Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2017, Publication: 106th ILC session (2017)

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



A Government representative reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to full compliance with the international labour Conventions that had been ratified. Since the last session of the Committee on the Application of Standards, dialogue had been reinforced with the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS). It should be emphasized that, at the request of the Government, a tripartite meeting would be held on 13 June 2017 with the national social partners accredited to the Conference, which would also be attended by the Director-General of the ILO. He regretted that ILO bodies were once again being used to single out countries where policies favoured the workers. The ILO should ensure the transparency of procedures and fair treatment. In its most recent comment, the Committee of Experts noted that the Government had provided indicators reporting a sustained employment policy since 1999 in favour of Venezuelan citizens, including statistics on youth employment. The comment also noted the information provided in June 2016 in the context of the discussion by the Committee on the Application of Standards in relation to the Second Socialist Plan for the Economic and Social Development of the Nation 2013–19 and the implementation of a Bolivarian Economic Agenda. The creation of the National Council for the Productive Economy (CNEP), which included the participation of the most representative workers’ confederation in the country and the most prominent employers in the Venezuelan economy, was also mentioned in the comment. This showed that there was a real and true employment policy in the country, which had reduced the level of unemployment, despite the fall in the price of oil, the economic war and the disturbances of public order promoted by opposition factions. He considered that the inclusion of the present case in the list to be discussed in 2017 was not justified, as the Committee of Experts had not commented on any failure of compliance, but had confined itself to requesting examples or additional information. That information, in accordance with the request made by the Committee of Experts, should be provided in the next regular report, and not to the Committee on the Application of Standards. In the absence of any technical justification, it had to be concluded that the inclusion of the present case in the list had political undertones, which ran counter to the principles of objectivity, transparency and impartiality which needed to prevail in the ILO. He added that, despite the insistence of certain employers that his Government should be brought before the Committee on the Application of Standards, that would not result in private, capitalist and individual interests holding sway over those of the working class and the Venezuelan people. Allegations and information were reflected in the comment of the Committee of Experts concerning the alleged absence of employment plans, with references being made to figures that were not known to the Government and were based on imprecise data, subjective considerations and unfounded information that the Government rejected. Other minority trade union organizations had collaborated to provide figures without giving their sources, nor the methods used for their compilation. However, despite all of the above, he said that with the best will and respect for the members of the Committee on the Application of Standards, updated information would be provided on the employment policy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

In 1999, when the Venezuelan Government had taken office, the unemployment rate in the country had been 10.6 per cent. In April 2016, the unemployment rate was estimated at 7.3 per cent, as a result of clear and effective policies. As indicated by the Committee of Experts, the current unemployment rate for men was 6.7 per cent, compared with 8.3 per cent for women, which bore witness to the efforts made to achieve parity and equality of occupational opportunities for women and men. The indicators could be consulted on the website of the National Statistical Institute (INE). The Government had led a change of economic model to reduce dependence on the oil market and defeat the economic warfare, through measures including: export incentives; the removal of administrative restrictions and measures to facilitate the repatriation of capital; the initiation of a system of auctions for the purchase of currency at competitive prices, and access to credit for producers. The enterprises that had benefited the most had been small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Government also provided assistance to businesses affected by opposition factions so as to enable them to recommence and maintain their enterprise through financing. The development plan, which included the employment plan, was known as the Homeland Plan. During the meetings held with FEDECAMARAS, its leaders had expressed disagreement with the Plan, which showed that it included a real employment policy. The national social partners accredited to the Conference could request more information on the effect given to the Convention during the tripartite meeting on 13 June 2017. He regretted that FEDECAMARAS, as well as certain minority trade union organizations, despite the invitation made by the Government to discuss the holding of a National Constituent Assembly, had refused to take part in it. He considered that it was contradictory to call for social dialogue in the ILO and then not to take up the opportunities provided to express their views and opinions. He reiterated his objection to the inclusion of the present case on the list of those to be discussed, particularly as the Convention was a promotional instrument and consultations were not binding, as indicated in the 2010 General Survey on the employment instruments in relation to the content and nature of consultations. He also referred to the views expressed by the Employer members in the Committee on the Application of Standards in 2015 concerning the lack of competence of the Committee of Experts to assess the validity, effectiveness and justification of the measures adopted in accordance with the Convention and agreed with their views on its promotional nature, as it did not specify the content of employment policy and recognized the need to take into account the national political, social and economic context. In conclusion, he hoped that the discussion would be confined to the Convention under examination.

The Worker members recalled that this was the second consecutive year that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had come before the Conference Committee in relation to the application of the Convention. Although they had previously urged the Government and different sides of the political dispute in the country to resolve the impasse through social dialogue, the situation had deteriorated further. Highlighting the role of social dialogue and tripartism as a possible avenue for peace, the Worker members appealed to all parties to resist the temptation to use the economic crisis and social discontent for political purposes, which would cause greater suffering to the majority of the population. In this regard, they regretted that the Government had not responded to the Conference Committee recommendation that it accept a high-level tripartite ILO mission since 2016. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela faced many challenges, including a deep economic crisis that had had a profound impact on employment generation. That state of affairs was also a consequence of past economic decisions. Between 1999 and 2014, the country had benefited from high oil prices, which had allowed the Government to invest in the economy and expand public policies. During that period, the Government had nationalized companies. Such measures had had a positive impact on the creation of jobs, including a decline in unemployment from 14.5 per cent in 1999 to 6.7 per cent in 2014, and had helped foster decent work and reduce informality. High oil prices had also enabled the pursuit of social policies for the poor, and poverty had been reduced from 49.4 per cent in 1999 to 32 per cent in 2013, while extreme poverty had fallen from 21.7 per cent to 9.8 per cent. However, the Government had behaved as if high oil prices would last forever. Throughout the period of economic growth, no effective measures had been taken to end the dependence of the economy on the export of a single product. To the contrary, dependence on the hydrocarbon sector had grown dramatically with oil accounting for 96 per cent of the country’s total exports. It would be difficult to reduce the country’s historical dependence on oil overnight, but efforts to break dependency had not been sufficient. It was no surprise that the economy had been seriously affected by the collapse in international oil prices at the end of 2014. The collapse of the economy had resulted in a deeper crisis; hyperinflation; currency speculation; and shortages in, and hoarding of, food and medicines, which in turn had impacted on the quality of employment, increased both job insecurity and informality, with negative consequences on the standard of living of the poorest groups. Some estimates suggested that GDP had contracted significantly in 2016 and that the agricultural sector had declined, further exacerbating food shortages. The decrease in the number of jobs created had also affected workers. According to government data, unemployment had risen to 7.5 per cent in 2016. Such figures could have been even higher, as underemployment or precarious forms of employment had not been taken into account by official statistics. If workers with reduced working hour contracts had been considered in these data, unemployment would have been around 11 per cent.

With reference to the Government’s comments on the Second Socialist Plan for the Economic and Social Development of the Nation 2013–19, the Worker members invited the Government to provide details on how this programme had taken account of the relationship between employment objectives and other economic and social objectives. The Committee of Experts had referred to Resolution No. 9855 of 22 July 2016, which had been adopted under the State of Exception and Economic Emergency declared by the Government. They felt that in such a context, the Government should have ensured that no worker would be temporarily placed in another enterprise without his or her consent. With regard to the participation of the social partners, the Worker members recalled Article 3 of the Convention and several instances in which the attention of the Conference Committee had been drawn to the lack of measures to enable effective social dialogue. The economic crisis could only be overcome if the social partners joined in the decision-making process in relation to employment policy. Among the conclusions in the report of the ILO tripartite high-level mission in 2014, the Government had been called upon to establish a tripartite round table with the participation of the ILO to deal with all matters related to industrial relations, including the holding of consultations on legislation concerning labour, social and economic matters. Reiterating the need to implement the commitments made by the Government to the Governing Body, they regretted that the Government had not fully implemented these commitments, in particular the elaboration of a concrete schedule of meetings with employers’ and workers’ representatives. The Worker members expected to see tangible progress, in line with the objectives that had been set out in the agreed workplan, to ensure ILO standards were implemented and monitored with the full involvement of the social partners.

The Employer members observed that, for the second successive year, the case under examination concerned the application of a priority Convention which sought the promotion of employment policies. They added that in the present case the issue did not relate to the lack of replies by the Government, but more their evasive nature. In its latest comment, the Committee of Experts addressed two different aspects, namely, in relation to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, employment policy, labour market trends, the transitional labour regime, youth employment and the development of SMEs and, with regard to Article 3, the participation of the social partners, which was possibly the most relevant issue. Observations on these subjects had been made by various organizations, in addition to FEDECAMARAS, the most representative and historical employers’ organization, including the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the historical workers’ organization, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA). With reference to the observations made, there were common issues, such as the absence of statistical data. They were grateful for the information provided by the Government representative in relation to unemployment and noted that they had endeavoured to obtain official data without success. It would be useful for the INE to analyse the provisions of the Labour Statistics Convention, 1985 (No. 160), which had not yet been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It would probably be helpful to examine Convention No. 160 with a view to its ratification, as it was instrumental in the formulation of an appropriate employment policy. The absence of information could be caused by the incapacity of the Government to produce data, or the desire to conceal it, neither of which was ideal.

The World Bank had recently noted the existence in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of a fiscal deficit estimated at the end of 2016 as being over 20 per cent of GDP; one of the highest inflation rates in the world; the depreciation of the currency, which was being sold on the black market; and a reduction of international reserves by over half, at US$1.3 billion. From an economic perspective, the country was suffering from a process of exhaustion from stagflation. On the demand side, private consumption was severely affected, suffocated by the fall in real income, the scarcity of basic consumer necessities and the ever higher transaction costs of doing business. Confidence levels were at rock bottom and the high levels of uncertainty, combined with the lack of availability of capital goods, had resulted in a major fall in investment. Although there were no data on gross capital formation or precise figures for direct foreign investment, there were reports in the news of very representative international enterprises that were leaving the country. There was also a general contraction of supply, due to price controls, controls on the profit margins of producers and service providers, and restrictions on the purchase of currency, despite recent liberalization measures, which had affected the purchase of intermediary goods and capital goods. That had been prejudicial to the manufacturing industry, construction, the agricultural sector, services, retail trading, transport, storage, financial and insurance services. The Economist Intelligence Unit had recently made an analysis of the consequences of the announced increases in the minimum wage. In 2015, it had been increased three times by between 10 and 20 per cent. In 2016, it had been raised on four occasions by between 20 and 50 per cent. But in 2017, it had been increased twice, without dialogue with the representative organizations, with an adjustment on the last occasion on 1 May of 60 per cent. The analysis concluded that: “The move is highly unlikely to placate widespread anti-Governmental sentiment. The Banco Central de Venezuela (the central bank) is likely to print money to fund the increase in the minimum wage (annual growth in monetary aggregates has already risen from 160 per cent at the start of 2017 to 216 per cent in late April), with a consequent rise in inflation likely to erode purchasing power. Moreover, shortages of food and other consumer items remain widespread, negating the impact of higher wages. … [T]hese developments indicate that inflation will continue to rise, and are in line with our current forecast that inflation will average 562 per cent in 2017, compared with 422 per cent in 2016. This will be a factor contributing to ongoing and increasing popular unrest.” The requests made in 2016 by the Committee of Experts had still not been given effect to. The Employer members considered that it was essential to call on the Government to implement all the action and policies that had been requested. These requests were related to procedures in other ILO bodies. With reference to the intervention by the Government representative, they expressed concern at the indication by the Government that the “most prominent employers” participated in the CNEP, rather than the most representative organization of employers. This was a clear violation of Article 3 of the Convention. They emphasized the link between this provision and Case No. 2254, which was before the Committee on Freedom of Association, which had expressed serious concern at the persistence of the situation with regard to social dialogue. In view of the lack of progress, it had been decided to hold a direct conversation with the Government during the Conference. As employers, they hoped for a climate of constructive, inclusive and genuine dialogue.

The Employer member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recalled that the case was being discussed once again after one year, as the situation in the country was so unsustainable and all the indicators had substantially worsened. The Government had not given effect to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards, had not engaged in tripartite consultation with a view to drawing up an employment policy, had not established a tripartite dialogue forum and had not accepted the ILO high-level tripartite mission envisaged by the Conference Committee. The Government maintained that it had held meetings with employers in the CNEP, but FEDECAMARAS had not been invited to participate. Accordingly, the agreements concluded with individual or sectoral employers’ and workers’ organizations could not replace the institutional participation of FEDECAMARAS and could not be regarded as committing other employers through the discussion of the transversal issues and structural reforms required by the country in the economic field. The measures decided by the CNEP had not had a positive effect. Indeed, the opposite was true, in view of the lack of genuine dialogue, as illustrated by the closure of so many enterprises due to the absence of raw materials, the lack of economic viability or the failure of the Government to fulfil its financial and commercial obligations. She referred to the major fall in imports and the significant shortages of food and medicine which, in some cases, amounted to between 80 and 100 per cent. By the end of 2017, the accumulated contraction of GDP was estimated to have reached over 30 per cent over a four-year period. At the end of 2016, imports had fallen by 45 per cent. Productive capacity was stagnating at around 60 per cent. According to the latest INE figures on the labour force, in one year since April 2016, the losses included 110,000 employers and 224,500 jobs in comparison to 2015. There were no more up-to-date figures, as the main official macroeconomic indicators had not been published for 17 months. It was estimated that the economically active population had fallen by 198,000 persons, with a significant decrease among women and young persons aged between 15 and 24 years. The economically inactive population had risen by 612,000 persons.

According to the figures of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), foreign investment in Latin America in 2015 was approximately US$134 billion, of which the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela only received US$2 billion (approximately 1.9 per cent). It was not by chance that in 2016 over 45 transnational enterprises had declared losses in their operations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, or had definitively ended their operations in the country. Over and above the economy, the country was immersed in a deep-rooted political and social crisis, verging on a humanitarian crisis. Many Venezuelans were dying due to the lack of medicine and 9.6 million were eating two or fewer meals a day. The 2016 Living Conditions Survey (ENCOVI) had found that 93 per cent of households did not have sufficient income to cover food and that 82 per cent of the population was living in poverty. Some 88 per cent of young persons wished to leave the country in search of better opportunities elsewhere. It was therefore understandable that there had been over 70 uninterrupted days of street protests. The loss of over 70 lives, mostly of very young people, was to be deplored. She told the Government that it was now time to engage in genuine social dialogue, and not merely information meetings without a set agenda, action or specific objectives. She added that in parallel the threats and insults were continuing against the leaders of FEDECAMARAS through the State social communication media, in which they were accused of being murderers, conspirators and instigators of coups d’état. She emphasized that FEDECAMARAS agreed to participate in the meeting to be held on 13 June 2017, but had not received a programme for the meeting. Recently, the President of the Republic had accused FEDECAMARAS of joining the opposition because it had refused to participate in the National Constituent Assembly convened by the Government, which had been challenged by various figures, including the Attorney-General of the Republic and several magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice, and was subject to various legal actions calling for it to be found unconstitutional. She emphasized that FEDECAMARAS was not applying double standards. It would not participate in and validate a process intended to dictate a new Constitution without the approval of the Venezuelan people. However, it was necessary to discuss the means of resolving the serious problems that were in the common interest and which affected the whole of the country. In particular, FEDECAMARAS wished to discuss the reactivation of the production system, structural measures to address inflation, the recovery of the purchasing power of wages, plans to attract and maintain investment, the cessation of the forced occupation of enterprises and respect for free entrepreneurial initiative. It was essential and urgent to engage in a process of genuine, effective, responsible, serious and legitimate social dialogue. It was also necessary to build the essential basis of trust for such a dialogue, as an employment policy that was not based on consultation would not be effective, based as it was merely on wage increases every two or three months, which were nullified by inflation. Employers and workers needed to participate in the design of public policies to create the basic conditions to guarantee the sustainability of enterprises and decent work, thereby offering a decent life to Venezuelans. In conclusion, she called on the Committee on the Application of Standards, as the Government had not accepted the high-level tripartite mission requested the previous year, to request the Governing Body to examine once again at its next session the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela denounced the employers’ organization FEDECAMARAS for trying to use the Committee for political ends. For the last 15 years, FEDECAMARAS had been refusing to recognize the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the public authorities and the Basic Labour Act (LOTTT), which guaranteed the application of all ILO fundamental Conventions. FEDECAMARAS, far from pursuing a policy that would promote employment and the application of the Convention, had embarked on an economic war with the aim of ousting the Bolivarian revolution from power and, alongside multinationals, of appropriating the country’s immense natural resources. In that respect, he highlighted the dismissal of more than 9,000 workers by one of FEDECAMARAS’ affiliated enterprises, known for being the largest private sector producer of food in the country. Moreover, he denounced the perpetration of acts of violence by FEDECAMARAS against medium-sized trade and production enterprises, to which the Government had needed to grant bank loans to recover the jobs lost. All such actions threatened to undermine the great progress made by the Venezuelan people, which included larger and permanent pay rises, job stability, the lowest unemployment figures in the region, free and high-quality education, and free access to health care. The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had publicly invited Venezuela’s entrepreneurs to join the national body for tripartite dialogue, the CNEP, which brought together the workers of the Bolivarian Socialist Confederation of Workers (CBST), some of the employers affiliated to FEDECAMARAS, and the Government, with a view to formulating economic policies that would replace the capitalist model of production. In his speech to the plenary of the Conference on 7 July 2017, the President of FEDECAMARAS had said that legitimate social dialogue should be established in the country; that the State and the public authorities, which should be independent, should be restructured; that there should be a change of economic model; that inflation should be tackled; and that the National Constituent Assembly convened by the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was unlawful. Such a statement by the President of FEDECAMARAS was a call to confrontation, not dialogue. FEDECAMARAS had also refused to participate in the initiative for broad, in-depth social dialogue in the National Constituent Assembly. Venezuelan workers, and the people in general, did not want interference in their internal affairs. It was for them to resolve their problems through dialogue. Together with the Government, workers’ organizations would ensure that the Convention was applied. In that regard, he highlighted the fierce fight within the framework of the Bolivarian revolution to win many of the rights previously denied by FEDECAMARAS. Among those rights, he highlighted the increase in the minimum wage on 34 occasions in 18 years, which had benefited 14 million workers; the negotiation of 2,177 collective agreements in four years, providing protection for more than 8 million workers; the construction of 1.5 million homes for workers; the provision of buses and taxis for trade unions for collective passenger transport; the constant creation of new jobs in agricultural production; credit support for SMEs; the promotion of workers’ production councils as organizations for the working class to direct the planning and monitoring of production processes; and the creation of the CNEP. For all those reasons, he roundly rejected the complaint presented by the employers’ organization FEDECAMARAS.

The Government member of Panama, speaking on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), observed that the 2016 report of the Committee of Experts only requested additional information, and did not indicate any alleged violation of the Convention. In its report, the Committee of Experts noted the information provided by the Government on the adoption of various measures within the framework of the Convention, including: the Second Plan for the Economic and Social Development of the Nation 2013–19; the implementation of strategic measures known as the “Bolivarian Economic Agenda”; the creation of the CNEP in 2016 as a forum for tripartite dialogue to address the development of strategic economic areas in the country; and the Act for Productive Youth, No. 392 of 2014. He was confident that the Government would continue to provide information on the application of the Convention and encouraged it to strengthen tripartite social dialogue. He drew attention to the assistance provided by the Office for the tripartite meeting requested by the Government, which would be held the following week during the Conference, with the participation of Venezuelan employers’ and workers’ delegations.

The Government member of Cuba, expressing support for the statement by GRULAC and welcoming the information provided by the Government, considered that the Conference Committee, when analysing this case, should take into account the information supplied by the Government in its report, which appeared to be noted in the comments by the Committee of Experts in 2016. This information included the employment policy, the main objectives and lines of action of which were reflected in the Plan for the Economic and Social Development of the Nation, 2016–20; the increases in the minimum wage; regulations on employment protection; the adoption of an enhanced plan to protect employment, wages and pensions; a strategy to promote the entry into the labour market of young people; and the creation of the CNEP as a forum for tripartite dialogue on the development of strategic economic areas in the country. The Government had met its obligations in relation to employment policy, despite the climate of violence and the economic and media war, which were being manipulated from outside the country with the aim of destabilizing Venezuelan society. She concluded that there was no justification for the case to be discussed by the Committee on the Application of Standards. As, in accordance with article 22 of the ILO Constitution, the information requested from the Government by the Committee of Experts could be included in the next report, she called on the Committee on the Application of Standards to ensure compliance with legal procedures.

The Employer member of Peru said that the information provided by FEDECAMERAS showed that the economic and employment policy applied in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela did not promote employment, and certainly not productive employment, which meant that in practice, employment was not likely to be freely chosen. He added that the Government had repeatedly failed to comply with the requests of the Committee of Experts relating to the establishment of a body for social dialogue with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations. He therefore called on the Committee on the Application of Standards to urge the Government to comply with the Convention and to use all available ILO mechanisms to ensure that the Government consulted the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations to draw up economic and employment policies.

The Government member of Nicaragua supported the statement by GRULAC and thanked the Government for the information provided. He reiterated his concern at the attempts to politicize the work of the ILO, considering that the discussion of the case had been forced without any technical grounds. He recalled that the Committee of Experts had not noted any non-compliance with the Convention and had merely requested additional information and examples of application. He referred to the intervention by the Employer members at the 104th Session of the International Labour Conference concerning the role of the Committee on the Application of Standards in relation to the Convention, which should be limited to controlling the existence of an employment policy with the objective of full and productive employment, and that it should not judge the validity, efficiency or justification for the measures adopted. Based on those comments, and in light of the information provided by the Government, there should be no doubt that the Government was in compliance with the Convention. He welcomed the tripartite meeting which, with the support of the ILO Director-General, would be held on 13 June 2017 between the Government and the Venezuelan employers’ and workers’ delegations. He hoped that the meeting would help to strengthen tripartite social dialogue in the country. Finally, he invited the Committee on the Application of Standards to carry out a balanced and fair evaluation of the case and urged it not to go along with political manoeuvres which distanced the ILO from the noble objective for which it had been founded.

The Employer member of Honduras noted that the country did not have an active employment policy for the promotion of full, productive and freely chosen employment, and that the Government did not maintain social dialogue with the main partners in the country. He recalled that this governance Convention was a priority for the ILO and that, since 1990, the Committee of Experts had made 14 observations on its application. He added that, although in 2016 the Conference had urged the Government to accept a high-level tripartite mission, the Government had not yet given effect to that request. He emphasized that the Committee on the Application of Standards needed to secure from the Government acceptance of the mission or of ILO technical assistance for the establishment of a tripartite round table dialogue. If the Government would not accept either of these proposals within the framework of the Conference, the issue would need to be referred to the next session of the Governing Body to examine the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to examine the implementation of the Convention.

The Government member of Mauritania indicated that the Government had provided information on the significant efforts made to ensure full employment, and thus to continue guaranteeing the dignity of all the citizens of the country. The Committee of Experts had received the 2016 report on the application of the Convention, which highlighted the progress made in the field of employment promotion. Moreover, the 2016 observations of the Committee of Experts had been confined to asking the Government for further information. The presentation of the employment policy had received the recognition that it deserved, which was undoubtedly why the Committee of Experts had not noted any failure to apply the Convention, confining itself to asking the Government for more precise examples. With a view to consolidating the conditions required for a successful employment policy, the Government had strengthened social dialogue. It was therefore necessary to encourage the employers to agree to associate with the workers and the Government in order to determine the best ways and means of achieving the goals of this policy. In light of the above, it could be deduced that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had a very solid employment policy, with good wages, buoyant youth employment and a satisfactory situation of the elderly and retirees.

The Worker member of Honduras said that, despite the application of labour laws, the country was once again the victim of a political game. He highlighted the significant progress made in social protection and the defence of labour rights, as well as the role that had been played by the CBST. He indicated that, although the report of the Committee of Experts had not mentioned any non-compliance with the Convention, worrying reports from trade unions indicated that some employers affiliated to FEDECAMARAS had been sabotaging the production of goods and services, closing their enterprises and throwing hundreds of workers onto the street. However, he acknowledged the actions of other employers affiliated to FEDECAMARAS, which were maintaining high levels of productivity in their enterprises, respecting the protection of workers and participating with the Government and workers in the CNEP.

An observer representing the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) recalled that the Convention required the declaration and pursuit of an active policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment. Such a policy should aim to ensure that there was work for all who sought employment, productive work, freedom of choice in employment, and the opportunity for workers to qualify for and use their skills in a job for which they were well suited. It also required consultation with the social partners. Productive and sustainable employment was the basis for decent work, wealth creation and social justice. Employment was the result of investment and a measure of the success of an employment policy was whether it encouraged or discouraged investment and job creation.

This was the second consecutive year that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had come before the Committee. The Government had not implemented the Committee’s 2016 conclusions and the situation in the country had since worsened. The opposition-led Congress had reported that consumer prices had jumped 741 per cent year-on-year in February 2017. Since 2014, both overall and extreme poverty had deteriorated to the worst levels seen in at least a decade and a half. Thousands of businesses in the private sector had shut down, jobs had been lost and informality had increased. The social and economic situation in the country was dramatic and had deteriorated further. She called on the Government to comply with the provisions of the Convention in both law and practice, by pursuing an active policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment. She recalled the role of representative workers’ organizations and FEDECAMARAS in this regard, as well as the recommendations of the ILO Governing Body, ILO supervisory bodies and the report of the high-level mission that had visited the country in 2014.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran observed that the measures taken by the Government demonstrated its willingness to enhance the situation and deserved due consideration by the Committee. Noting the statistics provided by the Government in its report and the measures taken to promote youth employment, he welcomed the creation of the CNEP to deal with the development of strategic economic areas through tripartite dialogue. The CNEP had already held over 300 meetings. Given that the Convention entailed an array of technical elements, its proper and effective application required technical assistance from the Office. He therefore called on the Office to provide further technical assistance to the Government and reiterated his support for the Government’s continued efforts to enhance national conditions.

The Worker member of Colombia said that the Venezuelan working class was migrating due to the lack of opportunities, food and medical services, and he recalled that in 2016 the Conference had deplored the social and economic crisis affecting the country, as well as the absence of an active employment policy intended to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment. The Committee should urge the Government to accept ILO technical assistance and make definite arrangements for a high-level tripartite mission. He concluded that it was unacceptable for those known as coup plotters and terrorists to be brazen enough to protest at an unacceptable situation.

The Government member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia endorsed the statement by GRULAC and emphasized that in its report the Committee of Experts had made no mention of any specific failure to apply the Convention. The Convention did not oblige States to follow a particular economic and social model, but rather encouraged the implementation of employment policies within the framework of each State’s sovereignty. She emphasized that public policies aimed at achieving and guaranteeing progressive human rights should be analysed while respecting the sovereign discretion of each State, and that the examination undertaken by the Committee of Experts needed to be objective, exhaustive and limited to legal considerations that fell within its mandate.

The Worker member of Benin emphasized that the observation made by the Committee of Experts in 2017 indicated that the Government had provided up-to-date information regarding the Convention, that an employment policy existed in the form of the economic and social development plan, that the social partners had been informed of this policy, as indicated during the discussion in the Conference Committee in 2015, and that they were heard in the CNEP. For these reasons, the discussion of the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was not justified. Thousands of workers were dismissed in other countries without their cases being discussed by the Committee. The employers of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela wanted to reduce the number of employees in the country. However, they could not dismiss a single worker without authorization from the Government. Minimum wages and pensions had been increased by presidential decree and collective agreements had been negotiated. There were places in the world where workers were far less fortunate, and yet the Conference Committee did not discuss those cases. It was therefore unjustified to condemn the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The employers wanted the country to lose everything that the people had won: gains that were admired by countless workers. Workers the world over stood in solidarity with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The Government member of Pakistan appreciated the statement by GRULAC and welcomed the steps taken by the Government to enforce labour standards in the country through legislative and policy measures, and the constructive engagement with the ILO supervisory bodies. The Government’s agreement to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to resolve these issues through tripartite dialogue was commended. She noted with appreciation the timely submission of reports and information, and the fact that the Committee of Experts’ latest observation did not mention non-compliance. She looked forward to the forthcoming discussions that would be held on 13 June 2017 between the Government, employers and workers, and hoped for a positive outcome.

An observer representing the World Organization of Workers said that the recommendations of the Conference Committee and the other ILO supervisory bodies had been ignored by the Government and that the situation in the country had deteriorated. Almost 7.7 million people were unemployed or working in the informal economy; 60 per cent of households ate only two meals a day; and hundreds of families were now sifting through rubbish to survive in one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. She emphasized the need for change in the country’s economic and social policies and expressed support for a high-level tripartite mission.

The Government member of Myanmar commended the Government for the timely submission of its report and noted that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had a sustained employment policy in the framework of its Second Socialist Plan for the Economic and Social Development of the Nation 2013–19. She encouraged objective and constructive dialogue between employers and the Government on compliance with the Convention, particularly on employment policy challenges. She further welcomed the tripartite meeting and hoped to see fruitful results, which would eliminate the need for future examination of the case by the Committee.

The Employer member of Chile recalled that it was the second consecutive year in which the Committee was examining non-compliance with the Convention by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The international community had witnessed the dramatic deepening of the social and economic crisis, and its effects on workers and employers. The absence of an active employment policy intended to promote productive employment was an obstacle to stimulating economic growth and development, raising standards of living, meeting labour needs and overcoming the serious situation of unemployment and underemployment in the country. In addition, the absence of social dialogue in the country continued to have negative effects on employment, as the Government was still not consulting FEDECAMERAS, the most representative employers’ organization, in the formulation of an (as yet non-existent) employment policy. The Venezuelan Government had recently decided to convene a National Constituent Assembly to formulate a new constitution in the country, an initiative which from the outset had been questioned by civil society as it did not respect the procedure set out in the current Constitution. It was in that context that the Government had invited FEDECAMERAS to participate, claiming that in this way it was complying with the requirement to promote social dialogue and to consult, as set out in the Convention. He called on the Government to accept the ILO tripartite mission and to hold genuine tripartite consultations with a view to implementing an active employment policy.

The Government member of the Russian Federation noted the Government’s commitment to constructive cooperation with the ILO and the social partners, including FEDECAMARAS. The Government had continuously worked on the basis of tripartite dialogue with the aim of re-establishing trust and forging consensus. The Committee of Experts had not observed any failure by the country with respect to its obligations under the Convention, which made it difficult to understand the reasons for the inclusion of the case in the list. Effective implementation of the Convention depended on the level of economic and social development of each country. It was a framework Convention that could not be analysed in terms of national-level implementation. In this view, the Committee of Experts could not judge the content of employment policies under the Convention, and repeated examination of this issue by the Conference Committee would not promote ratification of the Convention by other member States. Reiterating his concern at the repeated attempts to use the ILO for political purposes, he welcomed cooperation between the Government and the ILO to implement labour standards in the country and hoped that such cooperation would continue.

The Worker member of the Dominican Republic indicated that successive governments in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had achieved greater distributive justice through wage increases, which had reduced inequality. They had also enabled women and young people to assert their rights, which had decreased unemployment and given many people access to literacy and health care. This had caused irritation in certain sectors that had always benefited from the lack of protection of workers in the region. He considered it important that the Employer members had said that the purpose of entrepreneurship was not to interfere in political issues, but to generate wealth. He recalled that a Venezuelan employer had staged a coup d’état in 2002, lasting 48 hours, with the aim of replacing the legitimately elected Government. He expressed astonishment at the case of the Venezuelan citizen who had been burned alive because he was suspected of being a Government sympathizer, and called for an end to that type of act.

The Government member of Burundi indicated that the observation made by the Committee of Experts in 2017 requested the Government to provide detailed information on certain aspects of the Convention, but did not refer to a failure to comply with it. Under Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, employment policy was specific to each country, took account of the stage and level of economic development, and was pursued by methods that were appropriate to national conditions and practices. The Convention provided for the consultation of representatives of employers and workers in order to take into account their experience and views. These consultations were not however binding, and the Convention did not create any obligation to negotiate the employment policy. The role of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee with respect to the Convention was to ensure that member States had the explicit intention to guarantee full and productive employment, which had clearly been demonstrated by the Government. It was not within the remit of the Committee of Experts to assess the validity, effectiveness or justification of the measures adopted in accordance with the Convention. The latter was a promotional instrument which did not specify the content of employment policy, but took into account the political, economic and social context of the country. It was regrettable that this was clearly a political case brought by the Employers’ group against the Government. The discussion of the case yet again by the Conference Committee was unjustified. Lastly, he asked the Government to provide more information on the application of the Convention in its regular report.

The Worker member of Paraguay recalled that, at the previous Conference, the CGT had undertaken to file a complaint against the Government under article 26 of the ILO Constitution for repeated violations regarding freedom of association, discrimination at work and wage protection, with the aim of pressurizing the Government to accept that it was not possible to achieve peace without social justice. Unfortunately, the Governing Body had decided to divide the complaint between the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts. She indicated that the Government was ignoring the recommendations of the ILO, thus exacerbating the situation in the country, which was currently in the throes of a crisis, with the public protesting in the streets and demanding food, health care, medicines, jobs and security. She requested the Government to listen and to adopt the recommendations of the ILO mission that had visited the country, which had noted the absence of an employment policy that was needed to address the increasing poverty affecting an estimated 53 per cent of the population. The imposition of a minimum wage, without consulting the working class, and without complying with the Convention, together with high inflation, had resulted in a fall in purchasing power.

The Government member of Egypt, noting the overview provided by the Government of the measures taken under the Convention, recognized the efforts made to establish tripartite social dialogue with the social partners and to adopt an employment policy that would end unemployment. He encouraged the Government to continue its endeavours to comply with the Convention and to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Worker member of Nicaragua expressed his opposition to the inclusion of the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the list of cases to be examined by the Committee, as it had political overtones and was aimed at undermining the stability of the country. He reiterated the arrogant attitude demonstrated by the employers through its groundless support for the case. This group of employers, which was part of the economic war against the Government, called for dialogue in the ILO, but then declined to attend or impose conditions when the Government or the workers invited it to engage in dialogue to find solutions to economic issues. The case was not based on any violation, as increasing the minimum wage, in response to the employers’ approach of side-stepping this right, demonstrated the Government’s interest in restoring the purchasing power of workers. Behind the alleged defence of human rights, action was being taken by external forces to create conditions that threatened the peace and tranquillity of the Venezuelan people. The far right had a clear interest in and desire to carry out a coup d’état, and used these forums to create the conditions to justify such action. Those who said that the protests in the country were peaceful were the ones who were burning and looting businesses. He emphasized that a Nicaraguan journalist had been shot during the protests.

The Employer member of Uruguay observed that the questioning of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela at the ILO was no longer the sole concern of the Employer members. Complaints were now also being made by workers. He considered that the supervisory system of the ILO offered an opportunity for member States to improve their policies by ensuring conformity with the ratified Conventions. With regard to Convention No. 122, the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to take the various types of action recommended by the Committee on the Application of Standards, which had still not been implemented and should be achieved through social dialogue. Points of contact were urgently needed for the social partners, whether through technical assistance, a mission or a Commission of Inquiry. In view of the situation in the country, he hoped that nothing said in the Committee on the Application of Standards would breed further division, and that the representatives of the Government, workers and employers would make constructive use of the various interventions, especially the aspects which could improve social dialogue.

An observer representing the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) observed that the countries of some of the organizations that were denouncing the Government had not ratified the Convention. They accused the Government of not having a policy for the promotion of full employment, but no member of the ILO had achieved this objective. The Government reported that it was implementing an employment policy in so far as national economic and practical conditions allowed. There were other countries, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, with worse employment indicators. In the ILO publication 2016 Labour Overview of Latin America and the Caribbean it was noted that the unemployment rate in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was 7.5 per cent, which positioned it in ninth place among the 20 countries of the Latin-American region. He considered that the Government was being judged harshly and obligations were being imposed which were not included in the Convention, such as achieving full employment, immediately creating a tripartite social dialogue body and guaranteeing youth employment and employment in SMEs. The accusations were a pretext to call into question all of the Government’s actions. Those who took to the streets in the country, paralyzed the economy, impeded work and tried to topple the Government by any means, were the same people who were demanding full employment at the Conference. The ILO must not be used for such purposes. The country’s economic and social crisis could not be solved from the outside, but needed to be addressed by its own citizens in exercise of their own sovereign rights. He considered that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela should not therefore be one of the 24 cases selected by the Committee on the Application of Standards. He requested that the country not be sanctioned in any way in the conclusions adopted by the Committee.

The Government member of Algeria welcomed the tangible progress made by the Government, particularly its political will to implement employment policy within the framework of a coordinated economic and social policy, and noted with satisfaction the participation of the social partners in the CNEP, a forum for exchange and tripartite dialogue that dealt with the development of the country’s strategic economic zones. The Government was encouraged to persevere in its initiative to introduce an employment policy, the purpose of which was to reduce the unemployment rate and ensure the well-being of the country’s workers.

The Worker member of Cuba noted that Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention provided for an employment policy specific to each country, taking into account the level and stage of economic, political and social development. He recalled that in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela there had been an economic war, motivated by the refusal of a production model that was distinct from interests of capital and was based on social justice. Attempts had been made to heighten social conflict, provoking disturbances of the public order. He considered that in this case precedence was being given to political rather than technical considerations, as neither the letter of the Convention nor the comments of the Committee of Experts left room for much debate. For over 15 years, the country had been on the preliminary or final lists of cases to be discussed by the Committee. On this occasion, the Committee of Experts had not identified any non-compliance. He called on the members of the Committee not to allow a repeat of this situation at the next session of the Conference, as it endangered the ILO’s tripartite machinery.

The Government member of Ecuador endorsed the statement by GRULAC and recalled that the Committee of Experts had not identified any non-compliance with the Convention, and had simply requested additional information and examples of the application of the Convention. He therefore considered that there was a political motive behind the unwarranted inclusion of this case. He noted the holding of a significant meeting on 13 June 2017, within the framework of the Conference, between the Government and the Venezuelan employers’ and workers’ delegations with a view to strengthening tripartite social dialogue in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. He noted, however, that this new call to the Committee on the Application of Standards could tarnish and prejudice the outcome of the meeting and affect the much needed tripartite dialogue in the country. He concluded that any international agenda in support of peace in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, including on labour issues, needed to be designed jointly by the Government and encompass a constructive approach to the channels to be used.

The Employer member of Mexico said that the country was not applying the Convention and that, although the Governing Body had expressed confidence that the Government would promote effective dialogue, the Government had neither drawn up an action plan in consultation with the social partners nor constituted a tripartite round table for dialogue. He emphasized that the Government’s word alone was not enough to ensure that it met its obligations.

The Government member of Ghana recalled that the Convention provided a foundation for laws, employment regulations and instruments to govern the world of work, including by providing a platform for ensuring freedom of association and collective bargaining. It was essential for all governments, including the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, to uphold the Convention and help to calm relations between and among partners in the world of work. The Government had taken note of the concerns of the Committee with regard to labour market trends, youth employment and the participation of the social partners, and it had begun to take action in response to the Committee of Experts’ requests. Some statistical reports had been supplied on trends, and the Government had furnished information on a 2014 Act on youth employment, which seemed to have provided entry to the labour market and which could go further to ensure decent work. He urged the Government to further engage with the ILO to address the concerns that had been raised and meet the aspirations it had set.

The Employer member of Spain observed that the Committee was considering the Government’s failure to apply the Convention for the second time in a row. He emphasized that it was not for the Committee to judge the suitability of the country’s employment policies, but to determine whether the Government was formulating such policies in collaboration with Venezuelan entrepreneurs represented by FEDECAMARAS. The economic and social situation in the country was dramatic. The lack of a balanced macroeconomic policy, the absence of a business environment enabling the local production base to create jobs, and the lack of active unemployment policies had resulted in important economic sectors in the country being paralysed and had led to a serious problem of shortages, which was inexorably undermining the country’s production base. Moreover, there was no structured social dialogue that would allow the necessary steps to be taken for the country to emerge from the profound crisis it was experiencing. For 17 consecutive years, FEDECAMARAS, the most representative employers’ organization in the country, had been excluded from social dialogue. The Government’s lack of will to initiate open and constructive social dialogue was thrown most sharply into relief by its unwillingness to accept a high-level mission or assistance from the ILO to establish a tripartite round table, as the Committee had suggested to the Government the previous year. He requested the Committee to recommend recourse to the alternative mechanisms available within the ILO, unless the Government accepted those suggestions within the framework of the Conference.

The Government representative expressed gratitude for the interventions of GRULAC, the Government and Worker members which, in their majority, and with qualifications, had come out in support of his Government. He reiterated that the Convention was promotional in character and only required Governments to adopt an employment policy, without specifying its content. Full employment needed to be based on broad policies which took into account the political context, the level and stage of economic and social development, inflation and respect for human rights. The methods of application also needed to be appropriate to national conditions and practice. Neither the Committee of Experts nor the Committee on the Application of Standards were competent to judge the validity, effectiveness or justification of the measures adopted in relation to the Convention. He reiterated that the Committee of Experts had not identified any failure of compliance, and yet it had been decided to include the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela among the cases to be examined, without waiting for the information requested to be provided. That revealed the importance of the political, rather than technical motivations of the employers, and more specifically of FEDECAMARAS. He recalled the continual opposition of FEDECAMARAS, which had even led the coup d’état of April 2002, and had pushed shortly after its failed coup for a strike by employers which had cost US$20 billion and resulted in the closure of enterprises and unemployment for thousands of workers. For over two months, opposition parties in the country had been launching protests, which had mostly ended up being violent, giving rise regrettably to 66 deaths up to the present. It was pitiful that this violence had not been challenged or condemned by FEDECAMARAS or by certain minority trade union organizations. The Government had taken firm steps to operate in an environment of dialogue and peace, but FEDECAMARAS was excluding itself. On every occasion that the case had been on the list to be discussed by the Committee on the Application of Standards, it had been at the behest of the Employer members. Moreover, in past sessions, Employer spokespersons had indicated that the Government would be called up on a permanent basis, irrespective of the Convention. Only the CBST, which was the most representative trade union organization, the Single Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CUTV) and figures from the CTV had participated in the negotiation process to reform the Constitution. The National Constituent Assembly was the highest legislative body, with broad powers to change the economic model, which was one of the most controversial aspects of the national political process. For that reason, he could not condone the attitude of FEDECAMARAS which, although invited, had refused to participate. He added that the invitation to the National Constituent Assembly was being maintained, with five seats reserved for Employers and 79 for Workers. In conclusion, he expressed the hope that the conclusions of this long discussion would be objective and balanced, and not affected by negative and subjective considerations against the Government. He trusted that it would no longer be necessary to examine the case again in future. He had appeared before the Committee on the Application of Standards with great readiness and in a spirit of democracy, as he would continue to do as often as necessary, to reaffirm that the Government would not place private, capitalist and individual interests over those of the working class and the Venezuelan people.

The Worker members responded to the claim by the Employer members that the increase in minimum wages had contributed to the economic crisis by calling on them to recall the reference to the Declaration of Philadelphia in this Convention, which reaffirmed the need for wage policies and programmes to ensure that a just share of the fruits of progress were provided to all and a minimum living wage was afforded to workers. Positive advances on employment policy had taken place in the country, particularly in the period through 2014, when the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had benefited from historically high oil prices, which had enabled increased public spending on ambitious programmes. However, the present economic and political crisis could jeopardize such important achievements. Workers and the poorest in society faced higher rates of unemployment and precarious work, and thousands of workers had been pushed back into the informal economy. This crisis called for social dialogue and tripartism. Recalling that the Government had not accepted the Conference Committee’s recommendation for a tripartite high-level mission, they underlined that the Government had also failed to implement a detailed timetable to re-establish tripartite dialogue to deal with economic policy and industrial relations, and had failed to give effect to the recommendation to establish a round table with the participation of the ILO, following the high-level mission in 2014. The Worker members urged the Government to take concrete measures to develop and adopt an active employment policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment in compliance with the Convention; to establish a structured body for tripartite social dialogue; to take immediate action to build a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and workers’ organizations; and to urgently set and implement timeframes for all the commitments that had been made previously to the Governing Body, including consultation with the social partners.

The Employer members said that they had listened carefully to the debate, aware of the interest in the subject, and had noted the clear divergences revealed. They emphasized that, even if there was a situation of non-observance of the Convention, they disagreed with the Government representative’s assessment. After reading out Article 3 of the Convention, they emphasized that it was not being given effect in view of the absence of participation of highly representative organizations, such as FEDECAMARAS, CTV, UNETE, CGT and CODESA. The Committee’s conclusions should reflect this situation. They welcomed the fact that the transitional labour regime was no longer in force, a situation of which they had not been informed and which had been a source of enormous concern. Moreover, they were concerned to observe that the Committee of Experts had not taken due note of the information that FEDECAMARAS had provided on the subject, which should have been underlined more emphatically. In the context of the current discussion in the Committee, FEDECAMARAS had specifically called for the revival of the production sector, a structural approach to tackling inflation, the recovery of the purchasing power of wages, the creation of plans to attract and maintain investment, an end to forced occupations of companies, and respect for free enterprise. They said that they could not agree to a statement which claimed that an employment policy existed in the country simply because a plan had been established in which there was no participation by third parties. Indeed, the Socialist Plan for the Economic and Social Development of the Nation 2013–19 did not envisage much participation by Worker representatives, or by the most representative employers’ organizations. This subject should be examined in the light of the Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928 (No. 26), the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and, of course, the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). It was essential for there to be consultations with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. They vehemently called for the immediate and effective establishment of genuine tripartite consultations for the consensus-based formulation and implementation of an active employment policy. They also called on the Government to accept the technical assistance and the high-level tripartite mission called for the previous year. They considered that it was urgent for measures to be taken, and it was therefore essential for the Committee’s conclusions to be included in a special paragraph of its report.

Conclusions

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

The Committee noted with deep concern that the Government has not yet addressed the Committee’s 2016 conclusions.

The Committee took note of the lack of social dialogue in relation to an active employment policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urged the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, with ILO technical assistance, and without delay, to:

- develop, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, an employment policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment, in a climate of dialogue free from any form of intimidation;

- implement concrete measures to put in practice an employment policy stimulating economic growth and development, raising standards of living, and overcoming unemployment and underemployment;

- institutionalize a tripartite round table, with the presence of the ILO, to build a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and workers’ organizations, with a view to fostering social dialogue and promoting solid and stable industrial relations.

The Committee calls on the Government to comply with Convention No. 122 and to respond to the Committee’s 2016 conclusions without further delay. The Committee also asked the Government to report in detail on the measures taken to implement these recommendations before the next meeting of the Committee of Experts in November 2017.

The Government representative thanked the Committee for the efforts made. He nonetheless rejected the conclusions which had been read in the Committee. Such conclusions which contained information which seemed to be biased, somewhat untruthful, unfounded, and unrelated to Convention No. 122, had been assumed to be true. In particular, the conclusions had not taken into account the statements made by the Government, Workers and other Government representatives. Such a state of affairs reflected a shift from objectivity, transparency and affected the Committee’s credibility. He consequently believed that the Committee’s working methods had to be urgently improved, in order to avoid the formulation of subjective, disproportionate and inapplicable conclusions.

He stated that his Government would continue to comply with ratified Conventions, and develop policies benefiting the working class and the Venezuelan people, and hoped that the results of such efforts would be acknowledged by the ILO. Lastly, he underlined that shortly before the tripartite meeting held with the Director-General, the organization of Venezuelan employers and FEDECAMARAS, the latter indicated it would not attend, arguing that it wished for “a neutral and discrete environment, without any interest of a political nature”. He stressed that FEDECAMARAS’ self-exclusion from tripartite dialogue, had not only helped the employers of Venezuela but was also at odds with previous statements accusing the Government of being against social dialogue. Finally, he asserted that, on the contrary, the Government had always been willing to engage in dialogue, and invited the Committee to indicate in its conclusions an express appeal to FEDECAMARAS to take part in national and international dialogue.

The Employer members stated that they wished to put on the record without reopening the debate that the tripartite meeting which had been convened the previous day between the Government and the social partners regrettably had not included an invitation to all workers’ organizations from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela present at the Conference. In light of this climate of imbalance in representativeness, the employers’ organization had decided to refrain from participating in the meeting.