Interim Report - Report No 382, June 2017

Case No 2254 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 17-MAR-03 - Active

Allegations: Marginalization of employers’ associations and their exclusion from decision-making, thereby precluding social dialogue, tripartism and consultation in general (particularly in respect of highly important legislation directly affecting employers) and failing to comply with recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association; acts of violence, discrimination and intimidation against employers’ leaders and their organizations; detention of leaders; legislation that conflicts with civil liberties and with the rights of employers’ organizations and their members; a violent assault on FEDECAMARAS headquarters, resulting in damage to property and threats against employers; and a bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters

1. 602. The Committee last examined this case at its May–June 2016 session, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body [see 378th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 327th Session (June 2016), paras 821–854].
2. 603. The International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS) provided additional information in joint communications dated 8 July 2016 and 8 May 2017.
3. 604. The Government sent additional observations in communications dated 2 September 2016 and 23 May 2017.
4. 605. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 606. When it last examined the case at its May–June 2016 session, the Committee made the following recommendations on the matters still pending [see 378th Report, para. 854]:
   • While once again expressing its deep concern at the various and serious forms of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, their leaders and affiliated companies, including threats of imprisonment, statements of incitement to hatred, accusations of conducting economic warfare, the occupation and looting of shops and the seizure of FEDECAMARAS headquarters, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the urgency of taking strong measures to prevent such actions and statements against individuals and organizations that are legitimately defending their interests under Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which have been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The Committee strongly urges the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that FEDECAMARAS is able to exercise its rights as an employers’ organization in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against its leaders and members and to promote, together with that organization, social dialogue based on respect.
   • (b) As regards the abduction and mistreatment in 2010 of FEDECAMARAS leaders Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz (the latter sustained three bullet wounds), while noting the sentencing of one of the accused to 14 years and eight months’ imprisonment, the Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the ruling issued and to continue providing additional information concerning any penalties imposed on the perpetrators of these crimes, and concerning any compensation to FEDECAMARAS and to the leaders concerned for damage caused by those illegal acts. Furthermore, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to send its observations concerning the points raised by FEDECAMARAS with regard to the bomb attack on its headquarters on 26 February 2008.
   • (c) As regards the allegations of the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders, the Committee insists that those current or former leaders of FEDECAMARAS be compensated in a just manner. At the same time, the Committee refers to the decision of the Governing Body in March 2014, in which it “urged the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to develop and implement the Plan of Action as recommended by the high-level tripartite mission, in consultation with national social partners”, which in turn refers to “the establishment of a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, to deal with all pending matters relating to the recovery of estates and the expropriation of enterprises and other related problems arising or that may arise in the future”. The Committee regrets that the Government stated in previous communications that establishing a dialogue round table on questions of recovery of estates and holding consultations on legislation are not viable and that, in its latest communication, it merely indicates that it proceeded in compliance with the law. The Committee firmly urges the Government to implement this request along the lines described in the conclusions and to report thereon. Lastly, like the high-level tripartite mission, the Committee emphasizes “the importance of taking every measure to avoid any kind of discretion or discrimination in the legal mechanisms governing the expropriation or recovery of land or other mechanisms that affect the right to own property”.
   • (d) As regards the structured bodies for bipartite and tripartite social dialogue which need to be established in the country, and the plan of action in consultation with the social partners, involving the establishment of stages and specific time frames for its implementation with the technical assistance of the ILO, as recommended by the Governing Body, the Committee regrets the lack of information and further progress in this regard. The Committee recalls that the conclusions of the mission also refer to a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, and a tripartite dialogue round table, with the participation of the ILO and an independent chairperson. The Committee urges the Government to immediately adopt tangible measures with regard to bipartite and tripartite social dialogue as requested by the high-level tripartite mission. Observing that the Government has not yet provided the requested plan of action, the Committee urges the Government to implement fully without delay the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission endorsed by the Governing Body and to report thereon. The Committee urges the Government to promote social dialogue and initiatives taken in this area, such as the meetings held between the authorities and FEDECAMARAS in February and October 2015, and to implement tripartite consultations immediately.
   • (e) The Committee, in line with the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission, urges the Government to take immediate action to create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this regard. The Committee regrets that the Government has not appointed a representative of FEDECAMARAS to the Higher Labour Council or the social dialogue body fulfilling its functions, and urges the Government to do so as soon as possible.
   • (f) The Committee, having noted the Government’s observations concerning the allegations of detention and trial of employers and leaders in various sectors, regrets that once again a full answer has not been provided in relation to the individuals who are the subject of investigation procedures. As regards the cases of Corporación Cárnica and the “Día a Día Practimercados” chain, the Committee urges the Government to indicate the specific allegations against the people under investigation or trial by the judicial authorities, and not merely give an indication of general criminal offences, and to provide information on the progress of the respective judicial proceedings and their compliance with precautionary or detention measures. The Committee again requests the authorities to consider lifting any preventive detention measures imposed on employers’ and business leaders pending trial. As regards the allegation of the detention of the managers of the FARMATODO pharmacy chain, the Committee requests the Government to confirm whether the charges against these individuals have been dropped or, if not, to indicate the specific allegations against them and to provide information on the progress of the respective judicial proceedings; and, in view of the complainants’ allegation that four of the owners and managers of this pharmacy chain had been arrested, the Committee urges the Government to indicate whether any other individuals are currently under arrest or trial, and it invites the complainant organizations to provide the Government and the Committee with any detailed information that they may have on this matter.
   • (g) As regards the allegations of the detention of the president of [the National Commerce and Services Council (CONSECOMERCIO)], Mr Eduardo Garmendia, the president of [the National Association of Supermarkets and Self-Service Stores (ANSA)], Mr Luis Rodríguez, and the president of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals, Mr Rosales Briceño, and allegations of shadowing and harassment of the president of FEDECAMARAS, Mr Jorge Roig, given the divergences between the allegations and the Government’s reply, the Committee invites the complainants to provide the Government and the Committee with additional information, including any evidence they may have, and it urges the Government, on the basis of such information, to carry out any relevant additional investigations and to keep the Committee informed on this matter.
   • (h) As regards the adoption by the President of the Republic, in November 2014, of 50 decree-laws on important economic and production-related issues without consulting FEDECAMARAS, the Committee regrets that the Government has not made any observation concerning their impact on social dialogue and, deeply deploring the persistence of this situation, it firmly expects that full consultations will be held in the future with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, including FEDECAMARAS, on draft legislation covering labour or social matters that affect their interests and those of their members.
   • (i) The Committee expresses its deep concern at the lack of information and progress on the above issues and urges the Government to take all the requested measures without delay.
   • (j) The Committee notes with great concern the new allegations of the IOE and FEDECAMARAS dated 20 May 2016, in which it is alleged: (i) the enactment in December 2015, without consultation with the social partners, of 29 national laws, including the law on job security; (ii) semblance of dialogue through communications to FEDECAMARAS by the Government, when it has already announced or adopted the measures concerned; (iii) the unilateral promulgation without prior consultation of the Decree of the President of the Republic declaring a state of emergency for economic hardship; (iv) new acts of intimidation against FEDECAMARAS; (v) approval without consultation of a new increase in the minimum wage and the value of the socialist Cestaticket in February 2016; and (vi) failure by the Government to implement the road map presented to the Governing Body of the ILO in March 2016. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on these allegations without delay so that the Committee can examine all the relevant elements.
   • (k) The Committee once again draws the special attention of the Governing Body to the extremely serious and urgent nature of this case.

B. The complainants’ new allegations

1. 607. In its communication of 8 July 2016, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS report new events that constitute repeated and aggravated violation of the principles of freedom of association and proof of the Government’s unwillingness to resume social dialogue.
2. 608. First, the complainants report that the Government has failed to honour its undertaking to establish dialogue round tables. They recall that during the March 2016 session of the Governing Body, the Government presented a proposed action plan that provided for the establishment of a round table for dialogue between representatives of the Government and of FEDECAMARAS and included a schedule of fortnightly meetings. FEDECAMARAS stated that the first meeting could not be held on the proposed date of 5 April 2016 because it had previously scheduled a national council meeting for that date. However, although FEDECAMARAS contacted the People’s Ministry for the Social Process of Labour on several occasions in an effort to reschedule the first meeting, as at the date of the communication it had received no invitation. On 22 April 2016, FEDECAMARAS sent the Ministry a letter in which it mentioned the failure to implement the action plan proposed by the Government. On 10 May 2016, FEDECAMARAS informed the Government that it was concerned at the Government’s continuing and persistent violations 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) through further acts of intimidation, approval of the minimum wage without consultation and failure to honour commitments to the Governing Body. In this second communication, FEDECAMARAS once again called for sincere, ongoing and effective dialogue in order to find tangible solutions to the crisis faced by the country. It received no reply to this message; moreover, in public speeches broadcast on the state channel on 30 April and 3 May 2016, the President of the Republic declared that he was not prepared to engage in any dialogue with FEDECAMARAS.
3. 609. Second, the complainants report further acts of intimidation directed against FEDECAMARAS, in particular: (a) intimidating accusations made during the aforementioned public speeches made by the President of the Republic, in which the current and former Chairpersons of FEDECAMARAS were depicted as enemies of the workers and curtailers of labour rights; (b) use of the state television channel to call on the public to mobilize against FEDECAMARAS (a programme entitled “Zurda Konducta”, broadcast on 25 April 2016); (c) a press release issued by the President of the Republic on 17 May 2016, attacking FEDECAMARAS and stating that FEDECAMARAS and its affiliate, the National Commerce and Services Council (CONSECOMERCIO), were the only unions that were not members of the National Council on the Productive Economy (although it was the President himself who had selected and sworn in the members of that Council and had not invited FEDECAMARAS or its affiliates); and (d) a statement made by a deputy – who is also the Deputy Chairperson of the ruling party – in his programme on the state television channel, claiming that the entrepreneurs who had signed the request for a recall referendum would be ineligible for government contracts and for loans from the state-owned bank.
4. 610. Third, the complainants report that on 13 May 2016 (three days after the expiration of the most recent economic emergency decree), the Government once again decreed a state of economic emergency through Decree No. 62227, which suspends the constitutional guarantees on economic matters in language that repeats intimidating and groundless claims of a hostile, destabilizing attitude on the part of some private sectors of the economy, an attack on the Government and efforts to hinder access to essential public goods and services by the country’s economic agents at the instigation of foreign interests. The Decree also gives the Government sweeping powers, imposes additional repressive measures on employers and authorizes using the armed forces and other organizations to ensure the distribution and sale of food and other essential items, taking steps to ensure that the private sector provides support to the public sector and placing restrictions on commercial and financial operations and transactions. These intimidating and repressive measures, together with the media campaigns waged against FEDECAMARAS and its members by the Government and its agencies, are seriously undermining freedom of association.
5. 611. In their communication of 8 May 2017, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS allege: (i) authorities and spokespersons for or linked to the Government have continued to attack FEDECAMARAS, its leaders and the business sector; intimidating accusations and threats have been made through the media by, among others, the Deputy Chairperson of the government party and the President of the Republic himself; government authorities have attacked and detained leaders, employees and shareholders, accusing them of corruption or economic destabilization and subjecting them to public ridicule without guaranteeing due process or their right of defence; (ii) there is no genuine dialogue: the complainants reiterate that the dialogue which the Government had announced to the Governing Body of the ILO has not taken place and emphasize that FEDECAMARAS has been excluded through new government measures that have an impact on business performance and undermine freedom of association (such as the approval, without consultation, of the purchase from farmers of 50 per cent of agro-industrial production for use by local supply and production committees and the creation of workers’ production boards as one of several government strategies for using the country’s labour movement in support of the Government and against employers); (iii) another economic emergency decree was promulgated on 13 September 2016 (and, once again, its wording is part of the campaign to stigmatize the business sector) and increases in the minimum wage and the cestaticket (food voucher) were approved without consultation in January and April 2017 and February 2017, respectively; (iv) notwithstanding the fact that written communications were exchanged and meetings held between FEDECAMARAS and the People’s Ministry for the Social Process of Labour (specifically, on 11 and 31 January and 27 April 2017), these meetings, which were held in a climate of institutional respect, were purely formal in nature, did not take place within structured dialogue mechanisms or in a climate of sufficient trust between the parties to support the realization of effective dialogue and were carried out simultaneously with the aforementioned intimidating attacks; and (v) while it is possible that one of its chambers of commerce or employers might participate in a meeting on a one-time basis, FEDECAMARAS as an institution is still not a member of the National Council on the Productive Economy.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 612. In its communication of 2 September 2016, the Government sent its observations concerning the aforementioned recommendations of the Committee.
2. 613. Concerning recommendation (a), the Government once again denies having attacked, harassed or persecuted FEDECAMARAS, its affiliates or its leaders and emphasizes that no FEDECAMARAS members have been detained or prosecuted. On the contrary, the Government indicates that it has implemented policies designed to foster private enterprises by increasing their productivity. The Government maintains that through actions wholly unrelated to employer representation, FEDECAMARAS functions as a political organization in opposition to the Government and the President of the Republic (as seen from its Chairperson’s recent support for the recall referendum; its involvement in the 2002 coup d’état, when its Chairperson proclaimed himself President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; and other attacks on and attempts to destabilize the Government). The Government states that the country is experiencing a complex economic situation owing to the decline in oil prices and the destabilization efforts of economic groups and that this has led to a flurry of statements and demonstrations by both government and private enterprise representatives which demonstrate that there is complete freedom of expression in the country and that institutions are in place to hear the complaints of people who feel that they have been affected, insulted or slandered. The Government considers that freedom of association and expression are freely exercised in the country and that there has been no violation of Convention No. 87. It therefore calls on the Committee to cease to examine irrelevant issues and not to allow itself to be co-opted by individual political interests in a campaign against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
3. 614. Concerning recommendation (b), the Government reiterates that the trial of Mr Antonio José Silvia Moyega was concluded on 18 September 2015 and that he was sentenced to 14 years and eight months’ imprisonment for his attacks on Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz and is currently in prison. The Government adds that this was shown to have been a chance act perpetrated by a criminal gang and that the victims were not targeted because they were business leaders and FEDECAMARAS members. The Government adds that it has requested the Public Prosecutor’s Office to provide a copy of the judgment, which, once received, will be forwarded to the Committee. It further states that it has already provided its observations concerning the attacks on FEDECAMARAS headquarters in 2008, stating that the perpetrator has died and that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has reported that for this reason, it has closed the case. The Government reiterates its request that the Committee not pursue its examination of these allegations and considers that it has already provided sufficient information concerning them.
4. 615. Concerning recommendation (c), the Government maintains that there has been no violation of property rights or discrimination in implementing the land recovery legislation and that these issues lie outside the Committee’s mandate. The Government reiterates that in recent years, under the farmland recovery policy, there have been many recoveries of illegally occupied idle land to which the occupants were unable to show title and emphasizes that very few of the recoveries could have affected FEDECAMARAS leaders (the reported cases account for 0.74 per cent of the lands recovered). The Government considers that this proves that there has been no retaliation against any entrepreneur or member of FEDECAMARAS, but rather implementation of its policy for elimination of the landed estate (latifundia) system as a whole for the benefit of workers in line with the Tenants and Share-croppers Recommendation, 1968 (No. 132) and the Rural Workers’ Organisations Recommendation, 1975 (No. 149)). It also emphasizes that the recoveries have been carried out with full respect for rights and guarantees and that where the people who occupied the recovered land can show that they have made improvements to it, they are compensated accordingly. As regards Mr Eduardo Gómez Sígala, Mr Rafael Marcial Garmendia and Mr Manuel Cipriano Heredia, the Government reiterates that there was no expropriation; the lands were recovered because they were idle and the occupants were unable to show title to them, and the law and due process were followed (in the case of Mr Garmendia, only a portion of the land that he occupied was recovered because he was able to show title to another portion, which is still in his possession). As regards the cases of Mr Egildo Luján and Mr Vicente Brito, the Government reiterates that according to the National Land Institute, its archives contain no information on any possible recoveries or expropriations under their names.
5. 616. Concerning recommendation (d), as previously the Government states that there is broad, inclusive social dialogue in the country and emphasizes that FEDECAMARAS, its leaders and its affiliates have met with various government authorities on countless occasions. The Government maintains that while some organizations have used non-attendance at consultations and round tables as a political strategy, this has not prevented hundreds of their affiliate employers’ organizations from participating. The Government recalls the 2014 establishment of the Economic Conference for Peace, in which all of the economic and social sectors were invited to take part and at which 14 different working groups comprising representatives of the Government, workers and employers from all parts of the country were set up with the aim of boosting the national economy; the establishment, in 2015, of the Presidential Commission on Economic Affairs (as one of the outcomes of the economic working groups) in order to boost the export of non-traditional products; and the holding of other enterprise meetings such as the International Chocolate Fair (October 2015) and the Sustainable Venezuela World Expo (September 2015). The Government also draws attention to the establishment of the National Council on the Productive Economy, which comprises representatives of the public authorities, academic institutions and public and private sector workers and entrepreneurs, in order to hold discussions and make recommendations for overcoming the current economic situation and the decline in oil prices. The Government regrets that FEDECAMARAS is still claiming to be excluded and marginalized even though many of its chambers of commerce and enterprises participate in dialogues, consultations, technical discussions, agreements and negotiations; in particular, many of its chambers of commerce are involved in the work of the aforementioned Council. In that connection, the Government explains that the Council’s members include the chairpersons of the following FEDECAMARAS associations and enterprises: the Oil Board, a member of FEDECAMARAS; the Plastics Board, a member of the Venezuelan Confederation of Industrialists (CONINDUSTRIA) and of FEDECAMARAS; the Venezuelan Chemical and Petrochemical Industry Association (ASOQUIM), a member of CONINDUSTRIA and of FEDECAMARAS; Supracal Corp., a member of ASOQUIM and of FEDECAMARAS; and the Venezuelan Banking Association, a member of the Executive Board of FEDECAMARAS. The Government also emphasizes that, since its establishment, the Council has held various meetings and events and has set up round tables for the manufacturing, export, forestry, construction, automotive, agro-food, mining, hydrocarbon, petrochemical, tourism and telecommunications industries; the Government provides details on these meetings and activities in its observations. It also mentions loans and financing that have been provided to enterprises and entrepreneurs and the first Supply and Demand Forum (of the Integrated and Standardized Government Procurement System), in which over 500 enterprises participated. It reiterates that representatives of FEDECAMARAS affiliate enterprises and chambers of commerce have participated in all of these forums, meetings and round tables and that this is proof of its desire to promote and sustain such dialogue with the business sector and of the importance that it attaches to that sector’s involvement in and incorporation into the country’s productive economy. It also mentions various statements that the current and former chairpersons of FEDECAMARAS have made to the media, in which they acknowledged the existence of dialogue with the Government. It recalls that in three written communications sent to the Chairperson of FEDECAMARAS in October and December 2015, the People’s Ministry for the Social Process of Labour expressed its willingness to give FEDECAMARAS a greater role in discussions with a view to the development of labour policies, laws and regulations. The Government therefore emphasizes that it maintains an ongoing dialogue with FEDECAMARAS and that while the business sector may consider that the outcome thereof is not entirely favourable to it, this does not mean that there is an absence of social dialogue.
6. 617. Concerning recommendation (f), the Government states that:
   • (i) With regard to the “Día a Día Practimercados” supermarket chain (hereinafter “the supermarket chain”), the Government reiterates that on 2 February 2015, an inspection of the supermarket chain was carried out by a presidential commission and the Office of the National Superintendent for the Defence of Socio-Economic Rights (SUNDDE). They found irregularities in the distribution of goods, as a result of which Mr Manuel Andrés Morales Ordosgoitti and Mr Tadeo Arriechi, the chain’s General Director and legal representative, respectively, were investigated. The Government adds that these people are, however, at liberty and that any additional information provided by the Public Prosecutor’s Office will be forwarded to the Committee.
   • (ii) With regard to the directors of Corporación Cárnica (hereinafter “the meat processing company”), the Government reiterates that on 30 January 2015, SUNDDE officials visited the establishment following complaints that it was overcharging for goods. This irregularity was verified during the inspection and led to the seizure of more than 44 tonnes of hoarded meat products. For this reason, Ms Tania Carolina Salinas, Ms Delia Isabel Ribas, Ms Anllerlin Guadalupe López Graterol, Mr Ernesto Luis Arenas Pulgar and Mr Yolman Javier Valderrama Santiago are currently being investigated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Government will forward to the Committee any additional information received from that Office.
   • (iii) With regard to the FARMATODO pharmacy chain (hereinafter “the pharmacy chain”), the Government states that the managers of the pharmacy chain, Mr Pedro Luis Angarita and Mr Agustín Álvarez, are at liberty and have not been charged; it therefore requests that there be no further examination of this allegation.
   • (iv) With regard to the alleged detention of the former Chairperson of CONINDUSTRIA, Mr Eduardo Garmendia, the Government reiterates that he was not detained; on the contrary, he received a summons and made his own way to the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) headquarters in order to answer questions concerning his statements to a national newspaper concerning the impact that the chikungunya outbreak would have on productivity. The Government states that Mr Garmendia has acknowledged that these statements were made without evidence and that he was treated courteously by the SEBIN officials who questioned him; it requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of this matter.
   • (v) The Government also reiterates that there is no record of any investigation of the Chairperson of ANSA, Mr Luis Rodríguez, who is at liberty. It therefore requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of this allegation. (The Government also reiterates that on 2 February 2015, an interview was held at SEBIN headquarters after Mr Rodriguez had expressed the desire to provide information on the “Día a Día Practimercados” case.)
   • (vi) With regard to the Chairperson of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals, Mr Rosales Briceño, the Government reiterates that he was interviewed on 6 February 2015 in connection with statements that he had made and that he is not under investigation and is at liberty; it therefore requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of this allegation.
7. 618. Concerning recommendation (h) from its previous examination of the case, the Government once again informs the Committee that article 236(8) of the Constitution empowers the President of the Republic, with prior authorization under an enabling act, to issue decrees with the force of law and that enabling acts must be approved by three-fifths of the members of the National Assembly in order to establish guidelines, objectives and the framework for matters delegated to the President of the Republic. The Government states that enabling acts lie within the competence of the President of the Republic, the discussion of legislation and draft legislation within that of the National Assembly, and national socio-economic policy within that of the executive branch in coordination with the other branches of government, without prejudice to the country’s existing and operational mechanisms for consultation and social dialogue.
8. 619. In its communication dated 23 May 2017, the Government sent its observations replying to the allegations of the complainant organizations of 8 May 2017. With respect to the allegations of intimidating attacks perpetuated against FEDECAMARAS, its affiliated organizations and its leaders, the Government refers to the information it provided to the Governing Body at its 329th Session (March 2017). Furthermore, in its observations, the Government affirms that: (i) the various measures that allegedly constituted attacks on various business sectors were not arbitrary and were carried out in accordance with the law and with the goal of protecting the population; (ii) the purchase of 50 per cent of agro industrial production was carried out in accordance with its mandate to ensure the availability of commodities within the context of economic warfare and the creation of workers’ production boards was carried out to promote the participation of the working class in the management of production, without replacing or opposing the trade union organization; (iii) the increase of the cestaticket (food voucher) was the result of its natural annual adjustment and the People’s Ministry for the Social Process of Labour had asked FEDECAMARAS, in its communication dated 14 February 2017, to submit its proposals concerning the salary increase that was customary for Labour Day. The replies, received from FEDECAMARAS on 23 and 27 April 2017, did not contain any concrete proposals.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 620. As regards recommendation (a) from its previous examination of the case (allegations of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, its leaders and affiliated companies), the Committee notes with deep regret that the Government is again using its reply to accuse the complainant organization and gives no indication that it has taken any measures to prevent acts and statements of stigmatization and intimidation, as the Committee recommended. Under the circumstances, the Committee is bound to reiterate its previous recommendation and urges the Government to take the requested measures without delay. The Committee recalls that, for the contribution of trade unions and employers’ organizations to be properly useful and credible, they must be able to carry out their activities in a climate of freedom and security. This implies that, in so far as they may consider that they do not have the basic freedom to fulfil their mission directly, trade unions and employers’ organizations would be justified in demanding that these freedoms and the right to exercise them be recognized and that these demands be considered as coming within the scope of legitimate trade union activities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 36]. The Committee again notes that, throughout its examination of this case, it has been witness to many serious accusations levelled against FEDECAMARAS by the Government and has noted with great concern the many allegations of attacks against this organization, emphasizing that, taken as a whole, these allegations create a climate of intimidation of employers’ organizations and their leaders that is incompatible with the requirements of Convention No. 87. In this regard, the Committee regrets that it is bound to recall once again the principle whereby the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 44]. It firmly urges the Government to take all the necessary measures in this regard and with a view to the promotion of social dialogue based on respect.
2. 621. As regards recommendation (b) from its previous examination of the case (allegations of violence and threats directed against FEDECAMARAS and its member organizations and, specifically, the abduction and mistreatment of FEDECAMARAS leaders Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz in 2010), the Committee takes note of the Government’s reiterated observations that in 2015 Mr Antonio José Silva Moyega was sentenced to 14 years and eight months’ imprisonment for the crimes committed in 2010 and that it has been shown that the victims were not targeted because they were FEDECAMARAS members. The Committee urges the Government to send it a copy of the ruling issued and to state whether other people were charged (providing information on any related proceedings and the outcome thereof) and whether FEDECAMARAS and the leaders concerned received compensation for the damage caused by these illegal acts. As regards the 2008 bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters, the Committee recalls that FEDECAMARAS indicated to the high-level tripartite mission that: (1) the person who planted the bomb (a police inspector, Mr Héctor Serrano) died as a result of the explosion; (2) on 26 February 2008, a complaint was filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office; (3) on 26 August 2009, the Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a ruling ordering the case to be closed for lack of sufficient evidence to establish a guilty party, and this ruling was appealed by FEDECAMARAS; (4) on 6 May 2010, the Forensic, Penal and Criminal Investigations Unit (CICPC) announced that a public official (a police officer), Mr Crisóstomo Montoya, had been detained on charges of terrorism for having planted the explosive device (it is reported that he has been released) and that Ms Ivonne Márquez had also been implicated; (5) the 28th Court of First Instance scheduled the public hearing of the trial for 4 November 2011 and the hearing was postponed until 30 October 2013; and (6) to date, no one has been found guilty of the attack. While noting the Government’s reiteration that the perpetrator has died and that the case has therefore been closed, the Committee again insists that the Government send its observations on the points raised by FEDECAMARAS and, in particular, to inform it of the outcome of the appeal against the closing of the case and on any investigation carried out in order to determine whether anyone else was involved in the attack, and thus to shed light on its motive and to prevent any recurrence.
3. 622. As regards recommendation (c) (seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders) and (d) (bipartite and tripartite social dialogue) from its previous examination of the case, the Committee observes that the Government has reiterated its previous remarks and emphasized that there is broad, inclusive social dialogue in the country. On the one hand, the Committee takes note of the Government’s various initiatives; its statement that FEDECAMARAS, its leaders and its affiliates have met with various government authorities on countless occasions and, in particular, that many FEDECAMARAS chambers of commerce, enterprises and members participate actively in the work of the National Council on the Productive Economy and in other forums; and its mention of other forms of dialogue, such as written communications. On the other hand, the Committee notes that FEDECAMARAS challenges these statements and, in particular, states that it was not invited to become a member of the Council; that the Government has not replied to its communications; that the President of the Republic has publicly declared that he was not prepared to engage in any dialogue with FEDECAMARAS; and that the Government has failed to honour the undertaking to establish dialogue round tables with FEDECAMARAS that it made before the Governing Body of the ILO: (i) in March 2016, the Government presented an action plan that provided for the establishment of a round table for dialogue between representatives of the Government and of FEDECAMARAS and included a schedule of fortnightly meetings, but the round table has not been established; and (ii) in November 2016, the Government undertook to include FEDECAMARAS in the future socio-economic dialogue round table but although the Ministry of Labour and FEDECAMARAS held two meetings in January 2017, there has been no progress in establishing such a round table on the plan of action announced to the Governing Body. While welcoming the two meetings held in January 2017, the Committee again observes that the Government has provided no information on implementation of the plan of action recommended by the Governing Body as a result of the high-level tripartite mission conducted in 2014. While deeply deploring the lack of information and progress in this regard and in light of the Governing Body’s decision of 24 March 2017 (in the examination of a complaint presented by virtue of article 26 of the ILO Constitution against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela alleging non-compliance with Conventions Nos 26, 87 and 144, in which the Government was urged to institutionalize without delay a tripartite round table, with the presence of the ILO, to foster social dialogue for the resolution of all pending issues, including matters relating to the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders), the Committee reiterates its recommendation and insists on the urgency of the Government taking the requested measures without delay.
4. 623. As regards recommendation (e) from its previous examination of the case (action to create a climate of trust and, in particular, the appointment of a representative of FEDECAMARAS to the Higher Labour Council or the tripartite social dialogue body fulfilling its functions), the Committee regrets that the Government has made no observations in this regard. In line with the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission, the Committee again urges the Government to take immediate action to create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations. The Committee urges the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this regard.
5. 624. As regards recommendations (f) and (g) from its previous examination of the case (detention of employers or leaders), in the case concerning the supermarket chain, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statements indicating that irregularities in the distribution of goods were found and that the chain’s General Director and legal representative, respectively, were investigated but are now at liberty. In the case concerning the directors of the meat processing company, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that Ms Tania Carolina Salinas, Ms Delia Isabel Ribas, Ms Anllerlin Guadalupe López Graterol, Mr Ernesto Luis Arenas Pulgar and Mr Yolman Javier Valderrama Santiago are currently being investigated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Deeply deploring that the requested additional information on the allegations against each of the seven people under investigation has not been provided, the Committee urges the Government not merely to give an indication of general criminal offences, but to indicate the specific allegations against each of the people under investigation or trial by the judicial authorities and to provide precise information on the progress of the respective judicial proceedings. Also in the case of the meat processing company, regretting that the Government has simply reiterated the statements made in its previous communication, the Committee urges it to state whether these employers and leaders have been subjected to precautionary or detention measures and again requests the authorities to consider lifting any preventive detention measures imposed on them. In the case of the pharmacy chain, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that the chain’s managers, Mr Pedro Luis Angarita and Mr Agustín Álvarez, are at liberty and have not been charged. With regard to the alleged detention of the former Chairperson of CONINDUSTRIA, Mr Eduardo Garmendia, the Chairperson of ANSA, Mr Luis Rodríguez, and the Chairperson of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals, Mr Rosales Briceño, the Committee takes note of the fact that the Government reiterates that they have not been detained or investigated but were merely interviewed at SEBIN headquarters and that all of them are at liberty. The Committee underlines that the high number of employers and employers’ organizations’ leaders who were convened at SEBIN does not help creating a climate of trust free of pressure and threats.
6. 625. As regards recommendation (h) from its previous examination of the case (adoption by the President of the Republic of a large number of decree-laws on important economic and production-related issues without consulting FEDECAMARAS), the Committee notes with regret that the Government merely repeats information that it has already provided on the constitutional legal basis empowering the President of the Republic to issue decrees with the force of law, without making any observation concerning their relevance for or impact on social dialogue. The Committee is bound to point out once again that, over the years, when examining various complaints relating to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, it has noted the use in many cases of enabling legislation by the Legislative Assembly empowering the President of the Republic to adopt many decrees and laws that affect the interests of workers’ and employers’ organizations without a parliamentary debate being held [see, in particular, Case No. 2698, 368th Report, para. 1020]. The Committee emphasizes that it is important that consultations take place in good faith, confidence and mutual respect, and that the parties have sufficient time to express their views and discuss them in full with a view to reaching a suitable compromise. The Government must also ensure that it attaches the necessary importance to agreements reached between workers’ and employers’ organizations [see Digest, op. cit., para. 1071]. The Committee has also emphasized the value of consulting organizations of employers and workers during the preparation and application of legislation which affects their interests and has drawn the attention of governments to the importance of prior consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations before the adoption of any legislation in the field of labour law [see Digest, op. cit., paras 1072 and 1073]. Deeply deploring the persistent nature of this situation, the Committee firmly urges that full consultations on draft legislation covering labour, economic or social matters that affect their interests and those of their members be held without delay with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, including FEDECAMARAS.
7. 626. The Committee notes with great concern the new allegations made by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS on 8 July 2016 and 8 May 2017 to the effect that: (i) the Government has failed to honour the undertaking to establish dialogue round tables that it made before the Governing Body of the ILO, and the highest-level state bodies have refused to enter into dialogue with FEDECAMARAS; (ii) further acts of intimidation have been directed against FEDECAMARAS, its affiliated organizations and their leaders by public figures and officials, including the President of the Republic, and the public has been called upon to mobilize against FEDECAMARAS; (iii) government authorities have launched attacks on the business sector and have attacked and detained leaders, employees and shareholders, accusing them of corruption or economic destabilization and subjecting them to public ridicule without guaranteeing due process or their right of defence; (iv) FEDECAMARAS has not been made a member of the National Council on the Productive Economy and has been excluded through new government measures that have an impact on business performance and undermine freedom of association, such as the approval, without consultation, of the purchase from farmers of 50 per cent of agro-industrial production for use by local supply and production committees and the creation of workers’ production boards and other bodies through which the Government is interfering with relations between workers and employers; and (v) additional increases in the minimum wage and the cestaticket (food voucher) have been approved without tripartite consultation and two more states of economic emergency that suspended the constitutional guarantees on economic matters have been declared through instruments that contain intimidating claims that the country’s economic agents have taken a hostile, destabilizing attitude, including by hindering access to essential public goods and services. On the other hand, the Committee observes that, in its communication dated 23 May 2017, the Government provides its observations replying to the allegations of the complainant organizations of 8 May 2017, affirming, in particular that: (i) it had responded to the allegations of intimidating attacks against FEDECAMARAS, its affiliated organizations and its leaders, before the Governing Body during its 329th Session (March 2017); (ii) the various measures that allegedly constituted attacks to various business sectors were not arbitrary and were carried out in accordance with the law and with the goal of protecting the population; (iii) the purchase of 50 per cent of agro-industrial production was carried out in accordance with its mandate to ensure the availability of commodities within the context of economic warfare and the creation of workers’ production boards was carried out to promote the participation of the working class in the management of production, without replacing or opposing the trade union organization; (iii) the increase of the cestaticket (food voucher) was the result of its natural annual adjustment and, with respect to the salary increase of May 2017, the opinion of FEDECAMARAS had been requested and no concrete response had been received. The Committee will examine these allegations and the reply at its next meeting, and requests the Government to communicate any additional relevant observations in this respect.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 627. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) While once again expressing its deep concern at the various and serious forms of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, their leaders and affiliated companies, the Committee insists on the urgency of the Government taking strong measures to prevent such actions and statements against individuals and organizations that are legitimately defending their interests under Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which have been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The Committee strongly urges the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that FEDECAMARAS is able to exercise its rights as an employers’ organization in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against its leaders and members and to promote, together with that organization, social dialogue based on respect.
   • (b) As regards the abduction and mistreatment in 2010 of FEDECAMARAS leaders Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz (the latter sustained three bullet wounds), the Committee urges the Government to send a copy of the ruling by which one of the accused was sentenced and to state whether other people were charged (providing information on any related proceedings and the outcome thereof) and whether FEDECAMARAS and the leaders concerned received compensation for the damage caused by these illegal acts. As regards the February 2008 bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters, the Committee again insists that the Government send its observations on the points raised by FEDECAMARAS and, in particular, on the outcome of the appeal against the closing of the case and on any investigation carried out in order to determine whether anyone else was involved in the attack, and thus to shed light on its motive and to prevent any recurrence.
   • (c) As regards the structured bodies for bipartite and tripartite social dialogue that need to be established in the country; the plan of action to be established in consultation with the social partners with stages and specific time frames for implementation with the technical assistance of the ILO, as recommended by the Governing Body; and the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders, the Committee deeply deplores the lack of information and further progress in this regard. It recalls that the conclusions of the mission refer to a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, and a tripartite dialogue round table, with the participation of the ILO and an independent chairperson. The Committee also recalls that at its March 2017 session, in examining the complaint presented under article 26 of the ILO Constitution against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela alleging non-compliance with Conventions Nos 26, 87 and 144, the Governing Body urged the Government to institutionalize without delay a tripartite round table, with the presence of the ILO, to foster social dialogue for the resolution of all pending issues, including matters relating to the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders. The Committee insists on the urgency of the Government adopting immediately tangible measures with regard to bipartite and tripartite social dialogue as requested by the high-level tripartite mission and the Governing Body. Deeply deploring that the Government has not yet provided the requested plan of action, the Committee once again urges it to implement fully without delay the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission endorsed by the Governing Body and to report thereon.
   • (d) The Committee, in line with the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission, again urges the Government to take immediate action to create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations. The Committee urges the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this regard.
   • (e) The Committee, having noted the Government’s observations concerning the allegations of detention and trial of employers and leaders in various sectors, deeply deplores that once again a full answer has not been provided in relation to the individuals who are the subject of investigation procedures. As regards the cases of the meat processing company and the supermarket chain, the Committee urges the Government not merely to give an indication of general criminal offences but to indicate the specific allegations against each of the people under investigation or trial by the judicial authorities and to provide precise information on the progress of the respective judicial proceedings. Furthermore, in the case of the meat processing company, the Committee urges the Government to state whether these employers and leaders have been subjected to precautionary or detention measures and again requests the authorities to consider lifting any preventive detention measures imposed on them.
   • (f) As regards the adoption by the President of the Republic of numerous decree-laws on important economic and production-related issues without consulting FEDECAMARAS, deeply deploring that the Government has not made any observations concerning their impact on social dialogue and the persistent nature of this situation, the Committee firmly urges that full consultations on draft legislation covering labour, economic or social matters that affect their interests and those of their members be held without delay with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, including FEDECAMARAS.
   • (g) The Committee expresses its deep concern at the lack of information and progress on the above issues and urges the Government to take all the requested measures without delay.
   • (h) The Committee will examine the new allegations, made by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS and the reply of the Government thereto at its next meeting and requests the Government to send further relevant observations in this respect.
   • (i) The Committee draws the special attention of the Governing Body to the extremely serious and urgent nature of this case.