Definitive Report - Report No 134, November 1972

Case No 693 (Uruguay) - Complaint date: 22-MAR-72 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

10. The joint complaint of the Confederation of State Officials' Organisations and the National Federation of Municipal Workers and Employees is contained in a communication dated 22 March 1972 addressed direct to the ILO. By a communication dated 27 April 1972 the complainants through the National Convention of Workers of Uruguay submitted additional information in support of their complaint. The text of these communications was transmitted to the Government, which sent its observations thereon in a communication dated 7 August 1972.
11. Uruguay has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

12. The complainants' protest is essentially against the reintroduction of Decree No. 287 of 17 June 1969, which lays down economic sanctions, along with the obligation to work, in the case of strikes or stoppages by civil servants. In the opinion of the complainants, this text is contrary to the Constitutional guarantees, which include the right to strike.
13. In its comments the Government states that in Uruguay the principle that strikes by civil servants are illegal is derived from article 57, paragraph 3, of the Constitution and that Decree No. 287 of 17 June 1969 is based on the said principle. The Government continues to state: "Nevertheless, while strikes are illegal, machinery exists to permit civil servants to enjoy the most extensive rights of association, submit their claims, and obtain adequate and proper satisfaction by means expressly provided for by law (Act No. 13720 dated 16 December 1968, sections 3 and 4)." The Government points out in conclusion that, "in addition, it has taken the initiative on a number of occasions not to enforce the financial sanctions provided for in the above Decree".

14. The Committee has already had before it a case involving Uruguay which referred to a similar situation and where reference was made to Act No. 13720 of 1968, mentioned by the Government in the present case.
15. On that occasion, in view of the statement by the Government that strikes in the civil service are not permitted, the Committee, considering that the allegations concerning the right to strike fall within its competence, although only to the extent to which they affect trade union rights, considered it necessary to recall that, while restrictions on strikes in the civil service or in essential services could be accepted, there should in this case be adequate guarantees to safeguard the interests of the workers who were thereby deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interests, which implied that such restrictions should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties concerned could participate at all stages.
16. As for the means by which workers deprived of the right to strike could obtain a settlement of their claims, the Committee noted - as is also the case in the present complaint - that the information supplied by the Government refers solely to sections 3 and 4 of Act No. 13720 instituting conciliation procedures.

17. In the circumstances the Committee can only reach the same conclusion as that which it reached following its examination of the previous case referred to above, by recommending the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that where strikes are forbidden in the civil service or in essential services such prohibition should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties concerned can participate at all stages.