Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (Ratification: 1982)

A Government representative emphasized the negative climate of labour relations which had existed in Venezuela at the time that the representation had been made by FEDECAMARAS and the IOE. It had been facing an extremely serious economic and social crisis that had given rise to social tension and had created an unhealthy atmosphere for social dialogue, impeding the social consensus that was necessary for Venezuela to develop its labour law. He said that he was convinced that the crisis was in the process of being overcome, as confirmed by, for example, the re-establishment and consolidation of social dialogue which had culminated in the signing of a far-reaching Tripartite Agreement on Social Security and Wage Policy, in which high-level representatives of the Government, Workers and Employers recognized the existence of ample common ground in its conceptual framework. This had been the result of an exchange of views that had taken place in a profoundly democratic climate of mutual respect and consideration for the treatment of the issues discussed. He stated that the Minister of Labour had given priority in her programme to obtaining a wide consensus as an underlying principle of the system of labour relations, which she had described to the ILO Standards Department in communications dated 8 May and 6 June 1997, which had stated that the Government of Venezuela had taken due note of the legal problems arising in relation to sections 404, 409, 418 and 419 of the Organic Labour Law and any discrepancies with the standards contained in the Convention. Aware of the importance of these issues, she had decided to accelerate the process of resolving them.

He indicated that, as the problems raised in the report of the Committee of Experts implied the need to harmonize four sections of the Organic Labour Law of Venezuela with the provisions of Convention No. 87, he was pleased to be able to inform the Committee that discussions had already been initiated with the most representative organizations of workers and employers in order to resolve this matter, based on the conviction that the most effective and balanced mechanism for harmonizing the labour law with the requirements of the Convention was through social dialogue, the success of which was illustrated by the recent experience described above. He stated that in this way the concrete fulfilment of the promises made to the Committee by the previous Minister of Labour of Venezuela in 1996 had begun. Finally, he believed that the social partners in Venezuela would agree that, in virtue of the initiative cited to modify the legislation, the way had been opened to the definitive resolution of a problem which had occupied too much of the attention of the Committee on the Application of Standards.

The Employers' members indicated that this case had its origins in a representation on the violation of the rights of workers' and employers' organizations enshrined in the Convention. The Committee of Experts had examined these questions for various years, as had the Conference Committee in 1995 and 1996. This year, the statements made by the Government representative had shown no anger and had manifested the willingness of the Government to enter into dialogue. In this sense, there had been a certain improvement. The Committee of Experts' criticisms of the legislation concerned violations of the Convention on fundamental questions: the existence of too long a period of residence (more than ten years) for foreign workers to hold office on trade union executive boards; the overly extensive and detailed list of the attributions and purposes required for workers' and employers' organizations; the requirement of too high a number of workers (100) to form unions of self-employed workers; and the requirement of too high a number of employers (ten) to constitute an employers' organization. These requirements amounted to undue interference by the State. The Employers' members deplored that the Government had not supplied any information on any of these issues to the Committee of Experts, making a real dialogue on this question impossible, and that the Government representative had not provided any specific information indicating how and when these violations of the Convention would be resolved. In 1996, the Government had undertaken to resolve these problems through tripartite meetings. This undertaking had not been fulfilled and the Committee had to regret the time which this case had taken and which it appeared it would take in the future. They requested the Government to send a detailed report and hoped that it would contain a satisfactory response to the problems raised which would render it unnecessary to return to this issue. Finally, they regretted that the Government had not paid the costs of the attendance of the Workers' and Employers' delegates at the Conference, as required under the ILO Constitution.

The Workers' members were in full agreement with the statements made by the Employers' members. The restrictions imposed on the rights of employers to establish organizations of their own choosing so that workers' organizations could have valid partners for collective bargaining needed to be eliminated. They deplored that the Government, on several occasions, had not responded to the Committee of Experts or the Conference Committee with detailed information and regretted the repeated failure of the Government to fulfil its commitments. The Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had all pointed to the need to amend the legislation to resolve its discrepancies with the Convention. The fact that no information had been provided to the Committee of Experts once again this year was a sign of an unwillingness to cooperate. The Government representative had said only that the crisis that had existed previously in the country was being overcome and that a tripartite dialogue existed. The Workers' members expressed the firm hope that this dialogue signified the beginning of a change of attitude. They insisted on the importance of the Government providing positive responses in its report to the Committee of Experts and on the need to take the necessary steps without delay, in consultation with the social partners, to resolve the problems identified by the Committee of Experts and to guarantee the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing and the other rights of these organizations.

The Employers' member of Venezuela stated that the representation referred to had been submitted by FEDECAMARAS and the IOE and agreed with the declarations of the Employers' and Workers' members. The Committee of Experts had criticized the legal provisions which violated various Articles of the Convention, but the new Labour Minister had expressed an openness to tripartite dialogue. It was important that the Government respond to the comments of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee and comply with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Workers' member of Venezuela supported the views of the Workers' members. The difficulties which had existed earlier in the field of industrial labour and in the handling of labour conflicts had been overcome. The present tripartite meetings would produce results in the near future and would make it possible to overcome the problems relating to the Convention. He expressed his willingness to trust in the positive attitude adopted by the Government. The Committee should urge the Government to ensure that the tripartite discussions led to complete and immediate results so that this case could be resolved in time for the next meeting.

The Government representative expressed appreciation for the statements of the speakers who had participated in the debate. He denied that the Government had been angry concerning the matters under examination and referred to the serious political, economic and social crisis from which the Government of Venezuela had been emerging. He also regretted that the written response of the Government to the ILO on the tripartite dialogue and the new system of tripartite consultation had not arrived in time to be examined by the Committee of Experts. He considered that under the new system, it was perfectly possible to resolve the questions raised in the representation filed by FEDECAMARAS to the ILO several years ago. He insisted that the Government was not making the same promises as in previous years. Very concrete results had been achieved which showed that seminal changes had taken place in this respect and that the Government was participating actively in the machinery of tripartite dialogue, which covered the matters raised in the representation, with the aim of overcoming them.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government representative and of the discussion which ensued. It recalled, once again, that the Committee of Experts had urged the Government to amend the Organic Labour Act with a view to removing the divergencies existing between the national legislation and the Convention. The Committee urged the Government to supply, in its next report, concrete information on the measures taken to apply the Convention, taking into account all the points mentioned in the Committee of Experts' observation. The Committee stressed the need to amend the number, which was too high, of workers or employers required for the creation of a trade union or employers' organization, the requirement of a too long period of residence for foreign workers to be eligible for election to trade union office, and the long and detailed list of attributions and services required by workers' and employers' organizations, since all these provisions were not in conformity with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee regretted that the written information was sent by the Government too late to be examined by the Committee of Experts and this Committee. It expressed the firm hope that the tripartite dialogue referred to by the Government representative would permit decisive progress to be made towards the full application of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to send detailed information in this respect in its next report.