Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2007, Publication: 96th ILC session (2007)

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

A Government representative recalled that his Government had participated regularly in the discussion of individual cases by the Committee since 1999, even before the new Constitution had been approved. The Bolivarian Constitution enshrined workers' labour and trade union rights as few constitutional instruments had done in the past. The Government had been constructive and highly cooperative with the ILO. There were no technical reasons to justify a new discussion of the individual case, nor had the case been examined or monitored by the Committee on Freedom of Association in its most recent meetings. Some of the concerns raised in the Committee of Experts' observation had been answered in a timely fashion in the Government's communications to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

He observed that the Committee of Experts had not inserted a footnote in its observation to indicate that the Government would be invited to give information to this session. The Government therefore inferred that there could be a political issue involved in the further consideration of the application of Convention No. 87 by this Committee. The persecution and murder of trade union leaders did not exist in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Workers and employers could exercise their rights fully, particularly the right to strike, and peaceful solutions to disputes were promoted. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela facilitated the establishment of trade unions and there were no extensive or difficult formalities for their legalization. There was a progressive culture in terms of exercising collective labour rights and improving labour conditions through collective bargaining, in complete conformity with the democratic and pluralist principle of Convention No. 87. The minimum wage of US$286 was greater than that enjoyed by other South American workers.

Government policies promoted the inclusion of even the most underprivileged categories. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was emerging from a period of economic dependency, backwardness and extreme poverty. There had been no complaints by the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Manufacturers' Associations (FEDECAMARAS) or the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) concerning breaches of freedom of association and a deterioration in living conditions for the population. Nevertheless, the attitude displayed by FEDECAMARAS and the CTV prevented in-depth, democratic, direct and effective social dialogue.

The Government would continue to work with the ILO, as demonstrated by the fact that it had welcomed two direct contact missions in 2002 and 2004, in addition to the high-level mission in 2006. The Government respected the pluralism of the social partners. There were some who, out of sheer bad faith, wished to create an atmosphere unfavourable to exchanging information and consultations. Some bodies participating in FEDECAMARAS did not understand the change that had swept the country despite the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals ahead of time, the sustained economic growth that had lasted more than 14 consecutive quarters and the repayment of all the debts to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

He indicated that social dialogue was a flexible consultation and negotiation mechanism that should serve to achieve the common good of the majority in accordance with the ILO goal of social justice. If workers were subject to indecent and undignified labour conditions, there could be no social dialogue. Social dialogue could not serve as justification for labour deregulation, the loss of rights or non-compliance with labour inspections. The Government, through the Ministry of People's Power, Small Industry and Trade, had held meetings with workers and employers to consolidate the Framework Agreement on Shared Responsibility for Industrial Transformation, which involved the restarting of 1,011 companies since May 2005, benefiting 146,593 workers, with total state funding of US$592 million. Business round-tables were a further mechanism to administer state purchases with a view to involving small and medium-sized enterprises in the national productive process. Since 2002, 12 round-tables had been held, distributing US$2 billion among the goods, infrastructure and service sectors. That economic upturn was the fruit of direct, sincere and broad dialogue with employers, a case of inclusive and interpreted social dialogue. On 10 February 2007, a labour standards meeting was held for collective bargaining in the construction sector, with the active participation of the Construction Chamber, an affiliate of FEDECAMARAS, in addition to the participation of the Construction, Timber, Postal and Allied Workers' Federation of Venezuela (FETRACONSTRUCCION), and the Heavy Machinery Workers' Federation (FETRAMAQUIPE), both affiliates of the CTV. Social dialogue also included meetings with regional and sectoral chambers and national, regional and local authorities.

He recalled that a process for the reform of the Constitution was under way. Once the draft was approved by the National Assembly, it would be submitted to a public national debate and lastly, to a referendum, with direct and secret universal suffrage. The constitutional reform would enable the observations made by the national trade union movement concerning freedom of association and trade union elections to be taken into account.

As a consequence of information in some sections of the private sector media, he said that it would not accept the new high-level mission publicly proposed by the International Organization of Employers (IOE), since it could harm the country's democratic image and prejudice the efforts that were being undertaken in the country to strengthen direct, influential, democratic and effective social dialogue.

The Worker members indicated that the Workers' group had not agreed on the selection of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the list of individual cases. The Workers' group had wanted the case of Colombia to be retained. They were aware that the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela gave rise to controversies, both in the country and within the ILO, and in the various groups of social partners. Cognizant of the fact that they had not consolidated a common position, they had chosen to base their statement on the observation by the Committee of Experts.

The Worker members recalled that the Government had accepted a high-level mission that had taken place in January 2006. Numerous questions remained unresolved: (i) the Bill to amend the Basic Labour Act had not yet been adopted; (ii) the issue of the interference of the National Electoral Council in union elections had not yet been addressed; (iii) the definition of genuine social dialogue and the assessment of the Venezuelan Government's will to put such dialogue into practice remained controversial within the Workers' group; (iv) the impartiality of the Government as regards workers' organizations also remained contentious within the Workers' group; and (v) the response of the Government for the proposals of ILO technical assistance in various areas was still awaited. They hoped that the Government would accept the technical assistance offered in these areas and that the expectations raised by the high-level mission would be given effect through the implementation of its conclusions.

The Employer members recalled that the case had been discussed in the Conference Committee since 1995, regardless of which government had been in power or whether or not the case had received a footnote. For the Employer members, there had been no case more important in the history of the ILO. Government interference in the affairs of employers' associations should be as important for the Worker members, as interference in the affairs of workers' organizations. When a case was discussed regularly, the Committee could examine the progress made. In the present case, the situation had deteriorated alarmingly. They said that the statement by the Worker members had included unclear arguments. However, the conclusions of the high-level mission and the observation by the Committee of Experts included questions that clearly justified discussion of the case.

The Employer members emphasized that the case involved issues of freedom of association, social dialogue and tripartism which were the most fundamental and sacred values of the ILO. However, to attain those values, the protection of civil liberties, freedom of speech and freedom of movement was crucial. Those conditions were not being met, in particular freedom of speech, which was in jeopardy, as reflected by the government control exercised over the media. Furthermore, there had been the recent vandalism and occupation of the premises of the most representative employers' organization, FEDECAMARAS. The perpetrators were well known, but there was no evidence of any investigation or prosecution.

The Employer members further emphasized that case involved a violation of Article 3 of Convention No. 87, which enshrined the principle of non-interference in the affairs of employers' and workers' organizations. Despite discussion of the case having begun in 1995, it was clear that the Government did not grasp the meaning of Article 3. The case involved government interference in the affairs of employer's organizations, in particular FEDECAMARAS, as well as interference in the work of the Conference Committee by restricting the travel of Ms Albis Muñoz outside the country. Since 1995, the Employer members had been complaining of interference in the affairs of employers' organizations, as well as in the composition of the Venezuelan Employer's delegation to the Conference. Since 2004, the ILO Credentials Committee had explicitly recognized FEDECAMARAS as the most representative employers' organization. However, the Government had created parallel employers' associations to replace and undermine FEDECAMARAS. That was contrary to tripartism and freedom of association and it undermined social dialogue.

The Employer members further indicated that there had been over 450 decrees adopted without consultation and that for many years the minimum wage had been revised without consulting the employers. The Government had recently decided to increase the minimum wage by 25 per cent and had informed FEDECAMARAS of that decision only the same day of the publication of the decision. The seriousness of the case was further shown by the fact that the former President of FEDECAMARAS, Mr Carlos Fernandez, had been arrested and was in exile. The principle of non-interference enshrined in Article 3 was clear and unambiguous. The Employer members considered that some tangible and specific progress had to be made. The Government should be prompted to take immediate steps to comply with Article 3 in all its aspects and should ensure that the conditions for freedom of association were met - protection of civil liberties, freedom of expression and compliance with genuine, free and independent tripartite consultation and social dialogue.

The Employer member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela regretted that an international forum again had to consider the way in which freedom of association was hindered in his country. All Venezuelans identified with tripartite social dialogue and the values of freedom of expression, association and initiative. The social market economy that facilitated the generation of formal employment in private enterprises made a fundamental contribution to economic development and social progress. Without a constructive attitude, it would be impossible to resolve the problems affecting the 1.2 million unemployed Venezuelans. For the 400,000 new jobseekers who entered the labour market every year there was no prospect of finding formal employment and five million workers were not covered by the social security system. The ILO should continue supplying assistance for the effective observance of freedom of association by sending a new high-level mission.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, National Coordinator of the National Union of Workers (UNT), indicated that the observation of the Committee of Experts had been examined carefully. The UNT agreed on the need to move forward and conclude reform of the Basic Labour Act. Legislative reform should then enable issues other than those mentioned by the Committee of Experts to be considered, since a constitutional reform process was also under way. That reform would develop social justice, socialist participative democracy and the progressive handover of power to the people and the workers.

He recognized that the National Electoral Council (CNE) had too many powers to intervene in trade union electoral processes. In endeavouring to resolve the past situation in which electoral fraud had taken place, a situation of excess had been reached which could be reviewed in the current constitutional reform process. Nevertheless, he did not accept allegations of favouritism by the Government towards UNT. All those involved in the union movement were aware of the process of change sweeping across the country and were willing to be unconditional advocates of the working class, abandoning favourable attitudes to employers that had characterized the trade union movement in the past.

Social dialogue had a fundamental role to play in overcoming purely political rivalries and reaching agreements among those who genuinely wanted to make progress in the change process. Some employer sectors had a pro-coup mentality, which explained why the Committee was examining the application of the Convention in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, while any mention of murders of union leaders committed elsewhere was avoided. Social dialogue could not function on such an ambiguous basis. The local media had already anticipated a high-level tripartite mission in order to bring about consensus and social peace in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The Committee should avoid such cynicism and not fall into a purely political game.

There was strict compliance with the Convention in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the fact that it was discussed each year by the Committee would change nothing in practice. Taking into account the situation in the past, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was a genuine case of progress. In conclusion, he enumerated the progress made in achieving decent work: an increased minimum wage, rules requiring persons with disabilities to account for 5 per cent in a company's workforce, the promotion of gender equality, increased pensions for retirees and housewives, the creation of educational areas for children, efforts to combat outsourcing, the Labour Stability Act and the reduction of the working week to 36 hours and a maximum of six hours per day.

Another Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), expressed concern at the fact that the National Electoral Council could interfere in union election procedures. The high-level mission and the observation by the Committee of Experts had demonstrated the failure to apply the Convention. Nevertheless, the ruling by the Constitutional Chamber of the High Court that the National Electoral Council was constitutional had generated an inconsistency with the international commitments deriving from the ratification of the Convention. Legislative reform should enable a better application of the ratified Conventions and avoid worsening the current situation in which application is unsatisfactory. The Committee of Experts' recommendations should therefore be given effect.

Salaries had been raised without social dialogue, as shown by the fact that only four days before the increase was published, a communication was sent to the unions. The favouritism and bias of the Government did not benefit any organization that genuinely represented workers and employers - which was further illustrated by the lack of respect for tripartism when appointing the Worker and Employer delegates to the Conference.

The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had stated on 24 March 2007 that in the revolution, trade unions had to disappear. That had given rise to draft legislation to create workers' councils, the roles of which were very similar to those of trade unions. In that context, recognition should be given to the importance of the principles that the ILO had asserted since 1970 when it had affirmed that "the rights conferred upon workers' and employers' organizations must be based on respect for those civil liberties which have been enunciated in particular in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights". The concept of union rights was entirely meaningless when there were no such civil liberties. In that context, the disappearance of a media channel known for its independence could also be considered to be an attack on freedom of expression, which was the basis of all union freedoms.

The Government member of Mexico speaking on behalf of the Government members of the Group of Latin America and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), recalled that GRULAC had recognized the attitude of responsibility and the spirit of cooperation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with all ILO supervisory and other bodies. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had accepted direct contacts missions in 2002 and 2004 and, in 2006, the ILO high-level mission. The fact that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had responded to all requests for information by the supervisory bodies should be taken into consideration in the Committee's conclusions. GRULAC urged the ILO to maintain its cooperation with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the basis of a constructive spirit and good faith. GRULAC reserved the right to express, at the adoption of the Committee's report in the plenary session of the Conference, its opinion regarding the methods of work and the establishment of the list of cases to be examined by the Committee.

The Employer member of Brazil emphasized the importance of the discussion for the region as a whole, since it related to such fundamental rights as property ownership, free initiative and freedom of choice in employment. Taking into account his experience as Regional Vice-President of the IOE, he expressed concern at the manner in which the case was developing and observed that certain authoritarian regimes endeavoured to show that they complied with democratic principles. The measures taken against the freedom of association of employers - particularly against the leaders of FEDECAMARAS - were forerunners of despotic behaviour. Moreover, the recent non-renewal by the Government of the concession held by the most representative television station (RCTV) constituted an act of violence against the right to freedom of expression. Without the possibility of expressing their opinions freely, including through this important medium of social communication, organizations such as FEDECAMARAS were unable to fully exercise freedom of association. Representative organizations should be autonomous and independent in respect of all governmental authority in order to be able to generate employment and contribute to the economic development of their countries, as established in the ILO Constitution.

The Employer member of Argentina, spoke as the Chairperson of the Employers' group of the Conference, Employer Vice-Chairperson of the ILO Governing Body and Executive Vice-President of the IOE. The employers and their organizations fully respected the rule of law and the overriding need to give effect to all fundamental human rights, particularly those, such as freedom of association, that were enumerated in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. As stated by the Employer members, the Employer member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, member of the Board of FEDECAMARAS, and the Employer member of Brazil, freedom was essential to employers. With regard to the statement made by the Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, who had spoken on behalf of the UNT, he recalled that freedom was also essential to workers and their representative organizations. He said that for employers the situation of FEDECAMARAS in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had the same emblematic value as that of the Solidarnosc trade union in Poland. They would continue to lobby for freedom of association and to protect FEDECAMARAS - employers' organizations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - at all levels of the ILO.

He emphasized the need to begin civilized dialogue in a constructive spirit of goodwill, urging the Government to avoid confrontations. The employers were united and expressed solidarity in view of the need to promote the social dialogue that had been interrupted and restore the dignity of FEDECAMARAS.

The Government member of Cuba supported the GRULAC statement and indicated that the decision to discuss the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was not compatible with the efforts made by the Government to promote genuine social progress. The Government representative had provided detailed information to the Committee, including indisputable data concerning the results achieved, which demonstrated its will to cooperate with the ILO. It was necessary to avoid the ILO becoming involved in the attempted coups d'état and economic sabotage which had sought to undermine the Venezuelan process and he hoped that the politicization of the Committee's discussions would be avoided in the future.

The Worker member of India welcomed the detailed information supplied by the Government representative and the decisions of the Government, which had fully accepted and complied with the recommendations of the direct contacts missions in 2002 and 2004 and of the high-level mission in 2006. The Government had shown the political will to achieve the ILO's objectives in the country, which had experienced a coup d'état against the elected popular Government. Social dialogue had been carried out through various bipartite and tripartite meetings, without excluding FEDECAMARAS. He further noted that the modifications requested by the Committee of Experts to the Basic Labour Act had already been included on the agenda of the Government, which was committed to improving the living conditions of the working class and the poor, which was not kindly taken by those with vested interests. He asked the Government to remain consistent in its pro-workers' approach, to show respect for all the ILO fundamental Conventions and to ensure that all workers enjoyed trade union rights which were the sole tool for development.

The Government member of Ecuador referring to the statement made by GRULAC, emphasized that the Committee should discuss technical and transparent questions without entering into political matters.

The Government member of Bolivia indicated that her country had also initiated a process of change to recover its national dignity and sovereignty over natural resources. In 1971, there had also been coups d'état in which the interests of certain foreign enterprises appeared to have been involved through the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in advance and compliance with ILO principles, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was in a privileged position. The Committee should refrain from interfering in the construction of an inclusive, fair and equitable democracy essentially designed to promote the interests of workers.

The Worker member of Spain recalled that for Spanish trade unions, freedom of association was the source of other freedoms, the cornerstone of a country's entire social structure. The comments by the Committee of Experts on the Convention, which was also based on observations made in July 2006 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), were troubling. The observation on the Convention referred to the hindrance of the re-election of union leaders, interference by the National Electoral Council in union elections (in violation of Article 3 of the Convention), the advantages accorded to a certain organization (encouraging union discrimination) and the requirement to provide members' data to the Ministry of Labour, with no guarantees of confidentiality, which was an infringement of civil liberties. The workers' councils mentioned by the Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, who had spoken on behalf of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), were a source of great concern and constituted interference that was absolutely contrary to the principles of freedom of association.

The past experience of his union, the General Union of Workers (UGT), showed that, even if the existence of independent unions embarrassed the Government, the absence of freedom of association would eventually also be prejudicial to the new breed of unionism currently allied with the authorities. The workers' councils would end up marginalizing the trade unions, which would be a very serious violation of freedom of association.

The Government member of Nicaragua welcomed the detailed information supplied by the Government representative. She questioned the need to discuss the case, as the Government was due to reply to the issues raised by the Committee of Experts in a report due in 2008. The country had seen an increase of over 20 per cent in registered workers' organizations in barely two years. The Government had always been willing to cooperate with all the ILO bodies, as had been noted by the high-level mission in 2006. On that occasion, the need had been emphasized to turn the page and take a step forward for the benefit of the country. As GRULAC had stated, the Committee should avoid politicizing its work and should therefore select individual cases on the basis of technical and transparent criteria.

The Worker member of Ecuador, President of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Unitary Class Organizations of Workers (CEDOCUT), also spoke on behalf of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CEOSL) and the Confederation of Workers of Ecuador (CTE), as well as the Confederation of Argentinean Workers (CTA), the Single Central Organization of Chilean Workers (CUT) and the Autonomous Confederation of Workers of Chile (CAT), the Coordinating Central of Union Federations of Paraguay, the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) and the Inter-Union Assembly of Workers-National Convention of Workers (PIT-CNT) of Uruguay. He noted the importance given by employers to freedom of association and expressed the hope that employers would not therefore seek to replace trade unions by solidarist associations, cooperatives or non-governmental social organizations. The Committee should refrain from examining this case and instead address those situations in which union leaders had been murdered. Attitudes should be avoided that could appear opportunistic when they advocated social dialogue to the benefit in practice of a single sector.

The Worker member of Argentina paid tribute to the trade unionists who had been murdered.

Following a point of order, he indicated that one of his visits to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had coincided with the direct contacts mission in 2004. In his opinion, freedom of association was respected in the country and the links of certain sectors with coups d'état were being overlooked. The ILO should support a process of change that acted as a way out of neo-liberal economic models.

The Government member of India noted with satisfaction the detailed information provided by the Government, in particular the tangible and specific developments since the direct contacts missions in 2002 and 2004 and the high-level mission in 2006. He also noted that the Government had accepted the recommendations made by those missions, as well as those of the Committee of Experts. There were clear signs of the Government's commitment to applying Convention No. 87. Furthermore, he noted with satisfaction the achievements of the Government with respect to the social and economic development of the country. The steps taken by the Government to engage with the social partners and its efforts to consult the ILO were encouraging signs. An objective and transparent assessment of the current context would assist in consolidating the process of cooperation and dialogue between the ILO and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The Worker member of the United States said that it was necessary to be realistic and accept that there was non-compliance with the Convention. The 2006 high-level mission had reported that the Government had failed to enact the necessary legislation to permit trade union members to re-elect their leaders. Interference by the National Electoral Council in union elections continued, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government itself had informed the high-level mission that trade union elections held without Council tutelage could be challenged. The delay in certifying trade union elections made it impossible for the unions involved to negotiate a collective agreement. The issue could only be resolved by amending Article 293 of the Bolivarian Constitution and Article 33 of the Basic Act on the Electoral Authority which give the Council powers to interfere in union elections. The Labour Ministry's resolution No. 3538 violated the privacy and confidentiality of trade union membership, exposing individual workers to anti-union discrimination. The issue at stake was not a positive or negative political attitude towards the Venezuelan political process, but discovering whether there was compliance with the Convention's provisions and the way in which the Conference Committee could find a constructive solution.

The Government member of Belarus recognized the open attitude of the Government representative and the continuing dialogue and cooperation with the ILO. He said that ILO assistance and the coherent approach of the Government to improving the social and economic situation in the country had allowed the drafting of amendments to the Basic Labour Act, which did not raise major concerns in respect of their conformity with ILO standards. He hoped that the draft legislation would soon be adopted by Parliament. He further noted the dialogue between the social partners, the establishment of new trade unions and the conclusion of collective agreements in the country. He underlined that any analysis of the implementation by a member State of its obligations under Conventions should take into account national circumstances and the level of social and economic development of the society. The measures and reforms undertaken by the Government to improve the situation of workers and to ensure decent working conditions and their positive results should be appreciated. That approach should be supported by all the social partners and the Committee should recognize the cooperation that existed between the Government and the ILO on the implementation of the Convention.

The Worker member of Brazil emphasized the social and economic progress that had been made in the country. In other countries, the establishment of trade unions was impeded and the lives of their leaders were threatened.

The Government member of the Russian Federation welcomed the constructive approach adopted by the Government representative and his readiness to cooperate with the ILO. He noted the success of the Government in developing mechanisms for effective tripartite consultations, developing the trade union movement, registering numerous new trade union organizations and improving collective bargaining procedures. He also noted with satisfaction that the draft amendments to the Basic Labour Act reflected the recommendations of the ILO and expressed the hope that those amendments would be adopted in the near future. Noting the progress achieved by the Government in implementing its international obligations, he expressed the hope that constructive dialogue between the ILO and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela would continue.

The Worker member of Cuba referring to the observation of the Committee of Experts and the discussion that had taken place, wondered whether consideration of the case was justified. The obstinacy of the Employer members was to be deplored. The Worker's group should maintain their unity and take into account the economic and social progress made in a country where the rights of workers were respected.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran said that the progress demonstrated by the report provided by the Government representative should be recognized. It was also encouraging that the country continued to cooperate with the ILO.

The Government member of China said that the Government representative's statement and the efforts made by the Government to cooperate with the ILO were appreciated, as well as the progress achieved. He agreed with the GRULAC statement.

The Government representative thanked the members who had shown their support. He added that the Committee on Freedom of Association had not opposed the measures adopted in his country to apply the Convention. Some of the issues raised did not feature in the report of the Committee of Experts. Currently, 3,724 workers' organizations had been registered. It was the largest figure in the country's history and clearly demonstrated that there was no union persecution or any breach of the Convention. Workers councils did not exist: there were only working documents that were produced for discussion, as in any legislative procedure. Trade unions had an invaluable role. As a metallurgical union leader, he knew how important freedom of association was. There were also no obstacles to re-electing union leaders.

In order to achieve civilized social dialogue, as some Employer members had suggested, all employers' organizations in the country needed to be recognized. Some employers' organizations did not feel represented by FEDECAMARAS. The Government should also accept various counterparts among employers. Some organizations in the automotive and construction industries dealt with the Government directly in order to contribute actively to the country's economic development. He said that it was not a good basis for social dialogue to suggest similarities between Hugo Chávez and Wojciech Jaruzelski. President Chávez had won free elections on various occasions and had been the victim of a coup d'état.

He added that the Convention did not accord impunity to employer leaders who participated in coup d'états. Albis Muñoz, Carlos Fernández and Pedro Carmona had participated in a coup d'état. Albis Muñoz was currently being tried for reasons other than her union activity.

The Government would continue dialogue with the ILO supervisory bodies and communicate its responses to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. It would seek to resolve the issues raised concerning the National Electoral Council in the context of the constitutional reform. In those circumstances, it was not acceptable for matters to be discussed that were not part of the comments of the Committee of Experts and a new high-level mission should not be anticipated.

The Worker members noted with interest the Government's indication of the adoption in the near future of new laws and regulations seeking to bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. They called on the Government to ensure, the broadest possible basis for constructive social dialogue bringing together all organizations representing the social partners.

The Employer members said that the Government representative had not touched upon two main concerns that they had raised, namely the need to ensure respect for civil liberties, freedom of speech and freedom of movement as a prerequisite for freedom of association, and non-interference in the internal affairs of employers' and workers' organizations. The systematic destruction of the most representative employers' organization in the country, FEDECAMARAS, was a matter of grave concern. The rights enshrined in the Convention applied to democratic and authoritarian societies alike. The case of Albis Muñoz, which had been discussed in the Committee in 2004, 2005 and 2006, was significant given the systematic violations of the Convention and was a serious breach of the principle of freedom of association. The Committee's conclusions should emphasize that civil liberties, freedom of speech and freedom of movement were prerequisites for freedom of association, recognize that those conditions did not exist in the country and also address the interference by the Government in the internal affairs of FEDECAMARAS. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that Article 3 of the Convention protected both workers' and employers' organizations, meaning that the Committee of Experts should be requested to address all issues relating to Article 3 in relation to both workers' and employers' organizations. The Conference Committee should also recognize that scant progress had been made in terms of freedom of association, particularly concerning the employer aspects of the case. They indicated that a high-level tripartite mission should therefore be sent to the country to examine the situation.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the debate that followed. The Committee also noted the conclusions of the high-level mission that visited the country in January 2006 and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association on cases presented by employers' and workers' organizations.

The Committee referred to the following pending issues: legal restrictions on the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing; restrictions on the right of organizations to draw up their constitutions and to elect their leaders without interference from the authorities and to organize their activities; the refusal by the authorities to recognize the results of trade union elections; the inadequacy of social dialogue and of the protection of civil liberties, including the right to freedom of movement.

The Committee noted that the Government representative: (1) had stated that the Government believed in an inclusive and productive dialogue with all the partners and had stated that the labour standards meeting for collective bargaining in the construction sector had been established; meetings and negotiations had been held with the employers and workers, for example to consolidate the framework agreement for co-responsibility for industrial transformation; (2) had indicated that a constitutional reform process was about to be initiated which would cover the legislative issues raised by the Committee of Experts, including those concerning the National Electoral Council; (3) had emphasized that the leaders referred to in the discussion who had allegedly been denied freedom of movement had been brought to justice for reasons that were unrelated to freedom of association.

Observing that after several years the legislative reforms called for by the Committee of Experts had still not been adopted, the Committee urged the Government and the competent authorities to amend the legislation and to ensure that the announced constitutional reform would overcome all these problems.

Noting deficiencies in the social dialogue between the Government and the representative organizations of employers and workers, the Committee urged the Government to make every effort to develop social dialogue in the framework of the ILO's standards and principles and to establish a permanent tripartite social dialogue body.

The Committee deplored the fact that a leader of FEDECAMARAS had not been granted permission by the judicial authorities to leave the country to participate in the Conference. The Committee also noted the acts of violence and ransacking of the headquarters of FEDECAMARAS and called on the Government to take measures to investigate this occurrence so that those responsible could be punished and similar events did not occur in the future.

With regard to the allegations of favouritism and lack of impartiality by the Government with regard to certain favoured workers' and employers' organizations and the creation of parallel organizations, the Committee urged the Government to refrain from any form of interference and to comply with Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee requested the Committee of Experts to pay particular attention to this point and to examine the application of the Convention in relation to both employers' and workers' organizations.

The Committee emphasized the fundamental importance of respect for civil liberties as a prerequisite for observance of the rights set forth in the Convention.

The Committee requested the Government to provide the Committee of Experts sufficiently in advance with a full and detailed report replying to the comments of the high-level mission on the application of the Convention. The Committee expressed the firm hope that it would be able to note tangible progress in both law and practice in the very near future.