Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (Ratification: 1968)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the observations of the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE) of 2022. The Committee also notes the observations of the Federation of Chambers and Enterprises of Venezuela (FEDEINDUSTRIA), and the joint observations of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations of Venezuela (FAPUV), transmitted by the Government with its report. It further notes the observations of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) and the joint observations of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA) and UNETE, received on 1 September 2025. It also notes the observations of the United Federation of Workers of Venezuela (CUTV), received on 2 September 2025. The observations refer to matters examined in the present comment.

The Committee notes the discussions held at the 347th, 349th, 350th, 352nd, 353rd and 355th Sessions of the Governing Body (March and October–November 2023, 2024 and 2025) on the progress made by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in relation to the Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928 (No. 26), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). The Committee notes the holding of four sessions of the Social Dialogue Forum, in which a plan of action was agreed to, and subsequently updated, to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee recalls that in its previous comment, in light of the significant links between the application of Convention No. 87 and the matters examined within the framework of Convention No. 98, it referred to the possibility of addressing the matters examined below in those dialogue bodies.

Articles 1 to 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comment, the Committee urged the Government to provide information on the numerous allegations of anti-union dismissals, as well as other prejudicial measures, including the number of investigations conducted, their duration, the penalties and compensation measures applied in relation to the allegations made. It also urged the Government to take the necessary measures to engage in tripartite dialogue on the effectiveness in practice of the legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and to provide information on this subject. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Basic Labour Act (LOTTT), in section 362, defines ant-union conduct and practices, and in section 363 sets out the corresponding procedures, and therefore if a worker or trade union considers that there is an anti-union practice, it is bound to lodge the respective complaint under the terms set out in that provision. The Government also refers to the Constitutional provisions that explicitly prohibit any act of discrimination and indicates that the labour inspection services have opened very few procedures on this issue, and that the issues raised have been dealt with in accordance with the legislative provisions. While noting these indications, the Committee regrets that the Government has once again failed to provide the information requested in reply to the observations made by the trade union organizations. The Committee notes that, in a case examined recently concerning allegations of anti-union dismissals, the Committee on Freedom of Association recalled that the safeguards of normal judicial procedure should not only be embodied in the law, but also applied in practice (Case No. 3374, 408th Report, October 2024). The Committee also notes that the CUTV, UNETE and CODESA maintain that there is a State policy to increase forced retirements, without complying with the legal requirements and without the recognition of the respective social protection, against trade union leaders and members. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has recently examined allegations of anti-union persecution through the compulsory retirement of trade union leaders in the public sector, as well as allegations of the massive and unjustified anti-union dismissal of workers in the National Assembly. The Committee refers to the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association, which include undertaking an investigation on this subject, follow-up by the competent authorities of the complaints received, and engagement in dialogue on the matters under examination, including within the framework of the Social Dialogue Forum (Case No. 3473, 412th Report, November 2025). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on complaints of anti-union discrimination lodged in the country, the action taken by the labour inspection services, the average duration and the outcome of the corresponding judicial procedures. The Committee also urges the Government to take the necessary measures to engage in tripartite dialogue, including in the Social Dialogue Forum and other appropriate forums, on the effectiveness in practice of the legal protection against anti-union discrimination and to provide specific information on the outcome.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous comment on the application of Convention No. 87, it requested the Government to provide information on the planned establishment of two national prosecution services with specialized competence in the defence of labour rights. The Committee notes that, in the report provided by the Government on that Convention, it is indicated that the establishment at the beginning of 2022 of the two specialized prosecution services marked a significant change in the protection of labour rights, giving rise to a new framework for action and certainty in the application of labour justice. The Government indicates that the action taken by the Ministry of the Interior through these specialized prosecution services has been reflected in the processing of 331 complaints during the first half of 2023, mostly relating to the failure to give effect to court orders for the reinstatement of the complainant workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the follow-up action taken on these complaints, the potential anti-union nature of the acts denounced, and the results obtained, including specific examples that illustrate the significant change to which the Government refers.

Article 4. Free and voluntary collective bargaining. For several years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to: (i) amend the requirement for the presence of a labour official during collective bargaining under section 449 of the LOTTT in order to ensure conformity with the Convention (the Government was requested to provide information on the number of agreements that had been rejected and the reasons given by the authorities); and (ii) submit to tripartite dialogue the issue of the application in practice of sections 450 and 451 of the LOTTT (relating, respectively, to the requirement for the labour inspector to verify the conformity of the collective agreement with the applicable public order regulations in order to proceed to the approval of the agreement, and the possibility for the labour inspector to make observations to the parties, which have to be complied with in the following 15 working days). In this regard, the Government indicates that there may be many reasons why a draft collective agreement is rejected and such reasons may relate to compliance with the limitations set out in section 402 of the LOTTT (the issue of representativity, the decisions have not been approved by the highest authority of the trade union (the workers’ assembly), and that it does not meet the requirements for its approval or the comments made by the labour inspector have not been incorporated within the time limits, among others). The Government adds that guidance is provided beforehand so that, when the time comes for its submission, it fulfils all the requirements set out in law and the collective agreement is approved and registered. The Government further notes that it cannot be presumed that a law can be amended through social dialogue, which would be a transgression of the principles of legality and the separation of powers. The Committee notes that, according to the CTV, CUTV and the FAPUV, collective bargaining continues to be exceptional, with very few results, and the legal rules on the exercise of the right to free and voluntary collective bargaining are still restrictive, with the maintenance of provisions that impede it, and particularly the functions of labour inspectors, which amount to a denial of free and voluntary collective bargaining. They also regret that the Government has not decided to submit these matters to tripartite dialogue. With reference to section 449 of the LOTTT, the Committee emphasizes once again that the presence of public officials in the discussion of draft collective agreements can give rise to interference in the negotiations between the parties and may therefore be contrary to the principles of free and voluntary bargaining and the autonomy of the parties. The Committee once again emphasizes the need to adopt measures to bring the legislation into full conformity with the principles recalled above and requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to amend section 449 of the LOTTT as indicated above. The Committee also reiterates that it considers that provisions such as sections 450 and 451 of the LOTTT would only be compatible with the Convention on condition that refusal of approval is restricted to cases in which the collective agreement contains flaws in its form or does not comply with the minimum standards laid down by the labour legislation. While noting the indications provided by the Government, the Committee once again requests it to address the issue of the application in practice of sections 450 and 451 of the LOTTT through tripartite dialogue with a view to finding solutions to the issues raised and to provide information in this regard.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee noted previously that the legislation provides for compulsory arbitration in section 465 of the LOTTT in the case of bargaining by branch of activity where conciliation is not possible, unless the participating trade unions indicate their intention of exercising the right to strike. Moreover, the arbitration board for the settlement of the dispute shall be composed of an employer, worker and Government representative (section 493) which, according to the Government, ensures the confidence of the parties. The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, to draw up an official text to eliminate compulsory arbitration by the authorities, except in the case of public officials engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), essential services in the strict sense of the term and acute national crises, and to ensure that the composition of the arbitration board enjoys the confidence of the parties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela provides, in article 258, that “The law shall promote arbitration, conciliation, mediation and any other alternative measures for the resolution of disputes”. The Government adds that, since 2012, the year in which the LOTTT was adopted, there has only been one arbitration procedure set up as an alternative means of settling a dispute, through which conciliation was achieved. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that, in general, compulsory arbitration is contrary to the principle of voluntary negotiation when the parties do not reach agreement and is only acceptable in the specific circumstances referred to above. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to eliminate the use of compulsory arbitration, except in the cases laid down and permitted by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect.

Collective bargaining in good faith. Public sector. Public officials not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee noted allegations concerning: (i) the refusal of the public administration to negotiate with all trade unions, favouring those that are close to the Government; (ii) the exclusion of wages from negotiations, as they have been imposed by the Government since 2018 through Memorandum No. 2792 issuing guidelines to be implemented in collective labour negotiations; and (iii) the instruction issued by the National Budget Office (ONAPRE) on the adjustment of the remuneration system of the public administration, under which employing public authorities refuse to pay the wages agreed in collective agreements. The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments in this regard, and copies of the documents referred to. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the mechanisms for the determination of the representativeness and legitimacy of trade unions for collective bargaining are set out in the LOTTT; (ii) Memorandum No. 2792 was issued in response to an economic emergency and contained the internal guidelines of the of the Ministry of the People’s Power for the Social Labour Process (MPPPST), and does not prevail over the Constitutional provisions, as confirmed by the legal opinion issued by the MPPPST in 2021; and (iii) despite the sanctions imposed upon the country, State policies have resulted in sustained economic growth, which has led to an increase in collective bargaining in recent years. The Committee notes that the CTV, CUTV and the FAPUV reiterate the allegations referred to above and affirm that collective agreements in the public sector have expired since 2019, except for a process initiated in the basic education sector, which has remained paralysed, and that the subject of wages has been excluded from collective bargaining in accordance with Memorandum No. 2792. They add that the challenges to set aside the ONAPRE instruction have been rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice, which denied the existence of the instruction, even though it continues to be applied in violation of collective agreements. They also indicate that this has occurred in a context in which remuneration from work has become more flexible and precarious, which are issues examined by the Committee within the framework of Convention No. 26. The Committee expresses concern at the impact of the measures referred to above on collective bargaining in the public sector, particularly in relation to negotiations on economic matters. It recalls that all workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State must be able to exercise the right to collective bargaining, including in relation to remuneration, and that, although the specific characteristics of the public administration make a certain degree of flexibility necessary, there are mechanisms through which respect for budgetary availability can be articulated with the principle of equality in public employment, on the one hand, and recognition of the right to collective bargaining, on the other. The Committee also emphasizes that the principle of bargaining in good faith, derived from Article 4 of the Convention, takes the form in practice of various obligations on the parties involved, namely: (i) recognizing representative organizations; (ii) endeavouring to reach agreement; (iii) engaging in real and constructive negotiations; (iv) avoiding unjustified delays in negotiation; and (v) mutually respecting the commitments made and the results achieved through bargaining. The Committee urges the Government to adopt, as soon as possible, the necessary measures to guarantee the right to collective bargaining of public officials who are not engaged in the administration of the State, including the right to negotiate collectively economic and wage issues, in accordance with the Convention.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, between 2022 and the first half of 2025, around 218 collective agreements were negotiated and approved, covering a total of 690,667 workers. The Government adds that, during the first half of 2025, approximately 28 collective labour agreements and 35 agreed documents were negotiated and approved in the public sector, as well as in the private and mixed sectors, covering over 27,985 workers. The Government indicates that these figures show that, despite the aggressions affecting the Venezuelan economy, every effort has been made to guarantee free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s indications and observes that, according to the CTV, CUTV and the FAPUV: (i) collective bargaining in the public and private sectors has been reduced to its minimum form; and (ii) collective labour agreements are not published by the labour administration, access to them is confidential and restricted to the signatories of the collective agreement, and they are agreements that are focused on non-wage benefits. The CUTV challenges the official information on the approval of agreements and affirms that it is not possible to negotiate agreements or have them approved, and that in the private sector employers provide supplementary benefits under the State policy of the unilateral imposition of bonuses. According to these organizations, the cases reported relate to official unions dependent on the State. The Committee observes that, according to the indications provided by the Government in its report, claiming that collective agreements are negotiated in the country with minority and official unions is a bold statement, as it is a State the respects the rule of law, justice and peace, and is governed by legal texts which give pre-eminence to human rights, ethics and political pluralism. The Committee notes the divergent positions expressed by the Government and the trade union organizations. It also observes that, with reference to allegations of the denial of the right to collective bargaining in the education sector and favouritism towards an organization close to the Government, the Committee on Freedom of Association has recently issued recommendations, including the adoption of measures to ensure that the most representative organizations in the university sector participate in collective bargaining on the labour conditions of workers in that sector (Case No. 3441, 409th Report, March 2025). While noting the statistical data of a general nature provided by the Government on the negotiation of collective agreements in recent years, the Committee requests it to provide detailed information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, specifying the sectors and numbers of workers covered by them, and whether they are new or revised collective agreements. It also requests the Government to engage in tripartite dialogue, including in the Social Dialogue Forum and other appropriate bodies, on the alleged restrictions on the right to collective bargaining raised by the trade union organizations in their observations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

The Committee expresses concern at the lack of progress in the adoption of the measures requested and firmly urges the Government to take the necessary action to achieve specific progress in the near future in the application of the Convention, including by addressing the matters examined in this comment at the next session of the Social Dialogue Forum, which it is hoped will be held very soon.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2026.]