Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2016, Publication: 105th ILC session (2016)

Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122) - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (Ratification: 1982)



A Government representative reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to observance of the ratified ILO Conventions. He emphasized that it was the first time that the Government had been called before the Committee with regard to Convention No. 122. The Government had already provided the requested information relating to compliance with the Convention by means of the report submitted in 2015, which gave details of a sustained employment policy in favour of the Venezuelan people since 1999. There was no justification for the Government’s inclusion in the list of cases to be examined by the Conference Committee, taking account of the fact that the Committee of Experts had made no reference to non-observance but had noted and recorded the information which had been duly supplied by the Government and, on certain aspects, had merely requested examples or additional information. The Conference Committee should not be occupying itself with examples and mere requests for information, especially when there had been no reference to non-observance on the part of the Government. The regular mechanism for providing additional information and examples relating to the application of the Convention would be through the next report, which would be presented in due course. He noted with regret that the justification for inclusion of his country had a political undercurrent and involved the satisfaction of particular interests, which was contrary to the objectivity, transparency and impartiality that should prevail in all ILO bodies. Those who had exerted pressure to have the Government appear before the Committee were not interested in what the Government had to say about the Convention; their aim was to challenge a Government that was promoting social integration and discarding systems that exploited labour. Even though some employers continued to insist on the Government appearing before the Committee, adding complaints and cases and misusing the ILO supervisory mechanisms, they would not succeed in making the Government favour private, capitalist and individual interests to the detriment of the working class and the Venezuelan people. Moreover, the Committee of Experts’ report contained allegations and information presented by some employers concerning a supposed lack of employment plans and figures were mentioned that the Government did not accept. In order to avoid distracting from its work, the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts should ask those who were alleging non-compliance with the Convention to provide details, data and evidence, so that objectivity and transparency would be achieved and the right of defence of governments summoned to appear before the Committee would not be violated. Even so, the Government representative said that he would provide updated information on the country’s employment policy. In 1999, when the Venezuelan Government took office, the unemployment rate in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was 10.6 per cent. By the end of 2015, that rate had fallen to 6.7 per cent as a result of the employment policies. From 2003 onwards, after the coup d’état and the sabotage of the petroleum industry spearheaded by a group of employers in the country, the informal economy decreased from 52.4 per cent to 40.1 per cent by December 2015 as a result of the intense employment policy. Three out of every four jobs created had been in the formal sector of the economy. In 2000, there had been over 4 million workers in the formal sector; by 2015, the figure had risen to more than 7.8 million workers. In other words, between 1999 and 2015 the labour market had incorporated more than 3 million workers in the formal sector, which represented about 60 per cent of the employed population. With regard to youth employment, the Government was promoting integration not only in social and educational terms but also in employment and socio-productive terms. The youth unemployment rate fell from 23.7 per cent in 2002 to 9.1 per cent in 2015. Six out of every ten unemployed young people were studying; in other words, the majority of unemployed young people in the country were students and the Government had increased the number of young persons who were studying to 71.1 per cent. Furthermore, there were programmes that implemented a policy of occupational training for young persons. The National Institute of Socialist Training and Education (INCES) provided ongoing training throughout the country for young persons with a view to placing them in employment. In 2016, some 50,000 young people would be trained in various occupational fields. Moreover, under the “Knowledge and Work” mission, over 1 million citizens had been integrated into the economic and productive system of the nation. All these results and the reported figures were the result of the employment and social integration policies implemented in the country, reinforcing the national productive sector with increased levels of formal occupation and the creation of new jobs.

Furthermore, regarding the specific examples requested in the Committee of Experts’ report concerning the participation of the social partners, it should be emphasized that, as the ILO had already been informed, in early 2016 the National Council for the Productive Economy (CNEP), a forum for dialogue and consultation, had been established for the purpose of analysing, discussing and proposing guidelines for the development of the country’s economy and the creation of new jobs to overcome the drop in oil prices and the current economic situation. Participants in the CNEP included representatives of the Government, workers and employers, in particular the representatives of public and private enterprises and chambers and federations, which had expressed satisfaction at the initiatives taken. The CNEP was concerned with developing strategic economic areas in the country. Through this important forum for dialogue and consultation, over 90 per cent of employers and representatives of the public and private sector in the country were maintaining an ongoing dialogue with the Government with a view to increasing the production of goods and services, boosting the economy and creating jobs. To quote some figures, in the context of the 15 strategic areas of the CNEP, over 300 working meetings had been held, and more than 3,800 economic and productive entities had participated; hundreds of proposals had been put forward, and work was being done to implement over 150 of those proposals connected with the country’s economic and productive development. In conclusion, the Government representative observed that the sole purpose of the Government’s appearance before the Conference Committee was to deal with matters relating to Convention No. 122. The discussion should be limited to the subjects covered by the Convention and the rules of procedure that applied to the Committee should be observed. If topics connected with other Conventions or separate matters pending before the ILO supervisory bodies were raised, that would be a breach of the rules of procedure.

The Worker members emphasized that this was a difficult period in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s history. The Government was faced with major challenges, particularly with regard to economic recovery. It was important to underscore that, whatever their political convictions, workers and their families were facing a crisis for which they were not responsible. While it was true that the current political stalemate was to the advantage of certain groups, it nevertheless could not be denied that ordinary citizens were the most affected by a clear deterioration in their living standards. In these difficult times, the country’s entire political class, comprising all parties, should rise to the occasion and resist the temptation to use this discontent to its own political advantage. It was therefore important that all parties sought solutions through dialogue and consensus rather than attempting to stir up social unrest and violence. For many years, the country had been aiming to establish constructive social dialogue as one of the pillars in efforts to reach consensus, and to place all diverse opinions at the centre of the debate. The ILO tripartite structure provided an excellent means of facilitating social dialogue and achieving consensus. With regard to the application of the Convention, according to information from the Government, the rate of unemployment fell from 10.6 per cent in 1999 to 5.5 per cent in 2015. The Government also highlighted that its employment policy was fully aligned with actions aimed at reducing poverty, and set out a strategy for the provision of public services relating to education and health care. However, from an economic viewpoint, hyperinflation, food shortages, and deindustrialization had negative repercussions on standards of living and job quality. According to the Central Bank of Venezuela, annual inflation had risen to 141.5 per cent in 2015, a figure which largely reflected food prices. Overall, the latter had risen by 254.3 per cent in 2015, a rate which exceeded wage increases in every respect. The rise in the prices of basic foodstuffs particularly affected poor workers, who in general allocated a larger portion of their income to them. With regard to deindustrialization, in the long term, the resolution to the economic challenges would be found by diversifying the economy so that it was no longer based solely on oil production. The oil sector alone was considered to represent 96 per cent of the total export earnings of the country, a figure which further highlighted the need to incorporate macroeconomic planning into employment policies. It was still difficult to know, however, whether such an approach would be envisaged by the Government with a view to achieving the objectives of the Convention.

Turning to the issue of workers employed in the informal economy, according to official figures, 41.2 per cent of the active population worked in the informal sector in January 2015, which represented a fall of 10.4 per cent in comparison with the same period 11 years earlier; and between 2000 and 2014, a third of new jobs created were in the formal sector. This question was especially relevant in the context of the adoption of the Transition from the Informal to the Formal Economy Recommendation, 2015 (No. 204). One of the core elements of this Recommendation related to the implementation of a comprehensive employment policy framework aimed at helping low-income households to escape poverty, such as minimum wages, social protection schemes including cash transfers, public employment programmes, and enhanced outreach and delivery of employment services to those in the informal economy. While noting the reduction in the number of workers in the informal sector, the Worker members considered that much remained to be done and called on the Government to apply the provisions of this new labour standard. With respect to youth employment, the rate of unemployment published by the National Statistics Institute in the second half of 2013 was 12.8 per cent. However, according to figures provided by the ILO in 2012, the total number of young persons in a situation of difficulty owing to poverty rose to 500,000, 157,000 of whom lived in households receiving an income only just sufficient to cover the cost of a basic food basket. Furthermore, an imbalance had been noted in the proportion of young people within the active population in relation with incomes. Thus, in 2012, the active youth unemployment rate for those with middle and high incomes was 28.8 per cent, but it reached 50.7 per cent for those with a low income. In addition, even when they were lucky enough to have formal employment, young Venezuelan workers were generally employed in the service industry, mainly in the retail trade, a sector with low productivity and where employment was often precarious. Article 3 of the Convention clearly set forth that “representatives of employers and workers, shall be consulted concerning employment policies, with a view to taking fully into account their experience and views and securing their full cooperation in formulating and enlisting support for such policies”. The issue of the lack of social dialogue had been brought to the attention of the Conference Committee on many occasions. It should be emphasized that the economic crisis currently faced by the country could only be overcome if the social partners were involved in decisions relating to employment policy. For this reason, the Worker members had welcomed the agreement concluded at the 326th Session of the Governing Body (March 2016), in which the Government had committed to keeping to a strict schedule of meetings with employer and worker representatives. Lastly, the Worker members expressed the hope that this process would result in tangible progress, in accordance with the objectives set in the agreed programme of work, to ensure that ILO standards were applied and monitored with the participation of employers and workers.

The Employer members welcomed the presence of the Minister representing the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the information that the Conference Committee had received. It was the first time that the Government was responding to observations on the Convention that had been addressed to it on 14 occasions in the past. It was a governance Convention, and not a fundamental Convention, but it was one of the four major Conventions dealing with active employment policy that is conducive to economic and social well-being. Hence the exceptional importance of discussing the matter. Contrary to the Government’s assertion, the decision to include the case was not taken on a mere whim. The reason for doing so was all too clear. In view of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s social indicators, there is a need for the Committee to call on the Government to engage in social dialogue. When the Employer members considered a case, they did not do so with any private interests in mind but quite independently of the ideological or political line followed by the Government. It was the duty of the Conference Committee to assess outcomes irrespective of any such ideological or political viewpoint, and for that, it was important to understand exactly what the Convention was dealing with. The Convention took its inspiration from the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia, notably from the need to further, among the nations of the world programmes that could achieve full employment, the raising of standards of living and, for the workers, the guarantee of a decent wage. The Declaration of Philadelphia itself emphasized that it was incumbent on the ILO to examine and consider the effect of economic and social policies on the employment policy pursued by States. The Convention followed different approaches. Articles 1 and 2 referred to the need to establish employment policies that stimulated growth and development. The Convention also provided for raising living standards and resolving employment problems with a view to attaining full, productive and freely chosen employment. Article 2 referred to the importance of reviewing the measures adopted regularly so as to coordinate economic and social policies. Finally, the Convention made a particular point of social dialogue and, notably in the area of employment, called for worker and employer representatives to be fully consulted in an effort to reach consensus.

The country’s macroeconomic and labour statistics were cause for considerable concern. In 2014 the economy declined by 4.3 per cent; in 2015 by 5.6 per cent; in 2016 it was expected to drop by a further 8 per cent. To reverse the trend, counter-cyclical measures were needed – in terms of fiscal, credit and macroeconomic policies, for example. The Employer members wished to have access to more information on the counter-cyclical measures that the Government had adopted or was planning to adopt. Per capita income was currently around US$202 a year, far below the international indicators measuring the poverty level. The fiscal deficit was 20 per cent and inflation was 337.4 per cent – the highest in the world. The inevitable outcome of inflation was reflected in the steady growth of poverty. According to an independent survey of living conditions (there being no official statistics), current trends pointed to an unusual increase in poverty. Such a situation discouraged investment and had a direct impact on employment generation. There was no incentive to counter the variations in the inflation rate. Recruitment was at a standstill and that, as had happened in recent years, tended to encourage informal activities. Without a sufficient influx of dollars for external trade, the resulting foreign currency shortage meant that the supply of basic goods in supermarkets ran out. Long queues for food had even led to an increase in violence. All those factors were indicative of a major crisis in the country that called for rapid adjustment and, naturally, a revival of social dialogue with the most representative organizations such as Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) and the Workers’ Confederation of Venezuela (CTV), which were also concerned in the case under discussion. With those considerations in mind, the Employer members invited the Government to open the way to dialogue with representative workers’ and employers’ organizations. They accordingly called on it to reiterate the commitments it had entered into with the ILO in the past, most recently in March 2016, when it had been understood that the Government would be engaging in renewed dialogue with the most representative organizations on 4 April; so far, however, no such dialogue had come about.

A Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed his surprise at the inclusion in the list, at the request of the Employers, of the case of his country for the alleged non-compliance with the Convention, given that the country had been engaged in an accelerated process to improve social indicators since the changes that had been introduced in 1999. This process had led to the rapid reduction of poverty and a decrease in unemployment to a steady rate of between 5 and 6 per cent. A section of Venezuelan employers who belonged to FEDECAMARAS had attempted an economic sabotage, the prime goal of which was to topple the power in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. To achieve their aim, some employers had been reducing the production of basic goods and services for the population, on the grounds that the Government was not providing them with the foreign exchange for the import of primary supplies and materials necessary to maintain their production processes, despite the fact that these enterprises had received billions of dollars to that end. In response to the closures of enterprises by some employers represented by FEDECAMARAS, the Government had undertaken procedures with regard to the closed plants to reopen them, re-establish production and protect jobs. This group of employers was throwing thousands of workers onto the streets, while at the same time addressing the Committee to denounce the Government for failing to safeguard employment. Furthermore, representatives of FEDECAMARAS had requested the repeal of the Basic Act on Labour and Men and Women Workers in force since 2012, which was known worldwide for its provisions fully safeguarding workers’ rights. He wondered who would sanction employers who sabotaged the economy by reducing production and shamelessly aimed to evade application of the labour laws, and who could require employers to comply with the Conventions.

However, another significant section of the employers affiliated with FEDECAMARAS did indeed participate in the promotion and growth of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s productive processes, increasing employment and strengthening production. In addition, a tripartite dialogue body, the CNEP, existed in which the Bolivarian Socialist Confederation of Workers (CBST), productive employers and the Government also participated and engaged in discussions on investment plans, new employment, and investment in foreign currency and facilities for the export of the private sector and state enterprises. He highlighted that, unlike the leaders of FEDECAMARAS, some employers affiliated to FEDECAMARAS maintained a cooperative relationship with workers, despite the ideological and political differences they might have, thereby enhancing social dialogue. The majority trade union, the CBST, had expressed to the Government its steadfast refusal to meet with the employer sector represented by the FEDECAMARAS leadership and its firm intention to maintain harmonious relations with those who were willing to produce in the country, in respect of workers’ rights and the full application of ILO standards. He concluded by affirming that a clear policy for the generation and growth of productivity and stable employment existed, and worked closely with the CNEP, the tripartite body through which agreements on fundamental social and macroeconomic policies were reached. He rejected the attacks by employers against the Government, whose labour and social policies were in accordance with the Convention.

Another Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed surprise that his country was again on the list of countries called before the Conference Committee. FEDECAMARAS and its allies had once more made it their political objective to continue creating instability and were attempting to get rid of a workers’ government that had made significant social progress, particularly with regard to Convention No. 122. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had set an example in terms of decent employment and work, youth employment and the improved quality of life of the population. The unemployment rate was currently 7.1 per cent, employment policies had been strengthened since the revolutionary Venezuelan Government had come to power, and all the social inclusion policies pursued by former President Hugo Chávez sought to improve social justice and the quality of life of the population, as could be seen from the Basic Act on Labour and Men and Women Workers, which was the most advanced piece of legislation in terms of social justice and the protection it afforded for the rights embodied in the ILO’s Conventions. FEDECAMARAS had infringed the Act just as it disregarded all of the policies the Government had pursued since the revolution, and it had attempted to blackmail the Government into repealing the Act in exchange for engaging in dialogue, which it had avoided since becoming actively engaged in economic warfare. President Nicolás Maduro had repeatedly appealed to all those who were willing to give him their support and cooperation in order to meet the challenges facing the country, but a section of the employer sector had unfortunately stayed away. FEDECAMARAS preferred to continue gambling with the fate of the nation. The country was going through difficult economic times, and the working class found itself in the middle of an economic war that had placed it in a fierce battle against major domestic and foreign private investors who had turned their backs on the Venezuelan people and were abetting foreign attempts to provoke domestic disorder. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s working class was prepared to fight for the great achievements that the revolution had brought.

The Employer member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela considered that the Government was failing to fulfil its obligation as laid down in the Convention to consult the representatives of the employers and workers in formulating its employment policy. Despite its unquestionable representativeness, FEDECAMARAS had not been consulted by the Government on any matter for 17 years. Moreover, the supposedly extensive consultation with all sectors, as claimed by the Government, had never been conducted formally or documented. The Government was failing to establish a coordinated employment policy that enabled jobseekers to be employed in accordance with their abilities, in productive activity that was freely chosen, and to derive income from it that enabled a decent standard of living. The country had experienced two successive years of economic recession, with a fall in gross domestic product (GDP) of nearly ten per cent. In 2015 the official inflation rate was 180 per cent, the highest in the country’s history. The purchasing power of the Venezuelan people had been smashed to smithereens. At present, the minimum wage was about US$27 dollars per month, which was the equivalent of 0.92 Venezuelan bolívar (VEF) per day. Almost 14 minimum wage equivalents were needed to pay for the basic basket of goods. This was far removed from a daily income of US$1.25 per day, which was the usual indicator of extreme poverty. Moreover, 60 per cent of the statutory monthly minimum income did not derive from wages and did not generate any social protection benefits. Formal employment in the private sector had decreased sharply. As at March 2016, a total of 282,400 formal jobs had been lost. The number of employers had fallen by 110,000 in 2015. The lack of a coherent employment policy had caused an enormous increase in poverty. The poverty index had risen from 53 per cent in 2014 to 76 per cent in 2015, and extreme poverty had more than doubled, from 25 per cent in 2014 to 53 per cent in 2015. In the foodstuffs sector, production had dropped by 22 per cent from January to April 2016. Many food-producing plants were inoperative for lack of raw materials, with the risk that 200,000 additional direct jobs and 1 million indirect jobs could be lost in the food sector alone. In addition, the malfunctions in the public electricity and water utilities were affecting enterprises’ operating capacity by interrupting their activities in the periods of rationing fixed by the Government. The private sector was suffocating from price controls, it was being persecuted and criminalized, it was denied the foreign currency needed for purchasing raw materials for production, and it was obliged to sell at a loss. The situation had got even worse since January 2016, when the Government had declared a state of economic emergency with the suspension of constitutional guarantees in the economic sphere for 240 days, disregarding any formal consultation with the legitimately constituted public powers and the social partners.

All of the above showed that there was no sound policy to promote decent employment, nor any implementation of the dialogue required by the Convention. In March 2016, the Government had submitted a proposal to the ILO to establish a dialogue round table and a schedule of meetings. However, to date, the first meeting had not even taken place despite the insistence of FEDECAMARAS. On the contrary, the President of the Republic persisted in saying that there would be no dialogue with FEDECAMARAS. The CNEP, which had been established by the President in January 2016 and in which FEDECAMARAS had not been invited to participate, had not made any significant progress. In order to achieve a positive change for the future of the country, the speaker urged the Government, workers and employers to reach a basic consensus for the adoption of specific measures aimed at ensuring employment and economic growth for the country. The employers, with FEDECAMARAS as their chief representative, constantly demonstrated their commitment to participating in social dialogue. Conditions in the country were such as to justify assistance from the ILO and trigger its input and mechanisms to ensure that the Government complied with the Convention, especially in the area of social dialogue.

The Government member of Mexico, speaking on behalf of group of Latin American and Caribbean (GRULAC) countries, welcomed the information provided by the Government with respect to its compliance with the Convention and observed that the Committee of Experts’ report merely requested further information without making a specific statement as to the country’s alleged non-compliance with the Convention. In its report, the Committee of Experts mentioned the Government’s information regarding its implementation of a new social strategy focusing on the key points: employment, the quality of employment, action on education, the provision of quality education free of charge and the total elimination of poverty. The Government reported that the youth employment rate was 87.2 per cent, which amounted to 31.6 per cent of total employment. As to the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government reported that at round table meetings held with the employers agreements had been concluded on boosting productive employment by means of financial and institutional support for enterprise-creation projects. Regarding the participation of the social partners, the Committee of Experts merely requested specific examples. He trusted that the Government would continue to submit updated information on the application of the Convention.

The Government member of Nicaragua, endorsing the statement made by GRULAC and expressing support for the Government, recalled that the Committee of Experts had not observed any failure to apply the Convention but had simply requested additional information and examples. As such, the unjustified inclusion of the case, which was politically motivated, as it had been the previous year, was striking. The Government of Nicaragua considered that resolving such cases should fall to the parties, without external interference or international pressure, within a framework of mutual respect based on peace, dialogue and consensus. He invited the Committee on the Application of Standards not to continue examining this type of case and not to let itself be influenced by political manoeuvring that diverted the ILO from the noble objective for which it was founded.

The Government member of Cuba aligned herself with the statement made by the Government member of Mexico, on behalf of GRULAC. The Committee of Experts did not mention the non-compliance on the part of the Government in relation to the Convention, and there was therefore little technical substance to warrant its inclusion in the list of cases of serious failure to comply with Conventions. She considered a solution could be reached without the involvement of the Conference Committee since the Government had committed to identifying solutions by means of inclusive social dialogue. She was convinced that the Government would be able to present information that demonstrated its compliance with the Convention and urged the Conference Committee to close the case.

The Government member of Mauritania said that the information provided by the Government shed light on the significant progress made by the country in the areas of employment and action against unemployment. These achievements were the culmination of the implementation of a new social strategy based on the guidelines contained in the Economic and Social Development Plan, which gave priority to the creation of high-quality jobs and the provision of free high-quality education. A series of measures had been taken in the wake of tripartite discussions with a view to reviving productivity and the creation of employment. The Conference Committee’s conclusions should take into account the major efforts made by the Government.

The Worker member of Cuba said that he was not in agreement with the continued discussion of this case before the Conference Committee since there were no technical grounds for it. He indicated that the observations of the Committee of Experts regarding Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention did not question the procedures or compliance with a Convention but rather the economic model applied in the country over recent years. He considered that the Conference Committee was not the proper forum to settle conflicts relating to the definitions of economic and political systems. Part of the employers’ organization had generated chaos and crisis through the shortages of products and services in the country, and he questioned the possibility of pursuing an employment policy when a part of the employer sector was willing to give in to important financial losses to repudiate the economic model established in 1999. He requested the Committee to take these elements into account when adopting the conclusions on the case.

An observer representing the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) recalled that the Convention required ratifying Members to declare and pursue an active policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment and to take measures to apply the policy in consultation with workers’ and employers’ representatives. She stressed that productive and sustainable employment was the basis for decent work, wealth creation and social justice and that the encouragement of investments was a precondition for employment. She emphasized that the social and economic situation in the country was of the deepest concern, not only for employers, but for the society as a whole. There were multiple challenges for establishing sustainable enterprises as well as for creating and maintaining jobs, while there were no policies to boost investment, sustainable enterprises and employment. Price controls, along with the shortage of foreign exchange, led to acute shortages of basic goods. Inflation was very high, the GDP had shrunk dramatically in 2015 and extreme poverty had reached its worst levels in 15 years. Meanwhile, thousands of businesses had shut down, 256,000 jobs had been lost and informality had increased to 42.4 per cent. She invited the Government to comply without delay with the provisions of the Convention both in law and practice by pursuing an active policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment, in consultation with the most representative workers’ organizations and with FEDECAMARAS, in line with the numerous and unattended recommendations of the ILO Governing Body, the ILO supervisory bodies and the report of the high-level tripartite mission that had visited the country in 2014.

The Worker member of Mexico said that the Convention, ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in 1982, had, like many others, become nothing but words, as legislation, on the one hand, and practice, on the other, were verging in opposite directions. Despite repeated calls from the Committee of Experts in that regard, the Government was still failing to abide by the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission that had visited the country in 2014. However, applying an employment policy based on agreement among the social partners would doubtless contribute to building a climate of peace in the world of work, which the country urgently needed. He further stated that governments must ensure that all ratified ILO Conventions were applied, rather than focusing solely on the fundamental Conventions, and that democracy and freedom of association should be defended in all countries, whatever their form of Government.

The Employer member of Mexico recalled that the Convention was based on the ILO’s mandate, established by the Declaration of Philadelphia. In addition, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out that all persons had the right to work, and to freely chosen employment in fair working conditions. He indicated that the Convention required an active employment policy, developed in consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. He stated that the economic and social situation of the country was serious and social dialogue was a management tool which would help to resolve serious problems in the country and create the conditions conducive to investment with a view to generating employment.

The Worker member of Brazil called on the Government to find an immediate solution to the serious humanitarian and social crisis dominated by lack of food, medicines and essential items. Although the situation was adversely affecting the whole of Venezuelan society, it was having a particular impact on the most vulnerable people. In order to tackle the crisis, the Government needed to strengthen freedom of association, collective bargaining, social dialogue and democracy in the country and to comply with international labour standards. He asked the ILO to expand its action in the country aimed at ensuring observance of the Convention under discussion and of other standards, and to give its attention to the observations and complaints submitted by CTV, the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the General Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CGT) and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA).

The Employer member of Spain said that employers in Spain were concerned about the application of the Convention by the Government and expressed their support for FEDECAMARAS. The economic and social situation of the country had worsened in recent months. He urged the Government to provide reliable statistical information on employment, particularly youth employment, and to implement active employment policies. Sustainable employment policies needed to be pursued in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and social dialogue should be launched with employers’ organizations such as FEDECAMARAS.

The Government member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia supported the statement by GRULAC and emphasized the importance given by his Government to compliance with ILO standards. He regretted that the reasons obliging the Government to come before the Conference Committee were not related to the application of the Convention but rather to diffuse interests aimed at challenging a legitimate Government. He recalled that the responsibility of promoting decent work and generating employment also fell on the employers and he regretted the stigmatization of a democratic Government. He commended the Government’s efforts in promoting progressive policies aimed at expanding workers’ social rights, redistributing revenue, and promoting decent work. He concluded by inviting the Conference Committee to conduct a balanced and fair examination of each case.

The Worker member of Paraguay said that Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention did not prescribe an undefined employment policy but one on which consensus had been reached through tripartite dialogue and consultation. If the conclusions of the report of the ILO high-level tripartite mission that had visited the country in 2014 had been followed, many deaths, tragedies and desperate situations would have been avoided. Productive employment was still lacking, and this in turn added to the scarcity and lack of food for the whole population. She therefore asked the Conference Committee to include a special paragraph in its report that reflected the unprecedented crisis facing the country. She urged the Government to promote serious and respectful dialogue to enable the creation of decent jobs and decent work for all, while upholding freedom of association and collective bargaining, which were the cornerstones of progress.

The Employer member of Peru expressed her deep concern at the serious economic crisis affecting the country and said that hyperinflation constituted the most damaging tax for the poorest people. Emphasizing the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, she thought that if there was a genuine dialogue between the Government, workers and most representative employers’ organizations, such as FEDECAMARAS, the situation of the workers would be very different from what it was now. She therefore called on the ILO to use all the tools and mechanisms at its disposal to establish real social dialogue in the country.

The Worker member of Colombia emphasized that it was vital for the social partners to have an active role in dialogue leading to the formulation of employment policies that stimulated economic development. He considered that that was not the case in the country. He expressed regret that the Government had not heeded the conclusions of the high-level triparite mission that had visited the country in 2014 and that, in spite of having submitted a draft plan of action on social dialogue to the Governing Body at its 326th Session (March 2016), none of the meetings agreed on that occasion had been held. There could be no effective policies to promote productive employment with social dialogue. Employment, decent work and the right to work were intended to meet the needs of the working class and the population in general. He said that the Government’s announcements of supposed employment policies when workers were becoming ever more impoverished counted for nothing. In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the common denominator was precariousness and scarcity – an appalling situation bearing in mind that the country was the richest in the region.

The Employer member of Honduras recalled that the Convention imposed the obligation on governments to consult the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations in formulating a policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment. FEDECAMARAS was the most representative employers’ organization at the national level. Hence, by excluding FEDECAMARAS from the consultations, the Government was rejecting legitimate and effective social dialogue. There had been no consultation of the employment plans with the most representative employers’ organization. Consequently, the Conference Committee should highlight the situation in a special paragraph of its report in view of the Government’s failure to implement the roadmap which it had signed in March 2016.

The Government member of the Russian Federation, noting the observation of the Committee of Experts, welcomed the Government’s readiness for a substantive and constructive cooperation with both the ILO and the social partners, including FEDECAMARAS. Referring to the Committee of Experts’ report, he stated that there was no specific information concerning non-compliance with the obligations under the Convention. In this regard, it was not clear for what reason the issue was included in the list of cases discussed by the Conference Committee. With this in mind, he expressed concern over the regular attempts to politicize the work of the ILO by forcing a discussion on the compliance of international labour standards by the Government. In conclusion, he expressed satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Government and the ILO to ensure the application of international labour standards and hoped that this cooperation would continue.

The Government member of Belarus noted the comprehensive approach concerning the implementation by the Government of the measures aimed at ensuring positive outcomes in relation to labour relations in the country. There seemed to be a lack of information concerning the alleged failure to comply with the Convention, and the Committee of Experts only requested information in its observation. He was of the view that the Government complied with the Convention. The Government was actively cooperating with the ILO, in particular through the implementation of the provisions of the Convention in the national legislation. He supported the work of the Government in relation to strengthening social dialogue under difficult economic conditions.

The Worker member of Honduras highlighted the youth employment programmes that the Government was developing within the framework of its social changes, and the significant progress made with respect to social protection and the defence of workers’ rights. He expressed concern that the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was once again being discussed by the Conference Committee, given that the Committee of Experts had not referred to any non-observance of the Convention by the Government and had merely requested the Government to provide information on its policies regarding youth employment, the development of SMEs, and the participation of the social partners. The country had the lowest rate of unemployment on the American continent and the highest rate of youth employment. He was therefore concerned that some employers affiliated with FEDECAMARAS had engaged in sabotaging the acquisition of goods and services, closing their enterprises and dismissing hundreds of workers, while other enterprises affiliated to the same organization maintained high rates of productivity, upheld workforce stability and participated with the Government and workers in the CNEP, a tripartite body.

The Government member of Egypt noted the measures taken by the Government in relation to the application of the Convention. The Government had adopted a national policy aimed at providing employment opportunities in the formal economy, reducing unemployment as well as reducing the number of workers in the informal economy. The speaker hoped that the ILO would provide the necessary technical assistance to the Government to help achieve the objectives enshrined in the Convention.

The Worker member of Peru said that the Government had spent 15 years in the dock before the Conference Committee, a fate it shared with other progressive Governments in the region such as Cuba. He expressed surprise at the fact that FEDECAMARAS and the IOE worried about the situation of workers in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela when, within the Conference Committee, they had steadfastly refused to recognize the right to strike and they never protested about repressions committed by governments with different political and economic orientations. As such, the case under examination was political in nature. If the IOE and FEDECAMARAS, which complained about the lack of consultation in this country, were really interested in the labour problems of workers, they would have denounced the mass dismissals and violation of the right to bargain collectively that prevailed in many countries and could also have demanded respect for prior consultation in the case of the draconian measures imposed in Greece. The speaker ended his statement by saying that this case was intended to topple a democratic Government.

The Government member of China, referring to the statements made by the Government and by GRULAC, noted that the Government had fulfilled its obligations under the Convention. The Government’s efforts should therefore be recognized by the Conference Committee.

An observer representing the World Organization of Workers (WOW) indicated that for five years the Government had not been providing accreditation for the members of the Trade Union Action Unit of Venezuela and UNETE. In addition, he underscored that the Convention was fundamental for the country, particularly given the serious conditions of unemployment. The Government should have consulted the social partners with regard to the employment policy, as requested by the high-level tripartite mission that visited the country in 2014. UNETE had made recommendations on numerous occasions, particularly within the framework of the rescue plan for national production and employment. Industrial action had also been carried out demanding that dialogue be opened but there had been no response. National production was threatened, state enterprises were paralyzed and the private sector was facing countless limitations, as well as threats of intervention and expropriation. Enterprises that had been nationalized with the help of workers were bankrupt. Many workers had been dismissed or would be dismissed for political reasons. Furthermore, protests had been criminalized and trade union representatives and leaders had been detained. Productive employment as referred to in Article 1 of the Convention was a utopia as salaries had been significantly affected by devaluation. Over 55 per cent of a salary was paid in vouchers and bartering, a practice that had been abandoned for decades, had returned. All these measures had been implemented without consultation with the workers. On those grounds, he requested that this case be included in a special paragraph in the Conference Committee’s report.

The Worker member of Benin said that the case did not really constitute a violation of the Convention, but was instead aimed at raising issues against governments that refused to support private, capitalist interests so as to justify coups d’état, as in Brazil. The speaker said that the efforts of progressive governments should be encouraged. The information sent by the Government demonstrated the efforts made by the Venezuelan workers in the fields of employment, the economy, the development of SMEs and in the participation with the social partners. In conclusion, the speaker said that the Committee should encourage the Government, which was faced with a difficult fight against capitalism, and should focus more on governments that were trying to deregulate labour legislation and undermine the acquired rights of workers.

The Government member of Algeria welcomed the information provided by the Government on the action taken to ensure the application of the Convention. An employment policy had been formulated as part of the Economic and Social Development Plan, with the aim of eradicating poverty and facilitating social integration. The Plan had resulted in the creation of a significant number of jobs and agreements had been concluded with the employers for boosting employment through the development of SMEs. Lastly, he welcomed the Government’s cooperation with the ILO.

The Worker member of Argentina recalled that, according to the report of the Committee of Experts, the Government had not failed to apply the Convention: it had simply been requested to adopt a legislative framework and to provide further information. He maintained that a campaign of stigmatization was being waged against a democratically elected Government, with the aim of destabilization at national and international level. It was claimed that there was a crisis in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, but the entire world was currently in crisis. The people making those claims were responsible for maintaining levels of employment and they did not hesitate to foment social discontent, closing off sources of employment and funding a campaign to destabilize the country. Social dialogue required the will of all parties and could not function in a conflict scenario. He emphasized that the Government had the will to create a space for social dialogue so as to strengthen the democracy.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran, thanking the Government for the information provided, emphasized that the measures taken deserved due consideration by the Conference Committee, as they demonstrated the willingness and commitment of the Government to comply with the Convention. Stressing that the Convention entailed a series of technical aspects for its implementation, he called on the Office to provide technical assistance to the Government.

The Worker member of Syria supported the statement made by the Government and considered that this case revealed a political dimension. The Government had regularly submitted reports on the application of the Convention and the Committee of Experts had not mentioned any violation concerning the application of the Convention in its last observation. In its comments, the Committee of Experts referred to the implementation of a strategy which focused on the following key elements: employment; employment quality; provision for education; the guarantee of free, high-quality education; and the definitive elimination of poverty. Moreover, between 2000 and 2014 one third of new jobs created were in the formal economy. Referring to the sections in the observation on SMEs, youth employment and the participation of the social partners, the speaker concluded by indicating that the Conference Committee was faced with a case that had been chosen for political reasons and which constituted an attack on the Government by FEDECAMARAS.

The Government member of Qatar thanked the Government for the information provided before the Conference Committee. He welcomed the measures taken by the Government in order to comply with the Convention and encouraged the Government to continue with its efforts in this regard.

The Worker member of Uruguay noted that, while all the members of the Conference Committee agreed that the country was experiencing a particularly challenging period, there were diverging opinions on the situation. The serious inflation affecting the country’s workers should come as no surprise to anyone, in a context where certain economic actors were hiding commodities. He was astonished by the importance attributed by the employers to the ILO supervisory bodies in this case, a diametrically opposed position to the one they usually assumed. The interest in consultation demonstrated by employers should be followed up with a proposal for consultation on wealth distribution. Lastly, he affirmed that the workers of Uruguay remained entirely unconnected to the initiative to present a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution in relation to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The Employer member of Chile said that the Government was not respecting Article 3 of the Convention with regard to the adoption of an active policy aimed at encouraging full, productive and freely chosen employment because it was not holding consultations with FEDECAMARAS, the most representative employers’ organization in the country. This had had negative effects on employment, as acknowledged by the President of the Republic, who had declared a state of emergency, with its attendant limitations on constitutional safeguards. The country was facing a shortage of decent work: workers were no longer earning wages that allowed them to meet their basic needs without recourse to state subsidies. Neither did they enjoy an adequate system of protection, because the rate of informal work was very high. Private enterprises were being progressively destroyed through poor governance, the absence of dialogue and the lack of a favourable legal and regulatory environment. These were the minimum conditions identified in 2007 at the ILO for enterprises to be sustainable. The ILO should intervene with all the tools at its disposal so as to contribute, together with the Government and the social partners, to the development of employment policies that were the result of genuine social dialogue.

The Government member of Brazil, speaking in right of reply, said that certain incorrect opinions expressed during the discussion made it necessary to provide some clarification with regard to the trial of the President of Brazil. The proceeding under way complied rigorously with Brazil’s legal standards and procedures under the supervision of the Supreme Federal Court, which guaranteed respect for the Constitution and for due process. So far, the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate had ruled on the admissibility of the case and had established that there was evidence of possible crimes entailing liability. The votes had been preceded by full and detailed debates and the entire process was characterized by full respect for the right to defence.

The Government representative said that the Committee of Experts, in its report, had not mentioned any failure to apply the Convention by the Government, but had only requested examples or further information in that respect. Despite that, the country had been included in the list of individual cases, without waiting for such information and examples to be provided in its next report on the Convention. This proved that the fundamental policies of employers, specifically FEDECAMARAS, an organization that used the ILO as an institution to further its own interests, had prevailed over technical considerations. He maintained that FEDECAMARAS often acted more as a political party than an employers’ association and he recalled that the organization’s leadership had supported the economic and productive sabotage of the largest food production enterprise in the country. Contrary to what the Employer members said, social dialogue did exist in the country. Every week, meetings of the most prominent entrepreneurs were held, including many representatives of enterprises, chambers and federations affiliated to FEDECAMARAS, and they discussed policies of national interest together with the Government and the main workers’ organization. He said that the Government had repeatedly stated its willingness to engage in dialogue, but within a framework that respected the law, although it considered that such dialogue would be very difficult when a part of the aforementioned employers’ organization continued to shield enterprises that sabotaged and destabilized the country’s economy, to the detriment of the Venezuelan people.

The speaker said that the employers had presented figures and estimates from unofficial and biased sources which was why his Government did not recognize them. The fall in petrol prices had had a negative impact on the country, as had the sabotage of production and the economy carried out by some employers, including a section of FEDECAMARAS. Within the National Council on Productive Economy, a tripartite social dialogue body to develop policies and stimulate the Venezuelan economy in consultation with employers’ and workers’ representatives, proposals had been submitted by employers relating, for instance, to the currency exchange system, simplifying export procedures, repatriating capital and flexibility in taxation, among other things. In this manner, the entrepreneurs with the greatest economic influence in the country, who wanted to strengthen the Venezuelan economy, the main workers’ organization and the Government were committed to transforming the national production apparatus to make it more diversified and less dependent on petrol income. The speaker expressed the hope that the conclusions on the case, as the fruit of a broad debate, would be objective and balanced, with no negative statements against the Government, which would allow them to be analysed more effectively within the framework of applying the Convention. He trusted that there would be no need for the Conference Committee to consider the case again, as it was for the Committee of Experts to follow it up through the Government’s reports. He restated his Government’s commitment to applying the Convention and other ILO Conventions his country had ratified and reaffirmed that the Government would not favour private interests over those of the working class and the Venezuelan people.

The Worker members, thanking the Government for the detailed information provided to the Conference Committee, welcomed the achievements of the Government in reducing poverty and inequality, and in increasing citizen participation and self-governance, particularly all efforts made in order to promote decent work as a means to achieve social justice. However, the economic and political crisis could jeopardize such important achievements, as workers and their families were paying the price of the crisis. Noting with interest the commitments made by the Government concerning informal and precarious work, they indicated that the reduction of the share of informal work from 51.6 per cent in 2004 to 41.2 per cent in 2015 was an important development to be welcomed by the Conference Committee. They invited the Government to continue to provide information in this regard and to follow the provisions of Recommendation No. 204. As unemployment was more severe among young people, they recalled that the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to implement policies aimed at minimizing the impact of unemployment on young workers and facilitating their integration in the workforce with respect to fundamental rights at work and social protection. Recalling that the Government had agreed in the 326th Session of the Governing Body (March 2016) to a detailed timetable in order to re-establish tripartite dialogue and to deal with matters relating to industrial relations including economic policy, they took note with concern that no tangible progress had been made in that regard. Taking into full consideration the observations of the Committee of Experts, the Worker members urged the Government to: (i) establish a structured body for tripartite social dialogue in the country and take immediate action to build a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations; and (ii) urgently implement all commitments made in the past Governing Body session so as to follow the plan of action for consultation with the social partners, including stages and specific time frames for its implementation.

The Employer members highlighted the considerable interest generated by the case and drew attention to three factors relating to the failure to apply the Convention. Although, by virtue of Article 1 of the Convention, governments must stimulate economic growth and development, quite the opposite was being seen in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Under Article 2 of the Convention, economic and social measures must be reviewed to ensure that they were coordinated. However, undertaking such a review required genuine social dialogue, which could not take place in the National Council on Productive Economy, where groups whose voice was not in tune with the Government could not take part. Article 3 of the Convention, lastly, provided that the social partners should be consulted on employment policy. In that respect, the commitment expressed by the Government in March 2016 had not materialized, which was a clear violation of the Convention. The speaker said that the Conference Committee’s conclusions in the case should include: (i) the observation, shared by the Worker spokesperson, that the deterioration in economic indicators affected the majority of the country’s population and the development of trade; (ii) the need to take urgent steps to stimulate economic growth and development; (iii) the need to periodically review measures taken in the area of economic and social policy in consultation with the social partners, including the CTV, UNETE and FEDECAMARAS; (iv) the request for an employment policy to be formulated in full consultation with the social partners, including the CTV, UNETE and FEDECAMARAS; (v) the invitation to the Government to accept a high-level mission to observe the measures taken to give effect to the Convention; and (vi) mentioning the case in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed on issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee took note with deep concern of the social and economic crisis affecting the country and the absence of an active employment policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment. The Committee deplored the absence of social dialogue with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations with a view to taking measures to apply an active employment policy.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee urged the Government to:

• - with the assistance of the ILO, develop, without delay, in consultations with the most representative workers and employers organizations, an employment policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment;
• - implement, without delay, concrete measures to put in practice an employment policy with a view to stimulating economic growth and development, raising levels of living, meeting manpower requirements and overcoming unemployment and underemployment;
• - establish without delay a structured body for tripartite social dialogue in the country and take immediate action to build a climate of trust based on respect for employers and workers organisations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations;
• - implement all commitments made in the last session of the Governing Body to follow the plan of action for consultation with social partners that includes stages and specific time frames for its implementation; and
• - report in detail to the Committee of Experts before September 2016 on the application in law and practice of Convention No. 122.

The Government should accept an ILO tripartite high-level mission before the next International Labour Conference in order to assess progress towards compliance with these conclusions.

The Government representative rejected the conclusions adopted by the Committee. Inaccurate information with no bearing on the Convention had been taken as truth. Moreover, the conclusions had not taken into account the statements of the Government, the Worker members and other Government members.