Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2005, Publication: 93rd ILC session (2005)

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

A Government representative noted that once again his Government was appearing before the Committee to provide information on the situation with regard to the application of Convention No. 87, as it had repeatedly done since 1991, when Hugo Chavez took office as President and initiated sustained and rapid changes in the political, social and economic fields intended to combat poverty, injustice and exclusion and to promote forms of direct and indirect participation by the population in public affairs.

In the period between 1999 and 2004, some 410 trade union organizations had been established on average every year, compared with the period between 1994 and 1998 when the number of trade union organizations registered had only reached 229. Moreover, in 2003, a total of 535 collective agreements had been deposited, with the number rising to 834 in 2004. He said that these figures were available on the web site of the Ministry of Labour.

He maintained that, despite the clear intention of his Government to provide information, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had once again been included in the list of cases to be examined by the Committee, which bore witness to the continuation of significant political interest which, far from seeking social progress, had more to do with the past era of privilege and prerogative.

He said that his Government had agreed to receive two direct contacts missions in only a few years, the first in May 2002 and the second in October 2004. With regard to the reform of the Basic Labour Act, the first draft formulated by the Ministry of Labour had taken on board all of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, which dated from 1991. This draft text had already been approved at its first reading by the National Assembly and established a system of trade union elections which accorded the possibility for organizations to accept voluntarily the technical assistance and support of the National Electoral Board. This text had been supported by five trade union confederations (UNT, CTV, CUTV, CGT and CODESA) after a dialogue and consultation meeting convened by the Ministry of Labour in November 2004. He added that a more recent version of the draft text, which he described as being of a more progressive nature, increased the number of trade union leaders covered by trade union protection, strengthened the special protection measures and explicitly envisaged the re-election of trade union leaders, as had been occurring in practice.

In view of the great importance of the reform for the country as a whole, the National Assembly had informed the Supreme Court of Justice of the need to extend the period originally set to reform the legislation prior to December 2004. This was justified by the need to extend the consultations with the social partners, particularly at the request of employers' associations, and especially FEDECAMARAS which, since October 2004, and in letters sent by its President on 4 and 23 May this year, had requested the broadening of consultations. On 23 May 2005 a delegation of FEDECARAMAS which included among others Mr. Alexis Garridosoto, member of the employers' delegation to this 93rd Session of the Conference, had met with the President of the subcommittee for labour and trade union complaints of the National Parliament. The representatives of FEDEINDUSTRIA, CONFAGAN and EMPREVEN had also petitioned for the same reason. The request for broader consultations was based on the decision to undertake an overall reform of the labour legislation, instead of the piecemeal reform originally planned, which was to have been limited to aspects related to freedom of association and collective bargaining. He added that, while dialogue was going ahead, the National Assembly was also making progress in the reform of social security legislation, and particularly the laws respecting occupational safety and health and employment insurance. The Occupational Safety and Health Act had been adopted the previous day.

He indicated that, in relation to the alleged refusal to recognize the Executive Committee of the CTV, the Social Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had ruled in June 2004 that those who claimed to be the leaders of the Confederation were not trade union leaders and had ruled that the CTV did not fulfil the condition of being the majority or most representative trade union organization. The action leading to this judicial ruling had not been initiated by the Government, but by persons who considered themselves to be members of the Executive Committee of the CTV. In January 2005, the National Electoral Council had declared the CTV election to be void on the grounds of the absence of reports confirming the results as well as the issuing of reports by a non-existent electoral committee, among other electoral irregularities, as a result of which the Executive Committee was neither elected, legal nor statutory. Despite these rulings, the Ministry of Labour had convened the CTV as an institution. This was a de facto approach which had enabled it to attend various labour and social dialogue forums. Various minutes produced during the meetings and the corresponding invitations to social dialogue, confirmed this situation of openness by the Government in this regard.

He indicated that, on the subject of dialogue with the social partners, the report of the Committee of Experts showed its limitations by minimizing the impact of the consultations held on such subjects as minimum wages, stability of employment, labour reform and other sectoral matters. In previous years, these consultations, which the Government had never failed to carry out, had taken place in a context marked by polarization and the use of trade union representation as an instrument for the promotion of political partisan, including personal, projects which had nothing to do with the interests of the nation and the majority of the population.

It was clear that employers affiliated to FEDECAMARAS, for example, in the automobile, chemical, pharmaceutical and textile branches, were participating in the tripartite sectoral social dialogue forums.

Since October 2004, when it had obtained 70 per cent support in the popular vote, the Government had called upon those actors which where excluding themselves from social dialogue. Since that date, the conviction had grown that democratic social dialogue could not exclude any sector. He referred in detail to the various meetings held with employers' and workers' organizations over the past eight months, including one concerning the composition of the delegation to the 93rd Session of the International Labour Conference. Even the President of FEDECAMARAS had been present at some of those meetings.

The numerous working meetings held with trade union organizations had been supplemented by consultations carried out by the Ministry of Labour in the context of the Andean Community and the ILO on combating child labour, labour migration and occupational safety and health, among other subjects.

With regard to the concerns expressed by the IOE and the ICFTU, he indicated that his Government had provided detailed information to both the Governing Body and the Committee on Freedom of Association and had indicated its position on the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee on Freedom of Association, which in his view went beyond the scope of its competence and mandate, and in other cases contained inaccuracies or mistaken evaluations of the events which had occurred. In accordance with the recommendations of various regional groups, including that of Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC), he considered that it was necessary to avoid duplication in the use of ILO procedures, which gave rise to unnecessary costs and could lead to contradictory outcomes or conclusions. He therefore considered that the information requested was already available to the ILO.

In conclusion, he said that his Government had achieved sustained progress in the matters under examination and that it was therefore important to allow it and help it to continue its work, as it had been doing with all the social partners, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts. It was the responsibility of the Committee of Experts to verify and evaluate the progress achieved in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela over the rest of 2005.

The Employer members expressed appreciation of the presence of the Government representative and the moderate tone adopted in the discussion. The heart of the present case, in their view, concerned the application of Article 3 of the Convention, which provided that "workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes", and that "the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof". However, the Employer members did not believe that the Government understood the meaning of this provision.

They recalled that the present case concerned the interference by the Government in the activities of representative organizations of employers and workers and, in particular, the national employers' organization FEDECAMARAS. The interference by the Government had even affected the work of the present Conference through its meddling in the composition of the Employers' group. Although the Government representative had expressed approval of the direct contacts mission, referred to also in the comments of the Committee of Experts, he had given no indication of any intention by the Government to strengthen bipartite or tripartite dialogue in the country. The CTV, a workers' organization and FEDECAMARAS, the sole national representative employers' organization, were both excluded from the social dialogue forum in the country and the Government was failing to respect the criteria of representativeness. With regard to the reforms to the labour legislation, the Employer members understood that, while some 50 laws had been adopted on workplace matters, none of them had been formulated in consultation with representative organizations of the social partners. The serious nature of the situation was illustrated by the fact that the former President of FEDECAMARAS had been placed under arrest and was now in exile. In view of the gravity of the situation, the IOE had found it necessary to intervene in the context of cases brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government representative claimed that the Government was prepared to provide further information and called for the progress achieved to be acknowledged. What the Employer members wished to see was concrete action demonstrating the will of the Government to comply with its obligations under the Convention. Expertise was clearly required if the situation was to be improved. The Employer members therefore proposed that the Government should consider inviting the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association to visit the country, verify the national situation and provide assistance in the modification of the employment legislation to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. Alternatively, the Government could accept the visit of a tripartite mission for the same purpose. The Employer members emphasized that the time for fact-finding was now over. Action was needed, and it was needed now.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the replies provided orally and those colleagues in the Workers' group who had refrained from intervening on the case in view of its geopolitical implications and the choices made concerning social matters and development.

The last discussion by the Committee of the case concerning the application of Convention No. 87 by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had taken place in a climate of political and social instability, marked in particular by an attempted coup d'état, which had given rise to major tension in the world of work. The Workers' group had then taken note of the draft reform of the law that was intended to respond to the multiple issues relating to violations of the Convention raised previously. They had also expressed their concern relating to the cases examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association and had requested the Government not to interfere in the internal affairs of workers' and employers' organizations. In addition, they had requested the Government to recognize the Executive Committee of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV). A return to dialogue with the social partners had therefore been requested.

With regard to the observation made by the Committee of Experts this year, it should be noted with interest that the direct contacts mission requested by the Conference Committee had taken place in October 2004, and had shown that the Government had submitted a Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act to the National Assembly, accompanied by a schedule for its adoption.

Once adopted, the Bill would resolve a series of important obstacles which had been hindering the application of Convention No. 87 for over ten years. The Committee of Experts had therefore included this case in the list of cases of progress, although it had not noted it "with interest". Although progress had been achieved in relation to the legislation, it had to be noted that, with respect to the refusal to recognize the Executive Committee of the CTV and also with regard to social dialogue with the social partners, no tangible and convincing progress had been made, despite the Government's commitment to give effect to the points raised in the discussion in 2004.

The Worker members called for the Convention to be given effect in law and in practice. They therefore hoped that in its next report the Government would provide detailed information on the progress achieved in this regard.

A Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that since 1999 the trade union movement in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had been providing evidence to the ILO Conference that the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was systematically violating Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. For five consecutive years, the various ILO supervisory bodies had concluded, in special paragraphs and through two direct contacts missions, that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela did not afford the necessary guarantees for the exercise of freedom of association, and he considered that the Committee should be firm in this case. He recalled that the Committee on Freedom of Association had received over 50 complaints on this subject. Despite the repeated requests for the Government to remedy these violations, the Venezuelan authorities had ignored the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies. In his view, this was illustrated by several facts. The Government representative had given assurances to the Committee that trade union elections would not continue to be managed by the State, but this commitment had not been fulfilled. On the contrary, the National Electoral Council had declared the Executive Committee of the CTV illegal. The Government representative had assured the Committee that the CTV and its Executive Committee would be recognized, but had not given effect to this undertaking. He had also promised to renew social dialogue with all the social partners but, as noted by the direct contacts mission in 2004, this had not occurred. It had not even been possible to organize a tripartite meeting during the direct contacts mission. He called for the report of the mission to be distributed to the members of the Committee. In view of the repeated violations of Conventions, he requested the Committee to take appropriate measures to resolve the situation, which constituted a violation of freedom of association in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and to re-establish social dialogue. He concluded by saying that if the problems could be discussed by all the parties, this would benefit his country.

Another Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that the National Union of Venezuelan Workers (UNT) had been created in response to the position taken by those who had led the trade union movement for over 40 years and who had later formed an alliance with the employers, which had even led to a coup d'état in April 2002. She added that the dictatorship headed by the employers' leadership had been short-lived. The people had been mobilized, returning to Venezuela the leading role of participatory democracy. An ICFTU mission which had visited the country in August 2004 had witnessed the freedom and massive participation of the people in the referendum of confirmation.

She asserted that the UNT was a central organization that was independent of the Government, employers and political parties, and was composed of many former members of the CTV who had distanced themselves from that union following its alliance with FEDECAMARAS. She added that the UNT would hold elections to elect its leaders and its various bodies at the end of October this year. Asserting that it had been registered in accordance with all the requirements, she felt that the direct contacts mission which had visited her country in 2004 had shown bias and misinformation, as its report had referred to the UNT as being "recognized, despite having an unelected Executive Committee". She indicated that the legitimacy of the UNT came from its participation in the negotiation of collective agreements and in large enterprises in the public and private sectors, where it had taken over in most cases from the CTV. She made reference to the repeated statement in the Committee's report that the CTV was the most representative central organization based on the fact that it had represented 68.73 per cent of union members in 2001. She indicated, however, that these figures had surely been obtained from the data of the National Electoral Council and did not take into account the new trade union situation. She indicated that trade union elections were being organized in the normal manner and that the National Electoral Council only took action at the demand of workers' organizations which so requested and that an example of this was provided by the elections of FETRACONSTRUCCION, a federation led by Manuel Cora who had just concluded his electoral campaign without the supervision of the National Electoral Council.

In relation to the legislative reforms, she indicated that in her country, in addition to the Basic Labour Act, several laws were being examined, including laws respecting occupational social security schemes, the working environment, housing, health and workers' participation in enterprise management.

She said that, following the coup d'état, four workers, other than the CTV leaders, had been convened on the Presidential Commission for National Dialogue and that she had participated in that dialogue. Together with employers from the pharmaceutical sector, who were members of FEDECAMARAS, and the Government, they had succeeded in formulating policies to balance employment and increase the production of generic drugs.

She added that the Venezuelan citizens and in particular the workers, had demanded that the Government put an end to impunity and that the organs of the state (Judiciary, Attorney General of the Republic) acted in accordance with the law in order to avoid hidden agents who acted against the interests of the Venezuelan people.

She emphasized that the UNT was working to consolidate dialogue, whereas the CTV and FEDECAMARAS were carrying out a boycott as part of their subversive plans, but that they had agreed to enter into dialogue now that the coup d'état had failed. The sabotage of the oil industry and the coup d'état had caused deaths, as well as economic and structural losses. She expressed her opposition to a complaint submitted by FEDECAMARAS and thanked the Worker members of Colombia, Cuba and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, among others, for their support.

The Government member of Cuba thanked the Government representative for the information provided and said that the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had taken on the responsibility of reforming the labour legislation, as recommended by the Committee of Experts, and that these reforms had already been approved in their first reading. The increase in the number of collective agreements, the establishment of new trade unions and the free exercise of the right to strike were evidence that Convention No. 87 was being applied in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

He said that the Supreme Court of Justice had indicated that it was impossible to legally determine that the CTV was the most representative trade union, and that the National Electoral Council had voided the CTV's elections on the grounds of lack of transparency. Nevertheless, the Government had continued to invite it to tripartite dialogue forums, at both the national and international levels. FEDECAMARAS had also participated in the various dialogue forums.

The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had also accepted the two direct contacts missions, thus opening the door for technical cooperation. He recalled that the report of the Committee of Experts had noted the progress made. He asserted that this case was a clear indication that political criteria were continuing to prevail in the inclusion of the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the Committee's debates, as the country had already adopted the necessary measures to give effect to the Convention. He therefore considered that this case should no longer be included in the list of cases to be examined by the Conference Committee in future.

The Government member of the United States noted that, in reviewing this case again this year, the Committee of Experts had benefited greatly from the report of the direct contacts mission that had visited the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in October 2004. According to the mission's report, the Government had submitted a number of amendments to the Basic Labour Act which would have the effect of bringing it more closely into line with Convention No. 87. This was a welcome development and demonstrated the value of such missions and the important role they played in the ILO's supervisory system. Too often, governments viewed such missions as punitive in nature and refused to cooperate with them. As this case made clear, however, direct contacts missions were of a constructive nature, and governments would be well advised to receive them and cooperate fully with them when the supervisory bodies so recommended.

Unfortunately, the rest of the information in the report of the Committee of Experts was not so encouraging. The report referred to the violation of the right of the CTV to elect its representatives in full freedom and to organize its activities, discrimination by the authorities against the CTV's Executive Committee, and the Government's refusal to engage in meaningful social dialogue with the CTV and FEDECAMARAS. According to the Committee of Experts, practices such as these violated the freedom of choice of Venezuelan workers and employers. The Committee of Experts rightly pointed out that equality of treatment between organizations had to be ensured if the principle of free choice enshrined in the Convention was to be upheld.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran said that, following a series of crises in recent years, the reforms made by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the fields of the economy and legislation were an indication of its good intentions and of the determination of the Government to overcome the obstacles that it was facing. Undoubtedly, the economic and legislative reforms that were being carried out would create appropriate conditions for the achievement of democracy and the promotion of tripartism, the right to organize, freedom of association and collective bargaining. ILO technical cooperation and assistance would be an effective tool to accelerate the positive action taken by the Government with a view to removing the obstacles to the full application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

The Government member of Panama said that he had listened very carefully to the Government representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and that emphasis should be placed on the efforts made by the country to give effect to the provisions of Convention No. 87. He also emphasized the willingness of the Government to collaborate in providing information on the progress achieved, in the form of the Basic Labour Act, which was currently undergoing its first reading in Parliament. In his view, as a result of the outcome of the two direct contacts missions, it would now be sufficient to return to the usual mechanism of supplying reports to supervise the application of the Convention.

The Government member of Paraguay, speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR, said that the Government had shown positive signs of its willingness to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. He considered some of the signals of the extension of social dialogue to be encouraging, such as the inclusion of the CTV in the ILO delegation, the consultation of the CTV regarding the documents under discussion in the Andean region and the participation of the CTV in the national dialogue forums established to discuss these issues.

It was important to emphasize that the comments made in previous years by the Committee of Experts with a view to advancing legislative reform in respect of freedom of association had been included by the Government in the Bill which was being examined by the National Assembly, and which had been the subject of tripartite debate and consultation. He recalled that the Government had accepted visits by two direct contacts missions, which had observed the situation in the country and endorsed the Government's actions as being in harmony with ILO objectives, principles and standards.

The Government member of Egypt said that she had listened with interest to the Government representative, who had described the positive measures taken to improve the rights and freedoms of trade unions set out in the new draft Labour Code. She called on the Committee to take into consideration the efforts made by the Government and to provide it with the necessary technical support and assistance.

The Government member of China thanked the Government representative for the information provided and said that she had listened with great interest to the discussion concerning the implementation of the Convention. She noted that the Government had made remarkable achievements in reforming its legislation and in promoting social dialogue. These successes demonstrated the Government's willingness to cooperate with the social partners. The achievements of the Government needed to be acknowledged and she hoped that the ILO would provide technical support to assist developing countries such as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to improve their social and labour situation.

The Government representative thanked most of those who had participated in the discussion for recognizing that his country had made progress in giving effect to its democratic commitment to achieve greater participation and inclusive social dialogue, with particular emphasis on the representativity of the major actors. Social dialogue was now no longer a monopoly for those who had been able to make their voices heard in the past. Organized workers and employers, who had not been heard for decades, were now participating in the development of public policies which took into account their needs and interests.

The two direct contacts missions sent by the ILO had given rise to a dynamic of meetings and forums in which all the social partners had participated, including representatives of FEDECAMARAS and the CTV, on subjects which included labour policy. Nevertheless, to those who were now calling for social dialogue, he wished to say that back home they were attending meetings in which such burning topics were being discussed as wages and food programmes for workers, labour reforms, labour immobility, etc. His Government, which sought coherence between promises and practice, invited the Executive Committee of the CTV, for example, to progress from words to action and to enter into collaboration and to ensure coherence between what they asserted and did in the country and what they denounced in Geneva. For example, it would have been important that Mr Cora appear at the social dialogue meetings convened by the Ministry of Labour, which he never attended, instead of using this scenario in order to misinform the public on what really happened. On the subject of trade union elections, he emphasized that the National Electoral Council, which had been so heavily criticized, was an independent and autonomous body which commanded the respect of the executive, legislative and judicial authorities, and of the Comptroller General's Office of the Republic and the other organs of popular power. In his country, there was no discrimination against trade unions and none of them received preferential treatment. It was necessary to overcome the conflictual political situation affecting the country. Nevertheless, his Government, which had recognized all the social partners, needed to take into account the fact that it governed in the interests of everyone and did not renounce its duty to govern for the majority, and particularly of those categories which had up to now been excluded from citizen's participation as well as the just distribution of the petroleum income and the rest of the country's wealth, thus overcoming the injustices of the post. Social dialogue needed to be inclusive, participative and an agent of transformation.

The reform of the Basic Labour Act, which had been formulated with the technical assistance of the ILO Standards Department, was currently being examined by the National Assembly with the participation of FEDECAMARAS. This reform would have to be the subject of consultation with the workers and of their approval. Finally, he emphasized that his Government would continue to endeavour to follow up the recommendations made by the Office when these were relevant. It was all the more convinced that it was necessary to make progress in legislative reform towards a model of society which established a new value for the relationship between capital and labour in which labour would be appreciated from the point of view of solidarity and cooperation on the basis of the wealth it generated, so as to achieve the wealth's just distribution. This reform, which had been debated for two years, and which included the most recent standards on occupational safety and health within a context of social dialogue, was now nearly complete. It should not be forgotten that the previous legislation had required six years' discussion. His Government undertook to transmit to the Office in due time the outcome of a process which would benefit the great majority of workers in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. He confirmed that the Government would remain within the regular supervisory mechanism through the presentation of the steps and progress made during the rest of the year, to the Committee of Experts.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for his reply. They expressed a certain surprise at the moderation of the position expressed by the Worker members in the discussion of this case, particularly in view of the reference made by the Committee of Experts to the comments of the ICFTU and the IOE, as well as the detention order issued against the President of the CTV and the measures taken against leaders and members of employers' and workers' organizations. Such a situation would normally be condemned outright by the Workers' group, as a result of the violation of the fundamental principle of free and independent organizations. Yet, few complaints had been heard with regard to the failings of the consultation in process undertaken by the Government and its failure to implement Convention No. 87. The Employer members wished to put on record their condemnation of the arbitrary measures adopted against members of workers' and employers' organizations. Indeed, the current President of FEDECAMARAS could not leave the country without the permission of the authorities, which was a clear violation of the principles of freedom of association.

In view of the importance of the case, the Employer members wished to take the unusual step of proposing a set of conclusions for the Committee. They noted in this respect that changes and amendments to the conclusions proposed by the Chairperson always seemed to come from the Worker members. In a democratic body, they felt that the Employer members should be able to contribute in the same way. Their proposed conclusions were as follows:

The Committee noted the oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee noted with deep concern that the problems raised by the Committee of Experts referred to questions relating to the basic right of workers and employers to form organizations of their own choosing, the right of these organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom, to draw up their rules without interference by the authorities and to organize their activities.

The Committee also noted the emphasis placed in the report of the direct contacts mission on the fact that for years the Executive Committee of the CTV had not been recognized in law by the Government and in practice had only been recognized for very limited purposes. The Committee noted that the current situation had prevented the Executive Committee from the normal exercise of its rights and had seriously prejudiced it. The Committee also noted that the CTV Executive Committee, which was the product of an election process, was only recognized in practice by the Government for very limited purposes, while having the Executive Body of the UNT central organization was recognized, despite not having an Executive Body adopted through an electoral process.

The Committee considered that the above situation, and in particular the excessive delay by the National Electoral Council, had gravely prejudiced the Executive Committee of the CTV and its member organizations, thereby violating the right of this organization to elect it representatives in full freedom and to organize its activities, as recognized in Article 3 of the Convention, as well as the principles of due process. The Committee once again urged the Government to recognize the Executive Committee of the CTV for all purposes immediately.

The Committee once again urged the Government to renew dialogue with the social partners. The Committee noted that, according to the report of the direct contacts mission, the executive bodies of the CTV and FEDECAMARAS had not participated in social dialogue in the broadest sense of the term, particularly in sectoral dialogue.

The Committee also noted that, according to the report of the direct contacts mission, in response to the availability for dialogue demonstrated unequivocally by the central and regional executive bodies of FEDERCAMARAS (the sole confederation of employers in the country and which was at the highest level of representativeness) and the Executive Committee of the CTV, the Minister of Labour had not given indications of wishing to promote or intensify bipartite or tripartite dialogue on a solid basis with these bodies: in practice, such dialogue had practically not existed for years and only took place in an episodic manner.

The Committee noted with regret that the information contained in the report of the direct contacts mission showed that representatives of the three minority workers' confederations did participate in social dialogue forums, alongside a workers' confederation which had a provisional executive board, and that on the employers side three less representative organizations participated which were not members of the employers' confederation FEDECAMARAS.

The Committee considered that strict criteria of representativeness were not respected in those sectoral dialogue forums and that the executive boards of the central organizations CTV and FEDECAMARAS were excluded from such forums, and therefore suffered discrimination.

The Committee further noted that, according to the report of the direct contacts mission, effective consultations between the Government and the executive bodies of the CTV and FEDECAMARAS on labour issues had been limited and had been of an exceptional nature. The Committee also urged the Government, without delay, to convene periodically the National Tripartite Commission and to examine in this context, together with the social partners, the laws and the order which had been adopted without tripartite consultation.

The Committee emphasized the importance of the Government and the most representative organizations of employers and workers engaging in in-depth dialogue on matters of common interest. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any form of social dialogue with the CTV and FEDECAMARAS and their member organizations and to ensure equality of treatment between organizations.

The Committee deeply deplored the arrest of officials of employers' and workers' organizations and emphasized that the arrest of these officials for reasons linked to actions relating to legitimate demands was a serious restriction of their rights and a violation of freedom of association, and it requested the Government to respect this principle. The Committee urged the Government to terminate immediately the judicial proceedings against the President of FEDECAMARAS, Mr. Carlos Fernandez, and that the detention order against the President of the CTV, Mr. Carlos Ortega, be lifted. It requested the Government to provide information on the detention orders issued against six trade union leaders or members of UNAPETROL and that the restrictions on the movement of the current President of FEDECARAMAS, Mrs Albis Munõz be lifted.

The Committee urged the Government to initiate contacts with the members of UNAPETROL in order to find a solution to the problem of registering the union. It also requested the Government to initiate negotiations with the most representative workers' confederations to find a solution to the dismissal of 18,000 workers from the PDVSA enterprise and to institute an independent investigation without delay into instances of alleged acts of violence against trade unionists.

The Committee requested the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association so as to secure the full application of Convention No. 87. The Committee requested the Government to accept a high-level tripartite mission, which would include a meeting with the Government and with employers' and workers' organizations, placing particular emphasis on all matters relating to the application of Convention No. 87 in law and practice.

The Worker members, in response to the conclusions proposed by the Employer members, noted that it was not the usual practice of the Committee for a group to propose conclusions in place of the Chairperson. It was for the Chairperson alone to propose the conclusions and for the groups to make comments, as appropriate.

They said that the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had been dealt with by the Committee on several occasions in recent years and that real and tangible progress, albeit insufficient, had been noted. They added that the Government was not solely responsible for the climate of division and antagonism that the country was experiencing, considering that it had made real efforts, even if much remained to be done, particularly with regard to social dialogue. They called upon the Government to continue to seek ILO technical assistance to resolve the issues raised in relation to the application of the Convention.

The Employer members referred to their previous statements. In the face of the persistence of the problems which remained pending without being resolved, they could anticipate that it would be eventually necessary to discuss the situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela again the following year. The Employer members would prefer to send a high-level Governing Body tripartite mission to visit the country in order to find solutions conducive to the full application of the Convention and make progress in the sense of the conclusions which had been agreed upon.

The Government representative spoke on the obstacles that the Employer members' spokesperson had generated during the debate, interfering with the right of workers and governments, who certainly constituted the majority, to have their own opinion. Such obstacles affected the methods of work and the constructive spirit which had prevailed in the debate until then.

Moreover, he objected to the statement made by the Employer members' spokesperson that Venezuela should be included in the list of individual cases for examination by the Conference Committee the coming year, which demonstrated the negative predisposition of this spokesperson who wanted to turn the Conference Committee against his country.

With regard to the individual persons mentioned in the conclusions, these were found in the position of defendant through the autonomous and independent decisions of the Judiciary, in accordance with due process without any interference by the Government authorities. The Judicial proceedings had been instituted as a consequence of the presumed activities of the abovementioned persons, a small group of people, during the events of 2002 and 2003 against the national Constitution and laws. These persons had approved the decree for the dissolution of all public powers in the Government's seat, while the constitutionally legitimate President had been abducted in the midst of a coup d'état.

In any way, the Presidency of FEDECAMARAS had been designated by the Government as the main delegate of the Venezuelan Employers' delegation which had attended the present 93rd session of the Conference and had been able to get out of the country any time this had been necessary with the due judicial authorization, without any effect on her personal or professional life.

Moreover, the speaker was once again pleased to note the cooperation and high level technical assistance provided by the regional Office of the ILO in Lima. In this case, the technical assistance or cooperation in question, of a regional nature, should serve in order to follow up to the joint declaration of the five trade union confederations of November 2004, with regard to the regime of trade union elections.

The Government requested that this declaration be recorded in the provisional records.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and of the discussion that followed. The Committee observed with concern that the problems raised by the Committee of Experts, which also reflected the comments made by the International Confederation of Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Organization of Employers (IOE), included: legal restrictions upon the right of workers and employers to form organizations of their own choosing; the right of these organizations to draw up their rules and elect their officers freely and the right to organize their activities, without interference by the public authorities; the refusal to recognize the executive committee of the CTV; the exclusion of certain workers' and employers' organizations in social dialogue to the disadvantage of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) and FEDECAMARAS; the detention order of leaders, in particular Mr. Carlos Fernández; and restrictions of movement on Ms. Albis Muñoz. The Committee further noted the results of the direct contacts mission that took place in October 2004.

The Committee took note of the statement of the Government representative according to which a draft law adopted in the first reading of the National Assembly had been the subject of consultations and the Government expected its adoption in the near future. It also noted that the Government had included FEDECAMARAS and the CTV in the framework of inclusive dialogue without exclusion of any social partners. Moreover, the Government pointed out that the National Electoral Council had declared the electoral process of the CTV null and void and that the Government had already replied to the Committee on Freedom of Association on the questions raised by the ICFTU and the IOE.

Noting that the Bill submitted to the National Assembly aimed at resolving problems of a legislative nature and mentioned by the Committee of Experts had still not been adopted in the second reading, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to accelerate its passing and to carry out full and meaningful consultations with the most representative workers' and employers' organizations. The Committee observed insufficiencies in the social dialogue and the need for progress to be made in this respect.

The Committee underlined the importance of full respect for Article 3 of the Convention and that the public authorities should not interfere in the elections and activities of workers' and employers' organizations. It took note of the Government's statement t hat recourse to the National Electoral Council was optional for occupational organizations and urged the Government to fully respect this commitment.

The Committee invited the Government to lift immediately the restrictions on the freedom of movement imposed on the leaders of FEDECAMARAS, Mr. Carlos Fernández and Ms. Albis Muñoz.

The Committee requested the Government to send a complete and detailed report to the Committee of Experts on all the pending questions for examination at its next meeting and hoped that it would be able to note the progress awaited and, concretely, that the national law and practice would be brought into full conformity with the Convention.

The Committee invited the Government to request a high-level technical assistance of the Office for the abovementioned objectives, with particular emphasis on questions concerning interference with the autonomy of workers' and employers' organizations.

The Employer members referred to their previous statements. In the face of the persistence of the problems which remained pending without being resolved, they could anticipate that it would be eventually necessary to discuss the situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela again the following year. The Employer members would prefer to send a high-level Governing Body tripartite mission to visit the country in order to find solutions conducive to the full application of the Convention and make progress in the sense of the conclusions which had been agreed upon.

The Government representative spoke on the obstacles that the Employer members' spokesperson had generated during the debate, interfering with the right of workers and governments, who certainly constituted the majority, to have their own opinion. Such obstacles affected the methods of work and the constructive spirit which had prevailed in the debate until then.

Moreover, he objected to the statement made by the Employer members' spokesperson that Venezuela should be included in the list of individual cases for examination by the Conference Committee the coming year, which demonstrated the negative predisposition of this spokesperson who wanted to turn the Conference Committee against his country.

With regard to the individual persons mentioned in the conclusions, these were found in the position of defendant through the autonomous and independent decisions of the Judiciary, in accordance with due process without any interference by the Government authorities. The Judicial proceedings had been instituted as a consequence of the presumed activities of the abovementioned persons, a small group of people, during the events of 2002 and 2003 against the national Constitution and laws. These persons had approved the decree for the dissolution of all public powers in the Government's seat, while the constitutionally legitimate President had been abducted in the midst of a coup d'état.

In any way, the Presidency of FEDECAMARAS had been designated by the Government as the main delegate of the Venezuelan Employers' delegation which had attended the present 93rd session of the Conference and had been able to get out of the country any time this had been necessary with the due judicial authorization, without any effect on her personal or professional life.

Moreover, the speaker was once again pleased to note the cooperation and high level technical assistance provided by the regional Office of the ILO in Lima. In this case, the technical assistance or cooperation in question, of a regional nature, should serve in order to follow up to the joint declaration of the five trade union confederations of November 2004, with regard to the regime of trade union elections.

The Government requested that this declaration be recorded in the provisional records.