Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2010, Publication: 99th ILC session (2010)

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

A Government representative said that his country had been called upon on nine occasions over the past ten years to answer for alleged non-compliance with Convention No. 87, and on each occasion it had provided all the information requested, although it had not been taken into account by the Committee of Experts. On 8 December 2009, his Government had provided to the Standards Department its reply to the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), although the report of the Committee of Experts did not refer to any reply. In the case of the Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928 (No. 26), the report indicated that “As the Government’s reply was received on 8 December 2009, the Committee intends to examine in detail the matters raised in the above observations at its next session”. However, in the case of Convention No. 87, the Committee of Experts had failed to provide that clarification. The Government representative indicated that this omission raised doubts as to the transparency of the methods of work of the Committee of Experts.

He added that, according to the same report, it “had, for ten years, been requesting legislative amendments to bring the law into conformity with the Convention”. This phrase was part of the electoral campaign of the opponents of the Government and, moreover, was not true. He noted that the Basic Labour Act had been quoted as being adopted in 1991, and that since the 82nd Session of the Conference and for five consecutive years from 1993 to 1997 the Committee of Experts had drawn the Government’s attention to five provisions that were not in accordance with Convention No. 87. Accordingly, the amendment of the Act had been requested for 17 years, and not for the ten years during which the present Government had been in office.

He emphasized that in 1997 the Committee of Experts had noted that the Government would reform the Act through the Tripartite Commission for Social Dialogue. He recalled that the latter Tripartite Commission had abolished the historical rights of workers, initiated the privatization of social security and made various labour laws more flexible, but had neglected to amend the five provisions in question. It had not given importance to the restrictions on freedom of association, which had not troubled the Committee of Experts, which had not raised the matter again until the current Government had taken office in 1999.

He indicated that there had been full consensus since 2003 to amend these provisions, but that the reform process had not been completed because consultations were continuing in the National Assembly and an in-depth public debate was being held involving the Government, employers and workers focused on reducing working hours and re-establishing the social benefits system abolished by the Tripartite Commission in 1997. He added that none of the provisions criticized were applied, nor did they involve any restriction on the exercise of freedom of association, and that there had not been a single case of a foreign citizen being prevented from being a member of the executive board of a trade union, nor had the registration of any union been prevented under these provisions.

He said that another comment, never raised before 1999, indicated that the Act was not explicit with regard to the right of trade union leaders to be re-elected. He explained that the only restriction was contained in section 441 on trade union funds, under the terms of which trade union officers who had not complied with the requirement to submit a detailed account of their administration could not be re-elected. In all other cases, they could stand for re-election, which was the standard practice. He did not therefore understand the insistence on this comment.

With reference to the request for information on certain sections of the Regulations of the Basic Labour Act, he noted that such information had already been provided. With regard to compulsory arbitration in essential public services, the Act provided that essential services had to be determined by agreement prior to the exercise of the right to strike. Where such agreement was evaded by employers to avoid strikes, arbitration allowed the Ministry of Labour to determine minimum services in essential services.

On the subject of collective bargaining, he indicated that in cases where two or more trade union organizations claimed the right to represent workers in negotiations, the Ministry of Labour called for a referendum of the workers to decide which of the organizations had greater support to represent them and the benefits of bargaining were extended to all workers.

He observed that the Committee of Experts, despite the replies by his Government, had maintained its comments concerning the alleged interference by the National Electoral Council in trade union elections. He indicated that it had been a claim of the trade union movement that the officers of trade unions should be elected democratically by their members. The Act of 1991 had set forth this aspiration for direct and secret elections, but had not been applied. For this reason, in 1999 the Constituent Assembly had mandated the electoral authority to guarantee the right of members to elect their leaders freely and democratically. A series of rules had been established, which had been amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. The role of the National Electoral Council had been limited to receiving the electoral schedule from the trade union organization prior to the holding of elections and the rules that applied in accordance with its constitution, as well as to offer those trade union organizations which so requested technical advice for the holding of elections.

With regard to the murdered trade union leaders, he indicated that all the information requested had been provided. The cases were under investigation and where it had been possible to establish responsibilities, those concerned had been referred to the judicial authorities and detained. He added that most of the workers and rural leaders who had been murdered belonged to the National Union of Workers or the Rural Front Ezequiel Zamora, and were mostly activists in the United Socialist Party of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and not opposition leaders. He denied that there had been “hundreds of deaths” and demanded greater details concerning this statement.

With reference to situations of violence, he indicated that action was being taken with workers and employers to resolve them. He referred to the oil sector, in which three years had elapsed without incidents of violence. In the construction sector, a working group had been established on violence with the participation of the four existing workers’ federations and the two chambers of employers, one of which was affiliated to FEDECAMARAS. A special commission had been established at the request of the National Union of Workers, which was working with the Ministry of the Interior and Justice to follow up all cases of violence involving trade union leaders.

On the subject of the attack on the headquarters of FEDECAMARAS in February 2008, his Government had indicated that arrest warrants had been duly issued for those responsible, although doubts had been raised on that point. Nevertheless, on 5 May 2010, the persons concerned had been detained. With regard to Mr Fernández, former President of FEDECAMARAS, he said that in December 2007 an amnesty Act had been adopted for those who had committed offences on the occasion of the coup d’état in April 2002, but that Mr Fernández had not availed himself of the Act.

He emphasized that, despite the clarification provided, the request had been maintained that the amendments to the Penal Code should include two sections which restricted the right to engage in protest action. He indicated that these sections had existed prior to the reform and had never restricted that right. He added in this respect that there were no grounds for claiming that over 2,000 workers were being prosecuted and demanded clarifications in that regard.

With reference to Case No. 2763 that was pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association, he recalled that, with regard to one act of violence alleged in the case, the police had used excessive force, in respect of which disciplinary measures had been applied. He added that the enterprise referred to in the case had been in violation of workers’ rights. He indicated that the enterprise was now owned by the State and that its current President was one of those who had suffered aggression during the events in question. He reaffirmed that the expropriation of the enterprise had not been a retaliatory measure, but because those who imposed precarious work, were in violation of freedom of association, committed environmental offences, held back stocks and engaged in speculation were not fit to act as employers.

On the subject of social dialogue, he said that his country was promoting inclusive social dialogue that was not exclusive and that went beyond the elite, in contrast with what had happened with the Tripartite Commission in 1997, which had only taken away rights.

He said that it was not true that the Government promoted parallel trade unions and added that organizations had always existed alongside the two organizations which monopolized representation of employers and workers. The CUTV dated from the 1960s and FEDEINDUSTRIA had existed for 38 years.

He added that the Committee of Experts had referred to the failure to convene the tripartite commission for minimum wages. He observed that all government decisions were subject to consultation. All workers’ and employers’ organizations were consulted and submitted their proposals before 1 May each year. If FEDECAMARAS did not follow this practice, it was not for reasons of exclusion, but because it aspired to being exclusive.

He emphasized that the theme of the current crisis had escaped the present Conference. He expressed indignation at the situation in various countries in which tripartite machinery was being used to create pressure for labour reforms that restricted rights.

He added that this was not the route that was being followed by his country. In the midst of the crisis, which was a battle between capital and labour, there could be no doubt on which side it was, as it was on the side of the workers. He emphasized that banks would not be financed through the sweat of the workers. His Government had decided to guarantee stability by retaining the Decree respecting labour security, it had increased the minimum wage by 25 per cent, with pensions being set at the same level as the national minimum wage. Fishers and rural workers had been integrated into the pensions scheme, even though their employers had not registered them with the social security system. The Government would continue to adopt measures in this respect in such areas as access to housing and food.

In conclusion, he denied responsibility for the crisis of capitalism and indicated that his country would not finance the banks by reducing workers’ rights. The Government was prepared to enter into dialogue, but labour rights were not negotiable. Social dialogue needed to be an instrument for making progress, not going backwards in terms of workers’ rights.

The Worker members observed that the selection of this case was once again the choice of the Employer members. There was no common vision within the Workers’ group on the observance or lack of observance of the Convention by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The reports of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009 and 2010 contained an entire chapter on the violations of trade union rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Such information was taken up in the Committee of Experts’ observation, which regretted the absence of a reply from the Government to the comments made by workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee of Experts had commented once again on the legal points which obstructed the exercise of rights as provided for in the Convention. These consisted of: the need for at least 100 persons to establish a trade union of independent workers and the requirement to provide exhaustive information on the identity of such persons; the lack of freedom in the organization of internal administrative structures; the non-renewable mandates of trade union leaders; the impossibility for foreigners to be part of an executive committee unless they had completed more than ten years of residence in the country; the interference in electoral procedures by a non-judicial body, namely the National Electoral Council (CNE); and the imposition of penal sanctions in the case of exercising the right to peaceful demonstration, and the right to strike. The intention proclaimed by the Government to observe freedom of association was contrary to the legislation, as indicated in the legal analysis made by the Committee of Experts. However, the Government insisted that its laws were in conformity with the Convention. This dialogue of the deaf should stop, and the Government should consider, accept, or even better, request the technical assistance of the ILO in order to examine the situation in light of the points previously raised as well as with respect to the numerous gaps in the functioning of social dialogue referred to by the Committee of Experts.

The Employer members emphasized that the present case, involving serious violations of the fundamental freedom of association rights of employers was, in their view, the most important one before the Committee. They expressed surprise that the Worker members did not attach equal significance to the case, given that it also involved such serious violations of workers’ rights as the murder of trade union leaders. They stated that the Committee of Experts had noted information from FEDECAMARAS referring to threats against its members who, in the context of their sectoral representative activities, had protested against the kidnappings of their members and the decline in national production as a result of government policies. Observing that the Committee of Experts had regretted the Government’s failure to reply to these comments, and had in its observation also quoted extensively from last year’s conclusions of the Conference Committee with respect to this case, they proposed that at a minimum these conclusions be repeated this year as well.

The Committee of Experts had also referred to several shortcomings in social dialogue, noting that: (1) according to the ITUC, the Government held only formal consultations and was promoting parallel organizations for the purpose of establishing a new trade union confederation as a counterweight to those organizations that disagreed with the Government’s policies; and (2) according to FEDECAMARAS, the Government had still not convened the National Tripartite Commission envisaged in the Basic Labour Act for the determination of minimum wages and had appointed non-representative organizations that were close to the Government to the employers’ delegation to the International Labour Conference (ILC). The Committee of Experts had further regretted that the National Tripartite Commission had yet to be established, and that the Government had repeatedly disregarded the Committee on Freedom of Association’s recommendation that direct dialogue be established with FEDECAMARAS. From the report of the Committee of Experts, and the Government’s opening statement, it was clear that the Government was in a state of denial and failed to fully appreciate its obligations under the Convention. Noting that this was the 14th time that the case had come before the Committee, the Employer members emphasized that it constituted a long-standing failure to apply the Convention.

A significant portion of the observation of the Committee of Experts touched upon violations of trade union rights, including interference by the CNE in trade union elections and the need to repeal legislation relating to the functioning of the CNE. Adding that they had supported the Worker members in cases concerning violations of the rights of workers’ organizations, the Employer members reiterated their dismay that the Worker members had refused to reciprocate this support in the present case. Noting such violations as the expropriation of land without due compensation, the harassment and closure of several enterprises, and the subjecting of employers in the food and agricultural sectors to discretionary practices by the authorities, they emphasized that the private sector itself was under threat, and without the private sector, tripartism, the most fundamental principle of the ILO, would not exist. Freedom of association was further threatened by the absence of civil liberties, especially freedom of speech, which was constrained by the Government’s control of the media.

With regard to the attacks and acts of vandalism on FEDECAMARAS headquarters that had occurred some years ago, they questioned whether those responsible for the acts would be brought to justice. The Government clearly did not understand the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, which required non-interference in the internal affairs of organizations. The Government’s interference in FEDECAMARAS’s affairs, moreover, also affected the very work of the Conference Committee: the travel of FEDECAMARAS representatives to the ILC had been restricted, and since 1997 complaints had been made regarding the composition of the Employers’ delegation to the ILC. And although since 2004 the Credentials Committee had recognized FEDECAMARAS as the most representative organization of employers, the Government had created parallel organizations to undermine FEDECAMARAS; such actions were contrary to the spirit of tripartism and freedom of association.

The case of Carlos Fernández, who was unable to return to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for fear of reprisal, demonstrated that civil liberties were not recognized in the country. They concluded by urging the Government to take immediate steps to comply with Article 3 of the Convention in all its aspects, to ensure that the necessary conditions for freedom of association were met, including the protection of the exercise of freedom of expression and all other civil liberties, and to promote genuine and free tripartite consultation and dialogue.

The Employer member of Argentina, in his capacity as Executive Vice-President of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and as Employer Vice-Chairperson of the Governing Body, said that there was no case more important for the Employer members than the one under discussion, not only in the name of freedom of association for employers, but also in the name of freedom of association for workers. He echoed the comments of the Worker members concerning the need to end the current dialogue of the deaf concerning social dialogue, for which technical cooperation was required. This case dealt with the guarantees set out in the Convention and the Employers would continue to insist on examining this case until their objective of dialogue was achieved. He questioned the expropriations carried out in the country, when often nationalization was not made for the public benefit. He considered it untrue to say that there was a battle between capital and labour. If that were the case, the ILO would have no reason for being. He concluded by suggesting that the Government request technical assistance from the Office.

A Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that, concerning union violence, the National Union of Workers (UNETE) was participating along with appropriate government agencies in various regions in building links with the investigating authorities to facilitate procedures in the courts, prosecutors’ offices and other bodies. She expressed concern that several acts of violence had been linked to transnational companies. She considered that employers initiated litigation to attack the right to association and the struggle for workers’ demands. The UNETE had insisted that employers complied with their labour obligations and considered that it was necessary to adopt a new labour law, but the employers had opposed that initiative. Employers had not been complying with the current Basic Labour Act in respect to employment stability, occupational safety and health, social security and freedom of association, among other issues. Workers had taken over abandoned businesses and strategic sectors of the economy and had been participating actively in their recovery, and were also demanding the Government to nationalize strategic businesses. The process of transformation was supported by most of the workers and that the Committee was discussing this case not because of non-compliance with international labour standards, but because of the establishment of a political model that was different from those in the rest of the world.

Another Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that her organization, the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), expressed concern at the violation of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, and at the murder of workers and union leaders without the proper punitive judicial action being taken. Workers suffered discrimination from official bodies when they submitted documentation to establish trade unions, on the pretext that they had failed to comply with procedural requirements established by the CNE. If a union did not style itself “Bolivarian”, it would encounter difficulties. The same occurred in the context of collective bargaining. Workers’ rights were subject to restrictions in all spheres, with moves being made to suppress any autonomous or independent trade union expression of the interests of the working class. An exhaustive review of the facts that had been the subject of complaints should be undertaken, and the Government and private enterprises should be called upon to build a country of reconciliation and hope based on dialogue and consensus.

Another Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated that the treatment of the present case amounted to a media campaign orchestrated by the groups behind the coup d’état in his country. In contrast with what was happening at the present time in the capitalist world, an ever increasing number of collective agreements were being signed in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the minimum wage was being increased and proper pensions were being provided.

An Employer member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed regret that, in his country, instead of talking about investment or employment, employers were obliged to concentrate on freedom of association, defending free enterprise and private property. He expressed concern at the fact that the representativeness of FEDECAMARAS was being called into question and that the Government was fostering parallel employers’ organizations that were not independent. He considered that Venezuelan entrepreneurs were being cornered through the violation of their fundamental civil rights and liberties. The production sector was being persecuted, condemning today’s society and future generations to dependence on a rentier economy, subject to the fluctuating prices of raw materials. The Government prided itself on the existence of social dialogue in the country, but it was a mere euphemism, as workers’ and employers’ organizations were subordinate to the Government. Harassment of employers had been brutal over the previous year. The first socialist plan approved by the Government provided that 70 per cent of GDP would be produced by public enterprises by 2013, which meant that the Government was trying to undermine the private sector even further. The Government had declared war on entrepreneurs and accused FEDECAMARAS of conspiracy. Groups of workers had occupied its regional offices. For some time, the Government had been confiscating many enterprises and lands. He observed that the private sector generated 80 per cent of income and 70 per cent of GDP. In conclusion, he urged the Government to promote social dialogue in order to build a fairer country with less poverty and more social inclusion.

Another Employer member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that there had been no progress in this case. The Government gave assurances in its reports that it was applying the Convention, but the reality was entirely the reverse. Ever more action was being taken against the most representative independent employers’ organizations, such as FEDECAMARAS and its member federations. With regard to the parallel organizations sponsored by the Government, she said that the Employers’ delegation to the ILC accredited by the Government that year was made up of one Employer delegate and an adviser from FEDECAMARAS, with the remaining seven technical advisers imposed by the Ministry of Labour. She added that in 2010 a new organization, the Bolivarian Council of Industrialists, Entrepreneurs and Micro-entrepreneurs (COBOIEM), claiming representative status, had been created. The Government had recently declared that, if necessary, it would expropriate more enterprises, because those already nationalized had recovered from bankruptcy. She said that demonstrations against FEDECAMARAS were not always peaceful. For some weeks, food enterprises had been occupied, resulting in the seizure of 120 tonnes of produce belonging to those enterprises.

A Government member of Argentina, speaking on behalf of the Governments of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean (GRULAC) countries, emphasized that the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had been submitting its reports concerning ratified Conventions. The report of the Committee of Experts referred to a draft reform of the Basic Labour Act, which took into account its previous requests, and invited FEDECAMARAS to hold meetings with the Government. GRULAC felt that the progress reflected in the report needed to be taken into account and hoped that the conclusions adopted by the Committee concerning this case would reflect the discussions, new information and arguments provided by the Government representative. GRULAC urged the Committee of Experts to confine itself to its mandate as entrusted by the Governing Body.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) referred to the situation of violence and the murder of union leaders and trade unionists in the country and indicated that it might be necessary to establish a special prosecutor within the Office of the Attorney-General to undertake a special investigation into these cases. There had recently been arrests of union leaders and trade unionists for exercising their legitimate trade union activities. There had also been reforms to laws restricting freedom of association. Nevertheless, despite the declarations of the Government, there had been no progress in reforming the Basic Labour Act due to the absence of political will. Nor was there social dialogue, as demonstrated by the unilateral adoption of the minimum wage by the President.

Another Government member of Argentina expressed agreement with the GRULAC statement and emphasized that the comments made in the report of the Committee of Experts showed that the measures taken by the Government had been adopted in a spirit of collaboration and compliance with the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies. She emphasized the importance of the measures adopted to strengthen social dialogue between the Government and the social partners. Finally, she reaffirmed the importance of continuing to make progress in the improvement of the working methods of the Conference Committee with a view to reinforcing the transparency and objectivity of its procedures.

A Worker member of Brazil noted that Latin America was experiencing a unique moment, as never before had workers had progressive governments all at the same time. Workers were benefiting from an improvement in respect of their wages, social rights, access to the universal public social security system and there was a participatory democracy. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was a beacon of these social gains. Wages had increased and many companies had been recovered by workers. This contrasted with the situation experienced in other countries, where workers were paying for the crisis created by rampant speculation. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s appearance on the list this year was the result of political manipulation by FEDECAMARAS. This kind of attitude would lead the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to denounce the Convention.

The Government member of Cuba supported the declaration of the member States of GRULAC and rejected the use of the supervisory mechanisms to discuss questions involving domestic politics that had come to light following the coup d’état in which the president of an employer’s organization had proclaimed himself president of the country. That case had been included in the list of cases to be examined by the Conference Committee as a result of pressure by the Employers’ group, and several organizations had little will to cooperate with the Government’s efforts to promote inclusive social dialogue with all of the employers and workers. It was a case of artificially presenting an image of a lack of consultation on the part of the Government. There was an attempt to maintain the privileges of a single organization that was not representative of the interests of most Venezuelans. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela must not appear again before that Committee. It was unacceptable that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had been included on the list year after year because of pressure and blackmail that undermined the image of the ILO supervisory machinery.

The Government member of Nicaragua endorsed the statement by GRULAC and expressed her delegation’s full solidarity with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. She considered that the country had been unjustly called to appear before the Committee in a clear case of the politicization and double standards that continued to undermine its operation by challenging the dialogue and transparency of its work. Significant progress had been made by the Government in ensuring compliance with the Convention. In this regard, emphasis should be placed on the high-level mission’s visit to the country and the process of consultations on the reform of the Basic Labour Act. The reform integrated all trade union federations and branch unions. Complaints against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela were manipulated and it was unfortunate that calls by many States to improve the working methods of this Commission were ignored.

The Government member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia endorsed the statement by GRULAC and welcomed the measures taken by the Government to resolve the situation, particularly the issuing of the Amnesty Decree of 31 December 2007, by which those who admitted having participated in the coup d’état had been pardoned.

The Committee should not examine the case further unless objective information emerged to indicate that the situation had genuinely deteriorated. The social progress achieved should be welcomed, in particular the fact that the number of trade unions registered had doubled over the previous ten years, which showed that there were no complex or difficult procedures involved in exercising the right to freedom of association. He expressed concern at the exaggerated reactions being made to the statements of some social partners, who were pursuing political aims without objective evidence. He expressed interest in the sustained progress made in terms of wide social dialogue with all partners, without exception, which had been recognized by the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member of the United States said that the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and the United States labour movement respected the democratic self-determination of the Venezuelan people. However, the Committee should not turn a blind eye to the serious issues of non-compliance with the Convention. The Committee of Experts had concluded that the issues were definitely serious. It had expressed regret that for over nine years the Bill to reform the Basic Labour Act had still not been adopted by the National Assembly and the necessary constitutional measures to stop the CNE from interfering in internal union elections had not been taken. It had expressed concern over the provisions of the Penal Code and other legislation which were used to criminalize the right to strike and other freedom of association rights. It had expressed deep concern over the high number of assassinations of trade union leaders and members, the apparent impunity of those responsible and the persistence of such deaths in the cement and construction sectors. The constitutional power of the CNE to regulate and interfere in Venezuelan union elections meant that representative status was often suspended, making it legally impossible for the organization to negotiate a new collective agreement. This had occurred in the public education sector, where six teaching federations had been excluded from negotiations with the Education and Labour Ministries on 8 May 2009 because the CNE had rejected the validity of their internal election process and demanded irrelevant financial reporting.

With regard to violence and impunity in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, it had been reported by the respected human rights organization PROVEA that over 46 reported killings of trade union leaders and activists had taken place from October 2008 to September 2009, and that over 88 workers, including 16 union leaders, had been affected by all forms of physical violence during this period. He expressed the hope that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela would be able to demonstrate convincing progress to the Conference Committee next year by putting an end to state interference with internal union governance, demonstrating genuine respect for the right to strike and collective bargaining and terminating violence and impunity. Venezuelan workers deserved no less.

The Employer member of Colombia indicated that in the report of the Committee of Experts, the ITUC and the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) appeared to raise serious concerns relating to compliance with the Convention in view of the murder of trade union leaders and the failure to respect human rights. He recalled that in March 2010 the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) had examined Case No. 2254 and had drawn the attention of the Governing Body to the extreme seriousness and urgent nature of the case. In its latest examination of the case, the CFA had deeply deplored the fact that: the Government had ignored its recommendations concerning the need to establish a high-level joint committee with the assistance of the ILO; a forum for social dialogue had not been established; ILO assistance had not been requested; the tripartite commission on minimum wages had not been convened; and there had been no consultation on the new legislation to be adopted. He emphasized the importance of complying with these requirements in accordance with Convention No. 26 and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), both of which had also been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. He added that the country had been requested to revoke the warrant for the arrest of former FEDECAMARAS President Carlos Fernández so that he could return to the country without risk of reprisals. The CFA had also requested the Government to return the “La Bureche” farm property to the employers’ leader Eduardo Gómez Sigala without delay and to compensate him fully for all losses sustained as a result of the intervention by the authorities in the course of the property seizure. With regard to the indication by the Government that two persons had been apprehended for the bomb attack against the headquarters of FEDECAMARAS, he called, in the same way as the CFA, for an independent investigation and the imposition of severe penalties on the perpetrators. In conclusion, he expressed concern at the references to the names of enterprises during the present discussion, which was a practice that should be avoided as it was both inappropriate and unjustified.

The Government member of Brazil said that his Government supported dialogue and cooperation. There could be no progress without cooperation. With regard to this case, social dialogue should be strengthened, without overlooking the need to investigate serious cases. In order to build a better future based on the participation of the population and respect for democracy, it was necessary to overcome the political disputes of the past. He encouraged the Government to strengthen dialogue with trade unions and employers’ organizations. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had demonstrated its unequivocal commitment to the ILO and its supervisory system, and its efforts to combat poverty, promote education and social inclusion should be recognized.

The Government member of Algeria said that he had listened with attention to the statement of the Government representative who had pointed out the progress made by his country with regard to social dialogue and referred to the readiness of his Government to work with the social partners in order to achieve better implementation of the fundamental principles on which tripartism was based. Note should be taken of the hope expressed by the Employer and Worker members in respect of the speedy completion of the Basic Labour Act reform process and bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention so as to give to the exercise of trade union rights and their corollaries, the right to strike and social dialogue, real and genuine meaning. The Government’s willingness to take into consideration the Committee of Experts’ observations and recommendations, the increase in the number of trade unions and of collective agreements represented tangible progress and augured well for the development of the social situation. He expressed the hope that the Committee would spare no effort in encouraging the Government to persevere and would provide the necessary technical assistance to overcome any difficulties encountered in practice.

The Worker member of Argentina indicated that the intentions of the Employer members in the examination of this present case were political in nature. He stressed that nowadays there were countries in the Latin American continent such as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela where workers’ rights began to be respected, with a greater social protection. In 1998, 80 per cent of the Venezuelan population had suffered from extreme poverty in spite of its inexhaustible oil wealth, and had been denied the most fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of association. Now, there were millions of families who had access to food, health coverage, education, work and could set up their own trade unions. Although there might be cases in which the Convention was not observed, they needed to be assessed within the overall context of the country’s deep social transformation.

Another Worker member of Brazil referred to the serious violations of freedom of association and the independence and autonomy of trade unions as well as to the obvious lack of sustainable tripartite social dialogue. He also spoke of the murders of trade union leaders in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. He stated that in 2006 he had been at the World Social Forum held in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and could confirm the climate of intimidation enforced by groups favourable to the Government, which had attempted to hinder participation in that forum of the Secretary-General of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) who had been there to denounce the violations committed in his country to the international trade union leaders. The report of the Committee of Experts revealed that the situation had worsened: there was more repression, criminalization of social movements and domination by the Government of trade union organizations. The Government needed to accept ILO technical assistance to facilitate the building of sustainable and lasting tripartite social dialogue that included all civil society organizations.

The Government member of Belarus welcomed the steps taken by the Government to formulate social and economic policy to reduce unemployment, improve the standard of living and ensure protection of workers during times of financial and economic crisis. He noted with satisfaction the consultations with the social partners on the Basic Labour Act, which, in his opinion, would be an additional and important instrument to the existing legislation protecting workers’ rights and interests enshrined in the Constitution of the country. He considered that it was necessary to take into account the information provided by the Government and to note in a positive way the measures taken to implement the Convention. He also considered that the ILO should examine on a bilateral basis the possibility of providing technical assistance to the Government.

The Government member of Viet Nam noted the statements made by the Government representative and other speakers, as well as the progress achieved, which included an increased number of registered trade unions and collective agreements concluded and the development of new legislation that took into account the recommendations of the social partners and the ILO. The new legislation would support social dialogue and tripartism and would facilitate further improvements in implementing the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. Close cooperation with the ILO would play an important role in this regard.

The Employer member of Brazil expressed his solidarity with his Venezuelan colleagues in view of the violations suffered and also his concern at the consequences that any erroneous conclusions in this case might have for the institutional foundations of the Organization. This case was characterized by serious violations of the fundamental rights of employers and the ILO should apply the supervisory mechanisms rigorously to ensure that the Venezuelan Government respected those rights. If not, he feared for the future of tripartism as one of the pillars of the ILO. In a global context where frontiers no longer separated peoples and countries, it was even more important for the ILO to condemn the violations occurring in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in order to avoid the risk of such practices spreading.

The Government member of the Russian Federation drew attention to the fact that the situation with regard to freedom of association in the country had improved considerably over the years. Thousands of trade union organizations had been registered, the process of collective bargaining was active and the social partners were producing a new labour law with the assistance of the ILO. The Government was improving living standards and the protection of workers in the country. He noted that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, like any other country, had shortcomings in its application of the Convention and called for the enhancement of cooperation between the Government and the ILO in order to resolve all outstanding issues.

The Worker member of Cuba expressed surprise that the Committee of Experts had considered the various measures implemented by the Government to be insufficient in promoting social dialogue and recommended taking these measures into account in the interests of not prolonging that case. He considered that the Government had achieved progress unprecedented in the history of labour of the country compared to what had occurred in the 1990s. He emphasized the increase in the minimum salary above the inflation rate, the fact that the country had the highest minimum wage in the whole of Latin America and that, in addition, it had a low rate of unemployment. He declared that the country was maintaining continuous social dialogue and that that case was being discussed because of political considerations. He urged that the conclusions be fair and depoliticized in benefit of the workers of the country.

The Government member of Ecuador emphasized the positive measures adopted by the Government through the Amnesty Decree of 31 December 2007, which provided elements to be taken into consideration so that the case did not continue to be discussed by this Committee. He declared that the Government had made significant efforts to implement the ILO’s recommendations and that those efforts should be assessed in a fair and objective manner. He urged all parties and social partners to reach a clear and constructive agreement in the interests of labour, peace and harmony so as to allow the development of the labour sector and growth of production and business in the country. He declared that technical assistance should be provided so that the country could continue implementing the ILO’s recommendations adequately.

Another observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) agreed with and supported the statement made by the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV). He stated that the Government constantly and crudely harassed workers in the health sector through verbal aggression, and that it did not supply hospitals. He described the Government’s refusal to sit down with the Venezuelan Medical Federation (FMV) to negotiate, since collective agreements had been frozen in 2003. He stated that since then the Government had replaced negotiation of wages with unfair decrees fixing austere wages that did not allow the exercise of that profession with dignity. In his opinion, that was in detriment to the health and the right of professionals to decent and responsible work.

The Government member of China recalled that the Government was drafting new labour legislation and that it had considered the suggestions of the social partners and the ILO to provide legal guarantees to secure the right of freedom of association and bargaining rights between workers and employers, and to promote social dialogue and social progress. The Conference Committee should recognize the sincerity of the Government in its cooperation with the social partners and the ILO and the concrete measures it had adopted. The ILO should also continue its commitment and cooperation with the Government to further promote the effective implementation of the Convention.

The Government member of Spain declared his confidence in the responsible and cooperative application of the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies with the understanding that economic and social stability in any country was viable only through a serious agreement between the authorities, employers and workers to build an innovative system that contributed to growth, created wealth and redistributed wealth through social cohesion. He noted the draft reform of the Basic Labour Act and expressed confidence that full consensus of all the participants in the social dialogue could be reached. In addition, he expressed his desire to see a climate of social understanding and a legislative framework that guaranteed exercise of freedom of association and that permitted the sanctioning of behaviour that restricted the exercise of that right.

The Worker member of Niger stated that the Committee’s stance was biased as it was targeting countries with progressive regimes in the interest of international capitalism. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela did not deserve to appear in the list of individual cases and the politicization of the work of the Committee was dangerous. It was important to remain independent from lobbies that worked against governments which fought for the social progress of their citizens, as was the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic appreciated the efforts made by the Government to fulfil its role by doing its utmost to meet its obligations. He fully supported the measures taken by the Government and the views it had expressed, which the Conference Committee should consider when it prepared the final conclusions. The Government should enjoy full support to continue its efforts to give full effect to the requirements of the Convention and technical assistance could be useful in this regard.

The Employer member of Guatemala clarified the reasons why the case was before the Committee, recalling that the Committee of Experts had referred to the situation as “extremely serious”, including cases of the seizure of the assets of enterprises affiliated with FEDECAMARAS, the occupation of lands and interference in enterprises. He considered that the fact that the Government had not provided information to the Committee of Experts should be taken as acceptance of the allegations. According to information from employers, the Government, not the private sector, was in control of the food production sector. In May, a food enterprise had been expropriated, and the threat of expropriation for whatever reason was already haunting the biggest group within the country’s food industry. He recalled that FEDECAMARAS had ceaselessly called upon the Government to restore social dialogue and tripartite consultation, as yet to no avail. Many acts had been passed without the compulsory consultation with the social partners. With regard to fixing minimum wages, there had been no tripartite consultation for nine years.

The Worker member of Paraguay said that the trade union movement was a point of reference in Latin American countries. He cited several landmarks in the 1990s where he saw the workers as having lost some of their acquired rights, as for example when the IMF decreed a rise in the price of goods and services. The 1999 Constitution had granted the workers new rights, including wages, hours of work, the right to strike and freedom of association. He regretted that the employers’ sector had closed down enterprises producing basic foodstuffs that were no longer profitable and left thousands of workers unemployed, and it was the Government that had had to rescue the basic food enterprises, with the participation of the workers in their management.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that his Government followed with great interest the developments in this case. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had been influential in ILO activities recently. By ensuring the coordination of the GRULAC countries, it had demonstrated an unyielding effort in promoting ILO affairs, including the cause of social dialogue, freedom of association and collective bargaining most efficiently and in good faith. The constant progress made in the registration of trade unions and the increasing number of collective agreements signed between employers and workers was an outstanding token of the determination of the Government to fulfil its obligations arising from the Convention. In view of the ongoing efforts and the Government’s timely response to the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies, he hoped that the Committee would consider positively the above developments in its conclusions.

An observer representing the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) recalled the origins of the Convention, the circumstances that led to its adoption and the WFTU’s efforts and commitment to defend the provisions it contained. Year after year, the same old political arguments had been trotted out to drag this case before the Committee. Given the social nature of the Government, which refused to give in to the neo-liberal policies of the IMF, the World Bank and the powers of the North, the workers had made significant advances. The case should be treated calmly and impartially and due credit should be given to the process of change from which the country’s workers were benefiting.

The Government member of El Salvador endorsed the statement by GRULAC. He highlighted the progress achieved, as illustrated by the increase in trade union registration and the signing of collective agreements. He said that transparency and equanimity were essential elements in maintaining the technical and moral credibility of the supervisory bodies.

An observer representing the Trades Union International of Workers in the Building, Wood, Building Materials and Allied Industries (UITBB) stressed the considerable advances that the Venezuelan working class had achieved. After three decades of a stagnant trade union bureaucracy under which the workers had no opportunity to hold democratic elections, the rank-and-file workers were now the lynchpin of the union organizations. Trade unions now held regular elections in accordance with their by-laws, for example every two or three years, and referendums were organized so that the trade unions were aware of the needs of their members. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela did not suffer from the climate of anti-union violence that was prevalent in Colombia. Moreover, a number of enterprises were being nationalized to guarantee the Venezuelan people’s access to health and education.

The Employer member of Spain stated that in his intervention he would discuss neither the shortcomings and restrictions in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in contravention of the Convention, nor the inexistence of a broad, inclusive and participatory social dialogue, nor the acts of violence, threats, duress and kidnappings exercised against trade union members and against the most representative employer’s association in the country. He recalled the efforts, both personal and financial, that had been necessary to implement a business project and the risks taken on by businessmen. He declared that it was unacceptable to intimidate or attack the property of those who sought to organize or form an association in independent defence of their interests and rights or that expressed opinions different from those of the Government, which was contrary to the Convention. He stated that false criteria of public interest could not be used to justify expropriations or arbitrary closings, such as those that had occurred with the media, the agrarian sector or in the food sector, which contravened the spirit and letter of the Convention.

The Government representative rejected the claims made by the Worker members regarding information that should have been provided to the Committee of Experts, as all the required information had been sent by 8 December 2009. Furthermore, he stated that the Basic Labour Act could be amended, but only to restore workers’ rights, not diminish them. He added that any union leader could be re-elected.

With regard to the comments made by the Worker member of the United States, he said that the deaths that had occurred were appalling and that a commission had been established to follow up those cases. The commission was a valid and transparent mechanism.

He maintained that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela enjoyed more social dialogue now than in the previous 20 years, but that the Employers considered that dialogue did not exist, because FEDECAMARAS was not the exclusive participant in such dialogue. Moreover, FEDECAMARAS was not open to the opinions of others. He suggested that the Office should offer assistance to FEDECAMARAS so that it could learn how to engage in dialogue. He also urged the Employers to stop using the ILO for their own internal political wrangling.

He asserted that the Government was not threatening private property, but rather that it wished to extend ownership to all Venezuelans. He explained that the expropriation of estates had been carried out because the lands had not been used for many years and ownership had been demonstrated. He said that there was indeed a war between capital and labour, and that labour reforms would not be undertaken to save capital, as was occurring in other countries to the detriment of workers’ rights.

He emphasized that the Government would hold dialogue with any actor, but not under blackmail or threat, and that it had built real social dialogue involving all parties to defend the rights and interests of all workers.

The Worker members requested the Government to reply in a satisfactory manner to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the observations made by the workers’ and employers’ organizations with respect to human rights violations. Conflicting views had been expressed during the discussion, and it would therefore be necessary for the Government to respond to the questions raised so as to enable the Committee of Experts to examine the situation. The dialogue of the deaf that was taking place between the Committee of Experts and the Government on the legislative matters raised in the observation needed to be brought to an end. The Government should be offered technical assistance so that the Office could proceed to examine the controversial provisions.

The Employer members noted that even though this might appear an interesting socio-economic discussion, it was not really connected with the application of the Convention. Every day, the conditions in respect of freedom of association deteriorated for both workers and employers. The comments of the Committee of Experts and the discussions in the Conference Committee had confirmed their concerns. The Government had not addressed two main fundamental issues: first, the need to ensure respect for civil liberties, freedom of speech and freedom of movement as a prerequisite for freedom of association; and second, 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 in democratic and authoritarian societies alike.

The Committee’s conclusions should emphasize that civil liberties, freedom of speech and freedom of movement were essential prerequisites for freedom of association. These conditions did not exist in the country and interference by the Government in the internal affairs of FEDECAMARAS continued. The Employer members recalled the repeated attacks on FEDECAMARAS leaders such as: Vicente Brito in 2001, Rafael Marcial Garmendia in 2003, Genaro Méndez in 2007 and recently Eduardo Gómez Sígala. The Conference Committee should recognize that scant attempts to comply and implement the Convention had been made by the Government in terms of freedom of association, particularly concerning the employer aspects of the case. As a minimum, a high-level tripartite mission should be sent to the country to examine the situation and provide technical assistance. It was regrettable that the Government had ignored the recommendations made by the different ILO supervisory bodies for more than ten years and the recommendations made by two direct contact missions prior to 2005 and one high-level technical assistance mission. They suggested establishing a national, high-level joint committee in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with the technical assistance of the ILO to examine all the allegations presented to the Committee on Freedom of Association in order to resolve problems through direct dialogue. The Employer members concluded by requesting that the conclusions of previous years be reflected in this year’s conclusions as well.

The Government representative regretted that the conclusions of the Conference Committee did not reflect the discussion held the previous day. He indicated that he could not accept the conclusions for three reasons: firstly, because the conclusions erroneously referred to ten years as the period that the law had not been amended; secondly, because measures had in fact been taken against the acts of violence; and thirdly, because the Government did not accept at any level the certitude that FEDECAMARAS was the most representative employers’ organization. Finally, he questioned the inclusion of a high-level commission in view of the fact that no Government member nor the Worker members had requested it, and that only the Employer members considered it necessary.

The Employer members recalled that the Employer spokesperson did not represent only one voice, but spoke on behalf of one third of the Committee’s membership. They also indicated that the last paragraph of the conclusions afforded the Government a clear opportunity to provide evidence directly to the ILO to address any misconceptions. They noted that the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which represented only 4 per cent of all cases, was the most important case to the Employer members and they therefore expected the support of the Worker members on their proposal for a high-level tripartite mission in full recognition that there were significant worker and human rights considerations, as well as employer rights to freedom of association.

The Worker members stated that they did not want to re-open the debate since the conclusions had now been adopted. They acknowledged that most cases were shortlisted on their request, but recalled that the groups had always proceeded on the basis of a compromise that had become year after year increasingly difficult to reach. It was never good to veto the inclusion of cases on the list, yet the United Kingdom and Colombia had not been included on the list nor had a special paragraph been accepted in a very serious case.

The representative of the Secretary-General reminded the Committee members of the need to respect rules of decorum and the principles of free speech and parliamentary process. She indicated that the Office would verify and eventually correct any factual error that might have appeared in the conclusions, as implied by the Government representative.

A Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela rejected the conclusions as they did not objectively reflect the discussion. She questioned the procedures and methods of the Committee and announced that she would vote against the report when it came up for adoption.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee also noted the cases currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association submitted by workers’ and employers’ organizations which were categorized as extremely serious and urgent.

The Committee observed that the Committee of Experts had noted allegations to which the Government had not replied concerning serious violations of civil liberties, including acts of violence against numerous employers’ leaders and trade unionists, the criminalization of legitimate trade union activities and a worrying situation of impunity. The Committee also noted that the Committee of Experts had referred to serious deficiencies in social dialogue and a delay for many years in the processing of the legislative reforms requested by the Committee of Experts on very important issues, such as the intervention of the National Electoral Council in trade union elections and various restrictions on the rights of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing, the right of organizations to draw up their constitutions and to elect their leaders in full freedom without interference by the authorities and the right to organize their activities.

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative that the reform of the Basic Labour Act had not been completed as the process of consultation was being continued by the National Assembly and the provisions criticized were not applied and did not imply a restriction on the exercise of trade union rights. He had added that the National Electoral Council provided technical advice on the holding of elections to trade union organizations which requested it voluntarily. With regard to the cases of murdered trade union leaders, he had indicated that information had been provided to the Office in a communication dated 8 December 2009 indicating that the cases were under investigation and that persons had been detained already. Those responsible for the attack on the FEDECAMARAS headquarters had been captured. He had emphasized the Government’s commitment to combat any form of impunity. He had added that recourse to expropriation was not a matter of political retaliation and that the Government respected private property. With reference to tripartite dialogue, he considered that it was FEDECAMARAS who had sought to exclude other employers’ organizations and had emphasized the negative outcome of the work of the National Tripartite Commission in the past; nevertheless, the Government supported social dialogue that was inclusive, not exclusive. Finally, the Committee noted that the Government had referred to a substantial increase in the number of trade unions and collective agreements.

The Committee reiterated the full text of its conclusions adopted the previous year, including the recommendations of the Credentials Committee.

The Committee noted with deep concern the allegations of acts of violence against employers’ leaders and trade unionists, the criminalization of legitimate trade union activities and other restrictions on the civil liberties necessary for the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee deplored the fact that the attacks on the FEDECAMARAS headquarters had not yet resulted in the conviction of those responsible, as well as the situation of impunity. The Committee emphasized the climate of intimidation suffered by employers’ leaders at the personal level – including the expropriation of lands and measures against their property – and against FEDECAMARAS headquarters.

The Committee recalled that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations could only be enjoyed in a climate of absolute respect for human rights, without exception. Recalling that trade union rights and freedom of association could not exist in the absence of full guarantees of civil liberties, in particular of freedom of speech, assembly and movement, the Committee emphasized that respect for these rights implied that both workers’ and employers’ organizations had to be able to exercise their activities in a climate free of fear, threats and violence and that the ultimate responsibility in that regard lay with the Government. The Committee observed in that respect that the employers in FEDECAMARAS felt intimidated by the actions and verbal aggression of the authorities.

The Committee observed with deep concern that the Committee of Experts had for years been requesting legislative amendments to bring the law into conformity with the Convention and that the Bill submitted to the Legislative Assembly several years previously had not been adopted. The Committee once again urged the Government to take measures to accelerate the procedures in the Legislative Assembly for the draft reform of the Basic Labour Act and to ensure that the National Electoral Council did not interfere in trade union elections. The Committee requested the Government not to interfere in the affairs of workers’ and employers’ organizations.

With regard to social dialogue on questions relating to the rights of workers and employers and their organizations, the Committee, observing that no formal bodies for tripartite social dialogue yet existed, once again requested the Government to intensify social dialogue with the representative organizations of workers and employers, including FEDECAMARAS, and to ensure that the latter organization was not marginalized in respect of all matters of concern to it.

The Committee regretted to note that, year after year, the Government had not taken steps to implement the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association, as well as the conclusions of this Committee.

The Committee requested the Government to avail itself of and accept an ILO high-level technical assistance mission from the International Labour Standards Department of the International Labour Office as a follow-up mission to the 2006 high-level mission on the outstanding questions. The Committee requested the Government to provide a full report in 2010 to the Committee of Experts and firmly hoped that tangible progress would be achieved in the application of the Convention in law and practice.

The Government representative regretted that the conclusions of the Conference Committee did not reflect the discussion held the previous day. He indicated that he could not accept the conclusions for three reasons: firstly, because the conclusions erroneously referred to ten years as the period that the law had not been amended; secondly, because measures had in fact been taken against the acts of violence; and thirdly, because the Government did not accept at any level the certitude that FEDECAMARAS was the most representative employers’ organization. Finally, he questioned the inclusion of a high-level commission in view of the fact that no Government member nor the Worker members had requested it, and that only the Employer members considered it necessary.

The Employer members recalled that the Employer spokesperson did not represent only one voice, but spoke on behalf of one third of the Committee’s membership. They also indicated that the last paragraph of the conclusions afforded the Government a clear opportunity to provide evidence directly to the ILO to address any misconceptions. They noted that the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which represented only 4 per cent of all cases, was the most important case to the Employer members and they therefore expected the support of the Worker members on their proposal for a high-level tripartite mission in full recognition that there were significant worker and human rights considerations, as well as employer rights to freedom of association.

The Worker members stated that they did not want to re-open the debate since the conclusions had now been adopted. They acknowledged that most cases were shortlisted on their request, but recalled that the groups had always proceeded on the basis of a compromise that had become year after year increasingly difficult to reach. It was never good to veto the inclusion of cases on the list, yet the United Kingdom and Colombia had not been included on the list nor had a special paragraph been accepted in a very serious case.

The representative of the Secretary-General reminded the Committee members of the need to respect rules of decorum and the principles of free speech and parliamentary process. She indicated that the Office would verify and eventually correct any factual error that might have appeared in the conclusions, as implied by the Government representative.

A Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela rejected the conclusions as they did not objectively reflect the discussion. She questioned the procedures and methods of the Committee and announced that she would vote against the report when it came up for adoption.