regular intervals, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in that regard.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues concerning the application of ratified Conventions on wages, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Convention No. 26 (minimum wage) and Convention No. 95 (protection of wages) together.

The Committee takes note of the joint observations of the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on the application of the Convention No. 26, received on 1 October 2020. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the following workers’ organizations on the application of Conventions Nos. 26 and/or 95: the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), received on 21 August and 30 September 2020; the Federation of University Teachers' Associations of Venezuela (FAPUV) and the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI), received on 28 August 2020; the CTASI, received on 30 September 2020; the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), received on1 October 2020; the National Union of Men and Women Public Officials in the Legislative Career Stream, and Men and Women Workers at the National Assembly (SINFUCAN) and the CTASI, received on 5 October 2020; and the Bolivarian Socialist Confederation of Men and Women Workers in Urban and Rural Areas and Fishing of Venezuela (CBST-CCP), received on 3 December 2020.

Follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

Article 3 of Convention No. 26. Participation of the social partners in minimum wage fixing. The Committee recalls that in March 2018, in the context of the complaint alleging non-observance by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of the Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928 (No. 26), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), submitted under article 26 of the ILO Constitution by 33 employer delegates to the 104th Session (2015) of the International Labour Conference, the Governing Body established a Commission of Inquiry to consider the issues raised in the complaint. The Committee notes that the Commission of Inquiry completed its work in September 2019 and that its report was submitted to, and noted by, the Governing Body, at its 337th Session (October 2019).

The Committee notes the document submitted to the Governing Body at its 340th Session in October 2020 (GB.340/INS/13) containing the Government’s response to the report of the Commission of Inquiry, and also notes the discussion that took place in the Governing Body, which will continue during its next session in March 2021. In its response, the Government indicates that it does not accept the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry because if it were to comply with them it would mean violating the national Constitution, the separation of powers, rule of law, independence, sovereignty and self-determination of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. However, the Committee observes that the Government has not made use of the prerogative provided by the ILO Constitution, of referring the complaint, within a period of three months, to the International Court of Justice. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Government expresses its willingness to improve compliance with the ILO Conventions ratified by the country on the basis of constructive suggestions issued by the ILO supervisory bodies, and to receive technical assistance for the Office. The Committee recalls that in previous occasions when following-up on recommendations of a commission of inquiry, it has observed that the ILO Constitution does not make the results of a Commission of Inquiry subject to the consent of the State concerned. In this regard, the Committee has recalled that under article 32 of the ILO Constitution, the only authority capable of affirming, varying or reversing the findings or recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry is the International Court of Justice, and that, therefore, a government which chooses not to avail itself of the possibility of referring the matter to the International Court of Justice ought to take account of the conclusions and act upon the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, in light of the provisions of the ILO Constitution.

The Committee takes note of the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry regarding the allegations of adoption without tripartite consultation of increases to the minimum wage (paragraphs 437 to 442 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry, hereinunder, “the report”). In particular, the Commission of Inquiry concluded that “The information gathered thus reveals the Government’s failure to comply with Convention No. 26. In addition to the numerous increases in relation to which the Government did not provide specific evidence of consultation, regarding the communications submitted by the Government to prove that consultation had taken place with employers’ and workers’ organizations, the Commission considers that the mere sending of such belated and/or generic communications, containing abstract requests for proposals “in relation to the minimum wage” over six months, without providing any information on the anticipated machinery for fixing and applying the minimum wage, cannot be deemed to comply with the provisions of the Convention, which establish the obligation of the Government to engage in effective consultations.” (paragraph 442 of the report).

The Committee also notes the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (paragraphs 495 to 497), in which it observed “with the deepest concern the absence of effect given to the previous recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies on the issues raised, as well as the gravity of the current situation”, and considered that the competent authorities must give effect to those recommendations without further delay and complete their implementation by 1 September 2020 at the latest. The Commission of Inquiry urged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance for implementation of the recommendations. With regard to consultations concerning minimum wages (paragraph 497(3)(i) of the report), the Commission of Inquiry recommended the adoption of the necessary measures to ensure due and effective compliance with the consultation requirements set out in Convention No. 26, and the ending of the exclusion from social dialogue and consultation of FEDECAMARAS and trade union organizations that are not close to the Government. In particular, the Commission of Inquiry recommended, through tripartite dialogue with the representative organizations of employers and workers, the establishment of effective tripartite consultation procedures. In light of the serious deficiencies in social dialogue in the country, taking into consideration the recognition by the Government itself of the need to create mechanisms for social dialogue, the Commission of Inquiry advised the establishment in the very near future of bodies or other institutionalized procedures for social dialogue to facilitate compliance with the obligations of consultation.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Commission of Inquiry recommended “the creation and convocation in the very near future of the following dialogue round-tables in support of the application of its recommendations: (i) a round-table for tripartite dialogue which includes all representative organizations; (ii) a round-table for dialogue between the authorities concerned and FEDECAMARAS on questions relating to that organization […], and (iii) another round-table for representative workers’ organizations to address subjects that are of specific concern to them.” The Commission of Inquiry considered that “prior to the session of the ILO Governing Body in March 2020, the round-tables should have been established and have a schedule of meetings and an independent chair who enjoys the confidence of the tripartite constituents in the country, as well as, at the request of any of the constituents, the presence and assistance of the ILO” (paragraph 497(4) of the report).

The Committee notes with deep concern the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry regarding the failure of the Government to hold consultations on fixing the minimum wage in the country.

Furthermore, further to its previous comments on this matter, the Committee notes that the Government refers in its report to the communications it sent in reply to the report of the Commission of Inquiry. Moreover, the Government indicates that, given the impact of the health crisis on the country and the realities of the different social and economic sectors, and taking account the opinions expressed publicly by the employers’ and workers’ organizations, it raised the national minimum wage a second time in April 2020, in the midst of the pandemic and despite the paralysis of many sectors in the country. The Committee notes with deep concern that FEDECAMARAS and the IOE, and CODESA, the CGT and UNETE, the CTV, SINFUCAN, FAPUV and CTASI alike point out that the last two increases in the minimum wage (January and April 2020) were once again decided unilaterally and without consultation by the Government. FEDECAMARAS and the IOE indicate that even before the health emergency broke, there was no apparent progress in the establishment of a round-table for tripartite dialogue, and that neither that recommendation nor any of the other recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, which should all have been implemented before September 2020, had been either partially or completely implemented by the Government. Several of the workers’ organizations that sent observations to the Committee also indicated that the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations on social dialogue and consultation had not been implemented.

In these circumstances, the Committee deplores the failure of the Government to fulfil its obligation to consult in respect of fixing the national minimum wage. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures without delay, including by taking into account the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, to ensure full compliance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in that regard.

The Committee is aware of the on-going consideration being given by the Governing Body to the follow-up of the report of the Commission of Inquiry. In view of the grave violations of labour rights described above, the systemic failure to comply with a number of ILO Conventions and the serious lack of cooperation from the Venezuela authorities with regard to its obligations, the Committee considers it critical that within the context of the ILO standards the situation in the country be given the full and continuing attention of the ILO and the ILO supervisory system in order to obtain robust and effective measures that can bring about compliance in law and in practice with the Conventions concerned.

Article 4 of Convention No. 95. “Socialist cestaticket”. In its previous comments, while noting the observations of the social partners, the Committee examined the system of the “socialist cestaticket” (a food benefit to protect the purchasing power of workers in relation to food, established by Decree No. 2066 of 2015; the Decree allows several modalities whereby the benefit may be provided, including payment in kind), and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to engage in dialogue without delay at the national level involving all the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned so as to examine possible solutions that are sustainable over time, including any necessary adjustment to the “socialist cestaticket” system, with a view to ensuring full conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government’s report, that when the “socialist cestaticket” system is included in collective labour agreements, the choice of modalities of provision are adopted by common agreement of the interested parties. The Government adds that: (i) unions must guide workers as to the correct use of the coupons, tickets or electronic food cards; and (ii) the payment or provision of food is in addition to the actual wages paid; in no case does payment of the “socialist cestaticket” replace even partial, and still less full, payment of wages. However, the Committee notes the new observations submitted by the workers’ organizations in this regard, reporting persistent difficulties in the application of this system. Under these circumstances, the Committee observes with regret that the Government has not taken steps to engage in dialogue at national level on these issues, as it has been requested to do in previous comments. The Committee is therefore obliged to reiterate its request to the Government to take the necessary measures to engage in dialogue without delay at the national level involving all the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned so as to examine possible solutions that are sustainable over time, including any necessary adjustment to the “socialist cestaticket” system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Article 5. Electronic payment of wages. The Committee notes that the CTV, CTASI and FAPUV indicate that electronic payment of wages has become generalized, causing serious inconvenience to workers when they are obliged to make cash payments, and insurmountable difficulties in the many areas where there are no banking services, and also given that the banking system imposes limits on the amount of cash that can be withdrawn. The Committee recalls that Article 5 provides that wages shall be paid directly to the worker concerned. The same provision allows a number of exceptions as may be provided by national laws or regulations, collective agreement or arbitration award or where the worker concerned has agreed to another arrangement. The Committee also recalls that it has considered that the payment of wages by bank transfer is compatible with the Convention to the extent that it fulfils the provisions of Article 5 (2003 General Survey, Protection of wages, paragraph 84). However, the Committee considers that there is an issue of application in practice when the prevailing circumstances would make it difficult or even impossible for workers to obtain the corresponding amount in cash from the bank or institution where their wages has been paid, as is denounced by the workers’ organizations in the present case. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to address this issue and to provide information in that regard.

Article 12. Delayed payment of wages. The Committee notes that the CTASI refers to several cases of delayed payment of wages, in particular in the case of National Assembly workers. Recalling the importance of the payment of wages at regular intervals, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in that regard.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2021.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on wages, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 26 (minimum wage) and 95 (protection of wages) together. The Committee takes note of the joint observations of the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on the application of Convention No. 26, received on 1 September 2018 and 5 November 2019. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI) relating to the application of Convention No. 95, received in 2018. Finally, the Committee takes note of the observations of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) on the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 95, received on 6 September 2019.

The Commission recalls that it examined in detail the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 95 at its 2017 session. The Committee takes note that, in the context of the complaint submitted under article 26 of the ILO Constitution by 33 employers’ delegates at the 2015 session of International Labour Conference against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for non-observance of Conventions Nos 26, 87 and 144, the Governing Body appointed a Commission of Inquiry to examine the complaint in March 2018. The Committee also takes note that in application of article 29 of the ILO Constitution: (i) the Director-General of the International Labour Office communicated the report of the Commission of Inquiry to the Government in September 2019; and (ii) the Government shall, within three months, inform whether or not it accepts the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission, and, if not, whether it proposes to refer the complaint to the International Court of Justice. Finally, the Committee takes note that the Commission of Inquiry requested the Government to submit reports on the application of the Conventions covered by the complaint, including on Convention No. 26, to the Committee of Experts for examination at its 2020 session. In this context, and in view of the linkages between the issues addressed by the ratified Conventions on wages, the Committee intends to examine in detail the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 95 at its next session. The Committee hopes that it will be in a position to do so on the basis of detailed reports to be submitted by the Government on these Conventions, together with its comments with regard to the observations submitted by the above-mentioned employers’ and workers’ organizations.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2020.]

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

Follow-up to the decisions of the Government Body (complaints made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

The Committee notes that a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance of Conventions Nos 87, 95 and 111 by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, made by several Workers’ delegates to the International Labour Conference in 2016, was found receivable by the Governing Body in November 2016. In March 2017, the Governing Body decided, in relation to Convention No. 95 that, as all aspects of the complaint relating to the Convention had not been examined recently by the Committee of Experts, the corresponding allegations would be transmitted to the Committee of Experts for their full examination.

The Committee also notes that the complaint under article 26 of the Constitution alleging non-compliance with Conventions Nos 26, 87 and 144 by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, made by several Employers’ delegates to the International Labour Conference in 2015, of which the Committee took note in its previous comment on Convention No. 26, is still pending before the Governing Body, which last examined it in November 2017.

The Committee also notes the joint observations made by the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in relation to the application of Convention No. 26, received on 31 August 2017, and the Government’s reply. Finally, the Committee notes the observations of the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI), received on 31 August 2017, and the joint observations of the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA), on the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 95, received on 18 September 2017, and the Government’s reply. The Committee notes that the observations made by employers’ and workers’ organizations relate to matters raised in the complaints referred to above.

In view of the links between the subjects addressed within the framework of these procedures in relation to the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 95, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine them in the same comment.

Minimum wage

Article 3 of Convention No. 26. Participation of the social partners in minimum wage fixing. In its previous comment, the Committee once again requested the Government to ensure that full effect is given to Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the consultation and participation on an equal footing of the most representative organizations of workers and employers in the establishment and operation of the minimum wage system. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern that both FEDECAMARAS and the IOE and UNETE, CTV, CGT and CODESA, as well as the CTASI, indicate that the most recent increases in the minimum wage were decided upon unilaterally by the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report and its replies to these observations that: (i) during the period 2015–17, due to the problems faced by the Venezuelan economy, including the high inflation rate, it was required to take urgent measures to protect workers, adjusting the minimum wage on the basis of the loss of purchasing power; (ii) for the determination of the minimum wage, account is taken of the increase in the cost of the basic basket, which is a technical criterion and is not suited to negotiation; (iii) consultations and social dialogue are carried out in the National Council for Productive Economy, in which the participants include chambers affiliated to FEDECAMARAS and other important employers’ organizations in the country, as well as workers’ confederations; and (iv) in February 2017, the Government organized a consultation on the issue of the minimum wage through written communications. The Committee notes that, when examining these matters in the context of the 2015 complaint, the Governing Body in November 2017 expressed serious concern at the lack of progress with respect to the decisions taken at its previous sessions and deeply regretted this situation. The Governing Body: (a) urged the Government to engage in good faith in a concrete, transparent and productive dialogue based on respect for employers’ and workers’ organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations; (b) urged, for the last time, the Government to institutionalize before the end of 2017 a tripartite round table to foster social dialogue for the resolution of all pending issues, and to invite to that effect an ILO high-level mission led by the Officers of the Governing Body to meet with government authorities, FEDECAMARAS and their member organizations and affiliated companies, as well as trade unions and leaders from all social sectors; (c) requested the Director-General of the ILO to make available all necessary support in that regard and the Officers of the Governing Body to report back on the ILO high-level mission at its 332nd Session (March 2018) on the determination on whether concrete progress had been achieved by means of the social dialogue fostered by the round table; and (d) suspended the approval of a decision on the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry pending the report of the high-level mission at its 332nd Session (March 2018). In this context, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the current process will allow the achievement of positive results and lead to full compliance with the Convention in future. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

The Committee observes that both the Government and all the organizations which provided observations also referred in their communications to the system of the “Socialist Cestaticket”. The Committee considers that issues relating to this system do not lie within the scope of Convention No. 26 and that it is appropriate to address this subject within the framework of Convention No. 95.

Protection of wages

Article 1 of Convention No. 95. Components of remuneration. The Committee notes that in the 2016 complaint a phenomenon of “desalarization” in the country is denounced, particularly in relation to the “Socialist Cestaticket”. The Committee notes the Government’s confirmation in its reply that the national legislation provides for this system as a food benefit to protect the purchasing power of workers in relation to food, to strengthen their health, prevent occupational diseases and promote greater labour productivity (section 1 of the Legislative Decree on the Socialist Cestaticket for men and women workers, Decree No. 2066 of 23 October 2015). The Committee also notes that Decree No. 2066 provides that this benefit shall be provided to workers by the employer (section 2). The Committee further notes that the Decree provides, in accordance with section 105(2) of the Basic Labour Act (LOTTT), that the benefit shall not be considered as wages, unless it is so recognized in collective agreements or individual contracts of employment. The Committee recalls that the subject of “desalarization” in relation to food benefits in the country has already been examined in the past (General Survey on the protection of wages, 2003, paragraph 47). In this context, the Committee recalled that, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention, all the components of workers’ remuneration, irrespective of how they are denominated or calculated, are protected by the Convention. In light of the characteristics of the “Socialist Cestaticket” (sections 1 and 2 of Decree No. 2066), the Committee considers that, for the purposes of the Convention, this benefit is a component of the remuneration of workers. Accordingly, even though the national legislation provides that the “Socialist Cestaticket” is not in the nature of a wage, this benefit has to be examined in light of the provisions of the Convention.

Article 4. Payment in kind. The Committee notes that, in accordance with Decree No. 2066: (i) the employer may choose between various modalities for the provision of the “Socialist Cestaticket”, including the provision of food at the workplace or the provision of food tickets or electronic cards (section 4); (ii) in certain exceptional cases, the benefit may be paid in cash (sections 5 and 6); and (iii) when so required for reasons of social interest, the national executive may order modifications in the modalities, terms and amounts applicable for the provision of the benefit (section 7). In this regard, the Committee notes that, in a series of decrees adopted within the context of the state of emergency and economic urgency since 2016, the amount of the “Socialist Cestaticket” has been increased regularly. The Committee notes that both FEDECAMARAS and the IOE, and the UNETE, CTV, CGT and CODESA, as well as the CTASI, indicate in their observations that since 2016 the value of the “Socialist Cestaticket” has been higher than the minimum wage and that the overall remuneration of workers (the minimum wage and the “Socialist Cestaticket”) does not cover the basic basket. The Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that the partial payment of wages may be authorized in the form of allowances in kind and that in cases in which such payment is authorized, appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure that: (a) allowances in kind are appropriate for the personal use and benefit of the worker and her or his family; and (b) the value attributed to such allowances is fair and reasonable. The Committee also recalls that it has considered that governments, before authorizing the payment in kind of a high proportion of workers’ wages, should carefully assess whether such a measure is reasonable based on its possible repercussions for the workers concerned, having regard to national circumstance and the interests of the working people (General Survey on the protection of wages, 2003, paragraph 118). The Committee considers that these considerations are particularly significant in the case of workers who receive the minimum wage. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the increase in the amount of the “Socialist Cestaticket” has been necessary to maintain the purchasing power of workers in the context of the problems faced by the Venezuelan economy, and particularly the high rates of inflation, and that this benefit would be paid in cash since May 2017, in accordance with the temporary modalities adopted in the context of the state of emergency and economic urgency. Nevertheless, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to engage in dialogue without delay at the national level involving all the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned so as to examine possible solutions that are sustainable over time, including any necessary adjustment to the “Socialist Cestaticket” system, with a view to ensuring full conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee invites the Government to consider the possibility of having recourse to ILO technical assistance.

Finally, the Committee notes the indication by the UNETE, CTV, CGT and CODESA, and the CTASI, in their observations that the non-wage nature of the “Socialist Cestaticket” has an impact on other social benefits which are calculated in relation to the level of workers’ wages. In this regard, the Committee observes that, although this subject could be addressed appropriately in the context of the supervision of other ratified Conventions respecting social protection, it is not regulated by Convention No. 95.

The Committee is raising other matters concerning the application of Convention No. 95 in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes that a complaint made under article 26 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance of the Convention by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, presented by a group of Employers’ delegates to the International Labour Conference in 2015, has been declared receivable and is currently pending before the Governing Body.

The Committee notes the observations made jointly by the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 9 September and 5 November 2015, and on 26 May and 7 September 2016. The Committee also notes the observations made jointly by the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA), received on 19 September and 24 October 2016, as well as the observations made by the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI), received on 23 September 2016. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the observations of these employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Minimum wage fixing machinery. Consultation of the organizations of employers and workers concerned. In its previous comment, the Committee urged the Government to do its utmost to guarantee the full consultation and participation on an equal footing of the most representative organizations of employers and workers with a view to the establishment and operation of minimum wage systems. The Committee notes that both FEDECAMARAS and the IOE indicate that the Government is still in consistent violation of the Convention through its failure to consult FEDECAMARAS and to hold tripartite consultations for the determination of increases in the minimum wage between the last quarter of 2014 and August 2016. They add that it also failed to hold tripartite consultations for the approval of the new Act on the socialist food voucher for men and women workers (published in Official Gazette No. 40.774 of 26 October 2015), or concerning the increases in the amount of the socialist food voucher. The Committee notes that, according to FEDECAMARAS and the IOE, the Government’s action is in violation of the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2015 on the application of the Convention, and the commitment given by the Government in the context of the Governing Body in March 2016 relating to the implementation of the plan of action, which included consultations with FEDECAMARAS on government and legal decisions in the field of labour.

The Committee notes that the UNETE, CTV, CGT and CODESA allege that since 1999 the Government has systematically approved the minimum wage unilaterally and that it adopted the Act on the socialist food voucher without prior consultation. They add that the Government has shown no will to engage in legitimate tripartite consultations with the independent unions on labour-related matters and that the wages of Venezuelan workers continue to be inadequate, even to cover the food basket. The Committee notes the indication by the ASI that: (i) in 2015 there was very high inflation and a sharp fall in gross domestic product (GDP) of 5.7 per cent; (ii) the same year, the increase in the prices of food and non-alcoholic drinks, which represent the major items in the budgets of Venezuelan families, was 315 per cent, and in these circumstances the Government decreed four increases in the minimum wage in 2015, without engaging in tripartite discussions with employers’ and workers’ organizations; (iii) the National Statistical Institute stopped publishing data on the statutory food basket in November 2014; (iv) over half of the value of the minimum wage has been lost through devaluation; and (v) wages are not adapted to the real situation, as socio-economic variables are not taken into account.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report and in its reply to the observations of the employers’ and workers’ organizations referred to above, that since 2015 the national executive authorities have increased the minimum wage on nine occasions. With reference to the food voucher, it has been adjusted in line with fluctuations in the tax unit, which is increased on the basis of inflation, thereby balancing the purchasing power required to buy food. As from 1 November 2016, the voucher will be 63,720 Venezuelan bolivars (VEF) (approximately US$6,400). The Government indicates that the minimum living wage is fixed taking into account the increase in the cost of the basic basket, which is composed of over 400 products and services that are needed by a family to meet its vital needs. The Government adds that, during the period 2015–16, due to the irrational increase in the retail prices of products, it was found necessary to protect workers by adjusting the minimum wage and the food voucher as a function of the loss of purchasing power. The Government reaffirms that these policies were discussed in the National Economic Council, which includes representation of Chambers affiliated to FEDECAMERAS and the most important employers in the country, as well as representatives of the most representative workers’ confederation in the country. The Government adds that consultations on the national minimum wage are always held on an equal footing with employers and workers, as envisaged in Article 3 of the Convention, and emphasizes that it is in strict conformity with the Convention, both with regard to the criteria for the determination of minimum wages and consultation with the representatives of workers and employers.

While noting the information provided by the Government, the Committee notes with concern, on the one hand, the reiterated observations made by FEDECAMERAS and the IOE on the failure to give effect to the Convention and, on the other, the recent observations from several workers’ organizations (UNETE, CTV, CGT, CODESA and ASI) on the approval without consultation of the independent trade unions of increases in the minimum wage on numerous occasions during the period 2015–16, as well as the difficulties arising from the considerable increase in prices and the consequent loss of purchasing power of the minimum wage. Under these conditions, the Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that full effect is given to Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the consultation and participation on an equal footing of the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations in the establishment and operation of minimum wage systems. The Committee requests the Government to report any developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the observations by the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 31 August and 27 November 2014, regarding the fact that according to these organizations, there had been no in-depth tripartite consultations with adequate time to express an opinion on the issue of minimum wage fixing.

Follow-up to the discussion of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 103rd Session, May–June 2014)

The Committee notes the discussion held in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee notes that, in the context of the Committee on the Application of Standards as well as in its report, the Government stated that: (1) according to the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela the State has an obligation to annually review and set the national minimum wage; and (2) in 2014, two adjustments of the minimum wage were made after consultations with the organizations of employers and workers in the working groups which were suggested at the initiative of the national executive.

As regards social dialogue, the Committee recalls that, within a broader context than that of minimum wages, the High-Level Tripartite Mission which visited the country in January 2014 recalled “the importance of creating the conditions necessary for initiating tripartite social dialogue with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations on matters relating to industrial relations, which requires a constructive spirit, good faith, mutual respect and respect for the freedom of association and independence of the parties, in depth discussions over a reasonable period, and efforts to find, as far as possible, shared solutions …”.

The Committee urges the Government to do its utmost in order to guarantee the full consultation and participation on an equal footing of the most representatives organizations of employers and workers with a view to establishing and applying minimum wage systems. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any development on the issue and reminds it that it may seek technical assistance from the Office.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2016.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Minimum wage fixing methods. Consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the comments by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS), received on 15 July 2013 and forwarded to the Government on 9 September 2013. The IOE and FEDECAMARAS report that the new Basic Act of 30 April 2012 on work and men and women workers assigns to the Government a primary role in minimum wage fixing thus displacing the social partners, consultation of whom was mandatory under the former Act. The process of consultation with the National Tripartite Committee has been eliminated from the new Act. Henceforth, the Government, following broad consultations with various social organizations and socio-economic institutions of its choosing, is to fix the minimum wage yearly by presidential decree. The IOE and FEDECAMARAS further state that, since 2002, the Government has fixed the minimum wage unilaterally each year, without any real social dialogue on the matter, in breach of the Convention and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). The Committee also takes note of the IOE’s further comments of 17 July 2013, in which the IOE states that the involvement of the social partners in fixing, adjusting and implementing the minimum wage is vital, and notes with concern that economic factors such as the productivity rate are not taken into account in determining the minimum wage.

In its reply received on 15 November 2013, the Government explains that only twice between 1991 and 1999 did the members of the National Tripartite Committee reach agreement on adjusting the minimum wage – both times to the detriment of other worker entitlements, such as social benefits. The Government indicates that, as a consequence, one of the most frequent requests of workers’ assemblies during the 1999 constitutional process was for a minimum wage fixing mechanism that is immune to individual political interests. Since 2000, the Government has therefore reviewed and fixed the minimum wage annually on the basis of the recommendations made by social, economic, and employers’ and workers’ organizations and without affecting the other rights of workers. The Committee nevertheless points out that Article 3 of the Convention prescribes, as a fundamental principle of any minimum wage-fixing system, real and effective consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations and their participation in equal numbers and on an equal footing in wage fixing machinery. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to specify how it intends to secure full observance of the obligation to consult employers’ and workers’ organizations, on an equal footing, in decision-making on minimum wages.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Article 3(2) of the Convention. Minimum wage fixing machinery and consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the comments of the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) of 14 September 2011 transmitted to the Government on 27 September 2011. It also notes the additional comments of FEDECAMARAS, supported by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), which were received on 31 August 2012 and forwarded to the Government on 24 September 2012. The Committee further notes the comments of the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI), which were received on 29 August 2011 and 14 August 2012 and transmitted to the Government on 22 September 2011 and 29 August 2012, respectively. It also notes the Government’s replies of 12 November 2012 to the comments of FEDECAMARAS and ASI. Both organizations basically reiterate the allegations reflected in previous communications concerning the absence of meaningful social dialogue in the country and the annual readjustment of the minimum wage by the Government in a unilateral manner.

More concretely, FEDECAMARAS indicates that the minimum wage increase for 2012 was approved through Presidential Decree No. 8920 of 24 April 2012 without consulting the representative employers’ organizations or the National Tripartite Commission, which contravenes sections 167–169 of the Basic Labour Act in force at that time. FEDECAMARAS adds that the National Tripartite Commission has not been convened for the last ten years. It considers that the method of consultation used by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, that is inviting comments within a short time limit of 15 days, does not constitute genuine social dialogue and violates the Convention. FEDECAMARAS also indicates that the committee established for drafting the new Organic Labour Act (LOTTT) (Official Gazette of 7 May 2012) did not adequately represent the employers’ organizations. For its part, ASI denounces the Government’s clear tendency to set labour policies, including wage policy, without considering the views of employers’ and workers’ representatives, and indicates that the minimum wage legislation does not define the criteria for the determination of minimum wage levels nor does it set any limits to the Government’s discretionary powers in this regard. ASI also alleges that the current minimum wage covers only 43.9 per cent of the basic food basket (canasta alimentaria normativa). According to statistics provided by ASI, from 1999 to 2010, inflation rose by 747 per cent while in the last 12 months prices have increased by 24.6 per cent. The diminishing purchasing power of the minimum wage affects a large number of people as it is estimated that 21.1 per cent of all workers are paid at the minimum wage rate.

In its report, the Government refers to article 91 of the Constitution which provides for the annual readjustment of the minimum wage for workers in the public and private sectors taking into account the cost of the basic food basket, and indicates that the Constituent Assembly of 1999 drafted this article considering the views of workers’ representatives who denounced the lack of effectiveness and representativeness of the National Tripartite Commission. The Government indicates that the new LOTTT has been adopted following social dialogue with employers’ and workers’ representatives. The Committee notes that this Act no longer makes reference to the National Tripartite Commission as the consultative body for fixing minimum wages. It also notes that under section 129 of the new LOTTT, the Government fixes by decree the minimum wage on a yearly basis and for this purpose it invites different social organizations and socio-economic institutions to make known their views. The Government’s report specifies that, in practice, every year in January, as many as six trade union confederations and 32 trade union federations as well as five important employers’ organizations are consulted, while the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance are requested to prepare economic reports. The views of workers’ and employers’ representatives are collected through the web page of the Ministry of Labour, while a committee designated by the President is responsible for preparing a summary of the opinions expressed and the economic reports submitted, prior to the promulgation of the decree fixing the minimum wage by the President. Moreover, the Government indicates that, as of August 2012, the minimum wage of 2,047 bolivar (approximately US$476) plus the food ticket exceeded the value of the basic food basket of 1,835 bolivar (approximately US$427). The Government further indicates that, according to the labour force surveys, there are on the average two workers per household, and therefore the income per household is higher than the minimum wage. The Government finally points out that the minimum wage was raised in 2012 by 32.3 per cent, while the inflation rate was 18 per cent.

While noting the Government’s explanations, the Committee wishes to recall once again the fundamental importance it attaches to real and good faith consultations with the social partners for the effective operation of the minimum wage fixing process. As the Committee has pointed out on numerous occasions, “consultation” has a different connotation from mere “information” and from “co-determination”. In order to be meaningful, consultations must give employers’ and workers’ representatives ample opportunity to express their views, and these views must be carefully considered, even if decision-making power ultimately lies with the Government. Noting that the new LOTTT of 2012 introduces a major change in the nature and form of the minimum wage fixing machinery by formally abolishing the National Tripartite Commission, heretofore responsible for making concerted recommendations on the adjustment of the minimum wage, the Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the exact content and views expressed during the consultations prior to that legislative change.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the adoption of Decree No. 6.660 of 30 March 2009, raising the level of the minimum wage as from 1 September 2009 to 959.08 bolívars (bolívares fuertes) (approximately US$447), amounting to an increase of 20 per cent, for all workers in urban and rural areas, the private and public sectors, as well as domestic workers, concierges and apprentices. The Committee notes this information with particular interest, especially in light of the Global Jobs Pact, adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 2009 to address the impact of the international financial and economic crisis. Indeed, the Global Jobs Pact calls on governments to consider options such as minimum wages that can reduce poverty and inequity, increase demand and contribute to economic stability (paragraph 23). It also emphasizes that, in order to avoid deflationary wage spirals, minimum wages should be regularly reviewed and adapted (paragraph 12).

Article 3(2) of the Convention. Consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the observations made by the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) and the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV). The Committee also takes note of new comments made by FEDECAMARAS and the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI), dated 31 August 2010 as well as the Government’s reply dated 19 November 2010. These organizations have indicated, in the same way as the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in 2007, that the Government was not holding the consultations envisaged by law for the determination of the national minimum wage, namely convening the National Tripartite Commission responsible for making concerted recommendations on the adjustment of the minimum wage, in accordance with section 167 of the Basic Labour Act. The organizations emphasized that they were not able to give their views on the subject as the invitations to the consultations were sent out very late or even after the date of publication of the Decree to increase the minimum wage.

In its replies, the Government indicates that it holds consultations with the social partners concerned at the national, regional and even local levels concerning any comments that they may wish to make and the measures adopted by the Government in relation to the determination of minimum wages. It adds that section 172 of the Basic Labour Act authorizes the executive authorities to determine the amount of the minimum wage, after seeking the views of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and other national bodies, so that they can make known their opinion on the determination of the national minimum wage, which demonstrates the Government’s will to establish, maintain and consolidate fair, inclusive and beneficial social dialogue, without exclusive rights or discrimination of any type based on former positions related to power or favouritism.

The Committee wishes to emphasize once again the fundamental importance of the consultation procedure under the Convention and recalls that, while each government may determine by national law or regulations the manner of consultation, such consultations must nevertheless be held prior to the adoption of decisions and they have to be effective, that is to say that they need to allow employers’ and workers’ organizations to be able to give their views in a useful manner on the matters under consultation, in this case minimum wages. The Committee also recalls, as indicated in paragraph 241 of its 1992 General Survey on minimum wages, that the participation of employers and workers, their organizations and representatives, must be direct, including the possibility that the parties concerned form part of the relevant bodies and that their participation is effective, that is to say that the opinions reached by the parties concerned should be duly taken into consideration, and that the participation should take place on an equal footing. While noting the efforts made by the Government to review minimum wage rates regularly, with a view to ensuring workers a satisfactory standard of living, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the exact procedures for consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations for the fixing of the minimum wage and on the functioning of the National Tripartite Commission responsible for making recommendations on the adjustment of the minimum wage.

Finally, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the decision by the ILO Governing Body to classify Convention No. 26 among those instruments which may no longer be fully up to date but which nevertheless remain relevant in certain respects (document GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraphs 19 and 40). The Committee therefore suggests that the Government might consider the possibility of ratifying the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), which marks a certain progress in relation to older instruments on minimum wage fixing, for instance in terms of its broader scope of application, the requirement for a comprehensive minimum wage system and the obligation to determine criteria for fixing and adjusting minimum wage rates. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision adopted or envisaged in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report, and particularly the adoption of Decree No. 6.052 of 29 April 2008, setting the level of the minimum wage as from 1 May 2008 at 799.23 bolivars (bolívares fuertes) (or around US$372) for all workers, urban or rural, in the private and public sectors, and domestic workers, and at 599.43 bolivars (or around US$279) for apprentices.

Article 3 of the Convention. Consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the observations made by the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS), which were received on 27 August 2008 and 27 August 2009 and forwarded to the Government on 4 September 2008 and 7 September 2009, respectively, and the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), received on 31 August 2009 and forwarded to the Government on 16 September 2009. These organizations indicate that the Government is not holding the consultations provided for by law for the determination of the minimum wage. More specifically, FEDECAMARAS denounces the fact that the Government has not convened the National Tripartite Commission responsible for making recommendations on the adjustment of the minimum wage for the past nine years and recalls that the minimum wage fixing machinery shall, in accordance with section 167 of the Basic Labour Act, be the outcome of tripartite dialogue between the Government and employers’ and workers’ organizations. FEDECAMARAS also indicates that wage increases have been determined by Presidential Decree without consultation, as invitations to the consultations were issued very late or even after the date of publication of the Decree. The Committee further notes that the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), to the observations of which there has, as yet, been no reply, had raised similar issues. In this respect, the Committee wishes once again to recall that Article 3 of the Convention requires the full and effective consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations and their participation on an equal footing in the operation of minimum wage fixing machinery. As the Government’s reply was received on 8 December 2009, the Committee intends to examine in detail the matters raised in the above observations at its next session.

Finally, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the conclusions adopted by the ILO Governing Body in relation to the relevance of the present Convention, based on the recommendations of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards (GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraphs 19 and 40). The Governing Body decided to classify Convention No. 26 among those instruments that may no longer be fully up to date but which nevertheless remain relevant in certain respects. The Committee therefore suggests that the Government might consider the possibility of ratifying the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), which contains certain advances compared to older instruments on minimum wage fixing, for instance in terms of its broader scope of application, the requirement for a comprehensive minimum wage system and the obligation to determine criteria for fixing and adjusting minimum wage rates. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any decision adopted or envisaged in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its last comment. Specifically, the Committee notes with interest the adoption of Decree No. 4.446 of 28 April 2006, section 1 of which establishes the minimum wage applicable to all workers, whether urban or rural, including domestic workers, irrespective of the number of workers in the enterprise. It notes that the amount of the monthly minimum wage was 465,700 bolivars (US$217) from 1 May 2006 and 512,325 bolivars (US$239) from 1 September 2006. It also notes Decree No. 5.318 of 25 April 2007, which increased the amount of the minimum wage to 614,790 bolivars (US$286) from 1 May 2007, representing an increase of 20 per cent.

The Committee also notes the adoption of Decree No. 4.447 of 25 April 2006 issuing regulations to implement the Organic Labour Act. It notes with interest that this Decree no longer authorizes – in contrast to section 32 of the previously applicable regulations – the conclusion of apprenticeship contracts with a lower minimum wage for workers between 18 and 25 years of age. Moreover, it notes that the abovementioned Decrees Nos 4.446 and 5.318 provide for a lower minimum wage for apprentices under the age of majority, unless they perform their work in conditions identical to those of adult workers.

Moreover, the Committee notes the comments made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on the application of the Convention, which were received on 27 September 2007 and forwarded to the Government on 15 October 2007. In particular, it notes the comments of the IOE concerning the lack of social dialogue in the country and the Government’s refusal, for more than eight years, to convene the national tripartite committee mandated, in accordance with section 167 of the Organic Labour Act, to make recommendations on the revision of the minimum wage. In this respect, it also notes section 61 of the abovementioned Decree No. 4.447, which authorizes minimum wage fixing machinery other than that provided for by section 167 of the Organic Labour Act. The Committee recalls that Article 3 of the Convention requires, as a fundamental principle of any system for the fixing of minimum wages, the full and effective consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations, and their participation on an equal footing in the aforementioned minimum wage fixing machinery. Moreover, the Committee notes that the 2007 Enabling Act allows the President of the Republic to adopt, as from 1 February 2007 for a period of 18 months, decrees having the same validity as acts in a large number of spheres, including economic and social affairs. The Committee trusts that the Government will discharge its obligations under the Convention with regard to the participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations on an equal footing in the minimum wage fixing machinery. It requests the Government to forward its comments in reply to the comments made by the IOE on the application of the Convention.

While noting with interest the information supplied by the Government regarding the evolution of the minimum wage in absolute terms and in relation to the cost of the basic food basket, the Committee requests the Government to continue supplying information on the application of the Convention in practice, particularly information concerning changes in the minimum wage in relation to the rate of inflation.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and in particular Decree No. 1752 of 28 April 2002 which fixes minimum wage rates for certain categories of workers, including urban and agricultural workers, concierges, young persons and apprentices, and workers in enterprises with fewer than 20 employees. The Committee also notes that, under section 10 of the above Decree, domestic workers are not covered by minimum wages fixed in this manner. The Committee recalls that the Convention is intended to guarantee a decent level of remuneration for persons earning exceptionally low wages and who do not benefit from an effective system for fixing wages through collective agreement. The Committee requests the Government to specify the minimum wage applicable to domestic workers and to indicate the procedure by which their wages are determined in practice.

Moreover, recalling its previous comment, the Committee is bound to request once again general information relating to the application of the Convention in practice, in accordance with Article 5 and Part V of the report form, for example: (i) the evolution of minimum wage rates in recent years; (ii) available statistical data on the number and different categories of workers covered by minimum wage regulations; (iii) extracts from official reports on socio-economic aspects of minimum wages; and (iv) the results of the inspections carried out (violations reported, sanctions imposed, etc.).

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

The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government and, in particular, the amendment to the Organic Labour Act (LOT) of 1997, respecting the minimum wage-fixing machinery, which established a National Tripartite Committee on 8 January 1998 to fix and revise minimum wages in January of each year, taking into account such variables as the cost of the family shopping basket.

The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information, in conformity with Article 5 of the Convention, read in conjunction with point V of the report form, in respect of the functioning of the National Tripartite Committee and other relevant data in respect of the practical application of the Convention, for example: (i) the development of minimum rates of wages in force; (ii) the available statistical data in respect of the number and different categories of workers subjected to the minimum rates of wages regulations; and (iii) the results of inspections carried out (for example, the violations observed, sanctions imposed, etc.).

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the minimum wage rates that have been fixed over recent years, and concerning the Act setting up the National Commission for Costs, Prices and Wages. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of the operation of the National Commission in fixing minimum wages and the role it plays in this process, in accordance with the provisions of section 6(5) of the above Act. The Committee also hopes that the Government will supply information, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention, regarding the number of workers covered by the minimum wage system, on the new minimum wage rates and the consultations which took place with employers' and workers' organisations for this purpose.