Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131) - Uruguay (Ratification: 1977)

The Committee notes the joint observations of the Chamber of Industries of Uruguay (CIU), the National Chamber of Commerce and Services of Uruguay (CNCS) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 30 September 2020, on the application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and Convention No. 131, as well as the Government’s reply to these observations. The Committee notes that these communications address issues related to collective bargaining which are examined in its comments on the application of Convention No. 98.

The Committee also takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020), which does not provide new information on pending issues. The Committee therefore reiterates the content of its comments adopted in 2019 and reproduced below.

The Committee notes the joint observations of the Chamber of Industries of Uruguay (CIU), the National Chamber of Commerce and Services of Uruguay (CNCS) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on the application of the Convention, received in 2018.

Article 4 of the Convention. Machinery for fixing and adjusting minimum wages. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the national minimum wage is fixed by the Government after consultation with the Higher Tripartite Council; (ii) in addition, minimum wages by occupational category and sector of activity are negotiated on a tripartite basis in wage boards; and (iii) most wage board decisions are adopted unanimously and only a few are adopted by majority. The Committee also notes that, in their new joint observations, the CIU, CNCS and IOE indicate that: (i) although Act No. 18566 on collective bargaining gives priority to bilateral negotiation by providing that wage boards may not be convened when a collective agreement is in force in the same branch, the application of the Act has had the opposite effect, since tripartite bargaining has reduced the scope of bilateral collective bargaining to a minimum; (ii) although it is formally correct to observe that the percentage of agreements adopted in wage boards involving the three partners is high, this does not mean that such agreements are truly voluntary, since in many cases an agreement is the option to avoid a vote or a wage adjustment by decree on the basis of the powers held by the Government pursuant to section 1 of Legislative Decree No. 14791; and (iii) rural employers withdrew from negotiations in the wage boards because they considered that the Government did not offer the necessary guarantees for the continuation of negotiations. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in respect of the 2018 observations of the CIU, CNCS and IOE.