Definitive Report - Report No 329, November 2002

Case No 2205 (Nicaragua) - Complaint date: 30-MAY-02 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges excessive delays and difficulties in the bargaining procedure for a list of demands and the unilateral extension of the validity of a collective agreement.

1. 707. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 30 May 2002 from the José Benito Escobar Workers’ Trade Union Confederation (CST-JBE). Subsequently, the CST-JBE sent further information in a communication dated 29 June 2002. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 15 July and 10 October 2002.
2. 708. Nicaragua has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 709. In communications dated 30 May and 29 June 2002, the José Benito Escobar Workers’ Trade Union Confederation (CST-JBE) states that, in accordance with the provisions of article 240 of the Labour Code: “The collective agreement shall be revised before its validity expires at the request of one of the parties, if there are substantial changes to the social and economic conditions of the company or the country that make this advisable”. On 24 May 2000 the National Trade Union of Carpenters, Bricklayers and Allied Trade Unions (SNSCAASC) presented a list of demands to the Ministry of Labour to activate the revision procedure for the collective agreement that had been signed in April 1999 with the Nicaraguan Construction Industry Association (CNC).
2. 710. The complainant organization states that the periods laid down in article 379 of the Labour Code were not respected (15 days extended by another period of eight days) in the negotiating process. According to the CST-JBE, the negotiating period was extended to more than one year and the CNC was not present at 12 of the 34 meetings that were held.
3. 711. The complainant organization also states that on more than six occasions it requested the Directorate of Conciliation and Counsel for Mediation to appoint a Strike Council to resolve the conflict but the administrative authority has not ruled with regard to this. Finally, the complainant organization states that the Directorate of Individual and Collective Conciliation of the Ministry of Labour determined unilaterally to extend the collective agreement for a period equal to the previous one, violating the negotiation process.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 712. In a communication dated 15 July 2002, the Government stated that the Departmental Inspectorate of Labour, Construction, Transport and Telecommunications Sector of Managua received a list of demands submitted by the SNSCAASC and transferred proceedings to the Directorate of Individual and Collective Conciliation in a decree dated 27 April 2000.
2. 713. The Government also states that both parties set the criteria for agreement on the spirit of the negotiation and established written records to the fact that they would revise totally the list of rates beginning with the carpenters and establishing a temporary wage while the negotiations took place. With regard to this, the Government states that it could be said that there is no conflict as none of the grounds established in article 243 of the Labour Code are present.
3. 714. The Government states that owing to the fact that the wages of workers in the construction industry, in accordance with the legal provisions of article 83b of the Labour Code, are stipulated by unit of work, piece or item, the clause in question is considered fundamental as what the negotiation procedure hoped to correct was the wage discrepancies in this sector. However, the Government indicates that the collective agreement of the construction industry was still valid, therefore the procedure was not the correct one inasmuch as the wage demands were a revision and not a submission of a list of demands.
4. 715. The Government states that while article 240 accepts the possibility of revision, the legislation does not state clearly whether the procedure to follow is that stipulated in articles 379 to 381 inclusive of the Labour Code on conciliation. In any case, the Government indicates that the Directorate of Conciliation reminded the parties that while differences could arise during the proceedings, these should occur in an atmosphere of agreement and harmony, and it repeated to the parties that the revision taking place was exclusively on the wage clause and was not a negotiation of a list of demands with regard to the collective agreement, the latter having been extended automatically in accordance with article 241 of the Labour Code (this article states that: “The term of the collective agreement being expired, without there being any request for revision, the agreement shall be extended for a period equal to that of its previous validity”), to expire on 30 April 2003. The Government states that the process is continuing and at a recent meeting held at the Ministry of Labour in July 2002, the parties, in mutual agreement, decided to continue the negotiations for a wage revision for a further three months from the signing of the agreement, both undertaking in a climate of harmony to reach consensus on the proposals and that these agreements would be communicated to the ILO at the end of the period.
5. 716. In its communication of 10 October 2002, the Government declares that agreements signed on 29 August and 18 September 2002 between, on the one hand, the Nicaraguan Construction Chamber (CNC), the National Trade Union of Carpenters, Bricklayers and Allied Trade Unions (SNSCAASC-CST), the Nicaraguan Federation of Construction and Wood Workers (FITCMN), and, on the other hand, civil servants from the Ministry of Labour, put an end to the labour conflict in the construction sector.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 717. The Committee notes that in this case the complainant organization states that: (1) in May 2000, the National Trade Union of Carpenters, Bricklayers and Allied Trade Unions (SNSCAASC) submitted a list of demands to the administrative authority to begin revision proceedings of the collective agreement concluded in April 1999 with the Nicaraguan Construction Industry Association (CNC); (2) this proceeding took place over more than one year, violating the time period laid down in the Labour Code for negotiations; (3) the CNC was not present at a number of meetings relating to the negotiation hearings; (4) on various occasions the administrative authority was requested to convoke a Strike Council but there has been no ruling in this respect; and (5) finally, the Directorate of Individual and Collective Conciliation of the Ministry of Labour decided unilaterally to extend the collective agreement for a period equivalent to that for which it had previously been valid.
2. 718. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that: (i) this case does not represent a collective conflict (change in the collective agreement as a whole) but tries to clarify wage discrepancies in the sector; (ii) there is a collective agreement in force, which means that the procedure that should have been followed is that of revision of the agreement and not submission of a list of demands; (iii) the collective agreement was extended according to article 241 of the Labour Code which states that: “The term of the collective agreement being expired, without there being any request for revision, the agreement shall be extended for a period equal to that of its previous validity”; (iv) the parties, in mutual agreement, decided in July 2002 to continue the negotiations for a wage revision for a further three months from the signing of the agreement, both parties undertaking to reach a consensus on the proposals in a climate of harmony; and (v) in August and September 2002, the parties and the Ministry of Labour signed agreements which put an end to the labour dispute.
3. 719. First, the Committee regrets that, although the procedure begun was not the correct one, the negotiation of a list of demands has lasted more than one year. In this sense, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that, in the future, collective bargaining procedures are carried out within reasonable time limits.
4. 720. Second, the Committee notes with interest that the parties and civil servants from the Ministry of Labour have signed agreements in August and September 2002 which put an end to the labour dispute.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 721. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
   • Regretting that the negotiation of a list of demands has lasted more than one year, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that, in the future, collective bargaining procedures are carried out within reasonable time limits.