Definitive Report - Report No 372, June 2014

Case No 2986 (El Salvador) - Complaint date: 10-AUG-12 - Closed

Allegations: The rejection by the Ministries of Economy and Finance of a collective agreement on financial and budgetary grounds

1. 194. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Union of Workers of the National Centre of Registries (STCNR) dated 10 August 2012. This organization sent additional information and new allegations in communications dated 25 October 2012 and 5 March 2013.
2. 195. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 30 May 2013.
3. 196. El Salvador has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 197. In its communication of 10 August 2012, the STCNR alleges that, having negotiated and signed a collective agreement with the National Centre of Registries (CNR) in April 2012, following the corresponding legal and financial examination by that Centre (which verified that the institution had the necessary budgetary resources), it received a ruling from the Minister of Finance, dated 17 July 2012, containing an unfavourable opinion with respect to the approval of the collective agreement.
2. 198. In its communication of 25 October 2012, the STCNR indicates that, in view of the above, the parties to the negotiation agreed to make the clauses relating to the duration of the collective agreement clearer, specifying that it would come into force on 1 January 2013. They accordingly signed a new collective agreement, adding a text signed by the parties and addressed to the Minister for the Economy (indicating that the workers will continue to receive the current financial benefits with some slight increases, thereby demonstrating that the collective agreement was reasonable and could be funded) and another explanatory text addressed to the Minister of Finance.
3. 199. In its communication of 5 March 2013, the STCNR reports that eventually, on 20 February 2013, the collective agreement was registered by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare following its approval by the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Finance.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 200. In its communication of 30 May 2013, the Government responds to the complaint by the STCNR and reports that on 3 September 2012 the trade union presented a draft collective labour agreement to the CNR authorities to initiate the procedure for the agreement to be negotiated, signed and registered. In accordance with section 287 of the Labour Code, which states that: “To be valid, a collective agreement signed with an autonomous official institution shall first be approved by the ministry concerned, after the Ministry of Finance has given its opinion”, the CNR authorities submitted the draft collective labour agreement to the Minister of Economy and the Minister of Finance, and received an unfavourable opinion on the grounds that the financial clauses could not be funded under the public sector cost-saving and austerity policies for 2012.
2. 201. The Government further indicates that, for that reason, the CNR and the trade union of that institution examined the grounds for the unfavourable opinion issued in relation to the collective labour agreement with a view to addressing the observations regarding the public sector cost-saving and austerity policies for 2012, and that the corresponding amendments were made.
3. 202. Subsequently, on 6 September 2012, the CNR sent the collective labour agreement to the Minister of Economy, addressing the observations made by the Minister of Finance. On 1 February 2013, the Minister of Economy indicated that it had no objection to the approval of the collective labour agreement including the new changes, considering that they addressed the observations made by the Minister of Finance regarding clauses 71 (salary adjustments) and 79 (Voluntary Retirement Fund).
4. 203. The Government adds that, on 19 February 2013, members of the trade union executive board submitted the collective labour agreement to the National Department of Social Organizations of the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare for registration on 20 February 2013, and that the agreement was registered.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 204. The Committee observes that the complainant in this case alleges that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economy issued an unfavourable opinion regarding the collective agreement between the STCNR and the CNR.
2. 205. The Committee observes that the Government reports that both ministries indicated that the financial clauses of the collective agreement could not be funded under the public sector cost-saving and austerity policy for 2012. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that, having addressed the observations made by the financial authority and introduced the corresponding amendments, the parties resubmitted the draft collective agreement to both ministries and that the Minister of Economy confirmed that the observations had been duly addressed.
3. 206. Lastly, while it highlights that the examination of collective agreement clauses with a financial impact by the financial authorities should take place during the collective bargaining process and not, as has occurred in this, and in other cases brought before the Committee, after the collective agreement has been signed by the parties, as this is incompatible with the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining and the principle according to which “agreements should be binding on the parties” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 939], the Committee notes with interest that the complainant and the Government confirm that the collective agreement was registered by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare on 20 February 2013. In that light, and given that the problem that gave rise to this complaint has been resolved, the Committee will not pursue the examination of this case.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 207. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.