Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2025, Publication: 113rd ILC session (2025)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Ecuador (Ratification: 1959)

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – I invite the honourable representative of the Government of Ecuador, the Minister of Labour, to take the floor.

Government representative – I wish the honourable members of this very important Committee a very good afternoon. In my capacity as the representative of the State of Ecuador, I am appearing before you to provide information and responses. But first, I give all due excuses because the State of Ecuador has not appeared before the International Labour Organization for over ten years. And after a ten-year absence, we are returning under the leadership of the current President, Daniel Noboa Azín, and under the authority of this Minister of Labour.

The complainants indicate that Ecuador engages in recurrent violations of freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize. However, the denunciations that the Government has examined are not specific and do not detail the cases in which the right to organize is denied. No documents have been produced as evidence indicating any decision by the administration or the judiciary denying the right to organize. The legislation of Ecuador sets out, in the Labour Code, in section 440, the guarantee entitled “Freedom of association. The national legislation also sets out in section 441 the protection that the State is required to provide to workers in respect of the right to organize. Similarly, since 2008, Article 326 of the Constitution of the Republic has also set out this legislative guarantee. In this respect, it is important to point out that, since November 2023, when we took office as the Government of the State of Ecuador, the procedure for the registration of executive committees or trade unions, and the renewal of executive committees, has recorded the establishment of one union a week in Ecuador. Indeed, it is important for you to know that, when we took office, I personally, as Minister of Labour, had before me an administrative procedure for the establishment of a union in the Office of the President of the Republic. As the Minister of Labour, I immediately proceeded to register, in February 2024, the historically significant first trade union in the Office of the President of the Republic of the State of Ecuador. Everything that I am saying, and the information I am providing, is duly set out in the documentation provided to you.

The denunciations also repeatedly claim, first, that anti-trade union discrimination exists in Ecuador. However, none of the accusations made, nor any administrative decision or ruling by the ordinary or constitutional courts prove that the State of Ecuador is internally responsible for trade union discrimination. And here it is important to recall that we have a higher body responsible for the interpretation of constitutional issues called the Constitutional Court, established 80 years ago. There have been changes in its title, but the current Constitutional Court has, since 2008, laid down legal, judicial and even constitutional parameters, as well as administrative precedents to identify and determine the existence of discrimination. However, in response to the allegation that anti-trade union discrimination exists, as the Minister of Labour, and as the representative of the State, I have not managed to identify in the repeated denunciations who has reported the existence of anti-trade union discrimination, nor any specific case in which a person or group of persons, in their capacity as trade union leaders, have suffered discrimination, either within the organization or in the context of the action taken by the State of Ecuador.

Similarly, there are accusations of anti-trade union dismissals. In this regard, it is important to note, and to emphasize, that since 2015 the Labour Code in Ecuador has included section 195(2), which contains a legal measure that reinforces the protection for trade union leaders and also the job stability of women who are nursing or pregnant. This legal protection, which is an important legal measure in Ecuador, is known as ”unjustified dismissal”, and provides trade union leaders and pregnant women, or women with responsibilities related to maternity, full protection in their jobs through the legal principle of employment stability. Furthermore, in the case of trade union leaders, the Labour Code of Ecuador provides the guarantee of employment stability in section 187. This important legal principle has been in force in Ecuador for ten years and I can provide a specific example. If a trade union leader is dismissed for reasons related to trade union activities and immediately appeals to the courts, under the legal principle of employment stability, the courts reinstate the leader and also issue a cautionary measure. This means that the leader is immediately reinstated in the post until the courts reach a decision on the legal issue.

The complainants have repeatedly claimed the existence of blacklisting in relation to administrative and court procedures. However, they have not identified a specific case, or complaint or the names of the persons involved. If such cases occur, acts of this nature are punishable, because blacklisting has to be denounced to the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the appropriate legal action. But neither the Government of Ecuador or I, as Minister of Labour, have been able to identify from the denunciations the specific cases concerned or the names of the persons involved.

They also refer to partial compliance with rulings ordering reinstatement. The constitutional courts have their own procedure when issuing decisions of reinstatement, whether for personnel in the judiciary, administrative officials, workers or trade union leaders, who benefit from reinstatement under the ruling, and such rulings are issued by courts of first instance, not by the Ministry of Labour or the State. On 25 July 2024, the Ministry of Labour sent you a communication on the principle of accepting the direct contacts mission. It is important to note that, in Ecuador, in accordance with the Labour Code, there is a National Labour and Wages Council, which had exclusive competence for setting the basic unified wage. It did so in one or two annual meetings held in early December. However, we have made a reform in this respect and, since December 2023, the National Labour and Wages Council, which is tripartite, has been meeting every 60 days. This had never happened before in the history of Ecuador, and we are now meeting in a tripartite setting every 60 days, when the denunciations made by the members of the National Labour and Wages Council are examined. I should indicate that, at the most recent meeting in April of this year, we unanimously decided to propose a labour reform, which had not been done before. And so, this tripartite body now in practice meets every 60 days, and no longer just once a year. As the representative of the State, and Minister of Labour, I provide the Council with information on, not only the registration of unions and enterprise committees, but also on progress in the negotiation of collective agreements in the public and private sectors and the growth in formal employment that we are seeing in Ecuador.

The complainants raised the issue a long time ago of a highly regrettable crime, for which we clearly express much solidarity, relating to the murder in 2022 of the trade union leader Sandro Arteaga Quiroz. For over 15 years, Ecuador has been confronted with problems of criminality resulting from transnational organized crime. In February 2024, the State determined and identified the 20 principal criminal gangs operating in Ecuador. Over and above the respect for and independence of functions in this case, in relation to the executive, judicial and legislative authorities, I wish to bring to your knowledge the fact that the President of the Republic set aside the appointment of the person in charge of the National Institute of Statistics and Census due to the discovery that 7,000 murders committed between 2007 and 2017 had been perniciously hidden from view. Accordingly, the policy of revealing the roles and responsibilities of the people operating in these groups is the constant policy of the State of Ecuador.

Another denunciation concerns the excessive number of workers required to establish workers’ associations. Since 1988, as a result of the reforms to the Labour Code carried out in Ecuador, the minimum number of workers required to establish unions was raised from 15 to 30. For an executive committee to be legally constituted, it is necessary to have 15 members of the union, but the complaint does not identify the technical problems for the reduction of the number of workers required in a union. Nevertheless, draft legislation has been submitted to the body responsible for adopting legislation to reform and put forward new legislative or legal provisions on the procedure for the establishment of new unions. In this regard, it is important to recall that the procedure for the reform of legislation in Ecuador, which has to be based on eminently technical and legal issues, as well as the reports which explain to everyone why the reform is necessary. The denunciation does not indicate the number of workers that it wished to have to establish a union or the related reasons. Nevertheless, the number of unions operating in Ecuador has clearly been rising, which shows that it has not been stationary or falling.

Finally, I would like to indicate that, since 2024, as Minister of Labour, I have issued several ministerial decisions with a view to guaranteeing one of the basic principles that was very crudely undermined in 2007 and 2008. I am referring to the decision adopted by the National Court at the behest of then President Correa Delgado that the validity of collective agreements and unions shall expire on the date originally specified. In the ministerial decisions, as issued since 2024, and particularly in Ministerial Decision No. 12, I have recognized the right to continued validity.

Employer members – Ecuador ratified the Convention in 1959 and, although the Committee of Experts has made numerous comments, issues relating to this fundamental ILO Convention have been examined by the Conference Committee on four occasions since 1987. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that several of the issues related to this case were last examined in 2024 in relation to the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

In the first place, I wish to refer to the fact that the Committee of Experts, in the same way as the Conference Committee, has noted with concern the fact that the direct contacts mission to the country requested in 2022 has not been carried out, and that Ecuador has not been able to benefit from technical assistance from the Office to address the matters that are being examined here relating to the lack of compliance of the national legislation with ILO Conventions. We share these concerns, which are aggravated by the fact that the Government, which had its electoral mandate renewed, has not provided additional information on these matters and because we have not yet seen the clear will of the Government to seek solutions through tripartite agreement, for which reason we call on the authorities of Ecuador to follow this path. This is despite the information provided a few minutes ago by the Minister of Labour concerning the decision by the social dialogue council in the country which, we are told, is examining a proposal for a reform of the Labour Code, on which we would like to have more information.

Turning to the issues in this case, and firstly adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment, we wish to emphasize that the Employers agree on the importance of having clear and applicable provisions to promote transparent processes of agreeing contracts based on objective criteria, thereby avoiding any form of undue discrimination. With regard to the promotion of collective bargaining, we consider it necessary to reiterate some of the issues raised when examining this matter in the past. We now refer to the views of the Committee of Experts on what it terms an excessive number of workers (30) to establish workers’ associations and enterprise committees, and the possibility of establishing branch trade unions.

With reference to the requirements set out in the Labour Code of Ecuador, and the request by the Committee of Experts to amend the provisions respecting these matters, we are in agreement with the comments made by the Committee to the effect that workers must be able to establish freely organizations of their own choosing and that a reasonable level of representativity has to be required for the conclusion of collective agreements. It is necessary to emphasize that the Committee of Experts is recommending the revision of provisions which refer to one of the institutions that make up collective labour law, without entering into considerations relating to the other related institutions. A comprehensive revision is required of all the elements that make up collective labour law so that the internal coherence of the system is maintained. We have said, and we repeat that the amendment of an isolated provision always has repercussions for other provisions, and that the reform must necessarily be comprehensive, or the system will lose its functionality. It accordingly seems to us to be limited to assess in isolation the number of persons necessary for the establishment of a union without taking into account the representativity criteria relating to collective bargaining, or such that there is an undesirable fragmentation of trade unions. It is also important to emphasize that the legislation in Ecuador envisages mechanisms that allow certain forms of representation and collective dialogue, even when the minimum number of workers required to establish a union is not achieved. Additional elements of the system also have to be taken into account which strengthen collective rights, such as the protection against dismissal of labour representatives and the binding nature of the agreements concluded by enterprise committees, which requires high levels of legitimacy and representativity of those who are acting collectively.

In any case, the comments of the Committee of Experts could act as a point of reference for a tripartite discussion at the national level which, in view of the culture of collective bargaining, particularly at the enterprise level, that has existed in Ecuador, could generate a coherent system of provisions which reflect the desire of workers wishing to organize in unions, all without further requirements and obstacles, and without leaving aside the representativity required to enable them to engage in collective bargaining, thereby ensuring the employers in the country a system that offers legal certainty and labour peace.

With reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the establishment and representativity of branch unions, it is necessary to recall that it would be difficult to apply the provisions governing negotiations at the enterprise level directly to collective bargaining at the branch level. Tripartite dialogue is necessary to put forward a legislative proposal that addresses this delicate matter appropriately. It is also important to recognize the manner in which this has been addressed by Ecuadorian jurisdictional bodies, and particularly the ruling of the court of second instance in the case of the branch union entitled the Trade Union Association of Banana, Agricultural and Rural Workers (ASTAC). It would also be necessary to have a better understanding of the scope of the regulation of this type of union in relation to the provisions governing labour organizations respecting the exercise of the right to trade union freedom and independence contained in Ministerial Decision No. 12, on which we would like to hear more from the Government representative of Ecuador.

In the final analysis, from the viewpoint of employers, we consider that any reform in this regard must be the product of a comprehensive, balanced and coherent process which takes into consideration the system as a whole and is not limited to the modification of a single aspect. Any change that is not based on a holistic analysis runs the risk of introducing disfunctions that may compromise the stability and predictability of the labour environment, which are fundamental aspects for economic development and the generation of formal employment.

Finally, with reference to the application of the Convention in the public sector, we urge the Government to deal with matters relating to public employees in the corresponding bodies.

Worker members – We thank the Minister for the information provided. Unfortunately, we have to emphasize that the failings of compliance by Ecuador with this Convention are reiterated, structural and long-standing. They not only persist, but have been deepened as a result of the lack of legislative action and institutional practices which actively raise obstacles to the full exercise of collective labour rights. Indeed, at both the legislative level and in relation to administrative and judicial practices, Ecuador has maintained provisions and practices that are incompatible with its international obligations deriving from the Convention.

This is reflected in five essential areas:

• inadequate protection against anti-union discrimination;
• disproportionate requirements for the exercise of the right to collective bargaining;
• the prohibition of bargaining at the branch or inter-enterprise level;
• the exclusion of the majority of public sector workers from coverage by collective bargaining; and
• the role of compulsory arbitration in collective disputes.

In relation to the first of these areas, protection against anti-union discrimination, Ecuadorian legislation does not envisage the explicit, comprehensive and systematic prohibition of acts of reprisal for trade union reasons. The existing tools – such as unjustified dismissal and certain transitional measures – are clearly inadequate. There are no effective mechanisms for preventive inspection with adequate penalties and the remedies for damages are limited and slow.

This is combined with enterprise and State practices under which legal provisions can often be used as tools for the repression of trade unions. An emblematic illustration is the reiterated use of the “visto bueno” procedure (section 172 of the Labour Code), and administrative proceedings against trade union leaders. In many cases, the termination of the employment contract has been approved in the context of disputes or proceedings instigated by trade unions without acknowledging the presumption of reprisal. Cases of dismissal following the participation of workers in activities to commemorate the 1st of May follow a systematic pattern, as the exercise of freedom of association in Ecuador can involve a real risk of hostile acts, monitoring and arbitrary dismissal.

This climate has given rise to a culture of fear in relation to trade union membership, as it is perceived as a risk for stability of employment. As a result, many organizations are not able to consolidate or maintain the necessary level of membership, which acts as a structural limitation on their capacity to engage in collective action. The right to organize without a guarantee of effective protection is nothing but an empty promise.

Second, section 221 of the Labour Code requires unions to represent over 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise to be able to engage in collective bargaining, which constitutes a disproportionate requirement in a context of labour fragmentation, outsourcing, high levels of mobility and geographical dispersion. This requirement has been repeatedly questioned by the ILO supervisory bodies, but nevertheless remains unchanged. It amounts to a structural exclusion, as legally constituted unions are not able to exercise the right to collective bargaining. This situation is perpetuating a system in which only a small proportion of the working class have access to collective agreements. Already, in 2015, an ILO mission to the country noted that collective bargaining coverage was lower than 1 per cent. And far from improving, the situation has not changed and has not got better.

Third, the legislation in Ecuador does not recognize collective bargaining at the branch, sectoral or inter-enterprise levels. This omission prevents thousands of workers, especially in sectors with a high rate of informality, from the effective exercise of the rights set out in the Convention. There is no legislative provision to facilitate such bargaining, despite the explicit recommendations made by the supervisory bodies. The case of the National Federation of Paid Domestic Workers is revealing. This organization, which has been legally constituted since 2018, put forward a proposal in 2024 for a collective contract for the sector, which has been shelved without further action, based on the justification that the legislation does not envisage this type of negotiation. This rebuttal is in contradiction with the principles of active promotion set out in the Convention and perpetuates the historical exclusion of a sector composed of a majority of women working under precarious conditions.

Fourth, in the public sector the situation is even more serious. The legislation in Ecuador explicitly prohibits collective bargaining for the majority of those classified as public servants, as set out in the Act on Public Enterprises and other constitutional provisions. The few negotiations permitted for manual workers are subject to severe restrictions: prior budgetary requirements, the imposition of financial ceilings, unilateral review by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Economy and Finance, and administrative delays which may last for over a decade. This exclusion is not temporary or exceptional. It is a sustained public policy that disregards the collective rights of tens of thousands of state workers. And this has also been confirmed by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA).

Fifth, section 225 of the Labour Code imposes compulsory arbitration in the event that agreements are not reached in collective disputes, even without the consent of the parties. This procedure is in violation of the principle of voluntary bargaining set out in Article 4 of the Convention. Despite the reiterated comments of the ILO, reforms have not been adopted and the provision has not been found to be inapplicable. Instead of promoting free and voluntary dialogue, the system in Ecuador has recourse to compulsory procedures, which in our view are eroding the collective autonomy and legitimacy of conflict resolution procedures.

Finally, we are bound to note that the Government of Ecuador has not provided full and adequate information or disaggregated data on collective bargaining. It has not provided data on the agreements that are in force, their sectoral coverage, the number of workers covered or the content of the agreements that are negotiated. This is a cause of concern for us, especially in sectors such as agriculture and banana production, which are characterized by precarious work and low levels of union representation. This lack of information is preventing the Committee of Experts from assessing with precision the level of compliance with the Convention and constitutes a serious obstacle to our national and international monitoring mechanisms.

It should be recalled that, in the context of the examination of the present case, the Conference Committee decided in its 2023 conclusions that a direct contacts mission should visit Ecuador. However, up to now, the Government of Ecuador has not created the necessary conditions for it to take place. It is therefore important to make it clear, at the beginning of the discussion, that the Workers’ group is calling on the Government of Ecuador to ensure effective compliance with its commitments to the ILO.

The situation of Ecuador in relation to the Convention requires an urgent and rigorous response. The violations are systematic and affect the immense majority of workers in the country. The gap between the formal commitment of the State and the real situation in practice of the exercise of the right to collective bargaining is both very deep and persistent.

We trust that the Government will respond to this Committee through the provision of full information explaining in detail the specific commitments that it will make to overcome now, without further delay, the multiple obstacles that are today preventing effective compliance with the Convention.

Employer member, Ecuador – Since 2022, this Committee has been calling on the various governments that we have had in Ecuador to accept a direct contacts mission and to have recourse to ILO technical assistance. In recent years, we have experienced various political and social circumstances, including three changes of government, a social uprising and serious problems of security, including the exponential increase in illicit activities by organized transnational criminal and drug trafficking groups. This resulted in the Government declaring internal armed conflict in January 2024 and ordering the armed forces to collaborate with the police in attempting to re-establish order and peace for the citizens of Ecuador, and clearly requesting international support in relation to security from various friendly countries.

A few days ago, a new Government took office for four years up to 2029. In our view, this will smooth the way for the request made by the Committee for Experts to visit the country in the short and medium term so that, with due prior consultations with the social partners, the comments made can be analysed and insofar as possible, agreement can be reached through tripartite dialogue.

We commend the Government on the designation of a tripartite delegation, in which we are present and able to participate in the Conference, particularly as Ecuador is under examination in relation to several standards.

As we have said previously, in relation to the regrettable murder of the Secretary of the Union of Workers of the Manabí Provincial Government in 2022, we once again express solidarity with his family members and we condemn such acts of violence, which are a matter of concern and sadness for the whole of the country on a daily basis in the various regions of the country due to the security problems.

We must all call upon and insist that the competent institutions of the judiciary, that is both prosecutors and criminal courts, definitively resolve culpability for such acts and punish those responsible in accordance with the law.

With reference to the application of Conventions, in its comments, the Committee of Experts emphasizes the need to amend specific provisions of the Labour Code with a view to reducing the minimum number of persons required to establish workers’ associations and to allow the establishment of unions by branch of activity.

In this regard, our Constitution provides and guarantees in article 326 that labour rights are based on various principles, including the guarantee of the right and freedom of workers to organize without previous authorization. This right includes the establishment of unions, associations and other forms of organization, the freedom to join and leave them, and it also guarantees the right to organize of employers. The State is bound to promote the creation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, in accordance with the law, by promoting their democratic, participatory and transparent operation with the renewal of their leaders. The Constitution calls for the adoption of social dialogue for the resolution of labour disputes and the conclusion of agreements.

The lower ranking legislation, the Labour Code, in its chapter on workers’ associations, also provides for freedom of association by indicating that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever and without the need for previous authorization, have the right to establish and join or leave the occupational associations or unions of their choosing in accordance with the law and the rules of the respective associations. Occupational associations and unions have the right to establish, join and leave federations, confederations or any other representative groups, and to affiliate with international organizations of workers or employers. The Labour Code therefore guarantees the protection of the State for any type of workers’ association for the purposes of vocational training, culture and education that is general or applied to the corresponding branch of activities, mutual support through the establishment of cooperatives or savings and other funds which result in the economic and social improvement of workers and the defence of their interests.

In January and March last year, the Ministry of Labour issued various ministerial orders on these subjects. The first, Order No. MDT-2024-012, issued regulations for labour organizations for the exercise of the right to trade union freedom and autonomy, with the objective of facilitating and strengthening the provisions and agreements referred to, guaranteeing the exercise of the right to trade union freedom and autonomy in the country, establishing clarity and transparency, respecting the procedures for the establishment of workers’ organizations in general, their approval and the reform of their statutes and the registration of their executive officers. The second, Order No. MDT-2024-040, is intended to establish greater and better diligence in the administration of procedures respecting labour organizations.

On the other hand, there is no provision in any ILO Convention ratified by Ecuador which determines the minimum number of members required for the establishment of a union. The comment by the Committee of Experts that the respective provisions of the Labour Code require an excessive number of workers for the establishment of workers’ associations and restrict the possibility of establishing branch unions is therefore totally subjective, as it is not supported by any national or international legislative provisions. In our view, it is also disproportionate as the structure of enterprises in Ecuador should be taken into account, and it therefore shows a lack of knowledge of the situation of enterprises in the country, the labour market and the difference between the formal and informal sectors in Ecuador. It is necessary for the representatives of the parties to be actors with sufficient representativity who clearly express the views of the majority.

The recommendation by the Committee of Experts refers to one of the constituent institutions of collective labour law, contracts and collective bargaining. The social partners should therefore review a possible comprehensive reform of the whole system. It is not possible to be limited to the amendment of certain specific provisions of the Labour Code.

With reference to the right to freedom of association, the Constitution recognizes and protects the right to establish association in article 326. The right to freedom of association requires the State to ensure that no prior administrative authorization is necessary which would deny the full exercise of the rights of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. Nevertheless, the Constitution and international standards do not prevent, and indeed explicitly provide that the State shall set out in the national legislation the requirements and procedures necessary for the legal recognition and operation of organizations.

The legislation in Ecuador, in accordance with the principles of the Constitution, sets out the requirements for the establishment of unions, which may be summarized as follows, and which are not disproportionate: (a) proof of the decision taken by the persons who decide to associate; (b) the specification of the level of representativity necessary for the establishment of organizations; and (c) the registration and recognition of the legal personality of associations.

In the case of the ASTAC, in the banana sector, a constitutional protection measure was proposed on the grounds that there had been a violation of trade union rights because the Ministry of Labour had refused recognition of its legal personality and the registration of the organization. However, what has been overlooked is that the refusal of the Ministry of Labour to recognize the organization was due to the fact that it had not fulfilled the requirements set out in the national legislation for the establishment of a union. The refusal by the Ministry of Labour of the establishment of the ASTAC as a union, based on the failure to comply with the legal requirements, was not in breach of the constitutional rights and did not constitute an arbitrary restriction of trade union activity, but on the contrary involved compliance with the principle of legality and the duty to ensure that its actions were in accordance with the legislation.

The ruling was the subject of an appeal for constitutional protection launched by the Office of the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Labour, which has still not been decided by the courts.

Moreover, in the banana sector, there is a clear example of social dialogue between workers and employers. There is a cooperation agreement between the banana cluster, consisting of various employers’ organizations with the Federation of Agricultural Workers (FENACLE), a Federation that groups together various labour organizations in the banana sector, where much progress has been made in the context of social dialogue.

Finally, we emphasize our willingness, through social dialogue, through the National Labour and Wages Council of Ecuador, a tripartite body, to engage in discussions on these matters. Since last year, as indicated by the Minister, we have (because I am a member of the National Labour and Wages Council) dealt with workers through various dialogue bodies on issues of employment and training, and now on a subject that is specific to Ecuadorian law, on retirement for employers.

The Office can therefore, through its advisory work, help and support the tripartite dialogues that we have been holding. It is necessary to understand the real labour market situation in Ecuador, where four out of every ten persons do not have adequate work. It is necessary to undertake reforms which focus in particular on the generation and maintenance of employment.

Worker member, Ecuador – I am appearing before you with pride and responsibility representing over 6,800 workers in the National Telecommunications Corporation (CNT), one of the main State enterprises in Ecuador, and I am speaking with the backing of the Ecuadorian trade union movement and the firm commitment to defend the rights of my fellow workers. I should add that the 6,800 workers in this State company benefit from collective bargaining.

Today, my country is being accused of alleged violations of freedom of association, arbitrary dismissals and the failure to comply with rulings and, I wish to be clear, these accusations not only have no basis in fact, but also disregard the significant progress that Ecuador has achieved in labour matters.

Ecuador has a clear and solid legal framework, and the unjustified dismissal provision set out in section 195 of the Labour Code protects trade union leaders and pregnant women by guaranteeing their employment stability. Section 187 also reinforces this protection for all workers. If there really are cases of anti-union discrimination or dismissals for trade union reasons, where is the proof? It does not exist.

And with reference to the accusations of blacklisting and corruption, if there is proof, the correct way of proceeding is to present it to the Office of the Prosecutor General and to bring the respective charges. We will not accept the use of international forums to discredit a country and its working class. With reference to the allegations of failure to comply with rulings, we have to make the clarification that the Ministry of Labour is not competent for the execution of those legal rulings. That responsibility lies exclusively with the ordinary courts and the constitutional court in accordance with the independence of functions set out in the Constitution.

However, over and above defending ourselves, I would like to place emphasis on an unprecedented historical event in Ecuadorian labour matters.

I have been a member of the National Labour Council since 2015 and for the first time the Ministry of Labour has established technical dialogue groups with workers for the reform of the ministerial decisions that previously affected our rights. As a result of these groups set up with real tripartite participation, the workers have had the opportunity to put forward our ideas, proposals and issues with the current legislation. This not only constitutes technical progress, but is also recognition of the role played by the working class as protagonists in building a more just and equitable country.

This progress shows that Ecuador not only respects, but is also strengthening freedom of association and social dialogue, and that this is being done through action, not empty words.

We deeply regret the murder of our companion the leader Sandro Artiaga and, speaking on behalf of the workers in the telecommunications sector in Ecuador, as well as thousands of other workers in the country, we also demand justice, although we know that the investigation is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Office of the Prosecutor-General and that it has to be carried out rigorously and in respect of due process.

I am speaking on behalf of the 6,800 workers of the CNT and with the force of 200,000 workers whom I represent as the first Vice-President of the Central Organization of Workers. We will not allow the trade union movement in Ecuador to be slandered, nor the progress achieved to be minimized. We call on the international community to abide by the principles of objectivity and justice. Ecuador is making progress, building dialogue and respecting labour rights. We are committed to a more equitable society in which the voices of workers are heeded and respected.

Long live the unity of the trade union movement. Long live the dignity of CNT workers and of Ecuador.

Another Worker member, Ecuador – This voice of protest is also addressed to all workers throughout the world. I stand before you today not simply as a trade union leader, but as the voice entrusted with representing thousands of Ecuadorian workers, whom I represent each day with commitment on the Single Enterprise Committee of Service Workers of the Ministry of Education of Ecuador, which brings together caretakers, assistants, drivers – namely, the workers on the first level of the wage scale, the country’s most vulnerable people, who every day contribute through our efforts and our work.

Today, more than ever, it is essential to remember that, behind every classroom, behind every institution, there are children receiving better care, because clean educational establishments also promote good health and healthy recreation.

Unfortunately, as a worker, I must also give voice to our protest and indignation at what we have heard. The Government of Ecuador, which has just taken office, is making every effort to reorganize and to establish a modern administration, which is seeking to provide new efficient services with professionalism and to serve the public, in order to meet the requirements of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador and the law.

Regrettably, we must reject the baseless claims and allegations that serve only to discredit Ecuadorian workers. The clear and precise standards established by the International Labour Organization in the Convention and in Convention No. 87 are being complied with in full, in strict accordance with the law. In Ecuador, there are various laws under the Ministry of Education by which we are governed: the Basic Act on the Public Service (LOSEP), the Basic Act on Intercultural Education (LOEI) and the Labour Code. It is not possible to make the general claim that it is prohibited by law to organize in the public administration. That is a different law, and all public servants, the whole of the public service, cannot be grouped together in that respect. There are various branches of work that must be analysed very carefully. It has been claimed that Ecuador is a country that violates trade union rights. That is entirely false. Our organization has 23 unions just 14 years after its establishment. We are now negotiating our seventh collective agreement, in accordance with the requirements of the law, although in compliance with the requirements of the law, as all collective agreements must include rights, duties and obligations that we must fulfil as citizens. A clear example is our own: after ten years of our rights being violated, we concluded the most recent, the sixth collective agreement, which recognizes the social, political and economic rights of the most vulnerable workers in our country. I call on those making allegations that, if they have no legal basis and do not represent all the country’s workers, they should refrain from tarnishing a Government that is only beginning to engage in working groups and forums with a view to adopting reforms.

Government member, Poland – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The candidate countries Albania, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine, and the EFTA countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights. We promote universal ratification and effective implementation of fundamental ILO Conventions and support the ILO in developing and promoting international labour standards and supervising their application.

In this context, we reiterate the commitment made by both parties in the trade agreement between the EU and Ecuador to the promotion and effective implementation of the core labour standards, as contained in the respective Conventions, including this Convention.

We welcome the Government of Ecuador’s willingness to resume dialogue with the ILO and its acceptance of an ILO direct contacts mission. We encourage the Government to proceed swiftly in that direction. We also note that social partners have submitted detailed comments and observations in 2022, 2023 and 2024. We encourage further engagement with the social partners to ensure that their views are fully considered.

We note with concern that, despite repeated requests by the Committee of Experts and this Committee, Ecuador has not taken legislative steps to explicitly prohibit anti-union discrimination in access to employment. We urge the Government to adopt clear legal provisions with dissuasive sanctions, as required by Article 1 of the Convention.

We remain concerned about reports of blacklisting, where judicial records are reportedly used to exclude applicants involved in labour disputes. While the 2024 data protection regulations are welcome, we support the Committee of Experts’ request for further information on their implementation and impact.

On collective bargaining in the private sector, we are concerned that section 221 of the Labour Code, by imposing a high representativity threshold, presents a serious barrier for participation in collective bargaining. We recall that such thresholds must not hinder the promotion of voluntary collective bargaining. We regret that few new collective bargaining agreements have been concluded, with most recent ones merely revising existing ones. We support the call for legislative amendments to allow minority trade unions to negotiate on behalf of their members. We also encourage the Government to provide comprehensive data on the nature and scope of collective agreements.

We further express particular concern at the exclusion of workers from unionization and bargaining in sectors composed mainly of small enterprises, due to the requirement of a minimum of 30 workers to establish unions and enterprise committees and the impossibility of establishing first-level unions composed of workers from different enterprises. We call on the Government to amend legislation to allow sectoral bargaining and first-level unions across enterprises.

In the public sector, we regret that legislation does not provide full protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference for leaders of all organizations of public servants. We reiterate the need for reform to ensure equality of protection, as required by Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Convention, accompanied by dissuasive penalties. We also note the limited implementation of Constitutional Court ruling of 2020 and National Court of Justice ruling 102024 regarding the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism and urge the Government to clarify the remedial actions taken.

We reiterate the importance of enabling meaningful collective bargaining for all public sector workers not engaged in state administration. We encourage the Government to ensure that recent regulatory actions and budgetary controls do not restrict rights guaranteed under the Convention.

We also recall the persistent concerns under Convention No. 87, as discussed by this Committee in 2024. Legislative restrictions on the right to organize, high thresholds of representativeness required for bargaining, and lack of sectoral frameworks continue to prevent many workers from exercising their rights to collective bargaining and freedom of association. We reaffirm our position and the Committee’s conclusions adopted last year and urge the Government to address recommendations under both Conventions.

The EU and its Member States remain committed to constructive engagement with Ecuador and all ILO constituents in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation.

Government member, Peru – I am speaking on behalf of the Governments of Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama and Peru. We note the information provided by the Government of Ecuador, represented by its Minister of Labour.

We note the existence of measures to protect against anti-union dismissal, including the principle of immunity from dismissal for trade union leaders and the application of section 195(2) of the Labour Code.

We note the existence of tripartite structures, such as the National Labour and Wages Council, established in 2024, with the regular participation of workers’, employers’ and Government representatives, and ILO technical assistance.

National efforts to promote the continuity and strengthen trade union organizations include Ministerial Decision No. MDT 2024/12, which has facilitated the re-establishment of trade unions and enterprise committees. We are also aware that Ecuador is working to strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption, in order to ensure the independence of the functions of the State.

Noting this information and recognizing the sustained efforts of Ecuador to guarantee labour and trade union rights, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama and Peru call for support for the continued institutional strengthening of Ecuador within the framework of tripartite social dialogue, recognition of the reforms adopted by the country to guarantee freedom of association, non-discrimination and the full participation of workers in representative organizations, and emphasize the importance of ILO technical support and international technical assistance for the consolidation of this progress.

Government member, Switzerland – Although the application of the Convention by the Government of Ecuador has not been discussed by the Conference Committee since 2016, the Committee of Experts has observed repeated failures to comply with the Convention for over a decade.

Switzerland deplores the lack of information provided and practical measures taken by the Ecuadorian authorities in response to the repeated requests by the Committee of Experts to address the shortcomings identified.

As noted by the Committee of Experts, the full exercise by many Ecuadorian workers of their right to organize and to engage in collective bargaining, in both the private and public sectors, is severely restricted by various provisions of Ecuadorian legislation. The Swiss Government encourages the Government of Ecuador to adapt its legislation to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention and to take all the necessary measures to ensure its application in practice.

It should be recalled that the full and complete application of the Convention is closely linked to compliance with the provisions of Convention No. 87. Switzerland also encourages the Government of Ecuador to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, and particularly to accept the direct contacts mission requested by the Committee in 2022 during its examination of the application of Convention No. 87.

Employer member, Argentina – The employers of Argentina would like to thank the Government of Ecuador for the information provided to the Committee, and for the willingness expressed to achieve full respect for the rights to organize and to engage in collective bargaining. We reiterate our interest in obtaining further information on the composition and functioning of the social dialogue council referred to by the Minister.

Collective bargaining is a fundamental pillar of decent work and it builds trust and mutual respect between employers, workers and their organizations, and contributes to the maintenance of stable and productive labour relations. On this basis, we encourage the Government of Ecuador to maximize its efforts to address the matters under discussion today in a spirit of consensus and consideration of the concerns expressed by employers’ and workers’ organizations.

With reference to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts on this case, we believe it is worth emphasizing the comments by the Employer spokesperson on the importance of taking a systemic approach to any reform of the industrial relations system in a country, and the warning of the complexities that could result from adopting isolated reforms disconnected from the country’s legislative system and established practices. In this context, we encourage the Government to strengthen effective consultation mechanisms with the country’s most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, such as the National Labour and Wages Council, on the understanding that such dialogue is essential for the development of balanced and sustainable standards that respect freedom of association and are properly integrated into the national legislation. We understand that social dialogue is the most effective tool for designing legislative structures that adequately address the conflicts of interest inherent in labour relations, taking into account the specific characteristics and practices rooted in the cultures of each productive ecosystem.

Worker member, Uruguay – I am appearing here on behalf of the workers to denounce one of the most serious and persistent forms of non-compliance with the Convention in Ecuador, namely that in law and practice it is impossible to engage in collective bargaining by branch of activity or economic sector. These restrictions not only contravene ILO principles but also perpetuate precarious work and inequality in the country. The legislation in Ecuador is focussed on enterprise-level bargaining, leaving a legal vacuum regarding collective bargaining by branch of activity. The absence of this legal framework has been a constant concern for the ILO, which has urged the Government of Ecuador to allow the creation of inter-enterprise unions and to ensure that collective bargaining is possible in sectors with a predominance of small enterprises. An example that has been referred to previously, and is worth repeating here, is the situation of the National Union of Paid Domestic Workers and Allied Workers (UNTHA), whose attempt to establish a sectoral collective agreement was arbitrarily shelved, which shows how this legal vacuum prevents the effective exercise of this right. This exclusion also applies to the public sector. The Basic Public Service Act only recognizes the right to collective bargaining rights and to conclude collective agreements for manual workers in the public sector, thereby excluding the vast majority of public servants, such as teachers, healthcare workers and administrative employees. Even for public sector manual workers, who are able to engage in collective bargaining, there is the additional obstacle of the requirement of a favourable budgetary determination from the Ministry of Finance. This means that, even if agreements are concluded between public employers and trade unions, their implementation is subject to financial approval by the Ministry, which can delay or prevent their implementation.

Education is another sector where the possibility of achieving progress towards collective bargaining by branch of activity is severely restricted. The National Federation of Education Workers (UNE), a national organization, has had its legal status revoked. This situation, which is not only in violation of freedom of association, and was examined last year, remains unchanged, thereby preventing any possibility of collective bargaining in the education sector.

The current legislative system in Ecuador, by restricting unionization exclusively to the enterprise level, and excluding most public services from collective bargaining, creates a restrictive collective bargaining model that leaves large segments of the workforce unprotected. This situation is not only in violation of the international obligations assumed by Ecuador, but also limits the possibility of making progress towards greater equity and social justice. We urge the Committee to recognize that prohibition of engaging in collective bargaining by branch of activity constitutes a persistent structural failing that is contrary to the international obligations assumed by the State of Ecuador.

Employer member, Honduras – As a representative of the Employers, we consider it essential to initiate effective and comprehensive follow-up of the potential solutions to address the problems relating to the failure to comply with the Convention in Ecuador. However, any solution must be based on understanding between the social partners within the framework of social dialogue. We respect the recommendations and comments of the Committee of Experts regarding the need to amend the current legal requirements for the establishment of trade unions in Ecuador, particularly concerning the minimum number of workers required. Nevertheless, it is important that any proposed reforms guarantee the principle of representativity in the exercise of freedom of association. Only in this way can social stability be guaranteed and reforms avoided which create uncertainty and greater conflict.

The right to freedom of association, without minimum representativity criteria, does not guarantee this right or the right to collective bargaining. On the contrary, it undermines it by creating uncertainty and obstacles to achieving sustainable agreements based on social dialogue. We therefore firmly believe that any legal reform must guarantee the right to freedom of association, while simultaneously ensuring that those who engage in bargaining have legitimacy and genuinely represent collective interests.

From the Employers’ perspective, we consider that the Committee of Experts’ comments can serve as a basis for genuine national tripartite dialogue for the development of a legislative framework adapted to the real situation in Ecuador and in respect of ILO principles, thereby ensuring a predictable, orderly and effective labour environment for workers and employers alike. We respectfully urge the Government of Ecuador to facilitate all the necessary action to promote social dialogue and cooperate with the ILO supervisory bodies to achieve compliance with the Convention.

Worker member, Peru – I would like to start by referring to the indication by the Minister asking forgiveness for the alleged failure of Ecuador to appear before the ILO for the last ten years. The authorized Ministers and officials who preceded her were present in the Committee on each occasion that the case of Ecuador was examined. And not only were they present, but they took on international commitments, including the acceptance of missions and technical assistance, but they never complied with those commitments.

We are appearing on behalf of the organizations of Peru and the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA) with reference to the situation in Ecuador, and particularly a series of national provisions that are clearly contrary to the Convention, as noted by the Committee in previous years. We regret that the Government, despite its role as guarantor of the promotion of appropriate national law and practice in accordance with the Convention, has not only adopted provisions which systematically exclude workers from the right of collective bargaining, but this has also been reinforced by regressive court rulings, legal reforms and administrative practices. We will refer to certain cases in both the private and public sectors:

Private sector:

• section 221 of the Labour Code requires an absolute majority to exercise the right to collective bargaining;
• section 225 of the Labour Code imposes compulsory arbitration automatically in the event of disagreement.

Both these provisions have been broadly criticized by the supervisory bodies for more than a decade.

Public sector:

• the exclusion by law of public servants from collective bargaining;
• the third general provision of the Constitutional mandate, No. 8, the Basic Act on the Public Sector and section 26 of the Basic Act on Public Enterprises set out these restrictions by providing for exclusions;
• institutional practices which deny the right: Ministerial Decision MDT/20/24/080 authorizes the Ministry of Labour to review and declare void collective agreements concluded by public enterprises which benefit public servants.

Such provisions have very systematic consequences. The high threshold for representativity required to engage in collective bargaining and the lack of a legal framework for sectoral bargaining, as well as the combined effect of restrictive provisions, are obstacles to the exercise of collective bargaining in the private sector.

Centralized budgetary control. The judicial interpretation is an absolute barrier to collective bargaining for the majority of the public sector. This is in violation of the duty of the State to guarantee conditions that promote the exercise of this fundamental right and is in violation of the provisions of the Convention.

Employer member, Mexico – I give thanks for the information provided by the Minister of Labour. We agree with the Employer spokesperson that the isolated comment made by the Committee of Experts on the number of persons necessary to establish a union appears to us to be unjustified, particularly as it does not take into account or refer to criteria of representativity in collective bargaining, which could give rise to an unwanted fragmentation of unions.

It is also important to indicate that the legislation in Ecuador already envisages certain forms of representation and collective dialogue, including in cases where the minimum number of workers required to establish a union is not reached, as well as the employment stability of trade union representatives. It is therefore necessary to consider elements which strengthen collective rights and the binding nature of agreements negotiated by enterprise committees, even though clear regulations are also required on the legitimacy and representativity of those who act on behalf of workers.

For all these reasons, it is necessary to establish effective tripartite consultation at the national level, based on the culture of collective bargaining, particularly at the enterprise level, that exists in Ecuador, and to promote a coherent set of rules reflecting the wishes of workers who want to establish a union, including the necessary level of representativity to enable them to negotiate effectively and collectively, and which therefore guarantees employers a system that offers legal certainty and labour peace.

With reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the establishment and representativity of branch unions, it is important to consider that the rules that govern bargaining at the enterprise level cannot be applied to collective bargaining at the level of branches of activity, as they are not compatible. This is another reason why tripartite dialogue has to be established so as to be able to propose the form in which the legislation can be adapted so that it regulates these issues appropriately.

In our view, as employers, we consider it important to ensure the visit to Ecuador of the direct contacts mission agreed to in 2022 and for the Government to be able to receive technical assistance from the Office, as a basis for examining the changes and adaptations required in the labour legislation. The implementation of a reform on this subject has to be the outcome of tripartite dialogue to achieve the appropriate regulation of the right to organize and collective bargaining, as set out in the Convention, as well as rules on representativity as a basis for better collective labour relations to the benefit of workers and enterprise productivity.

Worker member, Spain – I am speaking on behalf of the General Union of Workers (UGT) of Spain, the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC).

I am taking the floor to refer to the systematic, sustained and deliberate failure of the Government of Ecuador to give effect to the recommendations made by the ILO supervisory bodies in relation to the Convention. We are faced with the recurrent conduct of several Governments which are questioning the effectiveness of the ILO supervisory system. It is a pattern that is weakening the credibility of the multilateral system and the principle of good faith which has to govern the ratification and implementation of international Conventions.

We can refer to various situations which back up this assessment of the Government of Ecuador.

First, the systematic refusal to accept a direct contacts mission, as in 2022 the Committee requested the Government to accept a technical mission to the country to verify compliance with the Convention in situ. Nevertheless, the Government of Ecuador has rejected each and every proposal for the mission to take place and this refusal is depriving the supervisory bodies of an essential tool of technical assistance and direct verification and is in violation of the principle of international cooperation set out in the ILO Constitution.

A second critical issue is the failure to give effect to the specific decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA). Accordingly, when specific cases or evidence of failure to comply with freedom of association in Ecuador are being sought, reference may be made, for example, to Case No. 2684 on the anti-union dismissal of the leaders of the National Federation of Workers of the State Petroleum Enterprise of Ecuador (FETRAPEC). In this case, the CFA reiterated in at least six reports the requirement for the State to fully reinstate the dismissed leaders, pay the wages due and include social security contributions. Even though there was a ruling by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, issued in 2021, which required the Government to give effect to the recommendations, reinstatement was partial at best, thereby showing that even the decisions of the highest judicial authorities in the country are not sufficient to overturn the pattern of noncompliance by the Government of Ecuador.

A third point in support of this pattern of systematic failure of compliance is the persistence of provisions and practices that are contrary to the Convention. We can refer to three issues: compulsory arbitration, which has already been alluded to; the exclusion from the right to collective bargaining in the public sector; and the existence of disproportionate requirements to be able to engage in collective bargaining, which has remained unchanged despite the many comments made by the Committee of Experts.

Finally, I wish to refer to the absence of genuine social dialogue in Ecuador. The Government has stated that it facilitates dialogue forums with workers’ organizations. Nevertheless, independent and representative unions, which truly represent the majority of workers in Ecuador, have been systematically excluded from dialogue processes and the preparation of legislation.

The representatives who participate in these processes have publicly proclaimed their political support for the Government and, moreover, by unjustified and biased decision, are part of its official delegation to the Conference.

In this regard, I wish to conclude by recalling the experience of the previous year at the Conference, when the Government of Ecuador decided not to accredit any delegation, thereby denying the right of the legitimate representatives to participate in the Conference, and in this respect we are bound to recall that the fact that the Government was not present at the Conference, as was the case, does not dispense it from dully accrediting a tripartite delegation.

Experience of these systematic violations presupposes a clear challenge to the functioning and work of the Committee and the ILO supervisory bodies, for which reason this case requires a firm, coherent and exemplary response from the Committee.

Employer member, Uruguay – May I first reaffirm the commitment of the Employers to the principles of the ILO, and to the strengthening of tripartite social dialogue as the most appropriate means of achieving structural, balanced and sustainable labour market reforms.

In this context, I wish to express our support for the points made by the Employer spokesperson in the present case concerning a comprehensive reform of the Labour Code in Ecuador, which has to be addressed as a whole and not in isolated parts with a view to preserving the internal coherence of the system of collective labour relations and its modernization.

The comments of the Committee of Experts have focussed on the specific amendment of certain provisions of the Labour Code, especially with regard to the minimum number of workers required to establish unions and collective bargaining by branch of activity. We wish to emphasize that these aspects cannot be reformed in isolation without considering their effects on other areas of collective labour law.

Trade union fragmentation or the creation of weak structures that are insufficiently representative could have a serious effect on the collective bargaining system, especially in a country with a high level of informality in the labour market. The revision needs to be comprehensive and consensual, with the real participation of workers, employers and the Government.

Since 2022, Ecuador has been experiencing an unprecedented period of institutional instability and security crisis, including three changes of government and the recent declaration of internal armed conflict in order to tackle organized crime. These circumstances have had a profound impact on governability and national priorities.

Despite this context, we welcome with optimism the recent arrival in office of the new constitutional Government, which offers a window of opportunity to achieve progress on pending issues with ILO technical support and through the strengthening of tripartite dialogue. From the Employers’ side, we fully support the visit as soon as possible of a direct contacts mission to Ecuador, which has been requested since 2022. We also urge the Government to accept ILO technical assistance, which will provide an opportunity to build bridges between international technical criteria and the real situation of the national labour market in Ecuador. We reiterate that this assistance will be valuable in achieving a sustainable labour reform which responds to international requirements without disregarding the need to ensure employability, formalization and legal stability for enterprises and workers.

We wish to emphasize that there is already an institutional forum for social dialogue in Ecuador: the National Labour and Wages Council, which is tripartite, where working forums have been set up with ILO assistance in which labour reforms are discussed based on consensus. We would like these forums to be lasting and permanent in order to achieve the objectives set out today by the Committee of Experts.

Worker member, France – The picture painted by the report of the Committee of Experts on the situation in Ecuador is all the more serious and worrying because it has already been the subject of several complaints to the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA).

The legislation in Ecuador imposes excessive restrictions on the exercise of trade union rights, in violation of freedom of association and the effective recognition of collective bargaining. In particular, it requires a minimum of 30 workers to establish a union or an enterprise committee, while these committees, which have the exclusive power to engage in collective negotiation, have to include at least 50 per cent of the workers in the enterprise.

Moreover, Ecuador does not explicitly recognize the establishment of sectoral unions, nor as a consequence their right to collective bargaining. For unions which are able to engage in collective bargaining, it imposes the requirement of 50 per cent representativity, without the possibility of any exceptions.

With reference to the protection of workers, the legislation also has major shortcomings, as it does not provide for adequate protection against dismissal carried out as reprisals, nor protection against harassment at the workplace.

In this respect, the Labour Code in Ecuador does not explicitly prohibit many measures that are used as anti-union practices: surveillance of trade union activities; financial incentives for workers to leave unions; blacklisting of trade union members and leaders; and the creation of yellow unions.

In addition to restrictive legislation, the Government has engaged in systematic practices that undermine fundamental labour rights. To give just a few examples, the Minister of Labour of Ecuador has systematically delayed, ignored or rejected without just cause applications for the registration of new unions and union leaders.

The Ministry of Labour has also systematically failed to investigate or punish threats against workers, including union members, anti-union dismissals, acts of reprisal, blacklists and other similar acts. Ecuador has severely repressed demonstrators calling for an improvement in collective labour rights, and has engaged in the judicial prosecution of unions.

Finally, reference should be made to its failure to take action against discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as persistent hazardous working conditions, such as exposure to dangerous levels of pesticides which, in the banana sector, can be similar to forced labour.

We call on the Government to respond positively to the various requests made by the Committee of Experts, and also to accept ILO technical assistance, so that it can engage on an urgent basis in the legislative changes that are required and meet the obligations deriving from the Convention.

Worker member, Costa Rica – I am also speaking on behalf of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CEOSL) to express our deep concern at the reiterated failure of the Government of Ecuador to give effect to the obligations deriving from the Convention.

What we are coming up against in this case is not an isolated delay or lack of technical capacity, but a prolonged and transversal pattern by various governments, which amounts to the systematic, deliberate and sustained failure to comply with the commitments freely entered into by the State of Ecuador. Over the past decade, Ecuador has been one of the most frequent cases on this Committee’s short list and, despite the change of Government, disregard for the recommendations of the supervisory bodies, the absence of substantive reforms and an evasive attitude towards the ILO supervisory system have been maintained. Indeed, one of the most serious aspects of this failure of compliance is the reiterated refusal by the Government of Ecuador to accept a direct contacts mission, as requested by the Committee of Experts and endorsed by the Conference Committee in its conclusions in previous years. Up to now, it has not taken place. This denial deprives the supervisory bodies of an essential tool for technical analysis in situ, and demonstrates an attitude of disregard for the principle of international cooperation which governs the action of the Organization.

This pattern is also repeated in relation to the decisions adopted by other supervisory bodies, such as in Case No. 2684 of the CFA in relation to the FETRAPEC, in which anti-union dismissals have been documented and the reinstatement of trade union leaders was explicitly recommended. The CFA has reiterated this recommendation in over six reports, and even the Constitutional Court of Ecuador issued a compulsory ruling in 2021 ordering compliance with the decisions of the CFA. Nevertheless, as of now, reinstatement has been only partial, the remuneration due has not been paid and the ruling has still not been given effect.

Within the context of the Conference, it is a source of great concern that the Government of Ecuador has excluded from its delegation the most representative trade union organizations in the country, which are affiliated to regional and global confederations, the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas, the International Trade Union Confederation, Public Services International and Education International. This constitutes a serious backward step for freedom of association and genuine tripartism, and compounds the failure by the Government last year to register employers and workers to participate in the Conference. Compliance with international labour standards cannot be optional. We call on the Committee to adopt firm conclusions explicitly urging the Government of Ecuador to reform the provisions that are contrary to freedom of association and giving priority to the follow-up to this case for as long as the violations of the Convention persist.

The credibility of the Committee and of the ILO itself depend on its capacity to ensure that the standards it promotes are respected in practice. The case of Ecuador requires a firm, coherent and exemplary response. This is required by the times we are experiencing at the global level.

Observer, Public Services International (PSI) – I am conveying the voice of the workers who are members of PSI in Ecuador, which represents everyone in the public sector, including those governed by the Labour Code and the Basic Public Service Act in central, provincial and municipal governments, and those in public enterprises, who are governed by the Basic Act on Public Enterprises.

In Ecuador, failure to comply with the Convention has been made into a state policy. This Committee has been a witness to the regression in the action taken by the Government. Although the attack is structural, with limitations set by the Constitution, the current Government has taken two worrying backward steps in relation to collective bargaining: on 11 June 2024, the same day on which this Committee was examining the case of Ecuador in relation to Convention No. 87, the Ministry of Labour issued Ministerial Decision No. 080, and on 15 May 2025, shortly before coming before the Committee to provide explanations on Convention No. 98, the Ministry of Labour issued Ministerial Decision No. 056 rowing back on No. 080.

These Decisions are in violation of Convention No. 98 and exacerbate the restrictions by excluding the coverage of public servants in sectors such as provincial and municipal government, education and public enterprises, and through; Government interference in agreements between the parties using unilateral review procedures by the Ministry of Labour, with the power to declare any of their provisions void. This issue, although it is claimed to have been corrected by Ministerial Decision No. 056, as it is not applicable in future cases, does not remove the problem for the collective agreements in public enterprises in three strategic sectors which were revised in 2024: oil, telecommunications and energy; and maintains the restrictions on wages governed by decisions of the Ministry of Labour or the budgetary determinations of the Ministry of Finance, trade union leave, compensation for unjustified dismissal and protection in relation to privatization.

In view of the above, it is necessary for this Committee to take up the concerns of the Committee of Experts and accept that Ecuador is becoming a global precedent. We therefore request the Committee to call on the Government to receive a tripartite mission to initiate a process of dialogue that includes possible constitutional reforms of laws and administrative practices, and the repeal of Ministerial Decisions Nos 080 of 2024 and 056 of 2025 as a tangible expression of a change of direction and evidence of the political will to comply with its international commitments and the recommendations of this Committee.

Observer, Education International (EI) – I am the President of the National Union of Education Workers (UNE) of Ecuador, an organization that has existed for 80 years and is a member of EI and the United Workers’ Front (FUT) in my country. I am speaking on behalf of 161,000 primary school teachers.

Article 1 of the Convention provides that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. In Ecuador, one of the sectors that is experiencing problems in being able to exercise its rights of collective bargaining and organization is the education sector. This is due to the fact that, on 18 August 2016, during the period of office of President Correa, an act of anti-union discrimination was committed through the elimination of the most representative union.

On 15 May 2017, the UNE, together with the TUCA, PSI and EI, to which we give thanks for their support, made a complaint to the CFA against the dissolution of the UNE, in Case No. 3279. The CFA urged the Government that was in office at the time to take all the necessary measures to ensure the full return of the property seized from the organization, as well as the elimination of any other consequences resulting from the administrative dissolution of the UNE. None of these recommendations have been given effect by the governments that have held office since 2016, including the present Government, which is in power for the second time. This prejudice to the right to organize has now been affecting collective bargaining, among other rights, for nine years.

In Ecuador, teachers cannot exercise any form of collective bargaining, for which reason rights are not respected, such as trade union leave, life insurance, trade union membership dues and access to real guarantees for teleworking, which is now becoming more common in Ecuador in light of the situation of insecurity that we are experiencing as, most regrettably, we are the most violent country in the region.

For example, on 2 June there was another armed attack in a public school. A teacher was shot three times and the school is now closed. Another school closed. In view of this situation, educators defend freedom of association, as several of the rights indicated are not respected, which is becoming a form of trade union discrimination in relation to the other workers in the Ministry of Education, as it is clear that we are excluded from the right to negotiate under conditions of equality and representativity.

Decent work and education are human rights that go hand-in-hand. There can be no decent work when there is no decent public schooling, no freedom of association, no dialogue or genuine social justice. In this context, we call on the ILO to recommend the State of Ecuador to guarantee the right to freedom of association of teachers who are members of the UNE by restoring its legal personality and revising the judicial and administrative measures taken in respect of our property, which has been affected by the dissolution, and to provide us with support through a tripartite commission. In 2016, the Minister who was in office at the time made excuses to the Conference, but what is required is more political will, not excuses, for the teachers of Ecuador.

Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – Please receive the fraternal greetings of the ITUC, TUCA and also the United Workers’ Front and the Ecuadorean Confederation of Unitary Class Organizations of Workers (CEDOCUT).

We represent the workers in a country with great natural and human wealth, but which is afflicted by inequality and exclusion. Today, labour rights and dignity are confronted by grave threats due to a neoliberal model that gives priority to accumulation and is dismantling the fundamental rights promoted by this tripartite Organization, and which are defended by workers. In Ecuador, we are experiencing growing labour precarity, under the pretext of economic recovery. Policies are being applied that are reducing rights, weakening trade unions and criminalizing social protest. Over 60 per cent of our workforce is in informality, with young persons, women and rural workers being faced with instability, the lack of opportunities and the absence of social protection. We denounce the alarming criminalization of trade union protest action. In our country, raising your voice, organizing and mobilization can result in persecution, dismissal and even loss of life. In this context, with painful irony, slogans such as “la chispa de la vida” (the spice of life) and “new Ecuador” have become synonymous with dismissals and union persecution. What formerly promised well-being now represents repression.

It is not possible to speak of social dialogue if the minimum guarantees are not present for freedom of association. We demand, first, that the State of Ecuador complies with the fundamental ILO Conventions, and particularly those on freedom of association and collective bargaining. Second, the withdrawal of laws that promote precarity, such as occasional contracts, subcontracting and hourly work, which are in violation of the Constitution and the principles of the progressive improvement of rights. Third, putting an end to the persecution of trade union leaders and public and private enterprises where complicity is evident with the officials of the Ministry of Labour, leaving thousands of workers defenceless, such as in the case of David Almeida in Ecuador, as indicated in Case No. 3488 of the CFA. Fourth, we call for an urgent mission to the country by the ILO in light of the new labour reforms that are threatening to legalize precarity and weaken trade union organization even further.

The ILO must continue to be a bastion for the defence of workers’ rights. We cannot allow the principles of social justice to be replaced by the logic of the market. The trade unions of Ecuador are continuing the fight, and we are not alone, as we have the support of international solidarity. We say clearly that rights are not to be begged for, but to be fought for. We strongly reaffirm that there can be no progress without social justice, no decent work without freedom and no worthy life without decent work and without fear.

Long live the struggle of the working class in Ecuador and throughout the world.

Government representative – From everything that has been said, it may be inferred that reference is being made to earlier years, as I noted. You were talking about 2007, 2008, and the latest year that was mentioned was by the President of the UNE, namely 2016, which all goes to reaffirm what I said in my first intervention. As I recognized and explicitly indicated, the person who presided over the Government at that time was the economist Rafael Correa Delgado, who followed not only an anti-union policy, but also anti-social and labour organizations, and particularly anti-indigenous.

Today, he is not only under sentence in Ecuador to terms of imprisonment for over five years, but his behaviour is recognized as a person fleeing the judicial system and facing over 33 criminal charges in the ordinary courts. Similarly, at the level of the Constitution, many of the decisions taken by then President Correa, through various presidential decrees, have been found unconstitutional and set aside.

In my first intervention, I indicated that one of the most recurrent measures taken by that Government, which led the country for ten years, was to restrict collective bargaining and trade union organization. Accordingly, through the judicial system, and more specifically the National Court of Justice, a ruling was issued, which I attached so that you could see it, which restricted and held back the continuity of collective bargaining, as well as the continued validity of trade union executive committees that have not been renewed, in relation to both the renewal of trade union officers and new collective agreements.

Nevertheless, as Minister of Labour, I issued a Ministerial Decision developed by technical forums in which I recognized the principle of continued validity as a principle to guarantee the maintenance of collective bargaining.

It has been repeated here by some speakers that in Ecuador branch unions are not recognized. That is not true. What I infer is that there has been a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Labour Code which, in section 459(4) has for many years explicitly recognized branch unions. It provides that “the members of the executive committee shall be affiliated to the association of their branch of activity, they must be of Ecuadorian nationality and over the age of majority”.

It has also been erroneously stated here that not even one branch agreement has been negotiated. That is not true. In Ecuador, three collective branch agreements have just been negotiated in the sugar sector. The collective contracts have been signed by three sugar enterprises. The final one of the three contracts, which I personally attended and witnessed as a guest of honour, was in a sugar mill which signed contract No. 30 and has 19,000 hectares of sugar cane and has existed for 110 years. It has also been claimed that there is no collective bargaining in other branches of activity and in the agricultural sector. That is not true. In Ecuador, one of the biggest export sectors is the shrimp sector. A collective contract was signed less than two months ago in a shrimp enterprise that employs 19,600 workers.

I take exception with those who have made such denunciations, which are recurrent and correspond to earlier periods, and who therefore need to keep updated because, clearly, not only is the worst of disinformation generated in relation to such a prestigious specialized organization, the International Labour Organization, but the real situation is misrepresented. It is better to tell the truth than to spread misinformation and lies.

However, I must also say the following. It has been claimed by the Worker spokesperson that in Ecuador section 172 of the Labour Code represents trade union repression. Section 172 refers to the possibility of an administrative complaint, which is not only used by employers to obtain “visto bueno” approval for workers, but is also used by workers, when they consider it appropriate, if the employer has engaged in action that is in violation of section 172, in order to obtain “visto bueno” approval through administrative channels. This basically happens if the employer has not paid the worker on time. As Minister of Labour, I created two procedures under section 172, because previously there was only one “visto bueno” procedure based exclusively on a decision by the labour inspector. A worker could be dismissed for conduct amounting to an administrative fault or a violation of the internal rules. As Minister of Labour, and based on my experience as, not only a lawyer, but also a magistrate, as I sat as a magistrate in Ecuador for ten years, and at the request of President Daniel Novoa, the first thing I did as Minister of Labour was to give effect to the Constitution. An administrative decision of “visto bueno” in Ecuador for more than a year can now be appealed to a higher instance. I subsequently raised awareness, not just for inspectors, but also for the public and workers. Other appeals can be made, in accordance with the Basic Administrative Code in an appeal for review.

This Ministerial Decision, although I am not asking you to welcome it, you do need to know about it, because I am totally convinced that the Worker spokesperson does not know about it, which has resulted in the inclusion of dual instance administrative remedies, as they are known by lawyers. Most of the administrative decisions made in the first instance result in a conciliation agreement under which the worker returns to the job or the employer withdraws the action, or alternatively, the employer pays the sums in arrears to the worker. What we are avoiding are the dismissals which for many years in Ecuador were subject to a single administrative decision, with everything expedited within 60 days.

I must also, in response to a request by the Employer spokesperson, as the representative of the State, provide fuller information on the new labour legislation that has been adopted in Ecuador since December 2023.

With a view to ensuring the employability of young workers, we offer employers tax incentives. We were called upon by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), because it was considered that in Ecuador there was no policy on the employability of young persons and women. We drew up two laws: the Violeta Act for the recruitment of women in the productive sector through tax incentives. The Ministry registers equality plans. And tax incentives are provided for young persons to improve the employability of young persons between 18 and 29 years of age. We have registered 333,000 jobs for young persons in the Ministry of Labour. It is undoubtedly a whole process of change that has been rather rapid, but we consider it necessary. We are continuing to comply with the process of collective bargaining. No explanations or reasons have been given here, but I understand that the references made were to previous years. Which collective contracts have faced obstacles to their conclusion in either the public or the private sectors?

However, it is necessary to indicate that in the Ministry of Labour there was a recurrent practice, through the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal, through which collective agreements in the public sector were reviewed, which avoided the determination of the Ministry of the Economy and Finance, which has to ensure economic sustainability so as to guarantee all the economic gains established by new collective bargaining. The Constitutional Court of Ecuador ruled that, as a guarantee of the economic viability of the financial terms of collective contracts, it is necessary to obtain the determination of the Ministry of the Economy and Finance and, as Minister of Labour, I have maintained that compliance with the law shall be achieved through a technical forum, and this has been done through a recent reform of the Ministerial Decision in order to comply with the provisions of the Public Finance Act. The Ministry of the Economy and Finance has to issue a determination within a period of no longer than 30 days. The Ministry of Labour has therefore established technical forums through its open public labour policy, which is making it possible to improve the negotiation of collective agreements in the public sector.

There are specific tests by the Office of the Financial Auditor for this type of evasion of determinations, because when determinations of economic viability were avoided, the collective agreement was a dead letter. In the past, the Ministry of the Economy and Finance held that if there was no economic determination, there would simply be no money. So what we are doing now is setting a 30-day limit for the Ministry of the Economy and Finance to provide us with the determinations, and I should inform you that we have already concluded several collective agreements in the public sector in compliance with this provision. Such agreements have been concluded in the Ministry of Energy and Mines for the oil sector, and in the Ministry of Education. And we are preparing to conclude a contract in the Ministry of Social Inclusion, which covers social matters throughout Ecuador.

Finally, I wish to indicate that the State of Ecuador, during this new period, and in the previous period of office of President Daniel Novoa, which began in November 2023, has never opposed a visit by an ILO mission. Quite the contrary, we want it to come so that it can see how we are promoting the public labour policy, not only in compliance with ILO Conventions. We were the first country to give effect to the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190), and the first thing that we did was to reform the Labour Code. And we will soon be taking further action, as is our responsibility as the State that has subscribed to each and every ILO Convention.

The best way of promoting a public policy is through certainty and truth, but also through hope and optimism. And that is how we will continue to proceed in Ecuador by protecting not only the administrative and legal rights of workers, but also undoubtedly, just as employers and the State have rights and duties, workers also have rights and duties, and it is only through unity that we can make progress and achieve a peaceful world of work.

Worker members – We arrived in the Committee with deep concern, more than we had previously. After listening to the Government of Ecuador, we are bound to regret that we have not heard substantive responses, and particularly not in line with the requirements of the supervisory bodies. What this Committee expected, and the country required, was a clear commitment, based on action in practice, compensatory measures and, in particular, effective compliance with the Convention.

It is appropriate to recall, as has been noted by others, but I will reaffirm the fact that the situation in Ecuador has been examined on multiple occasions, as recently recalled, in 2014 and 2016 for this Convention, and in 2017, 2022 and 2024 for Convention No. 87, and once again today for Convention No. 98. These repeated examinations are illustrative, in our view, of a structural concern that requires a response that is commensurate with the international commitments assumed.

Instead, we have heard explanations from the Government, which has attempted to justify the current administration, while detaching itself from historical responsibilities and reaffirming, for which we are grateful, the fundamental respect that is required for freedom of association, but without providing specific information to the Committee of Experts, as requested, for the 113rd Session of the Conference. And these are facts, not lies, because when we are dealing with fundamental rights, when freedom of association and collective bargaining are at stake, what is required, as has been emphasized here, and we agree, is rigour and political determination.

The Committee of Experts was clear in calling on the Government of Ecuador to provide information on the number of collective agreements currently in force in the country. It wanted to know the sectors in which they have been concluded, whether they are new or revised agreements, how many workers are covered by them and, in particular, it requested detailed information on the agricultural and banana sectors where, as we all know, there have historically been serious difficulties in the exercise of freedom of association, the right to organize and collective bargaining. There has been no response.

The Committee of Experts also requested information on the measures adopted to eliminate anti-union discrimination, prevent interference with workers’ organizations and guarantee the freedom to engage in collective bargaining in practice. Once again, the replies have been generic, and we have heard the claim that Ecuador respects freedom of association, but we need, in accordance with the request made by this Committee and the report of the Committee of Experts, the provision of data on the cases brought, the penalties applied and effective remedies ordered.

And yet, anti-union practices persist with total impunity. In the private sector, dismissals of workers are frequent as soon as a union is established. In the public sector, the same happens, but in the guise of a procedure. We have just heard what the Minister had to say on the “visto bueno” procedure, and the adjustment that has been made, but in fact we have not been informed of this in practice, and nor has the Committee of Experts. The truth is that the readjustment of a procedure is not respect for freedom of association, but it is the denial in practice of the right to organize and to collective bargaining.

The Committee of Experts requested detailed information on the situation with regard to collective bargaining in the public sector, including the legal obstacles that prevent its exercise by workers who are classified as public servants. The Government has omitted to refer to this absolute exclusion that persists for a majority of workers in the public sector, which is based on legislative and constitutional provisions, and we have not heard any proposals for specific measures to resolve the situation. Although there are some collective agreements, as we have noted, they are for employees classified as manual workers. And we also heard some explanations on the restrictions relating to matters that are the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. Ministerial Decision No. 056, which withdraws a previous measure that allowed for the unilateral review of collective agreements, is a minor step forward, a technical adjustment, to a regressive measure that was adopted by the same Government. It does not amount to a structural reform, nor does it overturn the historical exclusion of the public service from collective bargaining.

As we are speaking of structural restrictions, we cannot fail to refer to section 221 of the Labour Code, which imposes a threshold of over 50 per cent of members for the exercise of collective bargaining. This has also been noted by the supervisory bodies as an excessive and disproportionate barrier. And we have still not heard of any specific initiative to amend this provision, nor have we heard of any progress in relation to collective bargaining at the branch level, for sectors composed mainly of small production units, agriculture, domestic workers, commerce, the services sector, where the enterprise model is inadequate or not viable.

The Conference Committee must also take into consideration that we have not been provided with information on the elimination of compulsory arbitration, and that section 225 of the Labour Code continues to be in force despite the reiterated requests made by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts. Nor have clear measures been taken to repeal pre-established budgetary ceilings, or the unilateral review procedure, to which we have just referred, which voids of content everything that we are defending and the provisions of the Conventions and fundamental rights that constitute collective autonomy.

We therefore call for the conclusions of the Committee to include the following points:

• promote the adoption of legislative reforms that fully guarantee the right to collective bargaining for all public servants, through the repeal of the legislative provisions that currently restrict it, including those contained in the Basic Public Service Act, the Act on Public Enterprises and in constitutional provisions;
• promote a legal reform to enable collective bargaining by branch of activity and at the enterprise level, removing excessive membership requirements and respecting the independence of the parties without budgetary interference.

It is also necessary to ensure that arbitration is always voluntary and that all forms of anti-union discrimination and reprisals are prohibited.

I would like to welcome the common ground in the positions relating to the explanations made by the Government of Ecuador, and particularly with the Employers, the countries that have taken the floor and the Workers’ group which, in a world that is so difficult and controversial, is worth emphasizing. I believe that we have to take advantage of the fact that the Government of Ecuador accepts, and we are calling for a tripartite mission as a priority measure to facilitate tripartite dialogue, make progress in compliance with the Convention and promote respect for the ILO and all of us who form part of it.

Employer members – The Employer members trust that it will soon be possible to organize the visit of a mission, as we have indicated, and that in any case the Government can receive the technical assistance of the Office to examine changes to its labour legislation, with special attention being paid to the national characteristics, as we have emphasized in this and other cases, and of course in consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations.

We once again give thanks to the Minister for her explanations and her presence this afternoon

Conclusions of the Committee

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

The Committee noted the Government’s stated readiness to cooperate with the ILO, make use of its technical assistance and continue its consultation with social partners to strengthen legal protection that fully guarantees the right to organise and collective bargaining.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urged the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the collective labour law framework, in alignment with the Convention and in consultation with social partners at the National Labour and Wage Council, ensuring reasonable coherence and taking effective measures to:

• ensure that collective bargaining occurs in a conducive environment, establishing appropriate mechanisms and respective legal protections for all categories of workers and employers covered by the Convention;
• review regulations concerning the establishment of employers’ and workers’ associations and collective bargaining practices;
• provide data on: (i) collective bargaining in the public and private sectors, including the number of collective agreements in force in the country, the date of entry into force and renewal, and the number of workers covered by sectoral collective agreements; (ii) the number of affiliated workers and their respective unions, number of enterprise committees, and number of employers’ organizations and respective affiliated members; and
• address anti-union discrimination, prevent interference in workers’ and employers’ organizations and guarantee the right to collective bargaining in law and practice and provide information on cases processed, sanctions imposed or effective corrective measures taken.

The Committee invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to effectively implement all of the Committee’s recommendations.

The Committee requested the Government to provide a detailed report on progress made to implement the above recommendations to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2025.

Government representative – The Government of Ecuador accepts fully all the recommendations made and read out this afternoon, recalling that we have not been the subject of discussion for ten years, as I indicated to you previously. It has been very satisfying, in addition to the presence of both the Employers, represented by Mr Corral, and the Workers, represented by Messrs Chica, Salazar and Reyes, representatives of the telecommunications, oil and education sectors. As a consequence, once we have accepted all the recommendations we will give effect to them, and will send in detail all the information requested this afternoon.