Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 381, March 2017

Case No 3172 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 11-NOV-15 - Follow-up

Allegations: Interference by the public authorities in voluntary collective bargaining, by promoting pro-Government trade union organizations and discriminating against the complainant organization (disregarding its greater representativeness, depriving it of any means of defence, hindering its collective bargaining and imposing the compulsory extension of an arbitration award), and acts of violence preventing access to the workplace in the context of a work stoppage

1. 583. The complaint is contained in communications dated 11 November 2015 and 2 March 2016 from the Single Union of Workers in Industries Producing Beer, Soft Drinks and Nutritional Drinks in the State of Carabobo (SUTRABA–CARABOBO).
2. 584. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 2 September 2016.
3. 585. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 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. 586. In its communications of 11 November 2015 and 2 March 2016, the Single Union of Workers in Industries Producing Beer, Soft Drinks and Nutritional Drinks in the State of Carabobo (SUTRABA–CARABOBO) alleges that the public authorities interfered in its voluntary collective bargaining processes with Cervecería Polar CA (the employer, involved in the brewing and distribution of beer and malt), including by systematically discriminating against SUTRABA–CARABOBO and promoting pro-Government trade union organizations, disregarding the greater representativeness of the complainant organization, depriving it of any means of defence, hindering its collective bargaining and imposing compulsory arbitration and extension of the resulting arbitration award.
2. 587. In its communication of 11 November 2015, the complainant alleges that, on 7 October 2013, the so-called Regional Union of Workers in the Territorio Centro Polar (SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR), an organization that had never been involved in a collective bargaining process , submitted a draft collective labour agreement in the States of Carabobo, Amazonas, Apure, Aragua, Bolívar, Cojedes, Falcón and Guárico (states in which SUTRABA–CARABOBO represents the majority of workers and has the longest experience). On 9 December 2013, the employer submitted a written document containing allegations and arguments against the draft collective agreement, pointing out that SUTRABA–CARABOBO was the most representative trade union organization in the states concerned. However, the administrative authority, in a decision dated 11 March 2014, based its formal argument on the fact that the complainant organization could only operate within the State of Carabobo since it was not registered as a regional trade union (disregarding the primacy of fact of its greater representativeness) and, without attempting to analyse the issue of representativeness, simply excluded the State of Carabobo from negotiations because an agreement was already in force in that state.
3. 588. The complainant alleges that, as a result of this administrative decision, the Ministry of Popular Power for the Social Labour Process (hereinafter “the Ministry”) unduly authorized SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR to enter into collective bargaining in workplaces in the States of Amazonas, Apure, Aragua, Bolívar, Cojedes, Falcón and Guárico, despite not being the most representative trade union organization in those states. Of the 351 workers concerned in the employer’s branches in the above states (excluding the State of Carabobo), SUTRABA–CARABOBO claims to represent 224 workers, or 64 per cent – compared to 127 workers represented by SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, or 36 per cent). The complainant provides detailed data comparing the respective membership numbers of the trade union organizations in each state, which show that in 14 of the 15 employer’s branches in the states concerned over 50 per cent of unionized workers are members of SUTRABA–CARABOBO, while SINTRARRICENTROPOLAR has less than 20 per cent of unionized workers in nine of the 15 branches and no members at all in four branches.
4. 589. The complainant also alleges that, during the bargaining process, the majority of workers expressed, in a variety of ways, their desire not to be represented by SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, as they consider this union acts against their labour interests and integrity because its executives are merely puppets of the governing party (United Socialist Party of Venezuela – PSUV) and uses violence against dissident workers. In support of these allegations, the complainant provides evidence that SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR press conferences are held in the PSUV press room. The complainant adds that rejection of SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR in favour of support for SUTRABA–CARABOBO increased in the wake of the violent acts carried out by SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR after it had submitted a list of contentious demands on 1 December 2014. In this connection, the complainant alleges that a group of persons from outside the enterprise, carrying firearms, accompanied the president of SINTRATERRICETROPOLAR, in a show of support for him, to the vicinity of the Turmero works between 9 and 17 April 2015. They prevented workers from carrying out their work, using threats and violence to try to make them abandon their work stations and join the work stoppage. The majority of workers refused and the incident led to SUTRABA–CARABOBO representatives filing a criminal complaint on 28 April 2015. The complainant further states that, in a clear case of interference in trade union matters, the mayor of the municipality of Santiago Mariño in the State of Aragua, who belonged to the Government’s PSUV party, came to the Turmero works to show his agreement to the work stoppage promoted by SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, despite the fact that the majority of workers had rejected it.
5. 590. The complainant alleges that the Ministry’s interference continued, disregarding the greater representativeness of SUTRABA–CARABOBO and unduly recognizing the legitimacy of SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR. This included, once the deadline in the procedure for submitting the contentious list of demands had expired, imposing arbitration proceedings through Decision No. 9273 dated 14 July 2015 and further discriminating against SUTRABA–CARABOBO by restricting its area of operation to the State of Carabobo, despite it having signed up workers as the most representative trade union in both of the states concerned.
6. 591. The complainant adds that, during the collective bargaining process and subsequent arbitration proceedings, the complainant, workers and employer all objected to SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR representation. In addition to making a number of statements to the public, the complainant’s representatives met with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s Vice President and the Chairperson of the National Assembly’s Comprehensive Social Development Committee, with detailed information and evidence showing that SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR was not representative and had lost the support of the workers and that SUTRABA–CARABOBO had managed to unite the overwhelming majority. These allegations were also forwarded to the ombudsperson. However, according to the complainant, these arguments were not taken into account.
7. 592. The workers of the states concerned, meanwhile, requested the employer to extend the benefits in the collective agreement concluded with SUTRABA–CARABOBO, already approved for the State of Carabobo on 23 December 2014, to them, as they considered the agreement better serves their interests. This was verified in the records of the workers’ assemblies organized by the complainant in each of the employer’s branches, which the complainant attaches to its complaint. It appears from the records that at least two out of three workers of the 15 branches concerned requested the benefits in the agreement entered into with SUTRABA–CARABOBO to be extended to them, to which the employer had agreed with effect from February 2015.
8. 593. The complainant states that, during arbitration proceedings (ordered despite the fact that it had been agreed to extend the benefits of the agreement concluded by SUTRABA– CARABOBO to all the states concerned), the workers went before the arbitration board appointed by the Ministry on several occasions to express their rejection of SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, but their right to participate to defend their interests, either themselves or through their trade union organization (SUTRABA–CARABOBO), was not recognized. This rejection was expressed in writing by 226 union members on 3 September and 15 October 2015. The complainant claims that the arbitration board appointed by the Ministry disregarded the many worker witnesses opposed to SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, with the strange argument that they had seemed keen for SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR not to handle the possible arbitration award. The arbitration board used the criterion in the Civil Procedure Code whereby “the enemy cannot testify against his enemy” to dismiss witnesses as interested parties when, clearly, in the context of the exercise of their right to freedom of association, the workers were legitimately interested in being represented by the trade union organization to which the majority had signed up. The complainant adds that, as neither the Ministry nor the arbitration board had taken its allegations into account, each of the 226 workers went in person to the Ministry (many of whom had been obliged to travel for more than 12 hours) to deposit their resignation from SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR in writing (in this regard, the complainant points out that the relevant authority required each of them to come in person).
9. 594. The complainant states that the employer also submitted its objections to the representativeness of SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR during these proceedings and defended SUTRABA–CARABOBO’s most representative status. However, the Government denied SUTRABA–CARABOBO and its members the right to voluntary collective bargaining by depriving it of the right to operate outside the State of Carabobo, and its members (many from other states) the right to be represented by the trade union organization that they had freely joined. The complainant alleges that this means that both the Ministry and the arbitration board failed to verify the representativeness of SUTRABA– CARABOBO and SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR in the other states concerned, even though they were aware that SUTRABA–CARABOBO is the most representative union and should therefore have bargained collectively on behalf of the occupational category concerned.
10. 595. In its communication dated 2 March 2016, the complainant maintains that it had been discriminated against by the authorities through additional obstacles to its collective bargaining with the employer, as well as the illegal extension of the arbitration award issued as a result of the abovementioned arbitration proceedings.
11. 596. The complainant alleges in general that several provisions of the Organic Labour and Workers Act and their implementation in practice violate the principle of voluntary collective bargaining provided for in Article 4 of Convention No. 98. The complainant refers to sections 448–451 of the act regarding the involvement of the public authorities in collective bargaining, under which applications for collective bargaining must be submitted to the Ministry’s labour inspectorates for their approval, officials from those inspectorates must be present in negotiations, and any agreements entered into must be submitted to the labour inspectorate for its approval. The complainant recalls that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) has expressed its views on this matter, requesting in particular the amendment of section 449 of the Act.
12. 597. With regard to implementation of these provisions in this specific case, the complainant alleges that, despite the fact that SUTRABA–CARABOBO complies with the provisions in its negotiations, the authorities blocked the collective bargaining process initiated by the union in September 2015. The complainant states that, on 11 September 2015, it submitted a draft collective agreement to the competent authorities to be negotiated with the employer and that, on 8 October 2015 (27 days later – failing to comply with the legal deadline for the administration’s response), the labour inspectorate issued a decision ordering the correction of mere formalities and irrelevant aspects of the records of the trade union assembly at which the draft agreement was approved (the decision found inconsistencies in the times referred to in the convocation, in the assembly record and in the list of workers). On 13 October 2015, these formalities were corrected and, on 14 October, collective bargaining began with the employer. The collective agreement was concluded on 18 November 2015 and registered on 2 December 2016. The complainant alleges, however, that, in an act of anti-union harassment, on 4 December 2015 (two days after registration of the agreement) the labour inspectorate gave notice of an alleged decision dated 30 November 2015 ruling that the corrections of 16 September 2015 to the draft agreement submission to the authorities were inadequate. The complainant considers that this allegation of the non-existent inadequacy of the corrections was clearly intended to hinder SUTRABA–CARABOBO’s voluntary collective bargaining. The complainant, despite these arbitrary acts, submitted a new collective agreement to the same labour inspectorate on 15 December 2015 but, as of the date of its latest communication, it had still not been approved by the authority.
13. 598. Moreover, the complainant states that, in Decision No. 9551 of 29 December 2015, the Ministry ordered the extension of the arbitration award referred to above to all of the employer’s workers (issued in the negotiations brokered by SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR for some states). The complainant claims that the decision was allegedly handed down at the request of the National Union of Workers in Companies Producing Food, Beer, Soft Drinks, Liquor and Wine (SINTRACERLIV) and reports that this union does not represent the majority of the employer’s workers countrywide – as falsely stated in the decision; that it had no legal grounds for requesting the extension; and that the union is noted for its subservience to the political guidelines of the Government and the PSUV. In this respect, the complainant states that SINTRACERLIV only represents 18.65 per cent of unionized workers in the enterprise and that SUTRABA–CARABOBO is more representative, given that it has 24 per cent of union members. The complainant alleges that the extension was ordered illegally because: (i) the Ministry does not have the authority to forcibly extend the arbitration award to all of the employer’s establishments and workplaces; (ii) the procedure in force for labour standards meetings was not applied in order to guarantee SUTRABA–CARABOBO and other trade union organizations the right to defence (there was no procedure to allow them to participate and defend themselves); (iii) compulsory extension does not apply to an enterprise not providing essential services in the strict sense (only in cases where a compulsory arbitration award would be permissible), or to public utility or crucial services; (iv) there was no collective labour dispute putting at risk the normal course of productive activities and justifying this extension; and (v) compulsory extension violates free and voluntary collective bargaining.
14. 599. The complainant claims that, as a result of this decision on extension, SUTRABA– CARABOBO and the other trade unions concerned may be prevented from engaging in collective bargaining and concluding collective agreements, undemocratically imposing the implementation of the arbitration award countrywide and handing over its administration to a single trade union that is subservient to the Government and the PSUV. In this regard, the complainant refers to an administrative decision dated 11 February 2016, in which the labour inspectorate, pursuant to the extension of the arbitration award, ordered the suspension of negotiations on a draft collective agreement between another trade union (the Workers’ Union of the Beverages Industry in the State of Zulia – SITIBEB–ZULIA) and the employer while the award was in force. The complainant therefore alleges that the Government is discriminating against and undermining SUTRABA–CARABOBO, while promoting SINTRACERLIV and membership of that union and its intention to handle the arbitration award and negotiations on future agreements at national level.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 600. In its communication dated 2 September 2016, the Government provides its observations on the allegations of the complainant (detailed below). In general, it states that the Government guarantees freedom of association and the exercise of that right and that the actions of the Ministry have in no way contravened the freedom of association of the complainant organization, or discriminated against or interfered with it.
2. 601. The Government refutes the allegation that the arbitration board had been appointed by the Ministry and states that one member was appointed by the employer, another by SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR representatives and that, failing to reach agreement on the appointment of the third member, the Ministry had been required to appoint that member. With regard to the arbitration board’s decisions, the Government maintains that it had not interfered in them in any way, given that its members were from third parties unrelated to the parties and the Government.
3. 602. The Government also rejects the allegation that SUTRABA–CARABOBO was discriminated against and even more so the suggestion that it was for political reasons. The Government states that this trade union was not included in the collective bargaining in question because of its territorial area of operation and that, as its name indicates, it is an organization belonging to the State of Carabobo. Thus, there was no reason for it to participate, since collective bargaining did not cover workers in this state (given that, at the time of the submission of the agreement by SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, there was already an agreement in force for workers in the State of Carabobo). In this regard, the Government states that, in response to the objections of the enterprise to the lack of representativeness of SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR in comparison with SUTRABA– CARABOBO, the competent authority, having excluded the State of Carabobo from negotiations because of an existing agreement in force there, considered it futile to review the alleged lack of representativeness, as it centred on the representativeness of a trade union whose area of operation was the State of Carabobo. The Government recalls that section 372 of the Organic Labour and Workers Act provides that trade union organizations may be local, state, regional or national and that, at the time it was established and in line with its own internal statutes, SUTRABA–CARABOBO had restricted its activities to the State of Carabobo. By signing up workers who provide services in other states, without changing its area of operation, it is violating the provisions of those statutes. The Government emphasizes that the territorial boundary is set for a trade union organization from its inception and does not change until the organization decides to extend its area by amending its internal statutes. The Government recalls that, according to section 391 of the Act, a trade union organization’s assembly or board cannot take decisions in contravention of its own statutes – a provision that the administrative authority could not ignore. On the other hand, SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, as a regional trade union organization, could represent workers from several states. The Government points out that the fact that SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR is a fledgling organization without a track record in collective bargaining does not preclude it from exercising its right to collective bargaining, provided it complies with the legal requirements. This was verified in October 2013 by the labour inspectorate in its Decision No. 2013-0580 supporting the collective agreement submitted.
4. 603. The Government declines to give its view on the allegation that SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR executives act as puppets of the PSUV because this is a subjective fact, clearly political in nature and going beyond the trade union realm and into direct government opposition. It therefore considers that the Committee should not comment on matters of this nature, which are beyond its remit.
5. 604. With regard to the allegations of violent acts, the Government reports that it requested information from the public prosecutor’s office, which it will forward to the Committee once it has been received.
6. 605. With respect to the decision taken by the employer to apply the benefits of the agreement entered into with SUTRABA–CARABOBO and approved in December 2014 to all workers from February 2015, the Government welcomes the decision, which will ensure equal treatment.
7. 606. Regarding the allegation that the public authorities had required each of the workers wishing to register their resignations from SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR to do so in person, the Government points out that the National Register of Trade Unions cannot accept resignations submitted by a third party who is not authorized to do so through a power of attorney. It also points out that resignations are normally tendered to executive committees and not registered directly in the records kept of the proceedings of each trade union organization.
8. 607. The Government refutes the allegation that there is no rule in the legal system that allows the Ministry to extend an arbitration award or collective agreement, recalling that section 468 of the Organic Labour and Workers Act: (i) provides that the collective labour agreement concluded in a labour meeting or the resulting arbitration award can be declared compulsory for extension to other employers and workers in the same branch of activity by the ministry responsible for labour matters; and (ii) section 432 provides that, when an enterprise has departments or branches in locations belonging to different jurisdictions, the collective agreement it concludes with the trade union organization representing the majority of its workers will apply in those departments or branches.
9. 608. Concerning the allegations challenging the legitimacy of SINTRACERLIV to request the extension of the arbitration award, the Government states that, in the extension of the arbitration award, SINTRACERLIV’s petition was considered because this trade union organization exercised the right of petition provided for in section 51 of the Venezuelan Constitution, referring to the right of every person to address petitions to any public authority. The Government adds further that the extension was initially requested by the Ministry’s arbitration board.
10. 609. With regard to the allegation that SUTRABA–CARABOBO and the other trade unions concerned had been prevented from engaging in collective bargaining after the application and extension of the arbitration award, the Government maintains that the Organic Labour and Workers Act recognizes the right to collective bargaining for representative trade unions (which must demonstrate their representativeness), provided that no peremptory challenges are made, including the existence of a collective agreement already in force and the absence of any discussion with another union. In this case, the representativeness of the different organizations concerned should be challenged. The Government also warns of the legal and practical implications of an increase in disputes in collective labour relations and the undermining of the legal certainty of these relations when, with a collective agreement still in force, a trade union association attempts to demand another agreement be negotiated and concluded.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 610. The Committee notes that the complaint concerns allegations of interference by the public authorities in voluntary collective bargaining, promoting pro-Government trade union organizations and discriminating against the complainant organization (disregarding its greater representativeness, depriving it of any means of defence, hindering its collective bargaining and imposing the compulsory extension of an arbitration award), and acts of violence preventing access to the workplace in the context of a work stoppage.
2. 611. The Committee notes that several of the allegations concerning interference by the authorities in voluntary collective bargaining correspond to those raised in Case No. 3178 (complaint filed against the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Manufacturers’ Associations (FEDECAMARAS).
3. 612. With regard to the allegations of discrimination against the complainant organization by excluding it from the bargaining process initiated by SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, without taking into account the former’s greater representativeness, the Committee notes, on the one hand, that the Government states that the complainant organization was unable to take part because this process went beyond its area of operation. The Government points out that the complainant organization, according to its own statutes, is a state-level organization (being attached to the State of Carabobo) and that, on the other hand, SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR has a regional scope, meaning that its operations can cover several states. The Government claims that the authorities could not take decisions that were contrary to the statutes of the complainant organization. In this regard, the Committee invites the complainant organization, if it so wishes, to consider amending its statutes, as appropriate, to adjust the area of operations covered by its activities. The Committee notes that the Government further claims that, since a collective agreement was already in force in the State of Carabobo, it was excluded from negotiations and it was therefore unnecessary to look into the issue of which organization was the more representative.
4. 613. The Committee also notes that, as claimed by the complainant and not denied by the Government, SUTRABA–CARABOBO has numerous members in other states (in addition to the State of Carabobo) and the application of collective agreements concluded by SUTRABA–CARABOBO would have been extended to workers in the other states. The Committee also notes that the Government does not contest the data on membership provided by the complainant, which would show its greater representativeness in terms of membership numbers (a criterion laid down in section 438 of the Organic Labour and Workers Act as a key element in determining the representativeness of an organization in collective bargaining) both in comparison to SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR and SINTRACERLIV. The Committee notes that, as alleged by the complainant and not disputed by the Government, a considerable number of workers affected by the draft collective bargaining agreement, as well as the employer, had reportedly opposed negotiating with SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, providing statements and evidence on numerous occasions to demonstrate that the complainant organization was more representative.
5. 614. Furthermore, in reviewing the development of the whole case, the Committee cannot fail to observe, with regard to the arguments on the territorial area that the Government states formed the basis of the decisions taken by the relevant authorities, that: (i) while initially the authorities reduced the territorial scope of negotiations, excluding the State of Carabobo (thus justifying the non-participation of the complainant organization and recognizing the entitlement to negotiate of the trade union organization alleged to be close to the governing party (SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR)); and (ii) once the arbitration award had been adopted, the authorities did not take into account the territorial restriction initially prescribed (thus disregarding the need to examine which organization was the most representative) and instead extended the award to all workers in all states (again without objectively considering the representativeness of the trade union organizations affected by such a decision, to the advantage of one organization (SINTRACERLIV), which the complainant alleges to be allied to the governing party).
6. 615. Regretting that, despite the fact that the complainant, employer and the workers concerned have on numerous occasions argued the need to verify the representativeness of the trade union organizations involved, providing specific data and evidence on membership numbers, the authorities failed to take into consideration the issues raised on representativeness – and referring to its previous conclusions on the issue of SUTRABA–CARABOBO’s area of operation – the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that, without any interference, the majority will of the employer’s workers with regard to their representation in collective bargaining is respected and, in this connection, of the most representative trade union organization, by carrying out an objective verification of representativeness. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
7. 616. With regard to the allegations of violent acts preventing access to the workplace in the context of the work stoppage promoted by SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, the Committee notes that the complainant filed a criminal complaint and that the Government states that, once it has received information from the public prosecutor’s office, it will forward this to the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the criminal complaint and of any proceedings initiated and decisions taken regarding these allegations.
8. 617. Concerning the allegations of discrimination against the complainant organization by extending the arbitration award resulting from compulsory arbitration (the complainant argues that the Ministry lacked the necessary authority and that the extension was in favour of a less representative union allied to the governing party (SINTRACERLIV)), the Committee notes that the Government states: (i) that the Organic Labour and Workers Act confers on the Ministry the authority to declare the compulsory extension of a collective agreement concluded in a labour meeting or the resulting arbitration award; and (ii) that in the extension of the arbitration award SINTRACERLIV’s petition was considered because this trade union organization exercised the right of petition provided for in article 51 of the Venezuelan Constitution, referring to the right of every person to address petitions to any public authority. With regard to the imposition of arbitration proceedings, the Committee refers to its conclusions in Case No. 3178. As for the decision to extend the resulting award, the Committee considers that the extension of an agreement adopted when the greater representativeness of the organization that had promoted it was in dispute, as well as the legitimacy of the arbitration that had given rise to the award and its proceedings, should have been the subject of a tripartite consultation once the representativeness of the workers’ organizations concerned had been objectively determined. The Committee also notes that both the complainant and, as is clear from examination of Case No. 3178, the employer dispute the arbitration proceedings and extension of the arbitration award (alleging discrimination and irregularities – in particular bias and interference by the authorities). The Committee is compelled to recall in this respect that in mediation and arbitration proceedings it is essential that all the members of the bodies entrusted with such functions should not only be strictly impartial but, if the confidence of both sides, on which the successful outcome even of compulsory arbitration really depends, is to be gained and maintained, they should also appear to be impartial both to the employers and to the workers concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 598]. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure full respect for voluntary collective bargaining, in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining, in particular by ensuring that the will of the parties to collective bargaining is respected and that, where arbitration is applicable, the proceedings are impartial and have the confidence of the parties. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
9. 618. Regarding the allegations of hindering collective bargaining by the authorities using delaying tactics and extending the arbitration award, the Committee notes that the Government merely points out that the Organic Labour and Workers Act recognizes the right to collective bargaining provided that the organizations can justify their representativeness and no peremptory challenges are made, including the existence of a collective agreement already in force. The Committee regrets that, despite the fact that in Case No. 3178 the Government states that the decision extending the arbitration award does not indicate any impediment to concluding new collective agreements, the Government fails to make it explicitly clear whether the arbitration award and its extension have in practice limited the opportunities for the complainant and other trade unions to bargain collectively, or provide its views on the administrative decision referred to by the complainant in this respect (under which the labour inspectorate had reportedly suspended collective bargaining between another union and the employer while the arbitration award extended by the Ministry’s decision remained in force). The Committee notes with concern that the extension of the arbitration award appears to have prevented exercise of the right to collective bargaining by the various trade union organizations concerned. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the complainant and other representative organizations are able to freely negotiate with the employer beyond the stipulations under the arbitration award. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
10. 619. With regard to the allegations that some provisions of the Organic Labour and Workers Act (sections 448–451) would allow the authorities to interfere in collective bargaining, the Committee regrets that the Government has failed to respond to them. The Committee recalls, as does the complainant, that the CEACR has been examining these issues and has requested the Government to: (i) amend section 449 of the Act (which provides that discussion of proposals for collective bargaining will take place in the presence of a labour official, who will chair the meetings) to bring it into line with the principles of free and voluntary negotiation and autonomy of the parties; and (ii) with a view to finding solutions to the issues raised, to conduct a tripartite dialogue on the question of the application in practice of section 450 of the Act (concerning the registration of a collective agreement, and which states that the labour inspectorate will verify its conformity with the applicable public order regulations, with a view to granting approval) and section 451 of the Act (concerning the granting of approval, and which states that, if the labour inspectorate considers it appropriate, it will make the appropriate observations or recommendations to the parties instead of granting approval, to ensure compliance). In view of the fact that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has ratified Convention No. 98, the Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the CEACR and requests the Government to provide it with any relevant additional information.
11. 620. As for the allegations of interference by the authorities to the detriment of the complainant organization and to the advantage of other trade union organizations alleged to be close to the governing party (PSUV), the Committee notes that the Government declines to give its view on the alleged link between SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR and the PSUV because it is a subjective fact that is clearly political in nature and goes beyond the trade union realm and into direct opposition to the Government. It therefore considers that the Committee should not comment on matters that are beyond its remit. In regard to this, the Committee is compelled to recall the importance of non-interference in trade union activities, both by the authorities and the Government’s political party, and reiterates that these issues form part of its mandate. In this connection, the Committee recalls that, in the interests of the normal development of the trade union movement, it would be desirable to have regard to the principles enunciated in the resolution on the independence of the trade union movement adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 35th Session (1952) that the fundamental and permanent mission of the trade union movement is the economic and social advancement of the workers and that when trade unions, in accordance with the national law and practice of their respective countries and at the decision of their members, decide to establish relations with a political party or to undertake constitutional political action as a means towards the advancement of their economic and social objectives, such political relations or actions should not be of such a nature as to compromise the continuance of the trade union movement or its social or economic functions, irrespective of political changes in the country [see Digest, op. cit., para. 498].
12. 621. With this in mind, the Committee notes that the Government does not deny the allegations and information provided by the complainant to substantiate the allegations of government support, through its party, for SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR, which is to the detriment of the complainant organization (for example, the use of PSUV media channels for SINTRATERRICENTROPOLAR press releases or public authority support for this union’s actions). In addition, with respect to the decisions of the authorities, whose bias has been alleged, and based on information provided by the complainant, which the Government does not contest, the Committee can only challenge: (i) on the one hand, the failure to include the complainant organization in the decision-making process to extend the arbitration award –which would affect the State of Carabobo as well – or the arbitration board’s use of the rules of the Civil Procedure Code to exclude the opposing party in order to avoid taking into account in proceedings the allegations of its union members, considering them to be interested parties; and (ii) on the other hand, applying the rules to trade union organizations alleged to be close to the governing party to accommodate the claims of these organizations – for example, to impose compulsory arbitration (the Government, in its reply to Case No. 3178, states that these proceedings were based on the fact that, due to the strike’s extent and duration (more than 90 days), productive employment providing each worker with a decent existence was under threat, despite the fact that, as the Government itself acknowledges, essential services were not affected, or to extend the resulting arbitration award (using as justification for supporting the extension the general right of petition)).
13. 622. Noting with concern the numerous detailed allegations of bias and interference by the governing party and the public authorities in the labour dispute, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to prevent any interference in industrial relations between the complainant and the employer. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 623. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee invites the complainant organization, if it so wishes, to consider amending its statutes, as appropriate, to adjust the area of operation covered by its activities.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps, in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining, to: (i) ensure full respect for voluntary collective bargaining, in particular by ensuring that the will of the parties to collective bargaining is respected and that, where arbitration is applicable, the proceedings are impartial and have the confidence of the parties; (ii) ensure respect for the majority will of the employer’s workers with regard to their representation in collective bargaining and, in that connection, of the most representative trade union organization, by carrying out an objective verification of representativeness; (iii) ensure that the complainant and other representative organizations are able to freely negotiate with the employer beyond the stipulations under the arbitration award; and (iv) prevent any interference in industrial relations between the complainant and the employer. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any proceedings initiated and decisions taken in relation to allegations of violent acts preventing access to the workplace in the context of a work stoppage, including developments in the criminal complaint referred to by the complainant.
   • (d) In view of the fact that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has ratified Convention No. 98, the Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the CEACR and requests the Government to provide it with any relevant additional information regarding the allegations that some provisions of the Organic Labour and Workers Act (sections 448–451) would allow the authorities to interfere in collective bargaining.