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

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

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (113th (June 2025) Session of the International Labour Conference)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in June 2025 in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the Conference (the Conference Committee) regarding the application of the Convention by Ecuador. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee noted the Government’s stated readiness to cooperate with the ILO, make use of its technical assistance and continue its consultation with the social partners to strengthen legal protection that fully guarantees the right to organize and collective bargaining. Taking into account the discussion, the Conference 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, the number of enterprise committees, and the number of employers’ organizations and respective affiliated members; 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 Conference Committee invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to effectively implement all 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.

Technical assistance, direct contacts mission requested by the Conference Committee in the context of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee recalls that, when examining the application of Convention No. 87 by Ecuador in June 2022 and June 2024, the Conference Committee addressed issues that have a direct impact on the capacity of workers to bargain collectively in respect of their terms and conditions of employment and consequently on the application of the Convention. The Committee also recalls that in 2024 the Conference Committee expressed its concern that the Government had so far not accepted a direct contacts mission, requested in 2022, and had not availed itself of ILO technical assistance for the effective implementation of all the Conference Committee’s recommendations. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government stated its readiness to cooperate and to fix a date for such a mission to the country. The Committee trusts that the direct contacts mission requested by the Conference Committee in 2022 with regard to the application of Convention No. 87 will be carried out without delay, and expresses its hope that the completion of the mission and recourse to ILO technical assistance will contribute to the finding of appropriate solutions to all pending matters raised by the ILO supervisory bodies for many years.

The Committee notes the observations of the Single Central Organization of Workers of Ecuador (CUT), received on 28 August 2025; of the observations of the Trade Union Association of Agricultural and Rural Workers (ASTAC), received on 30 August 2025; of the observations of the Ecuadorean Confederation of Unitary Class Organizations of Workers (CEDOCUT), received on 1 September 2025; the observations jointly presented by Public Service International (PSI) in Ecuador and the United Front of Workers (FUT) received on 2 September 2025; and the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 2 September 2025. The Committee further notes the observations of the International Organization of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2025, which reiterate comments put forward in the Conference Committee. The Committee also notes the Government’s response to all the observations of the social partners received both this year and in 2024.

The Committee notes the Government’s response to the allegations of anti-union discrimination and extortion contained in the 2024 observations by the trade unions. The Committee particularly notes the Government’s assertion that: the trade union organizations had supplied no specific information regarding the cases and victims of extortion to which they refer; and that enforcement of the sentences pronounced falls under the responsibility of the issuing judge, not that of the Ministry of Labour. The Committee notes that in their observations of 2025, the trade union organizations update the information regarding the alleged acts of trade union discrimination and report on new situations which, on their reckoning, clearly constitute anti-union acts, among which there are dismissals of union members and representatives, including through the “visto bueno” procedure. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in relation to the allegations of the trade union organizations.

The Committee notes that the CUT, in its observations, refers to ruling No. 1788-24-EP/25, issued on 14 February 2025 by the Constitutional Court, which annulled two judgements made by lower-level courts establishing that the employees and technicians of the public enterprise the National Electricity Corporation CNEL EP should benefit from collective agreements signed by the enterprise’s works council. The Committee observes that this question was examined recently by the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 3495, 412th Report, November 2025) which referred the legislative aspects of the case to this Committee, which will be examined in the part of this commentary given over to the public sector. As regards the precise situation of the workers in question, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

Application of the Convention in the p rivate sector

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. With regard to the need to include provisions in the legislation that guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment, the Committee notes that the Government: (i) refers to legislative and constitutional provisions that prohibit discrimination and unlawful staff recruitment practices in general terms, such as the section of the Basic Public Service Act which prohibits any act of discrimination related to the work of public servants arising from the exercise of their right to organize; (ii) indicates that, in 2023, a provision was incorporated into the Labour Code in respect of practices prohibited during recruitment which states that “in no case shall the employer ask discriminatory questions during the selection process” (section 42.1); (iii) reports the adoption of Ministerial Agreement No. MDT-2025-102 of 22 August 2025, which prohibits seeking any information related to union activities from an applicant during the selection process; and (iv) states that the labour inspection has been penalizing anti-union acts. The Committee notes that, on their part, the trade union organizations allege that the mechanisms to protect against anti-union discrimination are insufficient and that although Ministerial Agreement No. MDT-2025-102 responds to the Committee’s requests, it remains a low hierarchy regulation that lacks stability and does not provide for specific procedures to enforce compliance, sanctions or effective mechanisms for remedies. The Committee notes the adoption of Ministerial Agreement No. MDT-2025-102 with interest and observes that under this regulation: (i) no one may be discriminated against on the grounds of his or her criminal record or of any other personal or collective distinction; (ii) it is forbidden to solicit information regarding a candidate’s trade union activities; and (iii) violence and harassment at work may be considered to be discriminatory acts when committed on grounds of trade union affiliation. The Committee requests the Government to: (i) provide information on the implementation and impact of Ministerial Agreement No. MDT-2025-102 and on the activities of the labour inspection in penalizing acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment and the penalties imposed; and (ii) take the necessary measures, following consultation with the social partners, to include in the legislation a provision specifically prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment. The Committee requests the Government to report on any progress made in this respect.

With regard to the trade union organizations’ allegations that many union leaders are unable to find employment because employers consult the website of the judiciary which contains publicly accessible information on labour claims, and they avoid recruiting applicants who have made claims against previous employers, and in response to the Committee’s request to the Government to provide information on the impact in practice of the regulations on the handling of personal data in judicial proceedings, the Committee notes from the Government’s information that, due to its recent issue, it is not yet possible to determine the regulation’s impact. On the other hand, the Committee notes the observations of the ITUC, PSI in Ecuador and the FUT, which assert that, despite the adoption in February 2024 of the regulation in question, trade union leaders continue to face discrimination in practice in access to employment, since employers continue to use the public information on the judiciary’s website to sideline applicants who have made claims against previous employers. Noting the approval of Ministerial Agreement No. MDT-2025-102 and given the importance of ensuring appropriate protection against acts of any type of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the impact in practice of the regulation on the handling of personal data in judicial proceedings.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that it has for many years requested the Government to revise section 221 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that where no one organization exists that represents over 50 per cent of the workers, minority trade unions are at least able, alone or jointly, to negotiate a collective agreement on behalf of their members. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that: (i) the requested legislative amendment has not been made; and (ii) in the period from 2015 to 2025, 419 collective agreements were concluded in the public sector and 187 in the private sector, of which 115 collective agreements remain in force in the public sector and 54 in the private sector, and that 29,059 workers are covered by collective agreements in force in the public sector and 27,949 in the private sector. The Committee also notes the joint observations of PSI in Ecuador and the FUT who point out that the information from the Ministry of Labour on collective agreements concluded between 2024 and 2025 confirms the reduced coverage of collective bargaining throughout the entire private sector, given that of the 94 agreements signed during the period indicated, only 25 concern that sector. The Committee notes with regret that no measures have been taken to amend section 221 of the Labour Code and observes that the Government has not provided the detailed information requested on collective bargaining in the agricultural and banana sector. The Committee once again recalls that, even though the requirement of representativity for signing collective agreements is fully compatible with the Convention, the level of representativity should not be such as to hinder the promotion and implementation of free and voluntary collective bargaining, as envisaged in Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee once again emphasizes the potential causal link between the restrictive requirements set out in law for participating in collective bargaining and the low coverage of collective agreements in the country. The Committee reiterates once again the need to amend section 221 of the Labour Code as indicated and urges the Government to report accordingly. It also requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, and to indicate the sectors covered (including the agricultural and banana sector), the number of workers covered by the agreements and whether they are new or revised collective agreements.

Collective agreements in sectors composed mainly of small enterprises. The Committee recalls that, in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87, it has been calling for many years for the amendment of the sections of the Labour Code which establish: (i) the requirement of a minimum of 30 workers to establish unions and enterprise committees; and (ii) the impossibility of establishing first-level unions composed of workers from different enterprises, since these provisions, combined with the absence of a legal framework for collective bargaining at the sectoral level, appear to exclude any possibility for workers in small enterprises to exercise their right to collective bargaining. The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote collective bargaining in sectors of production composed mainly of small enterprises. The Committee notes with concern that the Government: (i) indicates that the legislation does not allow for the association of workers from different enterprises by branch of work; it is thus impossible to regulate a situation since it is not provided for in law; and (ii) does not provide information on measures taken to promote collective bargaining in production sectors composed mainly of small enterprises. The Committee also notes that the CSI, PSI and the FUT repeat that there are no branch collective labour agreements or accords that protect sectors in which the possibility to form enterprise-level unions is denied and indicate that in the face of such an obstacle, in December 2024, the National Union of Paid Domestic Workers and Allied Workers (UNTHA) and the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CEOSL) lodged a complaint with the Committee on Freedom of Association denouncing this restriction. In light of the above, the Committee once again emphasizes that the Convention covers all production sectors and that collective bargaining must be possible at all levels. Noting with concernthat considerable number of workers are denied the possibility of negotiating collectively their terms and conditions of work and drawing attention to the Conference Committee’s conclusions that the legal framework governing the creation of employers’ and workers’ associations should be reviewed and that collective bargaining should take place in a conducive environment, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to: (i) reduce the number of workers required to establish unions and enterprise committees; (ii) enable the establishment of first-level unions composed of workers from different enterprises, in order to make collective bargaining possible in production sectors composed mainly of small enterprises; and (iii) begin elaboration of a legal framework for collective bargaining at levels higher than the enterprise level. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that it requested the Government, as did the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 3347), to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector includes provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public servants, and not only the leaders of committees of public servants (a specific mechanism for the representation of workers in the public sector), against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, as well as provisions establishing penalties that are dissuasive in the event of such acts. The Committee notes that the Government: (i) refers once more to the section of the Basic Public Service Act (LOSEP) which prohibits any act of discrimination related to the work of public servants arising from the exercise of their right to organize; and (ii) reports on the issuing of Ministerial Agreement No. MDT-2025-093, of 14 August 2025, on the prevention, protection and penalizing in the event of serious disciplinary offences of discrimination, violence and harassment at work in the public sector, which establishes that information on trade union activities may not be requested during the recruitment process of public sector workers. While welcoming the progress that the cited Ministerial Agreement represents in respect of protection against anti-union discrimination at the recruitment stage, the Committee notes with regret that it has not been informed of measures taken with a view to extending the protection against unfair dismissal to all leaders of organizations of public servants, and not only to the members of committees of public servants, and establishing dissuasive sanctions for all acts of discrimination and interference in the public sector. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector contains provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, as well as provisions for dissuasive sanctions in the event of commission of such acts. The Committee requests the Government to report all progress made in this regard.

With respect to its previous comments regarding the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism, which allows the public administration, in exchange for the payment of compensation, to unilaterally terminate the employment of public servants without the need to indicate grounds for such termination, the Committee recalls noting allegations by the trade union organizations that, on the one hand, this mechanism had been used to get rid of a number of trade union leaders and, on the other hand, no effect had been given to the Constitutional Court and the National Court of Justice rulings on the unconstitutionality of the mechanism. The Committee notes with regret that the Government continues to provide no information in this regard. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that all public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State who have been subject to the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism on anti-union grounds receive appropriate compensation.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee reiterated its concern that the Basic Reform Act and Ministerial Decision No. MDT-2018-0010 do not recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants and that only public sector workers governed by the Labour Code could engage in collective bargaining. It therefore requested information on the impact of various ministerial agreements on the capacity of public sector workers to negotiate their remuneration. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s information is limited to references to the legislative and constitutional provisions that regulate the rights to organize and to strike in the public service and provides no specific details on the issues raised by the Committee. The Committee notes that the CEDOCUT and PSI in Ecuador and the FUT assert that the Ministerial Agreement MDT-2025-056 of 4 June 2025 maintains the restrictions imposed on public sector collective bargaining since 2008, which excludes workers in provincial and municipal governments, education and public enterprises and other State entities from engaging in collective bargaining. They also indicate that the cited Agreement retains the faculty accorded to the Ministry of Labour to check any concluded agreement a posteriori and to declare null and void any clause found contrary to the law. The Committee once again expresses concern at the absence of recognition of the right to collective bargaining of public servants, despite the fact that many of them are not engaged in the administration of the State and should therefore benefit from the guarantees established by the Convention. The Committee once more again notes with regret that, despite its requests, the Government does not report on specific initiatives for the re-establishment of the above-mentioned rights and underscores in this regard the recent recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 3495, 412th report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, November 2025).

Based on the above, and recalling once again that there are mechanisms that permit the harmonious coexistence of the mission of the public sector to serve the public interest and the responsible exercise of collective bargaining, the Committee once again firmly urges the Government, in consultation with the representative organizations of workers, to take the necessary measures to establish adequate collective bargaining machinery for all categories of public sector employees covered by the Convention, including the workers of State enterprises. The Committee also requests the Government to report on any development in this regard and on the impact of Ministerial Agreement MDT-2025-056.

While welcoming the recently approved ministerial agreements that seek to address the Committee’s comments in respect of anti-union discrimination in the process of recruitment, the Committee notes with particular concern that the large majority of workers covered by the Convention are still deprived of the possibility of exercising their right to bargain collectively. Noting that the Government has stated its readiness to receive the direct contacts mission requested in 2022 in the framework of Convention No. 87, the Committee firmly hopes that the completion of that mission will mark the beginning of the comprehensive review of the legal framework for collective bargaining in conformity with the Convention requested by the Conference Committee this year.

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