Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - El Salvador (Ratification: 2006)

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

Written information provided by the Government

Application of Article 1 of the Convention: Classification of fines according to the seriousness and type of offence, and application in practice

In view of the adoption of the amendment to section 627 of the Labour Code by Legislative Decree No. 519, published in the Official Journal of 31 October 2022, the system of penalties was substantially updated, significantly increasing the amounts of fines applicable for infringements of the provisions of Books I, II and III of the Labour Code, and of other labour law provisions which do not prescribe a specific penalty. It is important to mention that the aim of this reform is to identify and penalize the seriousness of violations of workers’ rights and to enable an analysis of the capacities of employers so as not to undermine their financial stability or business freedom in El Salvador. Differentiated ranges have therefore been established according to the size of the enterprise and the number of workers employed, as follows:

• Microenterprises employing up to ten workers: a fine of up to two minimum wage equivalents for each violation (up to US$730);
• Small enterprises employing between 10 and 50 workers: a fine of up to four minimum wage equivalents for each violation (up to US$1,460);
• Medium-sized enterprises employing between 50 and 100 workers: a fine of up to eight minimum wage equivalents for each violation (up to US$2,920); and
• Enterprises employing more than 100 workers: a fine of up to 12 minimum wage equivalents for each violation (up to US$4,380).

Within this framework, acts of anti-union discrimination are liable to be penalized under these provisions, if they constitute infringements of the fundamental rights established in Books I and II of the Labour Code, in particular those relating to freedom of association and non-discrimination on account of trade union membership.

In addition to considering the size of the enterprise, the new regime takes account of criteria such as the seriousness of the offence, the intent and the injury caused; these elements enable penalties to be classified and graduated in a proportionate way. Hence, in accordance with the procedure established in the Labour Code, the labour inspectorate plays a key role as the technical body of the State for enforcing labour standards. In this regard, the Government, through the Labour Inspection Department, undertakes periodic and strategic inspections where, should violations of the labour regulations be detected, the corresponding administrative penalty procedure is activated.

Although the reform of section 627 of the Labour Code, which strengthened the system of penalties, was adopted in 2022, this regulatory advance forms part of a broader process of institutional change which was launched in 2019, aimed at consolidating a new vision of the function of the State in labour matters. Since then, a more proactive and committed approach has been promoted involving the effective defence of workers’ rights, recognizing that institutional responsibility is not limited to oversight, but also involves support for and the guarantee of access to labour administrative justice. Hence national public actions such as the “national decent work award” and the “national collective bargaining award” promote compliance with the law on the basis of incentives.

It is important to underline the fact that, although the imposition of an administrative fine does not fully compensate the violation of a fundamental labour right, it does represent a real deterrent mechanism against anti-union practices or other forms of labour discrimination, with the ultimate objective of consolidating a culture of regulatory compliance that contributes to the effective respect of fundamental rights at work.

As follow-up to the practical implementation of the regime, the Labour Inspection Department has recorded relevant actions in this area. By way of illustration, a statistical table is provided below giving a systematic overview of offences detected, penalties imposed and amounts collected from January to December 2024, in relation to infringements of freedom of association.

Grounds for inspection	Total fines	Total offences	Total amounts (US dollars)
Dismissal of union leader	24	79	8 441.98
Dismissal of union member	8	8	410.70
Anti-union discrimination	1	1	57.14
Total	33	88	8 909.82
Source: Labour Inspection Department (DGIT), Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MTPS). January–December 2024.

Protection of freedom of association of municipal authority workers

With regard to the observations of the Committee of Experts, the Government indicates that various measures have been adopted to ensure protection against anti-union discrimination for municipal workers through the legal mechanisms in force and through labour inspection.

In this regard, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (Ministry of Labour), through the National Municipal Administrative Careers Registry (RNCAM) and in coordination with the Labour Inspection Department (DGIT), has carried out both scheduled and special inspections, in accordance with the provisions of the “Act on the structure and functions of the labour and social welfare sector” (LOFTS).

Inspections in the municipalities were initially carried out in two different stages:

• The first stage constituted technical support for the RNCAM; its main purpose was to determine staff recruitment procedures in the various municipal authorities in the country.
• The second stage was aimed at verifying compliance with obligations related to deductions, especially those related to the payment of salaries, social security and contributions.

During both phases, compliance with the labour regulations applicable to municipal workers was verified, including the existence and registration of individual employment contracts; the registration of workers within the regime of the Municipal Administrative Careers Act (LCAM); the validation of single payslips; and social security coverage. RNCAM staff undertook verification of the following documentation and information:

• List of persons registered under the LCAM scheme.
• Number of workers hired through appointment.
• List of staff corresponding to the inspected district.
• Handbook containing post descriptions.

The purpose of this action for the protection of labour rights was to comply with section 1(c) of the LCAM, according to which the main objective of the regulations is to guarantee the efficiency of the municipal administrative regime, ensuring equal opportunities and job stability, as well as possibilities of promotion and transfer for municipal public servants.

This action has led to substantive progress in guaranteeing the labour rights of municipal workers. Within the framework of the competencies of the Ministry of Labour, the Labour Inspection Department, in coordination with the RNCAM, consolidated coordinated work aimed at safeguarding the fundamental rights of workers in municipal service.

It should be noted that, as part of the commitments entered into by the State, for the first time in the institutional history of the country, nationwide action was taken in the municipalities with an approach expressly targeting the effective protection of labour rights, particularly the protection and stability of workers, and the general fulfilment of employers’ obligations.

In addition, a targeted operational strategy was developed in the 100 most populated municipalities in the country, significantly expanding coverage of municipal workers protected by inspections, prioritizing the areas with the highest concentration of local public employees. This territorial prioritization not only increased the Ministry's operational scope but also enabled the identification of patterns and the adoption of more effective preventive and corrective measures to ensure compliance with the legislation in force.

Within this framework, and as a result of the actions carried out, the following full-scale inspections were carried out in the 2023–25 period in the different municipalities across the country:

Grounds for inspections in municipalities	Number of inspections	Men	Women
Inspection of Occupational Risk Prevention Act (LGPRLT)(sections 8 and 13)	114	6 863	3 565
Inspections relating to social security contributions, armed forces welfare, pensions, income tax	24	1 515	717
Employment situation of workers	95	9 499	4 524
Total	233	17 877	8 806
Source: Labour Inspection Department (DGIT), Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MTPS).

Application of Articles 2, 4 and 6, in relation to pending legislative issues, regarding the prohibition of acts of interference, and requirements for the negotiation and renegotiationof a collective agreement

As part of the Government's commitment to promoting social dialogue and the active participation of social partners, the Ministry of Labour has planned to set up a dialogue forum with workers’ organizations, covering the different levels of trade unionism, namely unions, federations and confederations. This forum will seek to address the different collective opinions aimed at strengthening decent work, effectively guaranteeing fundamental rights of employment and freedom of association, through first-hand knowledge of the needs and interests of organizations in order to identify and promote direct solutions from the Ministry of Labour.

Within this framework, a formal invitation has been issued to more than 180 organizations for Tuesday, 20 June to ensure a participatory, inclusive and representative process in the formation of this dialogue forum. It is hoped that this will continue to take place on a regular, ongoing basis, in order to further promote dialogue and lay the foundations of trust for institutionalized tripartite forums. A consequent objective of these dialogue spaces will be precisely to promote the basis for analysis of, and consultation on, reforms to the current labour legislation.

The Government reaffirms its commitment to the complete revision and updating of the Labour Code. In this regard, technical work has continued in order to produce an initial proposal to be submitted for consultation with the sectors. This was conveyed to the Director of the ILO Office for Central America, Haiti, Panama and the Dominican Republic (ILO Office for Central America) in face-to-face meetings during the month of May in order to also obtain the necessary technical assistance. It should be noted that, although one of the main changes aims to extend the credentials of trade union executive committees, the objective is to update the entire legislation in relation to the current challenges of the world of work, and this is the reason why the process cannot be rushed.

In this regard, the Government reaffirms its institutional openness and its commitment to creating participatory, transparent and pluralistic forums aimed at strengthening the national labour system. For this reason, in various meetings with the technical teams of the ILO Office for Central America, the analysis of the representativeness of the trade union movement based on the statistics of the Labour Department has been forwarded, with the aim of opening up training and participation forums to the plurality of the Salvadoran trade union movement.

These efforts not only promote compliance with international labour commitments but also empower workers’ organizations as key players in democratic development, while strengthening the foundations for tripartite dialogue.

Existing collective agreements, their coverage and actions to promote them, as well as increasing the number of collective agreements in the public and private sectors

Within the framework of this progressive strengthening of collective bargaining and in compliance with the commitments entered into under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), Convention No 98 and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), the Ministry of Labour has continued to promote various actions aimed at ensuring an environment conducive to effective collective bargaining in both the public and private sectors. In this regard, and as a sign of the institutional commitment to the consolidation of collective rights, the Office for Trade Union Matters has intensified its efforts to provide technical and legal support to workers' organizations, particularly in the processes of establishing, registering and legalizing trade unions, as an essential preliminary step for the full exercise of collective bargaining. To this end, a total of 434 consultations were carried out during the last year, enabling the swift accreditation of executive committees.

Regarding this last point, it should be emphasized that consultation is not a mandatory step in the process, but it does reduce the time required and the margin of frequent errors in obtaining credentials. In this regard, we recognize the persistence of frequent errors in some procedures that cause delays in accreditation. Consequently, in coordination with the ILO Office for Central America, we are planning to hold open workshops to highlight frequent errors and the proper procedure to ensure efficient processing.

In this context, and as a result of these actions, a total of 55 new collective agreements were registered in the 2022–24 period, of which 20 relate to the public sector and autonomous institutions and 35 to the private sector, indicating a positive trend towards the increased formalization of labour relations through collective instruments, without taking account of agreements where there have been no changes in their regulations.

In this regard, we take careful note of the Committee of Experts’ comments indicating a low coverage rate of collective agreements. We consider that this can be attributed, not to the requirements established by the legislation, but rather to two factors that have been addressed by the Government. The first involves the historical stigmatization of the trade union movement, whereby the latter was associated with subversive left-wing factions in the aftermath of the civil war in El Salvador; the second involves the resistance of employers to engaging in collective bargaining. In both cases, the Government of El Salvador has publicly promoted action to enable a paradigm shift in public perception and ensure a better view of the trade union movement, including the “national decent work award” and the “national collective bargaining award”. We, the Government, accept that there are still challenges in the way of such acceptance, but we have also promoted the application of legislation through labour inspections and the dialogue forums referred to above.

Similarly, the Labour Department facilitated a total of 2,021 conciliation hearings over the last year, as part of respect for workers’ rights.

In this context, the Ministry of Labour’s support has been key to the development of sustained and effective collective processes. This direct public assistance to the sectors has resulted in the greater formalization of trade unions, which lays the foundations for progressively expanding the coverage of collective instruments, in line with the objectives of the Convention.

Moreover, in this context of strengthening work environments that respect fundamental rights, the Ministry of Labour has initiated a process of inter-institutional analysis and coordination aimed at establishing mechanisms to enable the reinstatement of unionized workers who have been dismissed without due process and who are linked to various cases brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA). This measure is currently subject to legal and administrative follow-up, and information will be forwarded to both the Committee of Experts and the CFA as soon as possible.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – I have the honour of inviting the honourable representative of the Government of El Salvador, the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, to take the floor remotely.

Government representative – From El Salvador, I wish to convey fraternal and supportive greetings to the working class of the world on behalf of President Nayib Bukele. I wish to express my concern, dismay and indignation that this supervisory mechanism is once again being used against El Salvador for political purposes. We have been called upon to report to this forum following negotiations that were not very transparent, full of mistrust and secretive, in a process that is very far from the principles that are promoted by this institution, which are focussed on the promotion of social justice and the protection of labour rights as fundamental pillars for the achievement of decent work and peace in the world.

It is a matter of concern that cases involving serious violations of labour rights are not addressed in this forum. The question arises of whether this is for political motives or the geopolitical influence of certain nations. For example, powerful countries where there have been protests and demonstrations by workers who have been severely repressed and which have not been called before this forum, which gives rise to reasonable doubt as to whether the grounds and criteria for inclusion really consist of cases of serious violations, or more probably the capacity and influence wielded by the elite decision-makers, even leaving aside the views of the social partners and giving weight to the influence of the powerful.

In other regions, trade unionists continue to be murdered, tortured and silenced for defending fundamental rights.

We have seen on various occasions the manner in which the voices of national trade unions have been disregarded, leaving the decision to international spokespersons who are not aware of the real national situation. The process is reduced to a negotiation in which most weight is given to lobbying capacity, and in which we are small change.

Nevertheless, in our respect for this Organization and our pride in our compliance with our commitments to international labour standards, I will now present the requested report to the Committee.

El Salvador reaffirms its commitment to protecting the right to organize and collective bargaining, which are also protected by the Constitution. This commitment has been reaffirmed by the recent ratification of Convention No. 154, which supplements the present Convention. Both Conventions reinforce the prohibition of anti-union practices and interference by employers, and promote industrial relations based on justice, mutual respect and equity. Accordingly, the Government has promoted legal provisions that strengthen freedom of association and consolidate social dialogue as a mechanism for the resolution and improvement of working conditions.

In that regard, we wish to emphasize that, over the past five years, there have been 80 new unions as a result of the support and advice provided by the Office for Trade Union Matters, which has been established in our administration, the purpose of which is to provide detailed advice to trade union leaders on compliance with all the legal requirements for their accreditation. All of this has the objective of strengthening freedom of association and promoting an environment that is safer and more conducive to the establishment and operation of unions.

Our legislation also protects the right to collective bargaining in both the private and public sectors. As a result, in practice, over the past two years, 55 new collective labour agreements have been concluded, 35 in the private sector and 20 in the public sector. The increase has been from 167 collective agreements registered in 2022 to 222 in 2024, representing a rise of 30 per cent, thereby demonstrating our firm commitment to the promotion and protection of collective bargaining.

It is also with great pleasure that we announce one of the principal results of institutionalized tripartism in El Salvador, the recent unanimous approval of an increase in the minimum wage by the National Minimum Wage Council as a result of the active participation of the three partners in its analysis, discussion and agreement. It should be emphasized that unanimous agreement had not been achieved in the Council for 14 years, thereby offering a significant demonstration of the progress and strengthening of institutionalized tripartite social dialogue.

We are aware that historically El Salvador has had a low unionization rate, resulting from the repression and stigmatization by previous governments on both the right and the left. Moreover, there was always a denial and rejection of trade unionism by actors on the extreme right, including members of the National Business Association (ANEP). That should raise questions, because during that period no complaints were made by the ANEP in that respect, despite the trade union repression, as they were the ones who were governing the country at that time and who normalized anti-union stigmatization.

We are therefore surprised at the position taken by the ANEP in defence of collective bargaining and the right to organize, when its historical role has been to oppose these principles.

And we are emphatic in questioning the position taken by the ANEP which, at the international level, flies the flag of the struggle and politicizes this forum, while at the local level it opposes freedom of association and restricts its member enterprises from creating unions, thereby demonstrating the duality of its moral position. We therefore forcefully recall that the ANEP does not represent the institutional position of the productive sector.

The ones that are working coherently with the Government are other employers’ organizations that are more representative of the productive sector in El Salvador.

In accordance with national and international law, and our own principles, the Government has established the National Decent Work Award, which recognizes good enterprise practices in compliance with freedom of association and the creation of decent working conditions, with 150 enterprises receiving the Award. Similarly, the National Collective Bargaining Award recognizes the capacity for dialogue between employers and workers and the achievement of better conditions of work through collective bargaining.

In this way, the aim is to emphasize the fundamental role of our trade union leaders as defenders of labour rights. Although this is a broad challenge, such action marks an important milestone in the constant progress that is being made in recognizing the fundamental role played by the trade union movement in our society.

With reference to adequate protection against anti-union discrimination, as a Government, we are fully aware that trade unionism provides the fundamental basis for the negotiation and progressive improvement of labour rights and the generation of decent employment. We therefore wish to announce that, with a view to achieving greater protection for labour rights, section 627 of the Labour Code has been amended to raise the fines for violations of the labour legislation, rising from a maximum fine of US$57.14 to a maximum fine of US$4,905, which is equivalent to 12 minimum wages, based on the seriousness of the violation and the size of the enterprise.

In accordance with the legislation, acts of anti-union discrimination are punished under these provisions, as they constitute violations of the fundamental rights set out in Books I and II of the Labour Code, with particular reference to those respecting freedom of association and non-discrimination based on trade union membership. In addition, supervisory mechanisms have been activated through the labour inspection services.

Moreover, with reference to the protection of the right to organize of workers in municipal authorities, in contrast with previous administrations, which failed to protect municipal workers, the Government of El Salvador has adopted a firm attitude in defence of their trade union rights. Through the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, some 223 comprehensive inspections were carried out in 2024, covering 100 per cent of the municipal authorities in the country and benefiting over 26,600 municipal workers. These inspections examined all types of conditions, forms of recruitment, compliance with labour and fundamental requirements, and respect for freedom of association.

The Ministry also publicly denounced the existence of the so-called “bogus contracts” used by certain municipal authorities to increase the precarity of municipal employment by using temporary contracts without any guarantee of employment stability. In response, the inclusion of these workers in the National Register has been promoted under the Administrative Careers Act to ensure their rights, employment stability and due process, thereby marking a structural change in the protection of this historically vulnerable sector.

With reference to the strengthening of the legislation, the Government of El Salvador reaffirms its commitment to revising and updating the Labour Code, which dates from the 1970s. The technical work on this has been continuing with an initial proposal, which will be submitted for consultation with the social partners. This historic reform of the Labour Code does not respond to the interests of the elite, but to the real situation of the working class and the world of work. However, it will be discussed, developed and approved in the Higher Labour Council, thereby guaranteeing that all the social and productive partners, including the trade union movement, contribute actively to its development and adoption.

One of the principal changes relates to the extension of the credentials of trade union executive committees, with the objective of updating the legislation in line with the current challenges in the world of work. For this reason, the process cannot be pressurized and has to be discussed and developed with all parties. For that reason, we have also requested the technical assistance of the ILO in carrying forward the process.

I also wish to reaffirm our openness to dialogue. As part of our commitments to freedom of association, we are extending the forums for direct dialogue with trade unions, their chapters, federations and confederations. An open dialogue forum was recently held with the participation of around 150 trade unions, including some who are present here in these meetings, and all the essential aspects were taken into consideration to carry out the reform of the Labour Code.

As a result of this dialogue, we have also undertaken to maintain better communication on a regular basis with smaller sectoral meetings. Immediate measures will also be taken in response to the various matters raised.

In this respect, the Government of El Salvador reaffirms its willingness at the institutional level and its commitment to the establishment of participatory, transparent and pluralistic institutions, such as the El Salvador Pensions Institute, which is a new tripartite institutional body that promotes compliance with international social welfare standards with a view to the strengthening of the national labour system, in the hope that their reinforcement is constant and continuous.

We wish to emphasize that our Government has restored security and confidence in El Salvador. The citizens of El Salvador can now leave their homes without fear of being the victims of violence. This feeling of freedom and tranquillity, which was previously unimaginable, has now become the basis for the transformations that we are carrying forward, as the criminal and terrorist organizations have been neutralized, allowing the sustained growth of jobs and trade union action.

In this context, as the Government, we cannot fail to make reference to the painful cases of the murders of the trade unionists Weder Arturo Meléndez Ramírez, the former employee of the municipality of El Salvador, and Victoriano Abel Vega, who was employed by the municipality of Santa Ana. These are tragedies that, as the Government, we profoundly regret. And, in the case of Weder Meléndez, in particular, it was the Government itself that brought the case to the ILO in order to ensure international oversight, in our conviction that the death of a trade unionist must never go unpunished.

As we have indicated on several occasions, there are already findings in the case. The investigations have determined that the murder was committed by members of gangs for reasons that are unrelated to his trade union activities. Based on the information received from the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Republic and the National Civil Police, we are able to state that exhaustive investigations have been carried out in both cases so that those responsible can now undergo prosecution.

In our country, the right to organize and collective bargaining is respected. Proof can be seen in the various massive demonstrations and celebrations of freedom of expression that have taken place, with marches by the working class, for example for the 1st of May, with the inclusion of social movements, without heeding their affinities or proclaimed objectives. And they were not repressed or intimidated in any way. Quite the contrary, in its respect for freedom of association, the Government of El Salvador provided police support and also allowed them to use roadways and public spaces without any type of restriction.

In this regard, we are working for and on behalf of the people of El Salvador, making progress in our historic process of development with independence and social commitment, together with representative enterprise associations and hand in hand with the trade union movement. I take this opportunity to renew our call to international actors to respect our internal processes and heed the voices of the local actors who are part of this effort and who are contributing with us to the construction of a new El Salvador in a context of respect for the working class.

Worker members – We thank the Government for its intervention and we place specific emphasis on the report of the Committee of Experts, which provides the technical basis for the examination of this case. It should be noted that the case of El Salvador has been included on many occasions in recent years, as indicated by the Committee of Experts.

Workers’ organizations have been reporting serious difficulties in the exercise of freedom of association and the right to organize. But it is not an isolated problem. The Committee of Experts has also made substantive comments, although at a different intensity, concerning Convention No. 87 and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151). This shows that there are still structural shortcomings in industrial relations in the country.

A careful reading of the report of the Committee of Experts also allows us to place in context the profound reality of the situation that has marked the history of El Salvador. A persistent trajectory of structural violence that has affected the various fields of social development, and particularly the world of work and trade unions. This anti-union violence has had the most serious of consequences, including persecution, threats and in many cases also the murder of trade union leaders, as set out in the report of the Committee of Experts. These are facts that cannot be considered isolated episodes, nor confined to the past, as they have to be seen in terms of a historical continuity which has also left its marks in the present in various forms and to very different degrees of intensity.

The Committee of Experts has expressed grave concern at the persistence of legislative gaps which prevent the full application of the Convention in El Salvador. In particular, it emphasizes the need to amend key provisions of the Labour Code and the Civil Service Act to ensure protection against anti-union discrimination, prevent acts of interference and allow the effective exercise of the right to collective bargaining in both the public and private sectors. Despite certain legislative progress, the Committee of Experts indicates that the Government has still not provided information on their application in practice or their dissuasive effect in cases of discrimination. It also recalls that municipal workers still lack adequate protection measures and urges the Government to revise the legal framework on the basis of tripartite consultations. It further notes that the low rate of coverage of collective bargaining of only 4.6 per cent may be associated with existing legislative obstacles. The Committee of Experts therefore calls on the Government to take measures in law and practice to guarantee the full and genuine exercise of these fundamental rights. The Committee of Experts has noted that significant legal reforms continue to be pending despite the commitments made by the Government.

The Worker members fully agrees that energetic and determined action is required by the Government to make progress with these essential legislative changes to guarantee for the first time the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining in El Salvador and comply effectively with the international commitments assumed by the country. The Committee of Experts, while noting these observations by workers, regrets that the Government has not provided information on the specific measures taken to amend the numerous constitutional and legal provisions that are in violation of freedom of association, which is a prerequisite for collective bargaining.

The trade unions have clearly indicated the urgent need to make progress with these reforms and have expressed their particular concern at the dissolution of the Labour Commission of the National Assembly.

This situation makes it uncertain whether the legislative authority will now assume this role and could result in the paralysis and shelving of the necessary reforms. It should be recalled that these issues are not new. The Committee of Experts has been urging the Government to adapt the legislation for many years. We therefore reiterate the need for the executive authorities, within the context of effective tripartite dialogue, to adopt the required measures without delay and to provide specific information on the progress achieved.

Up to now, we have been providing a detailed description of the points made by the Committee of Experts, which are shared by the Workers’ group. But we wish to emphasize that the objective of the ILO supervisory system is not to mete out punishment, but to promote solutions through social dialogue, tripartite consultation and technical cooperation.

These mechanisms exist to create the conditions for States to make progress in the effective implementation of international labour standards.

In this regard, we wish to inform you that, on the basis of the information communicated by the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA), and in view of the relevance of this information for the subject under discussion, following the publication of the long list of cases for the Committee, the Ministry of Labour of El Salvador convened three trade union federations represented by the TUCA and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a dialogue forum.

The purpose of this forum is to develop a road map to address not only the comments made by the Committee of Experts, but also other fundamental subjects to guarantee the full exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining in the country, even though all the subjects are not reflected in the report.

In this framework, we are seeing a beginning of the institutional dialogue between a Government and the federations affiliated to the TUCA with the objective of taking the first steps on a common path to address these observations and see whether we can find sustainable solutions that cover the whole trade union movement in El Salvador.

The points under discussion include measures to ensure the transparent and timely delivery of trade union credentials, the reactivation of tripartite forums with effective participation by unions and the promotion of legislative reforms to ensure greater stability and representativity in the leadership of unions.

The establishment of a joint follow-up commission is also envisaged to address complaints that are made to it and support the progressive implementation of international recommendations.

Finally, the establishment of mechanisms was being discussed to review cases of trade union leaders who are dismissed for reasons related to their trade union activities in a bipartite space that can ensure that they are dealt with justly. This dialogue process transcends the national level, but in reality, it is an agreement that is still being developed and has not yet been concluded. It is benefiting from the support and presence of Workers’ Activities Bureau (ACTRAV) of the ILO and the TUCA to guarantee the process and bear witness to the commitments that are made.

First, we have described clearly the problems identified and reaffirmed by the Committee of Experts, but we would also like it to be noted that this door that has started opening is not yet fully open, but that some dialogue can be pursued with the participation of all the partners.

What is it that we want? We want guidance on the collective development of a road map that can overcome the situation that has been described and guarantee the full exercise of fundamental rights.

It is clear that we agree with the report of the Committee of Experts, but we were also obliged to indicate that there was a door of understanding, a window, the beginnings of a path forward. We hope that the Government, through the Ministry of Labour of El Salvador, will offer a response, because we believe that it also favours offering protection, not only for trade union leaders, but also for the women and men workers of the country

Employer members – We are here to review another case involving El Salvador and, although the subject matter is similar to that of other cases, it is now under this Convention, which was ratified in 2006. Although it is the first occasion on which the Conference Committee has examined the application of the Convention in this country, the Committee of Experts has made observations on the case between 2009 and 2025 on seven occasions. This coincides with the situation indicated and described by the Worker spokesperson and, in this regard, I join with the statements and description made by the Workers so as not to have to repeat the whole sequence of events which, as they indicated, is the historical continuity of everything that we know perfectly well in this room. I will therefore gloss over all the historical episodes that have happened.

In this regard, it is important to emphasize that the various occurrences related to this case have also been analysed by the Committee in relation to the application of Convention No. 87 and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), among others, and in other ILO supervisory bodies, where reiterated violations have been noted on which countless observations have been made with the related requests, which regrettably have still not been given effect.

Turning to the specific analysis of the case, first, I thank the Government for the information provided and for the detailed comments that it made to the Committee. Having said that, I am bound to say that we regret and express our deepest concern at the facts and omissions contained in this case, to which I will now refer.

With regard to Article 1, the Employers’ group notes the information provided by the Government on the measures adopted to prevent anti-union discrimination. In particular, it notes the revision of the penalties, as explained by the Government.

We note the voluminous information provided by the Government on the trade union protection of municipal workers, which has also been explained by the Minister, and I will not repeat it. However, the Employers reiterate the importance of having clear provisions based on objective criteria in order to prevent any type of undue discrimination against the most representative organizations of workers and employers.

It appears to me that the Minister has expressed the will to resolve the problems that have been arising and overcome the backlog of commitments and obligations assumed with this Organization.

I believe that it is worth reiterating that freedom of association, in the same way as the freedom of collective bargaining and all the requirements deriving from the Convention, as well as from Conventions Nos 87 and 144, are not perceived and do not take the form in this Organization of the exclusive vision of the Workers. This freedom covers both workers and employers and, in this enthusiasm for compliance in relation to workers that has been expressed, we also call for it to include employers. If it does not include employers, there will be no compliance with the obligations deriving from these Conventions.

The Government would need to receive technical assistance in order to heed and understand this approach better, which is the approach that is identified by the Committee of Experts, and is recognized by all those who are present today, and is the result of the analyses of all the cases carried out by the Conference Committee.

Under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, workers’ and employers’ organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration. That is the text word for word.

This is reflected in the General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work in light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008, which specifically indicates that discrimination against representative employers’ organizations, such as their exclusion from participation in the preparation of labour legislation or from consultations on social and economic matters, is not in accordance with the principles of the Convention.

The Minister did us the favour of explaining the processes that are being implemented in which solely and exclusively, as may be inferred from the analysis carried out by the Committee of Experts, they are being carried out with the involvement of workers’ organizations. Accordingly, based on the interpretation of the specific application of this Convention, it is necessary to bring employers on board through the ANEP, which is the most representative organization, as we have indicated and noted for very many years.

Regrettably, in the present case, we note that the Government has consistently maintained an approach that is contrary to these prescriptions as, since May 2020, the Government has simply ignored in practice and publicly the ANEP, which is the most representative organization of employers, breaking off any formal or informal channels of communication, and has also engaged in a campaign of attacks, threats and pressure with the objective of weaking its operation, isolating it and discouraging its financing, which is not only serious, but also inadmissible for the ILO.

We have to emphasized that, within the framework of this persistent approach, which is contrary to the Government’s obligations, through the reform of 23 laws, which was also mentioned by the Minister, employers’ organizations have been deprived of the possibility of freely electing the representatives who should be able to participate in bipartite and tripartite bodies, leaving their designation to the power of the executive authorities, thereby disregarding the plurality and autonomy that should be pursued as a principle objective of the tripartism that we advocate here.

The measures adopted by the Government in this regard constitute direct acts of interference with the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention. I do not think that this is so abundantly clear for the Government, and so it is very important for it to note these considerations. In this context, the Employers reiterate the urgent need to establish balanced and institutionalized social dialogue in accordance with the fundamental principles of the ILO, and in particular the principle of non-interference, to which I referred earlier in relation to the Convention.

The Employers reiterate that they are willing to listen to the Government, but call for their appropriate participation in dialogue processes, which have to be held within a framework of mutual respect, legal certainty and balance between rights and responsibilities. In this regard, the Employers consider it to be fundamental that any policy for the promotion of collective bargaining is not based on a unilateral vision, but that it fully integrates employers as essential partners in the industrial relations system. We therefore urge the Government to change its position and to promote participation and tripartite dialogue with the inclusion of the ANEP, which is the most representative organization, in accordance with the obligations flowing from the Conventions referred to.

In light of what the Workers have said, with which, I insist, we do not agree in relation to the description that they have made of the analysis by the Committee of Experts, and taking into consideration the establishment of a dialogue forum, up to now with workers, who need to be joined by employers in order to give effect precisely to the Convention and the other obligations assumed by the Government in order to be able to institutionalize this effort, it appears to me that the Government should request technical assistance from the Office in order to ensure that this collaborative spirit that they have shown and, as they have now taken a very important step in relation to the workers, should also be implemented in a tripartite manner and include employers through their organizations, without denying that there are also other organizations that represent them. There are organizations recognized by the ILO and I believe that the ANEP would be delighted to take up such responsible dialogue once again with the Government alongside the workers with a view to reaching appropriate conclusions on promoting the development of employment for the good of workers and society as a whole.

Worker member, El Salvador – I wish to convey a fraternal greeting on behalf of the Trade Union Unity Confederation of El Salvador (USS), the most representative workers’ organization in El Salvador, which brings together 90 per cent of the trade unions in the country. We are an organization committed to the defence of labour rights and the construction of a more just and equitable society.

On this occasion. I am addressing you as the spokesperson of the workers of El Salvador and I am accompanied by companions who together are affiliated to international trade union confederations, such as Public Services International (PSI) and TUCA, among others. Our position is therefore legitimate, not only representing trade union unity, but also the great majority of organized workers in the country. I will accordingly allow myself to share our position on the right to organize and collective bargaining in El Salvador.

For many years now, we have achieved the formal commencement of genuine social dialogue in El Salvador. As a trade union movement, we can also say that this dialogue goes beyond organized workers and that we represent the genuine and authentic working class, as we have ensured the inclusion of various social organizations in the existing mechanisms for the building of consensus around the labour challenges in our country.

We are bound to recognize that, as a result of this joint effort with the Government and the opening described by the Ministry of Labour, we have been able to ensure the more flexible and transparent delivery of credentials for our organizations, which strengthens the legality and legitimacy of the trade union movement and ensures active and effective participation in dialogue forums and decision-making.

As a trade union movement, we reaffirm our will to fight for a comprehensive reform of the Labour Code, while also expressing our greater willingness and openness to the necessary dialogue with a view to updating and modernizing our labour legislation, ensuring greater protection for workers, recognizing the historic rights that have been denied and harmonizing it with the international Conventions ratified by our country. This is something that previous governments failed to place on their agenda.

As the working class we have recently achieved, with the support of the Government and as a result of tripartite social dialogue, one of the principal milestones for the working class. Through negotiation and social conscience, the National Minimum Wages Council unanimously agreed to a new rise in wages in El Salvador. This agreement reflects the power of consensus and the will to improve the quality of life of the working class.

We also urge the Government of El Salvador to establish the Higher Labour Council as a body that can focus national dialogue on labour matters and will undoubtedly open up a new phase in the formulation of public policies with a tripartite and participatory approach while guaranteeing the participation of representative actors, not only for political reasons, but also based on the will and predisposition to work honestly for the people of El Salvador.

As the genuine trade union movement of El Salvador, we have used this forum in recent years, not only to share our position on the vision for El Salvador, but also to denounce certain injustices and to make the respective calls for action. And we regret that this is not an exceptional occurrence, as we have to reiterate our warning concerning the political interests of the ANEP, an association that has been the political tool of the right in El Salvador and which has traditionally promoted, and is continuing to do so, rejection of the trade union movement and labour flexibility without guarantees. We are aware that the ANEP does not faithfully represent the interests of employers, but a more political and electoral agenda.

Nevertheless, we also wish to acknowledge that a fair group of employers’ organizations are open to dialogue and respect trade unionism, and we have concluded collective agreements with them that have been of great benefit to workers.

On the other hand, we wish to denounce and draw attention to the manner in which El Salvador has been included on the list, as there has been clear acknowledgement by national workers’ organizations from all sectors that there is an open process of dialogue in El Salvador and agreements on making progress to achieve freedom of association. This was conveyed emphatically and through official channels to the international spokespersons, together with information on the agreements concluded, not only by ourselves, but also by the Trade Union Confederation of Workers of El Salvador (CSTS) and the Autonomous Central of Salvadorian Workers (CATS), which are national organizations that have access to these discussion forums. It is therefore strange to us that the international spokesperson negotiated the inclusion of El Salvador in the list, when other more serious problems and violations of labour rights exist in other latitudes which require the urgent attention of this Committee and the solidarity of the international trade union movement. Therefore if, as a trade union movement, we have not been heeded, that means that the inclusion of El Salvador on the list has more to do with factual than political issues. It is therefore necessary to provide information on and promote the progress that has been made, and the good will expressed for the strengthening and protection of freedom of association in El Salvador.

I would like to announce that we have recently initiated the development of understandings between the most representative federations and confederations in the country with the Minister of Labour, Mr Rolando Castro, for the joint promotion of benefits, in relation to which we have received the following undertakings from the Ministry: (i) the immediate delivery of credentials to all trade unions that have complied with the requirements set out in the respective legislation; (ii) the establishment and reactivation of tripartite bodies, such as the Higher Labour Council, with the effective participation of the most representative trade union confederations and federations; (iii) the reform of the legislation respecting trade union executive committees so as to ensure the extension of their mandate from one to three years, in accordance with the longstanding recommendations made by the ILO; (iv) the establishment of a joint mixed commission composed of representatives of the Ministry and of signatory unions with a view to reviewing the complaints made to the ILO and promoting effective compliance with its recommendations; and (v) the implementation of a process of exhaustive review of the progressive reinstatement of trade union leaders who have been dismissed, which on our side will include direct follow-up for the support and inclusion of any of the working class who so need it.

As the representatives of the trade union movement, and in light of the responsibility that this involves, and our commitment to mutual social dialogue, we have also adopted commitments within the context of this agreement towards the people of El Salvador, including the provision of objective and expeditious information to international representatives. The purpose is to immediately inform ILO bodies and affiliated international organizations, such as PSI, TUCA, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), the Latin American Federation of Public Control Workers (ULATOC), the Coordinating Body of Latin American Bananas and Agro-industrial Unions (COLSIBA), the Confederation of Municipal Workers of the Americas (CONTRAM-PSI) and the International Federation of Workers in Control Bodies (UITOC), as well as to inform them periodically of progress in the field of freedom of association, the protection of workers’ rights and the true achievements of the working class in El Salvador.

Government member, Poland – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Ukraine, the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect 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.

The EU and El Salvador have established a close relationship based on the Association Agreement between the EU and Central America which includes three main pillars: political dialogue, cooperation and trade. Through this agreement, the EU and El Salvador have also committed to effectively implement the fundamental ILO Conventions. The Committee of Experts has repeatedly emphasized the importance of reforming penalties for anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their deterrent effect. We acknowledge El Salvador’s efforts to address these concerns through Legislative Decree No. 519 of 31 October 2022. It is crucial, however, that any legislative amendment leads to tangible results. We take note of the information provided by the Government about the fines imposed for acts of anti-union discrimination for 2024. We regret that the Government continues to exclude municipal workers from the protections of the Labour Code, failing to guarantee adequate protection against anti-union discrimination for this category of workers.

While we note the Government’s response indicating that alternative complaint mechanisms exist for municipal workers, as well as its further clarifications about recent labour inspections, we reiterate the call of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts for the adoption of all appropriate measures. This includes the need for legislative amendment, decided upon in consultation with representative social partners from the sector, to ensure that municipal staff have access to effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination.

We acknowledge the establishment of a technical round table to discuss reforms to the Labour Code aimed at addressing the Committee of Expert’s long-standing concerns and ensuring full conformity of national legislation with Articles 2, 4 and 6 of the Convention. We endorse the Committee’s request for comprehensive information on the current status of these discussions, as well as detailed clarification regarding the employers’ and workers’ organizations participating in the consultation process. We hope to observe concrete progress in the near future and call for meaningful tripartite social dialogue within the Higher Labour Council to resolve all pending issues.

According to ILOSTAT data, the coverage rate for collective bargaining in El Salvador was 4.6 per cent in 2018. We take note of the agreements registered in the period 2022–24, when 20 new collective agreements were signed in the public sector and 35 in the private sector. We urge the Government to build on this trend and address the low coverage rate which, according to the Committee, may stem from the restrictive requirements set forth by the legislation on collective bargaining.

Finally, we recall the serious concerns regarding Convention No. 87, as discussed during the 2024 Conference Committee and we reiterate the Committee’s call for the immediate cessation of all acts of violence, threats, persecution, stigmatization, intimidation, or any other forms of aggression directed at individuals or organizations in connection with the exercise of legitimate trade union activities and the activities of employers’ organizations.

We urge the Government to take all necessary measures to prevent any recurrence of such acts.

The EU and its Member States remain committed to constructive engagement with El Salvador and encourage the Government to further strengthen its cooperation with the ILO, the social partners, and the international community in order to fulfil its obligations under ratified Conventions.

Government member, Peru – I am speaking on behalf of a group of countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region consisting of Plurinational State of Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay and Peru. We thank the Government of El Salvador for the information provided and express our appreciation at the progress made in generating decent employment, the support provided for vulnerable sectors and the promotion of social dialogue and freedom of association.

We note the efforts made by the Government to promote freedom of association through public visibility, recognition and administrative measures to facilitate registration, and we encourage the continuation of efforts to extend the validity of the credentials of trade union executive committees.

We welcome the institutionalization of awards, such as the National Decent Work Award and the National Collective Bargaining Award as incentives to promote freedom of association and generate decent conditions of employment.

We welcome the recent increase in the minimum wage in El Salvador, adopted unanimously by the National Minimum Wage Council, as a result of the active participation of the three partners in its analysis and discussion.

We note the efforts made through labour inspections in municipalities to guarantee the protection of labour rights for all public employees, and we urge the adoption of the necessary reforms to provide the legal guarantees recommended by the ILO under the Conventions ratified by El Salvador.

We urge El Salvador to continue availing itself of ILO technical assistance for the effective follow-up of the cases before the CFA, and to carry out a comprehensive reform of the Labour Code in accordance with current conditions in the world of work.

We encourage El Salvador to continue prioritizing economic improvement in order to consolidate the progress made in relation to security, with a view to making progress with its model of prosperity, promoting decent work, social justice and tripartite dialogue.

Finally, we commend El Salvador’s efforts in recognizing freedom of association and supporting the trade union movement, and its openness to direct dialogue, while also urging it to keep such channels of dialogue open and institutionalized.

Employer member, Honduras – As representatives of the employers of Honduras, we have analysed comprehensively all the developments in El Salvador and thank the Government of El Salvador for the information provided. However, at the same time, we cannot disregard the inappropriate and even aggressive attitude by the Government authorities of El Salvador towards the ANEP, the country’s most representative employers’ organization. This is reflected in the fact that the ANEP is not represented at the Conference, which is not conducive to social dialogue, a process that is based on and sustained by respect for the social partners.

The ILO promotes and supports institutionalized social dialogue and social cooperation for consensus-building as a means of facilitating a process of development with inclusion and social justice, with a view to achieving decent work for all. We therefore call for respect for the right to social dialogue of the most representative organizations in El Salvador, as in the case of the ANEP, an organization that has been excluded from the various tripartite dialogue forums.

No action by governments to discredit the social partners is acceptable, as they are the ones that should be demonstrating maturity and tolerance. There will always be differences between the social partners, but it is through respect and dialogue that agreements are built over those differences, which is not currently evident in El Salvador. While there may be many organizations with differing views, it is the duty of governments to bring the parties together and to promote, while respecting the independence of the social partners, the broad consensus that contributes to development and social well-being.

In a divided society, where differences are encouraged, it is impossible to achieve successful social dialogue, which is the cornerstone of social peace. We therefore take this opportunity to call on the social partners and the Government of El Salvador to seek solutions to their differences and to move beyond attacks that sow division. Until that happens, this Committee will continue to hear cases of non-compliance with ILO Conventions, as is the case today with the present Convention, which protects employers’ and workers’ organizations against anti-union discrimination, as all ILO Conventions are based on respect and social dialogue.

Worker member, Uruguay – On behalf of the Workers, we would like to make several points. First, as noted in the report of the Committee of Experts, is the existence of structural problems affecting industrial relations, freedom of association and the right to organize, and the problem of violence, as documented in the report and described to us here. Second, we welcome the reference made to a type of initiative that appears to be fostering dialogue between the various stakeholders in El Salvador, which we welcome and enthusiastically support. Third, as workers in the education sector, we have been aware of and have been following recent collective bargaining processes in El Salvador.

One such example was the recent convocation issued in October 2024 by the Ministry of Education and the Office of the President to organizations in the education sector. During the negotiations, wage-related matters were agreed upon and, in particular, emphasis should be placed on the establishment of three dialogue forums: one on educational matters, another focusing on specific labour demands, and a third to analyse legislative changes. These forums offer a space to continue dialogue on key issues. However, while in 2024 each forum met on three occasions, they have not continued to meet in 2025. In addition to these forums, another body met on an urgent basis in May. However, unfortunately, it failed to provide solutions or responses to the concerns raised by teachers in El Salvador.

Clearly, this lack of continuity has caused concern and uncertainty among teachers, particularly as the teachers’ federation in El Salvador, composed of six organizations, is open to dialogue and to support the Government’s proposal known as “My New School”.

To make progress with this reform, it is therefore necessary for the Government of El Salvador to effectively promote social dialogue bodies so as to bring together the various partners, and to create collective bargaining forums to address issues relating to working conditions and the educational concerns of teachers in El Salvador.

Employer member, Guatemala – Although this is the first time that the Committee has examined a case under this Convention, the Committee of Experts has made comments on a number of occasions since 2019 on matters that are also related to Conventions Nos 87 and 144. They have been examined by this Committee and have given rise to missions to the country, and we are therefore very familiar with the issues.

We reiterate our deep concern at the fact that in El Salvador the practice persists of interference and exclusion of the most representative employers’ organization, the ANEP, which has been left aside by the Government, as confirmed moments ago by the representative of the Government of El Salvador, which has also engaged in a campaign of attacks and pressure aimed at silencing and weakening the ANEP.

We recall the reform of 23 laws a few years ago, which deprived employers’ organizations of their right to freely elect their representatives on joint and tripartite bodies, with this power instead being taken over by the executive authorities, amounting to direct interference in clear violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government has provided information on the establishment of new forums for social dialogue intended exclusively for trade union organizations, which has been confirmed to us today by the Workers. No reference has been made to the most representative employers’ organizations, which demonstrates the lack of commitment to promote tripartite dialogue and the clear bias against our organization in the country.

We reiterate the urgent need to re-establish genuine social dialogue in conformity with the fundamental principles of the ILO, respecting the principle of non-interference established in Article 2 of the Convention, which must include the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador, and not merely those organizations that are most convenient for the Government.

Government member, Panama – We thank the Government of El Salvador for the information provided to the Committee and take due note of the progress made by our neighbouring country, as well as certain good practices that can promote development of our region.

We wish to highlight El Salvador’s initiative to continue working towards a comprehensive reform of the Labour Code. It is essential to address the modern-day challenges of the world of work. We therefore encourage this initiative and hope that it will be accompanied by ILO technical assistance, while continuing to promote freedom of association and decent work.

As the Government of Panama and a member of the Council of Ministers of Labour of Central America and the Dominican Republic, we have had the opportunity to learn first-hand of the good practices in El Salvador, which is why we emphasize that modernization is one of the keys to enabling more efficient social, trade union and institutional practices.

The labour market information system implemented in El Salvador stands as an example of the objectives we are pursuing together, namely, seeking to ensure that technology and systems bring services closer to the people and that they are essential tools for guaranteeing successful employment policies, decent work, effective social dialogue and the efficiency of trade union services and protection for workers.

We encourage El Salvador to continue making the necessary efforts to achieve effective compliance with the international Conventions and Constitution of the ILO, and we look forward to exchanging good practices in future regional forums.

Employer member, Costa Rica – From our perspective, this case raises serious concerns regarding effective respect for tripartism and the right to organize of employers. The principles enshrined in the Convention do not only protect workers, but also employers and their organizations, which they must be able to establish, operate and participate in without undue interference from the Government.

In this regard, we wish to clearly express our solidarity with the ANEP, the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador. The ANEP represents the country’s productive and economic strength, bringing together 48 organizations from 55 economic subsectors and more than 15,000 formal enterprises, the vast majority of which are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. This plurality and diversity confer unquestionable legitimacy upon the ANEP for social dialogue.

As representatives of the Costa Rican business sector, we reject any type of interference aimed at fragmenting the unity that the ANEP has embodied for 60 years. Tripartite social dialogue must be built on respect for the representativity of workers’ and employers’ organizations.

We also deeply regret that the legitimate positions of employers are being discredited by ascribing to them political motivations and interests contrary to national well-being. Defending tripartism, denouncing exclusion and requiring compliance with the Convention is not an attack on the Government, but an act of responsibility towards the principles promoted by the ILO. We therefore respectfully urge the Government of El Salvador to guarantee the full and free participation of the ANEP without interference in social dialogue forums.

We also call on the Committee to reaffirm that tripartism can only function when all three pillars have their own legitimate and recognized voice.

The employers of Costa Rica will continue to defend multilateralism based on legality, institutional respect and cooperation, which are essential elements in making progress towards freer, more prosperous and democratic societies.

Finally, we regret that, for the third consecutive year, the employers of El Salvador have not been accredited to the Conference. In its conclusions, the Committee must request the Government to accredit the ANEP as from 2026 as part of the official delegation to participate in the 114th Session of the Conference and in subsequent sessions, as the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador.

Employer member, Mexico – Before making my statement, I would like to endorse what has already been said by the Employer spokesperson in this case. Although the Government of El Salvador has submitted a report to this Committee, we consider that the facts and failings in this case are a source of concern, for the reasons I will mention below.

Even though the Labour Code has been amended, as indicated by the Government, it is vitally important to have specific standards in place to prevent any form of undue discrimination against workers, trade unions and representative employers’ organizations.

The Government of El Salvador excludes the ANEP from dialogue and participation, and today claims that it is not representative, when it is the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador. The fact that it is not allowed to participate in formal and informal discussions, isolating its participation, is a situation that must be considered serious and cannot be allowed to continue.

In addition to the above, the fact that the legislation in El Salvador deprives employers’ organizations of the right to freely elect their representatives to participate in joint and tripartite bodies, and reserves this power for the Government, is a violation of the independence that employers should enjoy. Independence is one of the characteristics that enables effective representativity, which has always been protected by this organization, and acts of direct interference in violation of the provisions of the Convention and of Convention No. 144 must be avoided.

The right to organize and collective bargaining cannot be based on unilateral action by the Government, as workers and employers must participate equally in accordance with tripartism, and employers must not be excluded, as they, with workers, are the essence of any industrial relations system.

It is therefore vital for the Government of El Salvador, with ILO technical assistance, to promote effective social dialogue in which representative workers’ and employers’ organizations are recognized and participate. This will certainly bring benefits for both workers and the productivity of enterprises.

Government member, Plurinational State of Bolivia – Bolivia welcomes the distinguished delegation of the Government of El Salvador and gives thanks to the Minister for the information provided on the measures taken for the application of the Convention. We have listened carefully to the information provided on the protection of these rights and the measures taken by the Government to guarantee them. The detailed description provided, and we are also grateful to Mr Ortiz for the information he has provided representing the trade unions of El Salvador, has helped us to gain a much better understanding of the different positions on this matter.

For Bolivia, the right to organize is a fundamental basis to ensure progress towards better living and working conditions. It is a right that is established in our Constitution, and this is why we consider it extremely important to analyse it in these forums, avoiding any politicization of the issue and promoting compliance with the Convention through constant constructive dialogue.

In this regard, we would like to commend the efforts described by the Government, including the increase in the minimum wage, the creation of labour forums with a focus on vulnerable population groups, incentives to guarantee the right to organize, and the creation of decent jobs. These measures should not be overlooked and should be appreciated.

While we also appreciate the work of the Committee, we encourage it to continue working together with the Government on the implementation of the requirements of the Convention in a context of respect for sovereignty and non-interference in the country’s internal affairs. We also encourage the Government to continue its efforts and constructive approaches. We consider the role of our Organization to be very important. Far from dwelling on differences, it must always promote respect for dialogue, technical assistance at the request of the Government and joint work to guarantee labour rights.

Employer member, Colombia – First of all, I would like to refer to the obligation of the Government of El Salvador to comply with the terms of this fundamental Convention, which implies, first, the independence of employers’ and workers’ organizations; second, participation on an equal footing in social dialogue bodies; and third, protection against interference in their administration and functioning.

In this regard, we would like to reiterate that it is for workers’ and employers’ organizations to determine the conditions for the election of their leaders, and the authorities should refrain from any undue interference in the exercise of this right.

This is why we note with concern that, on the one hand, the Government is continuing to fail to recognize the ANEP as the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador, as shown by the fact that it has not been accredited for three consecutive years at the Conference, and also by the Government’s persistence in prohibiting the ANEP from meeting and from participating in tripartite social dialogue forums.

I would like to emphasize that the creation of dialogue forums intended exclusively for workers’ organizations also demonstrates disregard for tripartism and social dialogue with the social partners, which is the cornerstone of this Organization.

We therefore call for greater importance to be given to protecting the role of representative social partners, especially their independence and autonomy, as a means of consolidating robust, inclusive and sustainable institutions that guarantee effective and respectful social dialogue.

Finally, we call on the Government, with ILO technical assistance, to make progress in bringing its law and practice into line with the provisions of the Convention, and the full restoration on an urgent basis of social dialogue forums, as well as respect for the independence, autonomy and representativity of the most representative employers’ organization.

Observer, International Organisation of Employers (IOE) – The IOE defends and represents the autonomy and independence of employers’ organizations worldwide, in over 150 countries. Freedom of association covers employers’ organizations and trade unions, I repeat, both employers’ organizations and trade union organizations. We are surprised by the lack of reference to employers’ organizations and to their freedom of association by the distinguished trade union representatives and Government members when referring to this case.

The Minister infers that this case is the result of lobbying by international spokespersons. According to what he just said, it is a bargaining chip in a political game. This case has been the subject of repeated observations by the Committee of Experts, currently under Convention No. 98, but also under Conventions Nos 87 and 144.

The Committee of Experts has reiterated the serious and troubling nature of the facts examined. Particularly since 2020, but already before then, the ANEP was the subject of a sustained campaign of exclusion, interference and threats.

All institutional dialogue with the Government has been suspended, member enterprises have been pressured to leave the organization, and they have continued to receive threats of economic sanctions and even reprisals against their assets.

We are surprised by the Minister’s words. The proof – as previous speakers have said – is that he has not accredited the ANEP. However, this year, he has not accredited any employers’ organizations. There is also agreement with trade unions on the gravity of this case, and the decision concerning the Labour Commission of the Legislative Assembly is evidence of the situation in the country.

Even this year, attempts have been made to encourage organizations to take over the representation of the ANEP at this Conference. The members of the ANEP comprise 48 employers’ organizations from sectors including agriculture, agroindustry, industry, commerce, services, tourism, exports and the distribution of goods, technology, small enterprises, consultancy, financial services, media, advertising and construction. Despite all the pressure by the Government, these organizations have not left the ANEP. The issue is that the ANEP is an independent organization that defends and promotes the legitimate interests of enterprises in a very hostile context.

The Government has referred to the feeling of freedom and security. Freedom and security cannot come at just any cost. Economic development cannot be built on exclusion. It cannot be built on the absence of institutional stability. It cannot be built in the absence of social dialogue.

Reference has been made to a window of social dialogue. There is currently no window of social dialogue with employers’ organizations, not that we can see, and we reserve the right to have recourse to all the procedures of the supervisory system if the Government’s attitude does not change in relation to this case.

Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – The core mandates of this Organization include the promotion of social dialogue as a key tool for ensuring decent work. For this purpose, the ILO has several mechanisms that facilitate institutional dialogue and the development of shared road maps that allow us to make progress towards specific goals.

Within this framework, our Committee occupies a key position, not only in terms of its role in the supervisory system, but also because it allows an in-depth and substantive discussion with the direct participation of the social partners. Their participation should not be merely to provide evidence, but should also contribute effectively to the development of genuine and sustainable solutions.

It is in this spirit that we wish to emphasize that, since the publication of the long list of cases selected for the Committee, the Government has called on the trade union federations affiliated with the TUCA to initiate a process of dialogue with the aim of reaching agreements that would make it possible to address the observations made by the Committee of Experts, as well as other key concerns of the trade union movement.

The trade union federations and the TUCA saw this call as a signal of openness, a door of understanding – as we defined it – that needs to be put to good use. That is why we accept the Government’s invitation to initiate this preliminary dialogue, as we believe that a willingness to engage in dialogue should be met with a willingness to build.

The negotiation of this agreement, although still in progress, is not straightforward. There are differing views on the economic, political and social situation in the country. Despite that, last week, the beginnings of an agreement were reached, the main points of which are those outlined by the Worker spokesperson. The agreement that is being developed should only be the starting point for a broader and more inclusive agreement. We consider that it is fundamental to extend this agreement to the entire trade union movement of El Salvador, including all independent and representative trade union organizations, with no exclusions, with full respect for plurality, and, of course, based on tripartism.

The TUCA wishes to place on record that it considers the openness of this space for dialogue could enable a constructive solution to this case, which is what we are stating publicly. We understood that, in this context, the inclusion of El Salvador on the short list could be reconsidered. However, it was not possible to reach consensus on this during the general negotiations on drawing up the list. These are the rules of the game.

We hope that this door of understanding that has been opened will become a reality next week with the signature of the agreement right here in Geneva, with the ILO as witness and party to the process, and that this act will mark the beginning of a new chapter in the relations between the Government and the trade union movement of El Salvador, and we also extend this to employers.

We reaffirm our commitment to dialogue, freedom of association and the development of sustainable solutions that guarantee the rights of workers

Observer, Public Services International (PSI) – The PSI would first like to express its support for the statements made by the Worker spokesperson and other Worker members. However, we wish to emphasize that this case shows tangible signs of progress. We observe that the Government has made gradual but steady progress in complying with its obligations in relation to freedom of association and collective bargaining, in accordance with ILO Conventions. This marks an important difference with respect to other cases examined by this Committee, in which either no improvements or even backward steps have been observed.

In this regard, we wish to emphasize the constant dialogue maintained by the Government with the trade union movement, and the improvements in the formalities for the accreditation of leaders, which has facilitated the more timely delivery of credentials and reinforced the exercise of freedom of association, and the increase in the minimum wage, which was approved unanimously, thus representing an example of strengthened tripartite dialogue.

The Government has shown willingness to receive proposals from workers’ representatives during the process of reforming the Labour Code, a process that we hope will continue to be inclusive and constant.

Measures have been adopted to protect municipal workers from anti-union discrimination, in direct response to the observations of the Committee of Experts.

We also wish to recognize the constructive role of the ILO supervisory bodies and of this Committee, particularly in supporting this process and achieving these developments.

We believe that it is important to emphasize this point, as we often express our frustration when the established procedures do not yield the expected results. On this occasion, we consider it fair to recognize the achievements of the supervisory system. That said, as has been indicated in other statements, significant challenges remain. We wish to highlight two of them.

First, progress with legislative reforms is urgently required to align the national legislation with the Convention, particularly, as far as we are concerned, in terms of amending the constitutional provisions and the Civil Service Act, which exclude certain public servants from the right to organize and collective bargaining.

Second, it is fundamental to strengthen dialogue with employers. Genuine social dialogue requires the effective participation of all the social partners, for which it is key to find common ground and build mutual trust.

We recognize the progress achieved and therefore trust that El Salvador will continue to pursue this path of dialogue, inclusion and respect for fundamental rights.

Government representative – I have listened attentively to what has been said by the working class and Employers, as well as to the different points of view expressed by Governments and States. I would like to place this in context by recalling that we are reporting on Convention No. 98, which deals clearly and categorically with the right to organize and collective bargaining. When we analyse everything that has been said by the various groups, in practice the employers have referred more to a Convention on which we are not reporting, namely Convention No. 144, which the ANEP would like to be brought before this body. We have not heard anti-union sentiments from national and international workers.

We have heard absolutely everything expressed forcefully by the trade union movement of El Salvador concerning the significant progress achieved, and that this progress has not been taken into account or given due weight.

We have heard the views of the trade union movement at the international level, and more specifically those of the TUCA and PSI, in relation to which, in our view, we should not be called upon to provide information, in view of the significant progress that the State of El Salvador is making in relation to the trade union movement. In relation to the Convention as such, which refers to the right to organize, it is totally clear that significant progress has been made.

The Employers do not recognize the progress achieved, and indeed continue to raise the issue of the exclusion of the ANEP and claim that the ANEP is the most representative organization in El Salvador. They show a clear and categorical lack of knowledge of the manner in which the productive fabric in El Salvador works. However, I would like to dwell a little on the position taken by the trade union movement of one country, and of the international spokespersons, and especially of those who engage in negotiations at the international level.

When we see acknowledgement, not only at the national level, but also by the TUCA and PSI, which are global organizations, that they clearly and categorically recognize the significant progress achieved in El Salvador in labour matters, they have generally accepted the progress made in our country in relation to the trade union movement.

Nevertheless, the negotiators at the highest elite level are not heeding the role played by the trade union movement, or in other words are not heeding the situation as described by their representatives. From a position of much knowledge, I am able to say that when a trade union leader exercises the representation of the members represented, the spokespersons and the decisions taken should be focussed on the matters on which they are exercising representation.

It is now totally established, not only in relation to the ILO, but also with the world onlooking, that there are on one side the views expressed by the trade union leaders of the country through confederations, such as the TUCA, PSI and others, who represent the views of the workers, who are in total disagreement on the request for a report from the country, because it is in contradiction with the progress that is being made internally.

In some ways, both in our country, on this side of the ocean and on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, where you are, when representatives engage in negotiation, they should engage loyally in the negotiation of the rights of those that they represent, and not the interests of oligarchs and the powerful.

I also raise this for reflection by the trade union movement, not only at the national but also the international level, that when their representatives do not negotiate the rights of those they represent but, as was well put by the representative of the TUCA, submit to the rules of the game. When they submit to the rules of the game, they are denying to a certain extent the legitimacy of the whole trade union movement, which should give pause for thought for trade unionism at the international level.

I would like to dwell a little on the manner in which the Employers have taken advantage of the opportunity of the examination of this Convention to turn the discussion to the ANEP in relation to tripartite social dialogue.

The national legislation sets out the procedure for appointment, and I am reading out the actual wording, “the members representing the Government shall be designated by decision of the President of the Republic, and shall include officials of the ministries and institutions most closely related to the labour issues in the country”. There is clearly no reference to the social partners.

It adds that the representatives of labour, the worker members shall be designated by the trade union federations and confederations registered with the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare on the basis of their representativity, and their designation shall be communicated to the Ministry of Labour.

And turning to the wording concerning the representation of employers, it provides that employer members shall be designated by each of the following institutions, ANEP, ACI, the Industrial Chamber of Commerce of El Salvador, AMPES, CONAPES, USAPROEX, CASALCO, PROCAÑA. While many of these do not exist, they play a specific role in relation to the duty of representation and the duty of the most representative to be members of the Higher Labour Council, rather than just being names.

And why is this so? Because, when these rules were drawn up, the procedure was not tripartite, and there was no input from workers, from employers or the Government, as they were drawn up in practice by the employer in the Government office, who wrote down names and family names. And what justification do you have for claiming that the ANEP is the most representative organization in El Salvador? What is the data that you are using? If I am bringing to light outdated rules, which even refer to organizations that no longer exist in the country, why should the issue not be raised that the drafting of rules should be carried out under conditions of equality?

This clearly and categorically shows the role played by the ANEP, which was not based on representativity, but was just a matter of indicating names and family names. How many bipartite and tripartite institutions are there in El Salvador? Some 70 per cent of the bipartite institutions have historically included representation by the ANEP and the Government, which explains the calls for the participation of workers in the development of tripartite bodies. Barely 30 per cent of the State of El Salvador has tripartite bodies. Why is this? Because the whole of the formulation of rules and labour policies was carried out solely and exclusively by the ANEP. And the ANEP was not an employers’ organization, but was historically a political actor, as proven by the fact that the former President of ANEP became the President of the Republic, Elías Antonio Zapa, and the ministers in the Cabinet of the Zapa Government and the ARENA governments are the current advisors to the ANEP, who were outsourced, as its employees took on those positions. It was for that reason that there were never any complaints then. No one would denounce ANEP the employers’ organization to ANEP the Government of El Salvador. We are only describing what happened, and it is to be hoped that one day you will know. I give the benefit of the doubt to employers from other countries who refer to greater representativity because they do not know the real situation in the country.

There was one person who used to say, and now that person permanently speaks on behalf of the employers in Guatemala, including now on this Convention, that these employers’ representatives did not say anything in the past about the murders, including murders of trade union leaders. I am referring to neighbouring countries which, during their history, have followed the same anti-union trajectory, to the prejudice of the most important universal human right, namely the right to life, which they did not defend. They were neighbours who we know very well indeed.

In the end, I believe that we have shown very clearly how the scales were tipped, as there are clear rules of the game so that workers and employers have equal representation. We are constantly holding meetings, forums and participatory social dialogue. The best example is that we have just approved in the National Minimum Wage Council, based on tripartite agreement, the first wage increase following a period of 14 or 15 years when there were no unanimous agreements, and decisions were only made on a majority basis, with the Government either taking the side of the workers or the employers, with decisions being imposed on sectors under the pretext of tripartite social dialogue. Based on the legitimacy of ILO Conventions, we have preferred not to reach agreements unless they are duly agreed unanimously, because the country is everyone’s, and both employers and workers have to participate on an equal footing for the first time in the history of El Salvador.

I am bound to recognize that, as a country, as a State, as a Government, we have made some errors. We are human, we are not perfect, and we can make mistakes. However, the construction of dialogue serves to give consideration to these types of mistakes. The national trade union movement is therefore very important, particularly when it is represented at the international level. Because you have just heard the explicit will of the trade union movement, and it has been seen by the whole world. It is unified and the position adopted by the negotiator, especially the ITUC negotiator, is not the genuine expression of the will of the workers. Moreover, we have convincing evidence of the historical role played by the ANEP, as I have indicated.

Nevertheless, I can now announce that next month we will begin developing proposals for the new Higher Labour Council, where the membership will include the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, together with Government representatives. But not with specific names, because representation has to be governed by equal conditions for tripartite social dialogue. Moreover, there are still many organizations whose names were included because that was the time that the technical advisors of the ANEP were reaching the Legislative Assembly and the executive authorities and were imposing the names that they wanted to be included, thereby failing to follow the rules of representativity. And yet, I repeat two fundamental elements. As of next month, we will already be indicating the procedure for the new Higher Labour Council, with emphasis on representative tripartite social dialogue for all the partners.

I reaffirm my commitment to representing the Government of President Bukele, and we will continue to strengthen tripartite social dialogue, which will be the transversal pillar to build a more just society for everyone. The commitment is totally firm and we will, of course, improve some things that will have to be revised as a whole and under equal conditions. I also express our most sincere gratitude to the ILO.

I also wish to reaffirm that we have very effective communication with the ILO Office in San José, and we will continue requesting technical support, as we have done for successful programmes, such as the Capacity-building for Improved Monitoring and Evaluation of Labour (CIMEL) programme, which we are the second country in Latin America to implement with ILO support.

Employer members – I am rather disappointed by how this meeting has gone.

Up to now, we had afforded a certain credibility – a vote of confidence – to the statements made by the Minister of Labour, in the sense that he fully intended to restore social dialogue, sit round the table and amend the legislation. But I think this whole room has been able to see that, in the best case scenario, throughout the interventions, only bipartite dialogue is being advocated, which is not in line with the requirement for tripartite dialogue and social dialogue, in which this Organization believes. Not only do we have this belief, but it is supported by all the standards that govern us and in the commitments entered into voluntarily by the Government which is before us today.

I do not need to explain why a country is or is not on the list. But frankly it seems to me that we were late in placing El Salvador on the short list. There are many elements in the whole explanation and examination carried out by the Committee of Experts. At the start of the meeting, the Worker members described just a few of the many things, perhaps the most important, contained in the analysis by the Committee of Experts.

This is how it is in this room. Explanations are given for non-compliance. But what is certain is that there has not been compliance. That is to say, they say that they are willing to comply, that they are analysing the legislative reforms, that they are looking at ensuring freedom of association for workers and employers, but the truth is that they have not done that.

So, I deeply regret that, following this disappointment, I have to say two things: the Employer members - and this is our position - support the right reserved by Roberto Suárez, the IOE representative, to have recourse to the relevant procedures of the Organization’s supervisory system.

Our role, the role of the Office, workers and employers, is not to harass governments. Our role is rather to seek compliance through technical assistance and social dialogue, if the Government expresses the will to do so. But in all its interventions, has disregarded the participation of employers and of the ANEP, the organization that has traditionally represented, as already mentioned, the different employers’ organizations in El Salvador. This is a clear forewarning that we are going to continue under the same or even worse conditions that we are in currently, because the Government has also told us that there will surely be other more representative organizations when, frankly, all of us here know that the ANEP is the most representative employers’ organization. We know that despite everything the Government has been doing to undermine representativeness, strength and dialogue from the ANEP, it remains the most representative organization which must be consulted in order to progress towards the fulfilment of commitments.

I hope that the workers, who are seeking an agreement on dialogue with the Government, understand clearly that without the participation of the most representative employers’ organization, it will be a bipartite agreement, an agreement through which their issues may be resolved, but it will not be an exercise in social dialogue nor a bridge to meet El Salvador’s commitments and obligations.

I would therefore like to emphasize, first, that technical assistance should be maintained, but should henceforth focus on the achievement of these reforms, and on ensuring that the Government knows how to fulfil its commitments relating to the obligation of non-interference, so that employers’ and workers’ organizations can enter into dialogue with the Government. In view of the gravity of the statements made in this room, of the failure to recognize the existence and participation of the ANEP, we would ask that a special paragraph be included so that we can follow up this important case appropriately and ensure the appropriate outcome. All this is notwithstanding, on behalf of the Employers, the right to have recourse to all the ILO procedures available to us in the supervisory system with a view to achieving and ensuring full compliance with the commitments and obligations of the Government in relation to this Organization.

Worker members – I came here with a clear conviction, but I am somewhat concerned because at various points I have heard, “I have achieved” or “I have shown…”. I think that, if today it has come to this, it is because some parties lose. Our aim is to improve, not to focus on non-compliance or on listing cases, but to strengthen labour relations at the national level with the support of the ILO standards system.

That said, the case of El Salvador has brought us together once again, with its weight of history to which we have referred, and which we cannot ignore.

As we said in our opening intervention, difficulties in the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining, legislative restrictions, anti-union violence, the exclusion of partners from social dialogue, and the weakening of the rule of law, are neither isolated nor recent events. They are part of a trajectory that this Committee has been observing and commenting on for years, and which forms the basis of the report of the Committee of Experts.

In relation to this long list of recommendations, which have not been implemented, I highlighted in my opening intervention, a channel for bilateral – yes bilateral – dialogue between the Government and the trade union confederations affiliated to the TUCA. That is what I was referring to – I do not know of any other channel. This is not only seen as a positive signal but also a responsibility. But I also have to say that the agreement has not been signed.

Although indeed the door to an understanding has been opened, as we indicated earlier, a measure that has been taken has to be the first step towards a basic, structural and sustainable solution. But it is not enough just to engage in dialogue, not enough to reach an agreement, however important it is.

This outline of an agreement that I was talking about, which we will evaluate once it materializes, must be transformed into a public policy that is broader, more inclusive and more institutionalized.

The Workers’ group advocates genuine tripartite social dialogue that includes employers and the whole independent and democratic trade union movement, based on clear rules for ongoing consultation and respect for the diversity of views.

If one partner feels excluded from the dialogue, it is not tripartite social dialogue, but it is worthwhile being listened to and included with a view to its consolidation.

We want the Government of El Salvador not only to engage in dialogue with certain partners, but also to build a permanent framework for social dialogue with all the representative partners. This is the only way of legitimately and effectively addressing the multiple challenges that this country faces in the world of work: pending legal reforms, working conditions, the protection of individual and collective rights, the inclusion of vulnerable groups, conflict prevention and the promotion of development with social justice.

In this sense, we want to make one thing clear: the report of the Commission of Experts must be the central input for the preparation of a road map. It is a question of taking advantage of the ILO’s technical capacity, institutional prestige and accumulated standards to develop solid, verifiable and sustainable proposals for solutions. But the agenda cannot be partial or limited, because problems are not like that either. Hence, the dialogue that is developed must include analysis of all the issues we have described and must not exclude any partners. None of this will be possible without democratic guarantees, without institutions and without the rule of law.

We do not believe that social dialogue can be built on the basis of a situation of permanent exemption. El Salvador needs to embark upon a new phase based on respect for tripartism, plurality and full participation.

The Workers’ group therefore applauds the first steps towards an agreement that we have referred to, which we would like to see materialize, without prejudice to the existence of other agreements. We reaffirm that the report of the Committee of Experts must guide the steps to be taken.

We call on the Government of El Salvador to broaden social dialogue and, in practice to make it tripartite, institutionalized and permanent.

We urge the Government to formally request ILO technical assistance to make progress in the implementation of the recommendations and the development of the road map based on social dialogue.

When this request has been made, we call on the ILO to actively support the process through sustained presence, cooperation and technical follow-up. Finally, we would like to place on record that we want the agreement to be concluded and to be signed as a first step towards an understanding. And yes, it is a bilateral agreement, but it should be the prelude to a dialogue and a tripartite agreement, because it is very important to us to sign this agreement. It is very important for us that we all listen to each other.

Chairperson – I would like to inform you that I have received a request for the floor from the Employer Vice-Chairperson.

Employer members – It is a relatively small matter, but significant. In his response or in his concluding remarks, rather, the Minister from El Salvador used language in reference to one of our members from Guatemala that we find to be inconsistent with the values of this house and may even be considered threatening. And so we just wanted to bring it to your attention, that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that the record of our proceedings reflects whether it’s in parliamentary language or in some way that language like that should really not be tolerated. And, yes, indeed, that is the concern from our side.

Chairperson – Thank you. We have taken note of your comment. It will be included in the record, with full respect for parliamentary language.

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 with deep concern the allegations of ongoing violations of the Convention by the Government.

The Committee also expressed serious concern regarding the allegations of interference by the authorities in the activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations contrary to Article 2 of the Convention and reported acts of harassment against an employers’ organization, namely the National Business Association (ANEP).

Taking the discussion into account, the Committee urged the Government to take effective and time-bound measures to:

• immediately cease all acts of violence, threats, persecution, stigmatization, intimidation or any other form of aggression against individuals or organizations in connection with both the exercise of legitimate trade union activities and the activities of employers’ organizations, and adopt measures to ensure that such acts are not repeated;
• re-establish, promote, and participate in institutionalized tripartite social dialogue and collective bargaining, conducted in a framework of mutual respect, and legal certainty in line with the Convention;
• establish genuine consultations with workers’ and employers’ representatives to discuss all matters relating to labour reform and the Labour Code, and reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council (CST) to ensure the full participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in social dialogue and tripartite consultations; and
• develop a time-bound road map to implement without delay all recommendations made by the ILO high-level tripartite mission of 2022 and the Committee’s recommendations.

The Committee requested the Government to prepare, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, a report to be submitted to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2025, informing in detail on actions undertaken to progress in the full application of the Convention in law and practice, including information on any genuine consultations to address the concerns discussed by the Committee.

The Committee invited the Government to accept a technical assistance mission with the support of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).

Chairperson – I invite now the honourable representative of El Salvador to take the floor.

Another Government representative – The delegation of El Salvador takes due note of the conclusions and wishes to reaffirm its unshakeable commitment to the principles and values of the ILO.

In the first place, we express our deep respect for the mandate of the ILO supervisory bodies and for the opportunity to describe the progress achieved in the implementation of the Convention. We have provided specific evidence of the progress made in relation to freedom of association and collective bargaining, among which we would like to place emphasis on the following:

• the ratification of Convention No. 154;
• the establishment of 80 new unions and the increase by 33 per cent in the collective agreements concluded; and
• the greater flexibility in the delivery of credentials to trade union representatives and the establishment of sectoral dialogue forums, particularly in the education sector.

With reference to employers’ organizations, we strongly emphasize that in El Salvador freedom of expression and of association are fully and effectively guaranteed. The various associations of employers and workers, and their representatives, enjoy the independence to be elected as their leaders and to develop the conditions existing between sectors at the national level, for which reason we reiterate our invitation for them to also be balanced on the international stage.

We trust that this social dialogue will all the actors and sectors will offer a means of promoting decent work and social cohesion, and we also request and appreciate ILO cooperation and technical assistance, and we undertake to provide regular information on the progress made in the future.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the National Confederation of Salvadoran Workers (CNTS), received on 31 August 2025. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2025, which reiterate the comments made before the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (hereinafter “the Conference Committee”) in June 2025 concerning the application of the Convention by El Salvador. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 2 September 2025, as well as the joint observations of the Autonomous Central of Salvadoran Workers (CATS), the CNTS, the Single Confederation of Salvadoran Workers (CUTS) and the Trade Union Confederation of Workers of El Salvador (CSTS), received on 3 September 2025, which refer to issues examined in the present comment.

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

The Committee notes the discussion held in the Conference Committee at its 113th Session (2025) and observes that the Conference Committee: (i) noted with deep concern the allegations of ongoing violations of the Convention by the Government; and (ii) expressed serious concern regarding the allegations of interference by the authorities in the activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations contrary to Article 2 of the Convention and reported acts of harassment against an employers’ organization, namely the National Association of Private Enterprise (ANEP). The Conference Committee urged the Government to take effective and time-bound measures to:

• immediately cease all acts of violence, threats, persecution, stigmatization, intimidation or any other form of aggression against individuals or organizations in connection with both the exercise of legitimate trade union activities and the activities of employers’ organizations, and adopt measures to ensure that such acts are not repeated;
• re-establish, promote, and participate in institutionalized tripartite social dialogue and collective bargaining, conducted in a framework of mutual respect, and legal certainty in line with the Convention;
• establish genuine consultations with workers’ and employers’ representatives to discuss all matters relating to labour reform and the Labour Code, and reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council (CST) to ensure the full participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in social dialogue and tripartite consultations;
• develop a time-bound road map to implement without delay all recommendations made by the ILO high-level tripartite mission of 2022 and the Committee’s recommendations.

The Conference Committee invited the Government to accept a technical assistance mission with the support of the ITUC and the IOE. The Committee hopes that the Government will accept this technical mission and that it will be carried out as soon as possible. The Committee urges the Government to adopt each and every measure requested by the Conference Committee, many of which refer to issues also examined by the Committee in its comment on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the types of fines imposed in the event of acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the amendment, in 2022, to section 627 of the Labour Code significantly increased the amounts of fines applicable for violations of the provisions of Books I, II and III of the Labour Code (acts of anti-union discrimination constitute violations of the fundamental rights enshrined in Books I and II of the Labour Code); (ii) fines are determined based on the size of the enterprise, according to the number of workers employed (in enterprises with more than 100 workers, each violation can result in a fine of up to 12 times the minimum wage); (iii) in addition to the size of the enterprise, the seriousness of the violation, the intent and the injury caused are taken into account as factors enabling penalties to be classified and graduated; and (iv) the Labour Inspection Department undertakes periodic inspections and, during 2024, recorded a total of 88 violations relating to acts of anti-union discrimination, mostly in connection with the dismissal of union leaders; as a result of these inspections, 33 fines were imposed, amounting cumulatively to a total of US$8,909.82. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing statistical information on the number of complaints alleging anti-union discrimination, indicating the sectors concerned, the action taken with regard to these complaints, the fines imposed and any other compensatory measures applied, including reinstatement. Furthermore, considering, in the light of the information referred to above, that the fines imposed might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in this respect.

The Committee notes the allegations of the CNTS, the CSTS, the CATS and the CUTS that public institutions systematically violate the Convention, pointing to a wave of hundreds of dismissals of trade union members and leaders in various public entities, including ministries and municipalities. The organizations concerned state that, in some cases, entire executive committees have been dismissed, which has paralysed negotiations and compliance with collective agreements. The CNTS provides information on the status of judicial proceedings relating to the dismissal of 12 public sector trade union leaders and indicates that, due to the climate of fear engendered by the state of emergency, not all leaders have brought a court action or made a complaint.

The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association recently examined allegations of dismissals for anti-union reasons, in less than two years, of dozens of trade union leaders of different trade union organizations by eight public entities. The Committee on Freedom of Association requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that an independent investigation is carried out immediately into the alleged facts and, if they are found to be true, to take the appropriate remedial measures (Case No. 3472, 412th Report, November 2025). The Committee refers to these conclusions. The Committee notes the indication of the Government and the ITUC that within the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, discussions took place on the establishment of inter-institutional coordination mechanisms for the review of cases of trade union leaders dismissed for their union activity, in a bipartite forum that ensures fair treatment. The Government indicates that this measure is currently being followed up at legal and administrative levels and that it will therefore provide information in this regard as soon as possible. The Committee further notes that the ITUC also indicates that the establishment of a joint follow-up committee to deal with complaints made to the ILO and support the progressive implementation of international recommendations is envisaged. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that allegations of anti-union discrimination, including those referred to above, are investigated by independent bodies having the confidence of the parties concerned and that, whenever such allegations are verified, adequate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are applied. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this regard, including the aforementioned initiatives.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments in the context of the application of the present Convention and of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), it referred to the need to introduce legislative reforms to ensure that all public workers covered by these Conventions, including workers in municipal authorities, enjoy adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that various measures have been adopted to ensure protection against anti-union discrimination for municipal workers. The Government indicates that inspections have been carried out to determine staff recruitment procedures in the various municipal authorities and to verify compliance with obligations related to deductions, especially those related to the payment of salaries, social security and contributions. The Committee notes the statistical information provided on the inspections conducted in municipal authorities, relating to issues other than those addressed in the present comment. The Committee notes that several of the trade union leaders mentioned by the CNTS, the CSTS, the CATS and the CUTS were dismissed from municipalities. Furthermore, these organizations allege that in the municipal sector, there are rulings in favour of workers with which municipal authorities have not complied. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect and once again requests it to revise the legal framework, in consultation with the representative organizations in the sector, to ensure that municipal authority workers have access to adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee further requests the Government to report any developments in this respect.

Articles 2, 4 and 6. Legislative issues pending for several years. The Committee recalls that, for a number of years, it has been making comments on certain provisions of domestic law with the aim of bringing them into full conformity with the Convention:

• acts of interference (section 205 of the Labour Code and section 247 of the Penal Code), so that the legislation explicitly prohibits all acts of interference in the terms prescribed by Article 2 of the Convention;
• requirements for negotiating a collective agreement (sections 270 and 271 of the Labour Code and sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act), so that when one or more unions do not cover more than 50 per cent of the workers, collective bargaining rights are explicitly granted to the existing unions so that they, jointly or separately, can at least represent their own members;
• revision of collective agreements (section 276(3) of the Labour Code), so that the renegotiation of collective agreements while they are still in force is only possible at the request of both signatory parties;
• judicial remedies in the event of refusal to register a collective agreement: (section 279 of the Labour Code), in order to clarify that appeals can be made against decisions of the Director-General involving refusal to register a collective agreement;
• approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution (section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the Civil Service Act, which regulate collective agreements concluded with a public institution), in order to replace the requirement for ministerial approval by a provision envisaging the participation of the budgetary authority during the process of collective bargaining, and not when the collective agreement has already been concluded;
• exclusion of certain categories of public employees (section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act), so that all public officials not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention.

The Conference Committee urged the Government to establish genuine consultations with workers’ and employers’ representatives to discuss all matters relating to labour reform and the Labour Code, and reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council (CST) to ensure the full participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in social dialogue and tripartite consultations. In connection with the functioning of the CST, the Committee referred to its comments under Convention No. 87. The Committee notes the Government’s reaffirmation of its commitment to the complete revision and updating of the Labour Code and its indication that technical work is under way in order to produce an initial proposal to be submitted for consultation with the social partners and also to obtain the necessary technical assistance. The Government also indicates that, while in 2025 the Legislative Assembly decided, in the interest of efficiency, to reduce the number of commissions responsible for studying laws and possible amendments thereto, the Technology, Tourism and Investment Committee has assumed the responsibilities of the Labour and Social Welfare Committee, while the Committee on Salvadorans Abroad, Legislation and Government addresses issues relating to the Constitution and constitutional reform. The Committee expresses its firm expectation that the Government, in full consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, will take the necessary measures without delay to bring the above-mentioned provisions fully into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has promoted various actions aimed at ensuring an environment conducive to effective collective bargaining and that, as a result of these actions, between 2022 and 2024, 55 new collective agreements were registered, of which 20 relate to the public sector and autonomous institutions and 35 to the private sector, which is evidence of a positive trend towards an increase in collective agreements.

The Government indicates that the low coverage rate of collective agreements (4.6 per cent in 2018 according to ILOSTAT data) is not due to the requirements established by the legislation but rather to the historical stigmatization of the trade union movement and the resistance of some employers to engaging in collective bargaining. The Government indicates that, in order to counter the above, initiatives such as the “Collective Bargaining Prize” were introduced and the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare facilitated a total of 2,021 conciliation hearings, providing assistance for the formalization of trade unions and laying the groundwork for progressively expanding the coverage of collective instruments.

The Committee notes that the ITUC highlights the worryingly low level of collective bargaining and underscores the need to amend key provisions of the Labour Code and the Civil Service Act to allow the effective exercise of the right to collective bargaining in both the public and private sector. The Committee further notes that the CATS, the CNTS, the CUTS and the CSTS state, inter alia, that both the legislation (in particular the high percentage required for representativeness) and the practice of the competent authorities (in particular the Civil Service Tribunal) and of public and private employers seriously hinder the exercise of collective bargaining. While requesting the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the trade unions, the Committee urges the Government to take in the near future the necessary legal and practical measures necessary to promote the full development and effective utilization of collective bargaining in all sectors covered by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard, as well as on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, specifying the sector and the number of workers covered by such agreements.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), which were received on 13 October 2020, endorsing the comments of the National Business Association (ANEP), which refer to issues examined by the Committee in the context of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee emphasized the importance of reforming penalties for anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their deterrent effect. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Legislative Decree No. 519, published in the Official Journal of 31 October 2022, amends section 627 of the Labour Code, which establishes fines of up to 12 minimum wage equivalents, in industry, commerce and the services sector, for each of the offences specified in Books I, II and III of the Code, and other related labour legislation, which did not establish any special penalties. The fines vary according to the size of the enterprise, the seriousness of the offence, the intent, and the injury caused. While welcoming this change in the legislation, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information on the classification of fines according to the seriousness or types of offences involving acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on this matter, and on the application in practice of the imposition of fines for acts of anti-union discrimination.

Furthermore, in its previous observation, the Committee emphasized that even though the staff of municipal authorities are not covered by the Labour Code, this does not release the Government from its responsibility to guarantee adequate protection against anti-union discrimination for this category of workers. The Committee notes that the Government once again provides information on the existing legal framework: indicating that municipal authority workers can currently file complaints with the Attorney-General’s Office, the Human Rights Protection Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office; reiterating that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (Ministry of Labour) is obliged to refrain from carrying out inspections of the municipal authorities (except for inspections relating to the General Occupational Risk Prevention Act); and noting the need to amend the applicable legislation. In this regard, the Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) asked the Government to take the necessary steps, including legislative measures if necessary, in consultation with the representative social partners from the sector, to ensure that the staff of municipal authorities have access to adequate mechanisms for protection against acts of anti-union discrimination (see 389th Report, June 2019, Case No. 3284), in which the CFA referred the legislative aspects of the case to the Committee). Recalling its previous comments in the context of the application of the present Convention and of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), on the need to introduce legislative reforms to ensure that all public workers covered by these Conventions enjoy adequate protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to revise the legal framework, in consultation with the representative organizations in the sector, to ensure that municipal authority workers have access to adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, and to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Articles 2, 4 and 6. Legislative issues pending for several years. For a number of years, the Committee has been making comments on certain provisions of domestic law with the aim of bringing them into full conformity with Articles 2, 4 and 6 of the Convention:

• acts of interference: section 205 of the Labour Code and section 247 of the Penal Code, so that the legislation explicitly prohibits all acts of interference in the terms prescribed by Article 2 of the Convention;
• requirements for negotiating a collective agreement: sections 270 and 271 of the Labour Code and sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act, so that when one or more unions do not cover more than 50 per cent of the workers, collective bargaining rights are explicitly granted to the existing unions so that they, jointly or separately, can at least represent their own members;
• revision of collective agreements: section 276(3) of the Labour Code, so that the renegotiation of collective agreements while they are still in force is only possible at the request of both signatory parties;
• judicial remedies in the event of refusal to register a collective agreement: section 279 of the Labour Code, in order to clarify that appeals can be made against decisions of the Director-General involving refusal to register a collective agreement;
• approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution: section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the Civil Service Act, which regulate collective agreements concluded with a public institution, in order to replace the requirement for ministerial approval by a provision envisaging the participation of the budgetary authority during the process of collective bargaining, and not when the collective agreement has already been concluded;
• exclusion of certain categories of public employees: section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act, so that all public officials not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government indicating that the Ministry of Labour, together with representatives of the unions, have set up a technical round table for the purpose of discussing and analysing the proposed reforms to the Labour Code. These reforms will subsequently be submitted to the employers for consideration before being referred to the Higher Labour Council.

The Committee welcomes this initiative and hopes that it will contribute to the reactivation of the Higher Labour Council as a tripartite social dialogue body, in which the pending legislative issues to which the Committee has repeatedly referred can be addressed comprehensively. Hoping to observe tangible progress in the near future, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the status of these discussions and supply further details of the employers’ and workers’ organizations involved in the consultation process.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the status of collective bargaining in the country, indicating that: (i) there are 23 collective agreements in force in the public sector (of which 9 have been extended); and (ii) a total of 21,590 workers in the public sector are covered by collective bargaining. The Committee also welcomes the Government’s indication, in its report on the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), regarding the annual award of the “collective negotiation prize”, which the Ministry of Labour is implementing to promote a culture of dialogue, collaboration and mutual respect. The Committee notes this information but observes that it does not contain any details of collective agreements in the private sector. The Committee also observes that, according to available ILOSTAT data, the coverage rate for collective bargaining in the country was 4.6 per cent in 2018. The Committee considers that this low coverage rate may stem from the restrictive requirements established by the legislation for engaging in collective bargaining, as referred to above. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on all legislative and practical measures taken to promote the full development and use of collective bargaining. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, indicating which relate to the private sector and which to the public sector, and also on the number of workers covered by these agreements.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the Government’s replies to the previous observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee emphasized the importance of reforming penalties against anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their dissuasive effect. The Committee notes that the Government: (i) states that the fines that can be imposed for violations of labour standards (such as anti-union discrimination) are very low (up to US$57.14 per violation), even compared with the penalty system on risk prevention in the workplace (which ranges from 4 to 28 minimum wages); and (ii) reports that, although proposals for reforms to increase the amount of fines related to labour standards have been presented since 2014, the Legislative Assembly has not yet issued an opinion. Regretting the lack of progress in this regard and reiterating the importance of the fines imposed in the event of anti-union discrimination being of a dissuasive nature, the Committee requests the Government, following tripartite consultation, to take effective measures to establish a dissuasive penalty system, and firmly hopes to be able to note progress in the near future.

Furthermore, in its previous observation, the Committee highlighted that the fact that the staff of the municipal authorities is not covered by the Labour Code does not free the Government of its responsibility to guarantee this category of workers adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government once again provides information on the existing legal framework, indicating that currently the staff of the municipal authorities can submit complaints to the Counsel General’s Office and Office of the Human Rights Advocate and Attorney General’s Office; reiterating that Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare should refrain from carrying out inspections among the municipal authorities (with the exception of inspections relating to the General Act concerning occupational hazard prevention); and noting the need to amend the applicable legislation. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association requested the Government, in consultation with the social partners from the sector, to take the necessary steps, including legislative measures if necessary, to ensure that the workers in the municipal authorities have access to adequate protection mechanisms against acts of anti union discrimination (see case No. 3284, report No. 389, in which the Committee on Freedom of Association referred the legislative aspects of the case to the present Committee). Recalling its previous comments within the framework of the application of the present Convention and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151) on the need to introduce legislative reforms to ensure that all public workers covered by those Conventions enjoy adequate protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to, in consultation with the social partners from the sector, revise the legal framework to ensure that the workers in the municipal authorities have access to adequate protection against acts of anti union discrimination, and to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.

Articles 2, 4 and 6. Legislative issues pending for several years. The Committee recalls that for several years it has been making comments on certain provisions of domestic law with the aim of bringing them into conformity with Articles 2, 4 and 6 of the Convention:

• – acts of interference: section 205 of the Labour Code and 247 of the Penal Code so that the legislation explicitly prohibits all acts of interference under the terms prescribed by Article 2 of the Convention;
• – requirements to be able to negotiate a collective agreement: sections 270 and 271 of the Labour Code and sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act so that, when no union covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, the right to collective bargaining is explicitly granted to all unions, at least on behalf of their own members;
• – revision of collective agreements: section 276(3) of the Labour Code to ensure that the renegotiation of collective agreements while they are still in force is only possible at the request of both parties concerned;
• – judicial remedies in the event of the denial of the registration of a collective agreement: section 279 of the Labour Code to specify that judicial remedies are applicable against decisions of the Director-General not to register a collective agreement;
• – approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution: section 287 of the Labour Code and 119 of the Civil Service Act, which regulate collective agreements concluded with a public institution, to replace the requirement for prior ministerial approval by a provision envisaging the participation of the financial authorities during the process of collective bargaining, and not when the collective agreement has already been concluded;
• – exclusion of certain public employees: section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act so that all public officials who are not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it plans to address these recommendations in the Higher Labour Council, which has recently been reactivated, and requests the technical assistance of the Office in this regard. Hoping to be able to note progress in the near future and noting that the Government requests the technical assistance of the Office, the Committee urges the Government to, with prior tripartite consultation, take the necessary steps to ensure conformity of the above provisions with the Convention.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the state of collective bargaining in the country, indicating that: (i) there are a total of 175 registered collective agreements, 133 of which are in force; and (ii) a total of 81,487 workers are covered by collective bargaining. Taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements signed and in force, the sectors concerned (detailing the agreements of the public sector and of the education system) and the number of workers covered by those agreements, as well as on any measures adopted to promote the full development and use of collective agreements under the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the Government’s comments in response to the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received in 2014 and 2016. In relation to the allegations of anti-union discrimination against staff of the municipal authorities, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that no investigations are conducted by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, since the Labour Code does not apply to this category of public servants. The Government also states that the national jurisprudence has established that the Ministry of Labour should refrain from carrying out inspections into violations of labour rights among the municipal authorities as they do not have the competence in this regard. Lastly, the Government indicates that it has planned to meet with the municipal authorities to inform them of the complaints before the ILO and to initiate a dialogue process with a view to protecting the rights of affiliated workers. While noting the actions envisaged by the Government, the Committee highlights that the fact that the staff of the municipal authorities is not covered by the Labour Code does not free the Government of its responsibility to guarantee this category of workers adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. Recalling its previous comments in the framework of the application of this Convention and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151) on the need to reform the Civil Service Act to ensure that all public employees covered by these Conventions enjoy adequate protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to take, in the near future, all necessary measures to ensure that, first, investigations are conducted by the competent authorities into the allegations of anti-union discrimination reported by the ITUC and, where necessary, effective penalties are imposed and, second, the legal framework is revised as indicated. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard. It requests the Government to send its comments on the allegations of anti-union discrimination in the aviation civil service and in an enterprise of the bakery sector.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the bill on the new system of fines has not been adopted. Recalling the importance of the fines imposed in the event of anti-union discrimination being of a dissuasive nature, the Committee requests the Government to take effective measures to establish a dissuasive penalty system and expects that it will soon be able to adopt the reforms envisaged in this regard.

Articles 2, 4 and 6. Legislative issues pending for several years. The Committee recalls that for several years it has been making comments on certain provisions of domestic law with the aim of bringing those into conformity with Articles 2, 4 and 6 of the Convention:

• -acts of interference: section 205 of the Labour Code and section 247 of the Penal Code so that the legislation explicitly prohibits all acts of interference under the terms prescribed by Article 2 of the Convention;
• -requirements to be able to negotiate a collective agreement: sections 270 and 271 of the Labour Code and sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act so that, when no union covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, the right to collective bargaining is explicitly granted to all unions, at least on behalf of their own members;
• -revision of collective agreements: section 276(3) of the Labour Code to ensure that the renegotiation of collective agreements while they are still in force is only possible at the request of both parties concerned;
• -judicial remedies in the event of the denial of the registration of a collective agreement: section 279 of the Labour Code to specify that judicial remedies are applicable against decisions of the Director-General not to register a collective agreement;
• -approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution: section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the Civil Service Act, which regulate collective agreements concluded with a public institution, to replace the requirement for prior ministerial approval by a provision envisaging the participation of the financial authorities during the process of collective bargaining, and not when the collective agreement has already been concluded;
• -exclusion of certain public employees: section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act so that all public officials who are not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention.

The Committee notes firstly that the Government refers to the adoption of legislative Decree No. 10 of 2009 which sets forth that all those employees who entered the public administration before 31 January 2009 will receive permanent contracts. The Committee requests the Government to provide further details on the effects of the adoption of the above legislative Decree on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes secondly the Government’s indication that, following an analysis of the labour reforms prepared within the framework of the strategic plan of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security 2014–19, a ministerial commission has been established for the presentation of the reforms to the Legislative Assembly. The Committee hopes that the Government, following consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, will present to the Legislative Assembly, in the near future, the bills on the reforms of the legislative provisions contained in the Labour Code, the Penal Code and the Civil Service Act which have been the subject of its comments for several years. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress in this regard and emphasizes that it could consider the possibility of including these issues in the framework of the technical assistance it had requested as a follow-up to the direct contacts mission regarding the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144).

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s information that no collective labour agreements have been concluded with teachers in the public sector and that between 2009 and March 2016, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security registered 43 collective labour agreements, 39 of which are from the private sector and four from the public sector. The Committee notes with concern that the number of collective agreements referred to is very low, particularly when taking into account that, in practice, collective bargaining is carried out in the country at enterprise level. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to promote collective bargaining in all sectors covered by the Convention, including in public education, and to provide information in this respect indicating any proposed collective bargaining agreement in the public education not concluded and the reasons for such results. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements signed, the sectors concerned and the numbers of workers covered by those.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2014 and 31 August 2016, referring to matters examined by the Committee, and containing a serious of allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination in municipal authorities and the private sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on this subject.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government reports the submission on 21 January 2014 of the preliminary draft Bill to regulate labour and social welfare in which acts of anti-union discrimination are classified as very serious offences which may give rise to penalties of between one and ten monthly minimum wages. Recalling the importance of the fines imposed in the event of acts of anti-union discrimination being of a dissuasive nature in practice, the Committee requests the Government to continue taking the necessary measures to amend the legislation in line with the principle set out above, by further strengthening the penalties applicable in such cases, and to report any developments in this respect.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the initiatives taken to strengthen protection against anti-union discrimination in the public service, and is examining this information in its comments on the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee recalls the need, as indicated in its previous comments, to supplement section 205 of the Labour Code and section 247 of the Penal Code so that the legislation explicitly prohibits all acts intended to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of an employer or an employer’s organization, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of an employer or an employers’ organization. Noting that the Government’s report does not refer to specific initiatives in this respect, the Committee reiterates its previous comments and requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Legislative issues that have been pending for several years. The Committee recalls that, for several years, it has been commenting on certain provisions of domestic law with a view to bringing them into full conformity with Article 4 of the Convention in relation to the promotion of collective bargaining:

• – requirements to be able to negotiate a collective agreement. While again noting the Government’s indication that two trade unions in the same enterprise may unite to achieve the minimum percentage for representation of over 50 per cent to be able to engage in collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend sections 270 and 271 of the Labour Code and sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act (LSC) so that, when no union covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, the right to collective bargaining is explicitly granted to all unions, at least on behalf of their own members;
• – revision of collective agreements. While noting the Government’s indication that the revision of a collective agreement would be considered as the renegotiation of an agreement that is in force, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend section 276(3) of the Labour Code to ensure that the renegotiation of existing collective agreements while they are still in force is only possible at the request of both parties concerned;
• – judicial remedies in the event of the denial of the registration of a collective agreement. While noting the Government’s indication that section 279 of the Labour Code only excludes administrative remedies, the Committee requests the Government to amend that section to explicitly provide that a decision by the Director-General not to register a collective agreement may be challenged before the judicial authorities;
• – approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution. While noting the current reforms to expedite ministerial approval, the Committee once again requests the Government, with regard to clauses in collective agreements with financial implications, to amend section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the LSC to replace the requirement for prior ministerial approval for collective agreements with a public institution by a provision envisaging the participation of the financial authorities during the process of collective bargaining, and not when the collective agreement has already been concluded.

The Committee once again trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, to amend the legislative provisions referred to above as indicated. The Committee reminds the Government that it may request technical assistance from the Office.

Article 6. Exclusion of certain public employees from the guarantees afforded by the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 4(1) of the LSC so that all public officials who are not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government reports the submission on 24 May 2011 of a preliminary draft amendment to the LSC, including the amendment of section 4 and the reduction of the categories of public officials excluded from the civil service regime. The Committee trusts that the amendment of the LSC will be adopted in the near future and will ensure that all public officials who are not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees afforded by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report any developments in this respect.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government concerning the registration of seven collective agreements in the public sector (including the Ministry of Finance). The Committee also once again notes the Government’s indication that, although teachers in the public sector enjoy the right to collective bargaining, up to now no collective agreements have been concluded, and bargaining has not been commenced with this category of workers. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to promote collective bargaining by public teachers and to report any developments in this regard. In general, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures adopted to promote collective bargaining in the various sectors of the country (number of collective agreements in force, number of workers covered, etc.).

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2014, referring to matters examined by the Committee, and containing a serious of allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination in municipal authorities and the private sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on this subject.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government reports the submission on 21 January 2014 of the preliminary draft Bill to regulate labour and social welfare in which acts of anti-union discrimination are classified as very serious offences which may give rise to penalties of between one and ten monthly minimum wages. Recalling the importance of the fines imposed in the event of acts of anti-union discrimination being of a dissuasive nature in practice, the Committee requests the Government to continue taking the necessary measures to amend the legislation in line with the principle set out above, by further strengthening the penalties applicable in such cases, and to report any developments in this respect.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the initiatives taken to strengthen protection against anti-union discrimination in the public service, and is examining this information in its comments on the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee recalls the need, as indicated in its previous comments, to supplement section 205 of the Labour Code and section 247 of the Penal Code so that the legislation explicitly prohibits all acts intended to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of an employer or an employer’s organization, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of an employer or an employers’ organization. Noting that the Government’s report does not refer to specific initiatives in this respect, the Committee reiterates its previous comments and requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Legislative issues that have been pending for several years. The Committee recalls that, for several years, it has been commenting on certain provisions of domestic law with a view to bringing them into full conformity with Article 4 of the Convention in relation to the promotion of collective bargaining:

• – requirements to be able to negotiate a collective agreement. While again noting the Government’s indication that two trade unions in the same enterprise may unite to achieve the minimum percentage for representation of over 50 per cent to be able to engage in collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend sections 270 and 271 of the Labour Code and sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act (LSC) so that, when no union covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, the right to collective bargaining is explicitly granted to all unions, at least on behalf of their own members;
• – revision of collective agreements. While noting the Government’s indication that the revision of a collective agreement would be considered as the renegotiation of an agreement that is in force, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend section 276(3) of the Labour Code to ensure that the renegotiation of existing collective agreements while they are still in force is only possible at the request of both parties concerned;
• – judicial remedies in the event of the denial of the registration of a collective agreement. While noting the Government’s indication that section 279 of the Labour Code only excludes administrative remedies, the Committee requests the Government to amend that section to explicitly provide that a decision by the Director-General not to register a collective agreement may be challenged before the judicial authorities;
• – approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution. While noting the current reforms to expedite ministerial approval, the Committee once again requests the Government, with regard to clauses in collective agreements with financial implications, to amend section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the LSC to replace the requirement for prior ministerial approval for collective agreements with a public institution by a provision envisaging the participation of the financial authorities during the process of collective bargaining, and not when the collective agreement has already been concluded.

The Committee once again trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, to amend the legislative provisions referred to above as indicated. The Committee reminds the Government that it may request technical assistance from the Office.

Article 6. Exclusion of certain public employees from the guarantees afforded by the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 4(1) of the LSC so that all public officials who are not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government reports the submission on 24 May 2011 of a preliminary draft amendment to the LSC, including the amendment of section 4 and the reduction of the categories of public officials excluded from the civil service regime. The Committee trusts that the amendment of the LSC will be adopted in the near future and will ensure that all public officials who are not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees afforded by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report any developments in this respect.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government concerning the registration of seven collective agreements in the public sector (including the Ministry of Finance). The Committee also once again notes the Government’s indication that, although teachers in the public sector enjoy the right to collective bargaining, up to now no collective agreements have been concluded, and bargaining has not been commenced with this category of workers. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to promote collective bargaining by public teachers and to report any developments in this regard. In general, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures adopted to promote collective bargaining in the various sectors of the country (number of collective agreements in force, number of workers covered, etc.).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 2013 on matters already dealt with by the Committee. Moreover, the Committee notes the comments of the National Association of Private Enterprises (ANEP) of 2012 regarding Cases Nos 2930 and 2980 examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association and related to the Government’s interferences in the composition and appointment of workers and employers representatives in tripartite social dialogue bodies. The Committee shares the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association and asks the Government to refrain from any interference in the future.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation.

Article 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 205 of the Labour Code and section 247 of the Penal Code provide for protection against certain acts of interference and asked the Government to take the necessary steps, in the context of the process to revise labour law, to provide explicitly in the legislation for a prohibition on all acts of interference referred to in Article 2 of the Convention, in particular acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of the employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in the context of the process to revise labour standards as mentioned in its previous report, to complete the existing provisions providing protection against acts of interference, together with penalties that constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. In its previous comments the Committee noted that under sections 270 of the Labour Code (concerning the conclusion of the first collective agreement in an enterprise or establishment) and 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act, a trade union must have as members no less than 50 per cent of the workers of the enterprise, establishment or institution, in order to be able to initiate the collective agreement or to engage in collective bargaining. It asked the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the abovementioned sections to ensure that when there is no union that covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, all the unions are granted the right to engage in collective bargaining, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 270 of the Labour Code and also sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act are not being reformed and that it will send notification of any changes in this respect. The Committee also notes that the Government adds that section 271(2) of the Labour Code provides that if two or more trade unions have members in the same enterprise or establishment but neither of them has at least 51 per cent of the total number of workers, either of the enterprise or of the establishment, these unions may unite with a view to achieving the aforementioned percentage, in which case the employer shall be obliged to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement with the united unions, if the latter make a joint request to this effect. While noting the possibility for two trade unions in the same enterprise to unite with a view to achieving the minimum percentage of representation to engage in collective bargaining, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend sections 270 and 271 of the Labour Code and sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act in such a way that when no union covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, all unions are given the right to engage in collective bargaining, at least on behalf of their own members.

Revision of collective agreements. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 276(3) of the Labour Code provides that “if the economic conditions in the country or enterprise should change significantly, either party may request the revision of the collective labour agreement, provided that the agreement has been force for at least one year” and asked the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 276(3) of the Labour Code in order to ensure that the renegotiation of existing collective agreements shall be possible only at the request of the parties concerned. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that to date there are no plans to reform section 276 of the Labour Code and that it will send any information in due course on any changes in this respect. The Committee recalls that to impose by law the renegotiation of existing agreements is in principle contrary to the principles of free and voluntary collective bargaining laid down in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to amend section 276(3) of the Labour Code, in order to ensure that the renegotiation of existing collective agreements shall be possible only at the request of the parties concerned.

Registration of collective agreements. In its previous comments, referring to section 279 of the Labour Code – which provides that a decision by the Director General of Labour to deny registration of a collective agreement is not open to judicial review – the Committee noted the Government’s explanation that the prohibition on challenging the Director-General’s decision in section 279 refers only to administrative channels, meaning that administrative remedies have been exhausted and judicial channels of appeal are open, in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act concerning the settlement of administrative disputes. The Committee considered that, in order to avoid any confusion, it would be advisable to amend section 279 to make it plain that the Director-General’s decision may be challenged before the judicial authority. The Committee once again requests the Government to consider the possibility of amending section 279 of the Labour Code in order to expressly provide in the legislation that the Director-General’s decision may be challenged before the judicial authority. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any further developments in this respect.

Approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under sections 287 of the Labour Code and 119 of the Civil Service Act, in order to be valid, collective agreements require the approval of the relevant ministry and the prior opinion of the Ministry of Finance. The Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the Civil Service Act in order to remove the requirement of prior ministerial approval for collective agreements to be able to come into force. The Committee notes that according to the Government that the planned reform of section 287 of the Labour Code as proposed does not contemplate the removal of that request but seeks to modify the time in which the Ministry of Finance is able to reply and, should it fail to do so, the resulting administrative silence shall be construed as positive with a view to expediting the procedure for the registration of collective agreements of autonomous official institutions. As regards the amendment of section 119 of the Civil Service Act, the Committee notes that the Government will provide information in due course on any further developments in this respect. The Committee recalls that the requirement of ministerial approval to enable a collective agreement to enter into force is not fully consistent with the principles of voluntary bargaining laid down in the Convention: however, there is nothing to prevent the budgetary authority, prior to the conclusion of the collective agreement, from informing the employer of the situation and of the budget that is available. The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the Civil Service Act so as to abolish the requirement for prior ministerial approval in order for collective agreements to take effect. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken in this regard.

Article 6. Exclusion of certain public employees from the guarantees of the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 78 of August 2006, numerous public sector workers are excluded from the administrative career and hence from the guarantees of the Convention (collectors, treasurers, cashiers, administrators, warehouse security staff, warehouse personnel and auditors in any public institution department) and requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act is not being reformed and that it will provide information on any changes in this respect. The Committee recalls that the only possible exceptions to the guarantees laid down in the Convention refer to the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Articles 5 and 6). The Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary steps to amend section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act in order that public servants not working in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken.

Right to collective bargaining of teachers. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 2 of the Civil Service Act provides that, because of the nature of their duties, members of the teaching profession are governed by a special act – which, in this specific case, does not contain any provisions on collective bargaining – without prejudice to the social rights laid down in the Civil Service Act, which shall apply to them. The Committee also noted the Government’s confirmation that, in addition to the right to association, teachers also enjoy the right to collective bargaining and requested the Government to indicate the date of the most recent collective agreements concluded with teachers in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that to date no collective labour agreement has been concluded with teachers in the public sector. The Committee, recalling that all teachers, including those in the public sector, are covered by the scope of the Convention’s provisions, requests the Government to promote the right to collective bargaining of teachers in the public sector and to provide information on any further developments in this respect.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed reply to the comments from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 2008 and 2009. The Committee also notes the recent comment from the ITUC, dated 4 August 2011, referring to anti-union practices and dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

The Committee also notes the technical assistance given in 2009 to the constituents of the country, concerning training and practice relating to Convention No. 98, and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

Article 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 205 of the Labour Code and section 247 of the Penal Code provide for protection against certain acts of interference and asked the Government to take the necessary steps, in the context of the process to revise labour law, to provide explicitly in the legislation for a prohibition on all acts of interference referred to in Article 2 of the Convention, in particular acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of the employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in the context of the process to revise labour standards as mentioned in its previous report, to complete the existing provisions providing protection against acts of interference, together with penalties that constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. In its previous comments the Committee noted that under sections 270 of the Labour Code (concerning the conclusion of the first collective agreement in an enterprise or establishment) and 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act, a trade union must have as members no less than 50 per cent of the workers of the enterprise, establishment or institution, in order to be able to initiate the collective agreement or to engage in collective bargaining. It asked the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the abovementioned sections to ensure that when there is no union that covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, all the unions are granted the right to engage in collective bargaining, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 270 of the Labour Code and also sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act are not being reformed and that it will send notification of any changes in this respect. The Committee also notes that the Government adds that section 271(2) of the Labour Code provides that if two or more trade unions have members in the same enterprise or establishment but neither of them has at least 51 per cent of the total number of workers, either of the enterprise or of the establishment, these unions may unite with a view to achieving the aforementioned percentage, in which case the employer shall be obliged to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement with the united unions, if the latter make a joint request to this effect. While noting the possibility for two trade unions in the same enterprise to unite with a view to achieving the minimum percentage of representation to engage in collective bargaining, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend sections 270 and 271 of the Labour Code and sections 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act in such a way that when no union covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, all unions are given the right to engage in collective bargaining, at least on behalf of their own members.

Revision of collective agreements. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 276(3) of the Labour Code provides that “if the economic conditions in the country or enterprise should change significantly, either party may request the revision of the collective labour agreement, provided that the agreement has been force for at least one year” and asked the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 276(3) of the Labour Code in order to ensure that the renegotiation of existing collective agreements shall be possible only at the request of the parties concerned. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that to date there are no plans to reform section 276 of the Labour Code and that it will send any information in due course on any changes in this respect. The Committee recalls that to impose by law the renegotiation of existing agreements is in principle contrary to the principles of free and voluntary collective bargaining laid down in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to amend section 276(3) of the Labour Code, in order to ensure that the renegotiation of existing collective agreements shall be possible only at the request of the parties concerned.

Registration of collective agreements. In its previous comments, referring to section 279 of the Labour Code – which provides that a decision by the Director-General of Labour to deny registration of a collective agreement is not open to judicial review –, the Committee noted the Government’s explanation that the prohibition on challenging the Director-General’s decision in section 279 refers only to administrative channels, meaning that administrative remedies have been exhausted and judicial channels of appeal are open, in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act concerning the settlement of administrative disputes. The Committee considered that, in order to avoid any confusion, it would be advisable to amend section 279 to make it plain that the Director-General’s decision may be challenged before the judicial authority. The Committee once again requests the Government to consider the possibility of amending section 279 of the Labour Code in order to expressly provide in the legislation that the Director-General’s decision may be challenged before the judicial authority. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any further developments in this respect.

Approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under sections 287 of the Labour Code and 119 of the Civil Service Act, in order to be valid, collective agreements require the approval of the relevant ministry and the prior opinion of the Ministry of Finance. The Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the Civil Service Act in order to remove the requirement of prior ministerial approval for collective agreements to be able to come into force. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the planned reform of section 287 of the Labour Code as proposed does not contemplate the removal of that request but seeks to modify the time in which the Ministry of Finance is able to reply and, should it fail to do so, the resulting administrative silence shall be construed as positive with a view to expediting the procedure for the registration of collective agreements of autonomous official institutions. As regards the amendment of section 119 of the Civil Service Act, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it will provide information in due course on any further developments in this respect. The Committee recalls that the requirement of ministerial approval to enable a collective agreement to enter into force is not fully consistent with the principles of voluntary bargaining laid down in the Convention: however, there is nothing to prevent the budgetary authority, prior to the conclusion of the collective agreement, from informing the employer of the situation and of the budget that is available. The Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the Civil Service Act so as to abolish the requirement for prior ministerial approval in order for collective agreements to take effect. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken in this regard.

Article 6. Exclusion of certain public employees from the guarantees of the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 78 of August 2006, numerous public sector workers are excluded from the administrative career and hence from the guarantees of the Convention (collectors, treasurers, cashiers, administrators, warehouse security staff, warehouse personnel and auditors in any public institution department) and requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act is not being reformed and that it will provide information on any changes in this respect. The Committee recalls that the only possible exceptions to the guarantees laid down in the Convention refer to the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Articles 5 and 6). The Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary steps to amend section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act in order that public servants not working in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken.

Right to collective bargaining of teachers. In its previous comments the Committee noted that section 2 of the Civil Service Act provides that, because of the nature of their duties, members of the teaching profession are governed by a special act – which, in this specific case, does not contain any provisions on collective bargaining –, without prejudice to the social rights laid down in the Civil Service Act, which shall apply to them. The Committee also noted the Government’s confirmation that, in addition to the right to association, teachers also enjoy the right to collective bargaining and requested the Government to indicate the date of the most recent collective agreements concluded with teachers in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that to date no collective labour agreement has been concluded with teachers in the public sector. The Committee, recalling that all teachers, including those in the public sector, are covered by the scope of the Convention’s provisions, requests the Government to promote the right to collective bargaining of teachers in the public sector and to provide information on any further developments in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the comments of 26 August 2009 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) referring to the denial of the right to collective bargaining in export processing zones, breach of collective agreements and freedom of association in a union in the fishing sector, dismissal of the founding members of a transport union and dismissals of members of municipal unions. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in reply to the ITUC’s latest comments as well as its comments of 29 August 2008.

The Committee also notes several cases under examination by the Committee on Freedom of Association that concern issues relating to the application of the Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to adopt appropriate legislative measures to ensure effective protection against acts of interference. It notes that in its report the Government states that section 205 of the Labour Code contains an express prohibition against interference since it prohibits any person from: (a) exerting pressure on another to join or leave a union, except in the event of expulsion on grounds already established in the by-laws; (b) preventing the person concerned from joining in the establishment of a trade union or exerting pressure on someone to do so; (c) discriminating between workers on grounds of their trade union activities or taking reprisals against them on the same grounds; (d) engaging in actions the purpose of which is to prevent the establishment of a trade union or that lead to its dissolution or its submission to control by the employer; and (e) engaging in any action against the legitimate exercise of the right to join an occupational association. The Government indicates that the prohibition on any “person” covers both natural and legal persons. The Government adds that the Penal Code, in Title IX “Offences against the social and economic order”, Chapter IV “Offences against rights at work and the right of association”, provides in section 247, which is about coercion to the exercise of freedom of association or the right to strike, provides that: “Anyone who brings pressure to bear on another person to prevent or limit that person’s exercise of freedom of association or right to engage in a strike or work stoppage shall be punished with a penalty of imprisonment ranging from one to three years. The same penalty shall apply to persons acting together to coerce others to initiate or pursue a strike, or stoppage or suspension of work.” The Committee notes that the Government also states that the labour legislation is to undergo revision and that the matter will be discussed in that process. The Committee is of the view that, in order properly to guarantee protection against acts of interference, a provision should be adopted expressly prohibiting any acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary steps, in the context of the process to revise labour law, to provide in the legislation for appropriate and full protection against acts of interference, accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 270 of the Labour Code (concerning the conclusion of the first collective agreement in an enterprise or establishment) and 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act, a trade union must have as members no less than 50 per cent of the workers of the enterprise, establishment or institution, in order to be able to initiate the collective agreement or to bargain collectively. It asked the Government to take the necessary steps to amend sections 270 of the Labour Code and 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act so that when there is no union that covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, all the unions are granted the right to bargain collectively, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it will report on any progress made in this connection. It hopes that as part of the planned labour law revision, the Government will take the necessary steps to amend sections 270 of the Labour Code and 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act to ensure that where no union covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, all unions are given the right to bargain collectively, at least on behalf of their own members.

Revision of the collective agreement. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 276, third paragraph, of the Labour Code provides that “if the economic conditions in the country or enterprise should change significantly, either party may request the revision of the collective labour agreement, provided that the agreement has been in force for at least one year” and asked the Government to indicate whether this provision entails the obligation to renegotiate the collective agreement in the circumstances described at the request of the one of the parties. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, although the term renegotiation is not mentioned in this provision, the revision in question amounts to renegotiation. The Committee recalls in this connection that to impose by law the renegotiation of existing agreements is in principle contrary to the principles of free collective bargaining laid down in the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 276, third paragraph, of the Labour Code, in order to ensure that the renegotiation of existing collective agreements shall be possible only at the request of the parties concerned.

Registration of collective agreements. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 279 of the Labour Code provides that a decision by the Director-General of Labour to deny registration of a collective agreement is not open to judicial review and that section 112 of the Civil Service Act contains no provisions on the subject, and asked the Government to take the necessary steps to provide by law for appeal to the judicial authority against such a decision by the Director-General of Labour. The Committee notes in this connection the Government’s statement that, in the ban on challenging the Director-General’s decision in section 279 refers only to administrative channels, meaning that administrative remedies have been exhausted and judicial channels of appeal are open. The Committee is of the view that, in order to avoid any confusion, it would be advisable to amend section 279 to make it plain that the Director-General’s decision may be challenged before the judicial authority. It asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken to this end.

Approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 287 of the Labour Code and 119 of the Civil Service Act, in order to be valid, collective agreements require the approval of the relevant ministry and the prior opinion of the Ministry of Finance. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the effect given to this provision in practice. It notes the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Finance is involved because it is responsible for the administration of public funds. The Government further indicates that there is no intent to offend against the principle of free and voluntary bargaining, but merely to ensure compliance with what was agreed by the parties that negotiated the collective agreement, to avoid the State being confronted with a financial imbalance jeopardizing fulfilment of the agreement. The Committee recalls in this connection that a requirement for ministerial approval in order for a collective agreement to take effect is not fully consistent with the principles of voluntary bargaining laid down in the Convention. The Committee nonetheless points out that, while the principle of autonomy of the parties to collective bargaining is valid as regards public servants covered by the Convention, the special characteristics of the public service require some flexibility in its application. Thus, in the view of the Committee, legislative provisions which allow Parliament or the competent budgetary authority to set upper and lower limits for wage negotiations or to establish an overall “budgetary package” within which the parties may negotiate monetary or standard-setting clauses (for example: reduction of working hours or other arrangements, varying wage increases according to levels of remuneration, fixing a timetable for readjustment provisions) or those which give the financial authorities the right to participate in collective bargaining alongside the direct employer are compatible with the Convention, provided they leave a significant role to collective bargaining. It is essential, however, that workers and their organizations be able to participate fully and meaningfully in designing this overall bargaining framework, which implies in particular that they must have access to all the financial, budgetary and other data enabling them to assess the situation on the basis of the facts (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 263). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 287 of the Labour Code and section 119 of the Civil Service Act so as to abolish the requirement for prior ministerial approval in order for collective agreements to take effect. It asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken in this regard.

Purpose of the bargaining. The Committee noted in its previous comments that, under section 108 of the Civil Service Act, collective bargaining shall cover both salary matters and matters relating to conditions of work, and asked the Government to indicate whether any provision allows for collective bargaining relating to facilities for trade unions. The Committee notes in this connection the Government’s statement that, while it is true that there is no express provision on this matter, it is also true that there is no express prohibition, that section 108 provides that collective bargaining shall include all the components of a public servant’s employment relationship, whether pertaining to wage content or to other conditions of work, and that this wording covers conditions not expressly referred to in the Act. The Government adds that, for bargaining with unions of public servants, it has granted facilities to unions of public institutions, and cites as examples the Salvadorean Social Security Institute (ISS), the National Administration of Water and Sewer Systems (ANDA) and the Río Lempa Hydroelectric Executive Committee (CEL).

Article 6. Exclusion of certain public employees from the guarantees of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 78 of August 2006, numerous public sector workers are excluded from the administrative career and hence from the guarantees of the Convention (collectors, treasurers, cashiers, administrators, warehouse security staff, warehouse personnel and auditors in any public institution department), and asked the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that workers not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee welcomes the Government’s statement that it will report on any progress made in this area. It recalls in this connection that the only exceptions that may be allowed to the guarantees laid down in the Convention concern the armed forces, the police, and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Articles 5 and 6). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps, in the process of revising the legislation, to amend section 4(1) of the Civil Service Act so as to enable all public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State to enjoy the guarantees laid down in the Convention.

Declaration of unconstitutionality. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it noted that, in a decision of 31 October 2007, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice found that the extension of the right to freedom of association to public employees (by virtue of the ratification of this Convention) who are not included among the holders of that right defined in the Constitution of the Republic, was unconstitutional (D.O. 203 T. 377 of 31 October 2007). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that Legislative Decree No. 33 of 27 May 2009 has amended article 47 of the National Constitution by extending the right to organize to public employees, which is an unprecedented step forward in the universal recognition of the trade union freedoms laid down in the Convention (see in this connection the comments under Convention No. 87).

Right to collective bargaining of teachers. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 2 of the Civil Service Act provides that, due to the nature of their duties, members of the teaching profession are governed by a special act, without prejudice to the social rights laid down in the Civil Service Act, which shall apply to them. Taking into account that the Teaching Career Act contains no specific provisions on this matter, it asks the Government to indicate whether, under section 2 of the Civil Service Act, members of the teaching profession enjoy the right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes in this connection that, according to the Government, although the nature of their duties means that they are governed by a special act, this does not mean that teachers are excluded from the right to collective bargaining pursuant to the last paragraph of section 2 which says “without prejudice to the social rights contained in this Act”, which means that, in addition to the right to association, they also enjoy the right to collective bargaining. The Committee takes due note of this information and requests the Government to give the date of the most recent collective agreements concluded with teachers in the public sector.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the Government’s first report. It further notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 28 August 2007, and the Government’s reply thereto. The Committee also notes the new comments made by the ITUC on 29 August 2008, which refer to acts of discrimination and interference in the functioning of the Labour Inspectorate. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on these matters.

The Committee also notes the various cases currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association, which refer to matters relating to the application of the Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee observes that, although the Civil Service Act provides for protective measures against acts of interference (prohibition and sanctions), the Labour Code does not contain adequate provisions on this subject for the private sector, given that the Labour Code merely prohibits the organization and functioning of mixed trade unions, i.e. those composed of employers and workers (section 206) and prohibits any person from carrying out acts aimed at preventing the establishment of a trade union, dissolving it or placing it under the control of an employer or employers’ organization. In this regard, the Committee considers that, in order to ensure the application in practice of Article 2 of the Convention in the private sector, legislation should explicitly: (1) prohibit any act of interference; and (2) make express provision for rapid appeal procedures and effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference, principally acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations controlled by an employer or employers’ organization, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the aim of placing such organizations under the control of an employer or employers’ organization. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to adopt appropriate legislative measures to ensure effective protection against acts of interference.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare is carrying out various activities through the General Labour Directorate, aimed at promoting the full development and use of machinery for voluntary bargaining between employers’ and workers’ organizations. Since 2000, training has been given to workers and employers at the national level on social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ rights and collective labour agreements.

The Committee notes that, under sections 270 of the Labour Code (concerning the conclusion of the first collective agreement in an enterprise or establishment) and 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act, a trade union must have as members no less than 50 per cent of the workers of the enterprise, establishment or institution, in order to be able to initiate the collective agreement or bargain collectively. In this regard, the Committee considers that these provisions do not promote collective bargaining. The Committee considers that if no union covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the bargaining unit concerned, at least on behalf of their own members (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 241). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend sections 270 of the Labour Code and 106 and 123 of the Civil Service Act in the manner indicated above.

Revision of the collective agreement. The Committee notes that section 276(3) provides that “if the economic conditions in the country or enterprise should change significantly, either party may request the revision of the collective labour agreement, provided that the agreement has been in force for at least one year”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this provision entails the obligation to renegotiate the collective agreement in the circumstances described at the request of one of the parties.

Registration of collective agreements. The Committee observes that, under sections 279 of the Labour Code and 113 of the Civil Service Act, if a collective agreement is submitted to the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare for registration and this is denied, either party may, if they consider it unjustified, appeal to the Director-General of Labour. The Committee observes that section 279 provides that no appeal may be made against that decision and that section 113 does not contain any provision on this subject. The Committee considers that, in both cases, provision should be made for the possibility of appealing to the judicial authority against the decision of the Director-General of Labour. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation ensures the possibility of appealing to the judiciary against the decision of the Director-General.

Approval of collective agreements concluded with a public institution. The Committee notes that, under sections 287 of the Labour Code and 119 of the Civil Service Act, in order to be valid, these agreements require the approval of the respective ministry and the prior opinion of the Ministry of Finance. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice and points out that a ministry’s approval of agreements concluded freely between parties infringes the principle of free and voluntary negotiation under Article 4 of the Convention.

Purpose of the bargaining. The Committee notes that, under section 108, collective bargaining shall cover both salary matters and matters relating to conditions of work. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any provision provides for collective bargaining relating to facilities in favour of trade unions.

Article 6. Exclusion of a very wide range of public employees from the guarantees of the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government points out that the Civil Service Act establishes the procedure for the establishment, functioning and dissolution of trade unions of public employees. The Committee observes, however, that, under section 4(l) of the Civil Service Act, amended by Legislative Decree No. 78, of August 2006, numerous public sector workers are excluded from the administrative career and hence from the guarantees of the Convention (collectors, treasurers, cashiers, administrators, warehouse security staff, warehouse personnel and auditors in any public institution department). In this regard, the Committee recalls that the only possible exceptions from the guarantees of the Convention refer to the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Articles 5 and 6). The Committee recalls that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly engaged in the administration of the State (for example, in some countries, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as officials acting as supporting elements in these activities), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the guarantees provided for in the Convention.

Declaration of unconstitutionality. The Committee also notes that, in a decision of 31 October 2007, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice found that the extension of the right to freedom of association to public employees, who are not included among the holders of that right in the Constitution of the Republic, was unconstitutional (O.J. 203 T. 377 of 31 October 2007). The Committee observes that the Government does not refer to this matter in its report. The Committee regrets that decision of the Constitutional Chamber shortly after the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, and requests the Government to ensure the application of the Convention to public employees, including, if necessary, through the reform of the Constitution.

Right to collective bargaining of teachers. Section 2 of the Civil Service Act provides that, due to the nature of their duties, members of the teaching profession are governed by a special Act without prejudice to the social rights contained in the Civil Service Act, which are applicable to them. Taking into account that the Teaching Careers Act does not contain specific provisions guaranteeing the right to bargain, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, under section 2 of the Civil Service Act, members of the teaching profession nonetheless enjoy the right to collective bargaining.