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

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

Discussion by the Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is reflected in five essential areas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Private sector:

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

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

Public sector:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions of the Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2016, Publication: 105th ILC session (2016)



A Government representative, referring to the earthquake that had occurred on 16 April 2016 and its serious consequences, said that the Government had given priority to the region in question and had delivered human, material and financial resources to the affected areas and population, and for this reason it had not been in a position to send an accredited delegation from the capital and had provided explanations to the secretariat. Ecuador had ratified all international human rights instruments and 61 ILO Conventions, including the eight fundamental Conventions. The significant measures adopted, such as its policies on people with disabilities and their placement in employment, the fight against child labour, particularly its worst forms, the reduction of extreme poverty and the improved distribution of wealth, had enabled the country to set an example through its achievements in such areas. The 2008 Constitution was based on the ancestral Andean philosophy of “Buen Vivir” (good living), which gave priority to the human being over capital. It guaranteed the rights of workers, including freedom of association. With a view to updating the Labour Code, which dated from 1938, the Act on labour justice and the recognition of household work had been adopted and entered into force on 20 April 2015. The Act took into account several of the recommendation of the ILO technical mission which visited Ecuador from 26 to 30 January 2015, following an invitation from the Government. The Act provided for: (i) the elimination of types of recruitment that reduced labour stability; (ii) the adoption of measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination, whether direct or indirect, affecting workers, as a result of which any dismissal of trade union leaders or pregnant or breastfeeding women would be without affect; (iii) the democratization of worker representation, which meant that workers had the right to freely elect persons to represent them on enterprise committees, whether or not its members belonged to a trade union; (iv) the implementation of universal social security; and (v) the repeal of the provision that required authorization for foreign workers to work in Ecuador. Other issues addressed by the ILO technical mission and raised by the Committee of Experts were related to the draft amendments to several constitutional rules. Those draft amendments, in relation to which the Constitutional Court had issued a favourable ruling, provided for, inter alia, the removal of Article 229(3) of the Constitution, which provided that “workers from the public sector shall be subject to the Labour Code”. The removal of this provision had been proposed with a view to ensuring equal treatment for public employees, so that as from the entry into force of the new rules, all public employees would be covered by the Basic Act on the Public Service (LOSEP), which provided greater benefits than the Labour Code. The Committee of Experts had referred to the amendment of Article 326(16) of the Constitution, which provided that only the private sector had the right to engage in collective bargaining. In this regard, she emphasized that in the public sector employers did not make a profit, and that collective agreements had no meaning in balancing employer-worker relations. Furthermore, section 221(2) of the Labour Code provided that public sector employees could negotiate collective agreements through the establishment of a single central committee comprising over 50 per cent of such workers. She thanked the Government of Uruguay for having offered to share information on experiences and good practices in this regard.

Regarding the observation of the Committee of Experts, which indicated that the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour to determine the abusive nature of collective agreements in the public sector should be transferred to the judicial authorities, she emphasized that Ministry Labour Orders Nos 76 and 155A guaranteed employment equality in state institutions, ensuring that workers enjoyed the benefits granted to them by the law, establishing a procedure to revise collective agreements and providing equal support to employers and workers. If mediation failed, conciliation and arbitration tribunals intervened. That process would be distorted if the matter was referred to the judiciary. Finally, she emphasized that the commitments undertaken by the Government when it concluded collective agreements as an employer had material and legal limitations that were directly related to budgetary availability, which made it impossible to give effect to abusive clauses, also because all agreements that favoured minorities created discrimination in the enjoyment of fundamental rights by the vast majority of public sector workers. Ecuador had shown its will comply with international labour standards, as concluded by the ILO technical mission the findings of which had already been mentioned, and to adopt new labour laws that strengthened the protection of workers’ rights.

The Employer members recalled that the Convention had been ratified by Ecuador in 1959 and examined by the Conference Committee on three occasions, most recently in 2014. Regarding the failure to recognize the right of certain public sector workers to engage in collective bargaining, they noted with concern that the Government had emphasized that, while public employees enjoyed the right to organize, they did not have the right to engage in collective bargaining, which constituted a violation of Article 4 of the Convention. According to the findings of the ILO mission of January 2015, the draft constitutional amendments, which had since been implemented with the aim of unifying the regulations governing public servants, established that the wage earners previously subject to the Labour Code would be governed by the LOSEP, in the same manner as the other public servants who enjoyed the right to organize but were not entitled to engage in collective bargaining. In that regard, they supported the call by the Committee of Experts to amend the LOSEP and other administrative laws to bring them into line with the Convention. Concerning the requirement of a level of representativeness for participation in collective bargaining that was deemed excessively high by the Committee of Experts, they emphasized that, due to the absence in the Convention of a specific provision on the levels of representativeness for collective bargaining, national legislation prevailed, within the parameters of rationality and objectivity and with the prior determination of the levels of representativeness required for collective bargaining. The system in force in Ecuador granted preferential rights to the most representative trade unions, which prevented abusive practices and provided guarantees for both employers and workers. On that point, they considered that it would not be possible to recommend the amendment of the legislation in isolation, without assessing the impact that it might have on the rules governing collective bargaining as a whole. Concerning the limitations on collective bargaining in the public sector, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that such limitations were in violation of the Convention, and they supported the request for the Government to take the necessary measures to restore the right to collective bargaining regarding all issues that affected the employment and working conditions of public servants covered by the Convention. Only the judicial authorities could determine whether some agreements were abusive. They also supported the request for the Government to provide information and take the measures called for by the Committee of Experts, and they encouraged the social partners to avail themselves of article 23(2) of the ILO Constitution.

The Worker members expressed their solidarity concerning the recent earthquake. They expressed concern at the Government’s failure to grant accreditation for the Conference to any worker representatives, which was a violation of the ILO Constitution. Attacks against public sector trade unions had begun in 2008 with the adoption of constitutional amendments which placed a ceiling on public sector pay, limited compensation for termination of the employment relationship, and empowered the Government to review the clauses of collective agreements unilaterally. Furthermore, the Basic Act on Public Enterprises (LOEP) and the LOSEP of 2010 restricted the trade union rights and the right to collective bargaining and to strike for public sector workers. Despite the repeated comments of the supervisory bodies, which emphasized the various violations of the Convention and requested that the situation be remedied, as well as the recommendations of the ILO mission of January 2015, the situation had only deteriorated. Of more concern was the fact that in December 2015, without consulting the unions, and following the violent repression and detention of peaceful protestors, regressive constitutional amendments had been adopted which completely eliminated the right to collective bargaining in the public sector by reclassifying public sector wage earners as public servants as a result of which collective bargaining was confined to the private sector. Similarly, although the right to strike was generally recognized in the public sector, it was prohibited in a large number of sectors, an exclusion which went far beyond the definition of essential public services established by the ILO supervisory system. In addition, as indicated by the Committee of Experts, other issues still needed to be addressed: (i) the need to amend section 221 of the Labour Code so that, where there was no organization with over 50 per cent of the workers as members, minority trade unions could, either alone or jointly, negotiate on behalf of their members; (ii) the lack of adequate protection against anti-union discrimination, including practices such as the procedure known as “compulsory purchase of redundancy”, which allowed the public administration, through the payment of compensation, to unilaterally remove public servants without having to indicate the grounds for their termination; and (iii) the empowerment of the Ministry of Labour to determine the abusive character of collective agreements in the public sector, a decision which should lie within the competence of the judicial authorities. The Worker members urged the Government to meet the trade unions as soon as possible to identify solutions to ensure that the Constitution and national laws were in full conformity with the Convention.

An observer representing the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the National Federation of Chambers of Industries of Ecuador referred to the recent constitutional amendments adopted in December 2015, according to which public sector workers were no longer covered by the Labour Code, but by the LOSEP. This Act did not include collective bargaining mechanisms, which was contrary to Article 4 of the Convention. The Government should align its legislation with the Convention, in consultation with the social partners within the framework of an open dialogue to find solutions adapted to the national situation. This would encourage and promote the development and use of collective bargaining mechanisms for employment conditions between the public authorities and organizations of public servants. While international standards did not contain requirements with regard to the minimum number of workers to start a collective bargaining process, the legislative provisions in Ecuador were aimed at ensuring the representativeness of the parties to negotiation. Any amendment envisaged should, in any case, take into account the institution as a whole. Global solutions should be sought which went beyond the mere amendment of isolated provisions. ILO technical assistance would help to find a way of harmonizing the constitutional provisions with the laws governing public servants.

An observer representing Public Services International said that the absence of a worker delegate at the Conference illustrated the Government’s unilateral approach in decision-making. In 2014, the Government had been called to appear before the Committee due to persistent and systematic violations of the Convention. Since 2007, the country had been backtracking on labour matters, with the State, as an employer, abandoning the fundamental principles of international labour standards, especially freedom of association, tripartism and social dialogue. The constitutional reform undertaken by the Government on 3 December 2015 had put an end once and for all to collective bargaining in the public sector, culminating a systematic process which began in 2008. The constitutional reform, through one of one of its transitional provisions, left workers classified as public sector wage earners in legal uncertainty until the reform came into force, although providing that they would not lose their individual and collective rights. He indicated, however, that this transitional measure was not viable and that public sector wage earners, represented, inter alia, by the National Federation of Provincial Council Wage Earners of Ecuador, would indeed lose their acquired rights. This showed that the reform in question represented a major retrograde step in the history of Ecuador. He added that the Trade Union of Workers of the Pichincha Provincial Government was the target of a range of Government strategies to neutralize it. He referred by way of illustration to the manoeuvres by the Ministry of Labour to prevent that trade union from participating stoppage of 13 August 2015 to protest against the constitutional reform process. Despite the Government’s attempts to eliminate certain trade union organizations and collective bargaining, the organizations affiliated to Public Services International, the National Union of Educators and the United Workers Front, were still operational.

An observer representing Education International (EI) said that the situation of public servants had deteriorated since 2014. The Government had not implemented the recommendations of the supervisory bodies or of the ILO technical mission, primarily relating to the teachers’ union, the National Union of Teachers (UNE) with the exception of creating a national consultative labour council. Teachers were covered by the LOSEP and the Basic Act on Intercultural Education and therefore did not enjoy the right to freedom of association or the right to collective bargaining. Moreover, the rights of the country’s trade unions, such as the deduction of union dues or leave for trade union activities, were restricted. There was constant harassment of trade unionists and social protest was criminalized, while union leaders were taken to remote locations and administrative proceedings were brought against them. The executive boards of trade unions were not being registered, which limited their ability to receive dues from members and national or international donations. The Government had also confiscated union funds. An initiative to reform the Basic Act on Intercultural Education had been introduced to allow for better living conditions for teachers through collective bargaining. The Government was urged to respect international labour law and guarantee social dialogue and collective bargaining.

The Government member of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean (GRULAC) countries, expressed solidarity following the earthquake that had devastated the country in April 2016. He emphasized the systematic progress made in labour legislation, particularly with respect the insertion into employment of persons with disabilities; the “My First Job” programme; the eradication of the worst forms of child labour; and the implementation of the “Dignified Wage” to cover the basic shopping basket. In addition, the Labour Justice Act had been in force since 20 April 2015 and contained provisions such as “dismissals without effect” to protect union leaders in their functions as representatives of workers’ organizations. He also drew attention to the significant number of trade unions registered over the last decade (1,001) which demonstrated the existence of freedom of association. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the recently adopted constitutional amendment expressly recognized both the right of public servants to organize in defence of their interests and the right to strike. Implementing provisions were now being drafted. In conclusion, he expressed confidence that all outstanding issues before the Committee of Experts would be duly addressed, with the vital assistance of the ILO, and that Ecuador would continue to adopt labour policies that were in conformity with international labour standards.

The Government member of Uruguay endorsed the statement made on behalf of GRULAC and reiterated her Government’s readiness to collaborate with Ecuador, particularly with regard to collective bargaining in the public sector, within the framework of a South–South collaboration process promoted by the ILO.

An observer representing the Confederation of University Workers in the Americas (CONTUA) said that the Government restricted the right of public sector workers to freedom of association, collective bargaining and to strike. In Ecuador, practices persisted known as the “compulsory purchase of redundancy”, which was euphemism, and a linguistic and legal contradiction used to conceal over 15,000 discriminatory dismissals in the public sector, many of which concerned trade union leaders. Moreover, the Government hoped to amend the LOSEP and LOEP in the near future, without consulting trade union organizations. Union leaders were systematically attacked and prevented from carrying out their duties. The Government was urged to talk to the social partners and amend polices that denied people their rights. He wished to draw particular attention to the situation of the Andean Simón Bolívar University, in Ecuador, which was undergoing a difficult period concerning respect of the principle of the independence of the universities. In this connection, workers belonging to trade unions affiliated with CONTUA were systematically attacked to prevent them from exercising their rights in a context of respect for freedom of association. The independence of universities and trade unions were two pillars of social democracy which, in this specific case, were being threatened. Due to the commitment with which they performed their tasks, workers were victims of threats, interventions and interference aimed at restricting their independence and rights. In conclusion, he called for a tripartite mission to visit the country on an urgent basis.

The Government member of Cuba endorsed the statement made on behalf of GRULAC, especially the expression of solidarity with the Government and people of Ecuador following the earthquake that had occurred in April 2016. She appreciated the detailed information provided by the Government concerning the application of the Convention and recognized the achievements of the citizens’ revolution in its efforts to guarantee the right to work and to strengthen inclusion and social protection. She welcomed the recognition by the Committee of Experts of the progress made in the labour legislation in the country. The sustained increase in the registration of new trade union organizations demonstrated the Government’s efforts to guarantee the full exercise of the right to freedom of association. These efforts should be supported by technical assistance from the ILO, especially during the difficult time that the country was going through. She hoped that the focus in this case would be on the cooperation which should characterize relations between the ILO and its member States.

The Worker member of the United States said that the sustained attack on the labour rights of public sector workers had been a long-standing issue in Ecuador. Many parts of the world, including parts of the United States, had sought to reduce or eliminate public sector collective bargaining. In Ecuador, this had been a consistent policy of the Government since 2008. In past years, the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts had noted the measures taken by the Government to limit collective bargaining rights in ways that were inconsistent with the Convention. The Committee of Experts had noted with concern: (i) the persistent problems faced by public sector workers, especially those in education; (ii) the measures introduced in the new Constitution to reduce public sector collective bargaining rights, which were inconsistent with the Convention; (iii) the exclusion of certain public sector workers from the guarantees laid down in the Convention; and (iv) the provisions of the LOEP and of the LOSEP. He hoped that the Committee would adopt clear conclusions on this case, despite the absence of Workers’ delegates from the country. The Committee of Experts had requested the Government to extend the right to collective bargaining to teachers, municipal workers, public services and air transport workers. Despite the consistent comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the exclusion of these workers from the application of the Convention in Ecuador, the Government had amended the Constitution and had adopted laws against the inclusion of public sector workers. This year, the Committee of Experts had clearly indicated that the Convention applied to the following public servants: teachers, municipal employees, public enterprise employees and air transport personnel. The Government should extend the right to collective bargaining to these categories of workers as required by the Convention. He called upon the Government to ratify the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), in order to provide specific coverage for officials involved in the administration of the State.

The Government member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia endorsed the statement made by GRULAC and conveyed a message of solidarity to the Ecuadorian people following the earthquake that had occurred in April 2016. The Ecuadorian legislative process had achieved significant progress in the field of labour rights since 2007. She applauded the adoption in April 2015 of the Act on labour justice and the recognition of household work, which protected trade union members from summary and unjustified dismissal. She emphasized that the amendment to the Ecuadorian Constitution, which explicitly recognized the right of public servants to organize in defence of their interests, and the right to strike, was in the process of implementation. Progress in relation to wages in Ecuador included the increase in the statutory minimum wage of workers by over 100 per cent over recent years, and the introduction of a living wage (salario digno) to cover basic living costs. There had also been an increase in the number of workers registered with the social security system. The country was continuing to develop labour policies that were in line with its national legislation and it would surely continue to share its best practices. In conclusion, she hoped that the Committee would appreciate the progress made by Ecuador taking into account the country’s priorities in the present economic situation.

The Employer member of Mexico began by expressing his condolences and solidarity with the Ecuadorian people in view of the recent earthquake. He questioned the way in which the Committee of Experts was once again addressing the question of the representation of workers for the purposes of collective bargaining. The comment made by the Committee of Experts was excessive in considering that, when the majority of workers did not wish to exercise the right to conclude a collective agreement, any group of workers, irrespective of their number, could do so by themselves or through a trade union. The right to organize and collective bargaining were not obligations, but rights that workers could choose to exercise or not. The Supreme Court of Ecuador had ruled that a collective agreement in a workplace would be extended to workers who were not members of the organization that had concluded the agreement. According to the criteria of the Committee of Experts, Ecuador should amend its legislation. He considered that in such a scenario, everyone was a loser: (i) workers ran the risk of their trade union representation becoming fragmented, and, if a minority of workers engaged in collective bargaining and the outcome was then applied to the other workers, the exercise of the right to collective bargaining of those who had not participated was impaired; (ii) governance was affected, and problems increased in the registration of collective labour agreements; (iii) employers could be obliged to negotiate a variety of collective labour agreements within the same enterprise, which would complicate the administration of human resources and have an impact on costs and industrial relations. If majority representation in any form of social organization was a democratic principle, the concept of the “bargaining agent” acknowledged by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association as a suitable measure, should not be eliminated, nor should Ecuador be asked to remove the majority principle from its legislation without considering the consequences.

The Worker member of Argentina referred to the unacceptable interference by the Government of Ecuador in the fundamental right to organize and bargain collectively of public employees not engaged in the administration of the State. It was an issue that had already been examined by the ILO’s supervisory bodies and had prompted a technical mission to Ecuador in January 2015. As a result of the entry into force of the Constitution approved in 2008, the adoption of constituent amendments and the enactment of new legislation on public enterprises and employees, the labour rights of workers in the public sector in Ecuador had been seriously prejudiced. Executive Decree No. 813 of 2011 provided that public employees could be dismissed through the process known as “compulsory purchase of redundancy”. In the first six months following the Decree’s entry into force, the Government ordered the dismissal of 5,000 public sector workers without any grounds being given (see Committee on Freedom of Association Case No. 2926). The so-called “compulsory purchase of redundancy” was a violation of the Convention on two counts: not only was it used in a discriminatory manner against public employees who were members of trade unions to decimate the trade union movement or encourage the formation of organizations close to the interests of the Government, but it also undermined the stability clauses included in collective agreements. Under the Basic Act on the Public Service, workers were denied their right to freedom of association, to strike and to bargain collectively. In addition, the Act and the legislation applicable to employees in public enterprises and in the education sector provided no protection against anti-union discrimination or interference. The draft amendment to the Constitution was also designed to achieve the complete eradication of freedom of association and collective bargaining in the public sector, by proposing that “wage earners” in public enterprises be brought under the labour legislation governing the public sector, thereby denying the right to collective bargaining of the last category of public employees still entitled to do so. The legislation did not allow State “wage earners” to negotiate their wages, even though their conditions of employment were governed by the Labour Code.

The State was increasingly interfering in collective bargaining, where it now had the unilateral power to review public sector collective agreements on the grounds that of the possible abusive nature of clauses of agreements. Both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association had emphasized that such review would be admissible only if the determination of the alleged abusive nature of such clauses was made by the judicial authorities. In conclusion, he called on the Committee to urge Ecuador in the strongest terms to comply with the observations formulated time and again by the ILO supervisory bodies.

The Government representative expressed thanks for the various interventions and the support from GRULAC, and agreed with the position outlined on several occasions concerning the method and criteria for the selection of cases. She also welcomed those delegations which had expressed their support and intention to share information and good practices on issues relating to the Convention. The non-attendance of a delegation from the capital was due to a situation of force majeure which had hit Ecuador and continued to affect it; and fell within the scope of the Union Nations General Assembly Resolution 56/83. Regarding the minimum percentage requirement for collective bargaining, she said that collective agreements applied to all workers, whether or not they were members of a labour organization, whether a trade union or a works council. Therefore, the requirement that the organization or group of organizations which were to negotiate collectively should represent over 50 per cent of the workers with stable contracts was based on the principle of representativity. With regard to the alleged penalization of strikes, it needed to be taken into account that the right to strike was a principle enshrined in Article 326 of the Constitution, and was therefore not punishable by law. However, as in the laws of many countries, the Constitution established limits on stoppages in basic services, defined essentially by the non-infringement of other peoples’ rights. Turning to the alleged acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment, Article 11(2) of the Constitution provided that all persons were equal and enjoyed the same rights, duties and opportunities, and were therefore protected against any form of discrimination. The constitutional rule, which was applicable in possible cases of anti-union discrimination, was given effect by section 452 of the Labour Code, which sought to guarantee the exercise of the right to organize by establishing an increased compensation for summary dismissal, as well as guaranteeing the continuation of the process of forming the labour organization that was being established. The purpose of removing Article 29(3) from the Constitution was to ensure and to unify the legal framework protecting workers, thus ending the hateful distinction between wage earners and public servants which divided and differentiated physical and intellectual effort. Its objective was the protection of all public servants so that, with the entry into force of the new regulations, they would all be covered by the LOSEP, the benefits of which were broader than those of the Labour Code. They included the right to annual leave of 30 days, which was double the 15 days provided by the Labour Code. On the establishment of trade unions, she recalled that, while 2,178 worker organizations had been registered between 1961 and 2007, 1,001 had been registered since 2007. Those figures were a clear indication of the opportunities to organize in the country.

The intention of the Constitutional Assembly with regard to the reforms had not been to negatively affect the trade union movement or collective bargaining in the public sector, but to avoid the perpetuation of the abusive practices of certain minority higher-level workers’ organizations, which generated inequality for the vast majority of Ecuadorian workers by accruing disproportionate privileges and benefits. A key point to bear in mind was that little more than a year before, the Act on labour justice and the recognition of household work had entered into force, which not only updated several provisions of the Labour Code, but also extended labour protection to vulnerable actors in the tripartite relationship. The main aim of the Act was to bring labour legislation into line with reality and make it as consistent as possible with the Conventions ratified by Ecuador. She welcomed the 2016 report of the Committee of Experts, which indicated that “its opinions and recommendations” were “non-binding, being intended to guide the actions of national authorities” and that they were “persuasive” in nature. She agreed with the comments of the Committee of Experts on the value of opinions and recommendations and considered that, although their application was not mandatory, they provided precious guidance to be taken into account. Lastly, she said that she had taken due note of the statements made by the representatives of the Employers and Workers and that their messages would be forwarded to the Ecuadorian labour authorities, who maintained an open attitude to dialogue, which they considered as the basis for good tripartite relations. Ecuador had appeared before the Committee willing to listen to the social partners and felt strengthened by the discussion that had taken place. It did not take the view that it had been subjected to criticism, but to a democratic exercise of tripartite dialogue, even in the face of the adverse conditions resulting from a natural phenomenon beyond the State’s control.

The Worker members said that the Government had shown neither consideration nor respect for the rights of workers in the public sector, particularly the fundamental right to collective bargaining, and for the ILO’s supervisory system. Although it had on several occasions received guidance on compliance with the Convention, as well as technical assistance from the Office, the Government had chosen to do precisely the opposite. Furthermore, in 2016 the Government had not appointed any workers to attend the Committee to express their views on the case, which was a clear violation of the ILO Constitution. Ecuador was far from complying with the Convention. The main amendments to the Constitution and labour laws had been adopted without consulting the trade unions. When trade unions and workers took action to express their opposition to the reforms, they had been met with teargas and in many cases had been detained or imprisoned. The Worker members were very worried about the serious anti-union climate in Ecuador and called on the Government to immediately take the necessary measures to bring an end to the constant attacks on workers and trade unions. They also urged the Government to meet the trade unions, which had already drafted and submitted specific proposals on how to comply with the Convention. Taking fully into account the observations of the Committee of Experts, they urged the Government to engage in a process of social dialogue to: (i) establish a clear timetable and process for bringing the Constitution into line with the Convention; (ii) amend the LOSEP and the LOEP to ensure that all workers, with the possible exception of persons who exercised authority in the name of the State, enjoyed the right to organize and bargain collectively in accordance with the Convention; (iii) amend section 221 of the Labour Code so that, when there was no union whose membership comprised more than 50 per cent of the workers, minority trade unions could, on their own or jointly, negotiate on behalf of their members; (iv) bring an end to the practice known as the “compulsory purchase of redundancy”; and (v) repeal Ministerial Orders Nos 80 and 155, which allowed clauses in public sector collective agreements to be declared “abusive”, a power that should only be exercised by the judicial authorities. They also urged the Government to cease all acts of violence and intimidation against trade unionists, refrain from making statements that discredited trade unions and accept a high-level tripartite mission to examine the issues raised by the Committee of Experts in its report and to devise a plan to address them without delay. Finally, in view of the seriousness of the case and the Government’s failure to appoint Workers’ delegates, they called for the conclusions on this case to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information it had provided. In their view, collective bargaining could not be replaced on the grounds of greater benefits would accrue. They requested the Government to provide updated information on the situation regarding the amendments to the Constitution and on their impact on the legal aspects of the case. Before amending the law in any way and to ensure that any legal texts adopted complied with the approved constitutional amendments and the Convention, they called on the Government to launch a consultation process with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. They reminded the Government that it could in any case avail itself of ILO technical assistance to conduct such consultations and the subsequent legislative reform.

Conclusions

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

The Committee welcomed the information provided by the Government and asked it to provide additional information on the state of the situation in relation to the constitutional amendments and on their impact on the legal aspects of the case.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee requested the Government to:

• - initiate a process of consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations prior to any amendment to the law, in order to bring all the relevant legislations into compliance with Convention No. 98;
• - amend the LOSEP and LOEP so as to ensure that all workers, with the possible exception of persons engaged in the administration of the State, enjoy the right to establish trade unions and to bargain collectively in accordance with the Convention;
• - repeal Ministerial Orders Nos 00080 and 00155 which allow clauses in public sector collective agreements to be qualified as abusive, an authority which should come only within the purview of the Judiciary;
• - accept a programme of ILO technical assistance in conducting the consultations referred to above and the subsequent legislative reform;
• - ensure that collective bargaining can be exercised in a climate of dialogue and mutual understanding.

The Committee deeply regrets that the Government failed to accredit a tripartite delegation to the Conference to enable a tripartite delegation to register for the discussion of its case before this Committee. The Committee refers the Government to article 3 of the ILO Constitution.

The Government representative took due note of the Committee’s conclusions and said that they would be sent to the Government for consideration.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2014, Publication: 103rd ILC session (2014)



A Government representative said that Ecuador’s commitment to respect and observe international labour standards dated back to when it joined the ILO in 1934. It had ratified 61 ILO Conventions, including Convention No. 98 and, most recently, the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156), and the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). She emphasized that, with the adoption of the Constitution in 2008 by way of a majority vote by the people of Ecuador, a new set of social policies had been established based on the ancestral Andean philosophy of Sumak Kawsay, or living well, which were geared to ensuring basic needs and life in harmony with nature. From that perspective, economic growth should be achieved taking into consideration a fair distribution of wealth. As such, priority had been given, not to the payment of foreign debt, but to the payment of social debt, and the 8 per cent fall in poverty between 2007 and 2011 had been achieved on the basis of the implementation of a national system for inclusion and social equity which respected diversity, prohibited discrimination of any kind and facilitated the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly the rights to work, food, health, housing and education. The progress made had enabled her country to be a benchmark for achievements in terms of plans for people with disabilities, action against child labour, and in particular, by its worst forms, environmental protection, reduction of extreme poverty and improved wealth distribution. In order to attain these objectives, a socio-economic inequalities atlas had been published, with the support of 12 bodies related to the United Nations. She added that the Constitution established the right to decent work and rights such as the workers’ right to organize without prior authorization. Alongside the Constitution, specific measures had been adopted in the labour sphere, with the aim of overcoming disparities between workers who, although carrying out the same work for similar hours of work, were not entitled to the same remuneration or the same social benefits. A mandatory social security system had been introduced, as well as better wages with the change in the production model. Better training for workers had also been promoted with a view to enhancing their options for earning higher wages.

Efforts had been made to developing a new Labour Code that better reflected current realities and was more in line with the international Conventions ratified by Ecuador. The draft had been developed with the ILO’s participation and had been submitted to the National Assembly on 1 May 2014. The articles had been structured along the lines of Convention No. 98, with the emphasis on the organization of workers and the establishment of trade unions, in the context of freedom of association. Its provisions included the following: prohibition of any act that obstructed workers in the formation of trade unions; prohibition for employers to terminate a contract of employment while the worker was on leave; prohibition of any type of act aimed at restricting or undermining workers’ rights to organize, and also of interference in the establishment, administration or support of workers’ organizations; and guarantee of collective contracts as a way to improve, inter alia, conditions of work in terms of wages, occupational safety and health, food and hours of work. The draft new Labour Code was progressive in establishing new types of unions and unionization by sector. Workers would be better represented and their rights would be more effectively guaranteed. Regarding the reinforcement of trade unionism, she said that the number of trade union registrations had significantly increased to 479, which represented a 300 per cent increase over the number established in the previous decade. The current Labour Code established the right to collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining agreements in certain public sector bodies contained clauses providing for excessive benefit, which created a privileged situation for the workers concerned amounting to a clearly unfair and discriminatory situation vis-à-vis other workers in similar conditions in the public sector. The magnitude of those benefits could be appreciated by referring to 363rd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association on Case No. 2684, paragraph 555 of which indicated that one of the complainant organizations had alleged the unjustified dismissal of some 300 workers of a State enterprise, and paragraph 556 stated that those workers were claiming the compensation due to them (US$200 million), as well as compensation for the damages caused). She emphasized that with a view to overcoming such imbalances, the Constituent Assembly, responsible for the drafting of the Constitution in 2008, had promulgated Constituent Resolutions Nos 2, 4 and 8, which had absolute legitimacy, as they had been promulgated on the basis of the people’s will expressed by means of several popular votes. Ministerial Orders Nos 00080 and 00155 did not restrict either collective bargaining or freedom of association. On the contrary, they contained standards, regulations and parameters for negotiation and above all they sought the full application of universal human rights principles, the upholding of equity and equality in the enjoyment of rights, and the application of the constitutional principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Lastly, she invited the ILO to send a technical cooperation mission, similar to the one received from 15 to 18 February 2011, details and objectives of which would be defined in due course.

The Employer members said that the present case relating to a fundamental Convention had been examined in 1987 and 1999. In 2013, the Committee of Experts had made several observations. In relation to Article 1 of the Convention on protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, it called for a specific provision guaranteeing such protection in the private sector. Regarding Article 4 on the promotion of collective bargaining, there was a need to amend section 229 of the Labour Code so as to allow minority trade union organizations, on their own or jointly, to submit draft collective agreements. The systemic nature of the Labour Code meant that any reform needed to involve meetings with tripartite bodies so as to ensure that reform was comprehensive. In the public sector, the new legislation did not provide for penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination or interference, and classified as public servants the great majority of workers in that sector, thereby denying them the right to collective bargaining. They referred to Decree No. 225 of 2010, which enabled the Ministry of Industrial Relations to unilaterally revise collective contracts applicable to workers in the public sector; the Basic Act on Higher Education (LOES) of 2010; and the Basic Act on Intercultural Education (LOEI) of 2011, which did not recognize the right of public employees in the education sector to engage in collective bargaining. They called on the Government, in consultation with the employers and workers, to take into account those observations aimed at amending legislation and to send a report on developments on this matter. They added that the Committee on Freedom of Association had referred to the Committee of Experts the examination of the legislative aspects of Case No. 2926 regarding allegations of many anti-union dismissals which were carried out in the public sector through the procedure known as the “compulsory purchase of redundancy”, established under Executive Decree No. 813. The Employer members endorsed the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in paragraph 391 of the 370th Report and reproduced below:

(a) Emphasizing that the principle of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination is fully applicable to public employees and workers, the Committee requests the Government to carry out an independent investigation, without delay, into the alleged anti-union character of the various dismissals and terminations specified in the complaint. If these allegations are found to be accurate, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to rectify the anti-union discrimination and to re-employ the victims. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect, and of their outcome.

(b) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the trade unions are consulted on the implementation of Executive Decree No. 813 with the view, inter alia, of avoiding any non-compliance with provisions of collective agreements and preventing any occurrence of anti-union discrimination. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that such consultations provide for the need to take measures, including legislative and regulatory measures if necessary, to introduce effective sanctions in the event of anti-union terminations and dismissals in the public sector.

(c) As regards the various judicial proceedings initiated against the adoption and implementation of Executive Decree No. 813, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of their outcome, and expects that the courts will pay due heed to the principle of protection against anti-union discrimination.

The Worker members recalled that the Committee of Experts had been commenting on the present case for over 20 years, without any tangible result. The present Committee had also examined the case in 1985, 1987 and 1999 and, in particular, it had focused on the issue of conformity of national legislation with Convention No. 98 and on anti-union practices that went against the promotion of voluntary and free collective bargaining. Despite the 2008 amendment to the Constitution, certain questions remained in suspense. Many trade unions had been closed down, union leaders had been dismissed and the collective representation of workers had been abolished. Certain practices had led to the destruction of the free union movement. Instead of workers’ organizations, the Government had set up citizens’ associations, such as the Citizens Labour Council, which had replaced the National Labour Council (a tripartite body), thereby denying the representativeness of workers’ organizations and their specific competence regarding the defence of workers’ rights. The new Constitution guaranteed workers the right to join a trade union without prior authorization and the freedom to carry out union activities. However, in practice, the exercise of those rights was hindered by many obstacles: in the private sector, a minimum of 30 workers was required in order to establish a trade union, which deprived a million workers of the possibility of exercising their rights since 60 per cent of enterprises employed fewer than 30 workers; and a trade union was only recognized if it gathered 30 signatures of founding members and submitted them to the employer. With regard to the public sector, the Constitution limited the right to establish trade unions and to negotiate in full freedom, by providing for the representation of workers by a single organization only, namely a single central committee composed of over 50 per cent of employees, which excluded minority unions. The Government had announced that the conditions of service of public sector employees would be standardized under one legal status under “administrative” law, which would indirectly put an end to the right to join a trade union or negotiate in the public sector. The majority of public sector workers would fall into the category of “public officials” and would thereby be denied the right to collective bargaining. It appeared that the new draft law had not been subject to consultation with the social partners. They recalled that since 2008 the main requests of the Committee of Experts covered: the amendments of several laws, of the chapter on labour of the Constitution and of certain ministerial agreements; the reinstatement of union leaders who had been removed from their functions; the need to conduct independent investigations into allegations of anti-union practices; and consultation with workers’ organizations.

Regarding the education sector, they referred to several serious cases of anti-union discrimination which had resulted in the imprisonment of the persons concerned: Mery Zamora, former President of the National Confederation of Education Workers of Ecuador had been sentenced to eight years in prison for sabotage and terrorism for the mere act of carrying out her mandate as President of the union; Luis Chancay had been removed from his post as a teacher for having carried out his functions as President of the National Union of Educators in the Province of Guayas; Carlos Figueroa from the Ecuadorian Medical Federation had been sentenced to six months in prison for having allegedly insulted the Government of the day; Clever Jimenez, Sisa Pacari, Mariana Pallasco and many others had been arrested and detained arbitrarily. They insisted on the need for the Government to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention. The refusal of the Government to consider the urgent need to restore freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining of workers in the private and public sectors undermined the image of the country in other organizations, such as the World Trade Organization and the Human Rights Council.

A Worker member of Ecuador, referring to the decisive contribution of the workers’ movement in the history of Ecuador said that for the workers it was all about weakening an oppressive system and severing ties with those who undermined social cohesion, exploited workers, exacerbated unemployment and precarious employment and encouraged the unfair distribution of wealth. Ecuador had suffered repeated currency devaluations, constant increases in fuel prices and public utility rates, restrictions on public spending, wage adjustments, with their severe impact on the informal economy, the deterioration of the production system and the dismantling of the State and of the whole of the national regulations and control system. That in turn had led to millions of Ecuadorians having to leave the country, the collapse of the national currency and ultimately the banking crisis and the adoption of a rescue package, which had provoked the biggest political crisis in the country’s history. He said that it was still difficult to speak of substantial changes in the country. However, the new Constitution continued to provide the workers with the means of establishing forums for dialogue in these uncertain times. While not a workers’ government, the present Government did at least enjoy national legitimacy, and there had been significant progress in education, health, housing, infrastructure, fuel policy and tax reform. In labour matters, however, there was no clear strategy for a national policy with the involvement of the workers, and workers were seriously threatened by dismissal and by administrative measures. He added that the draft new Labour Code, which had been submitted to the National Assembly, did not correspond to the needs or interests of the workers, but rather to those of the employers. The Constitution and ILO Conventions emphasized that labour rights were irrevocable and intangible, but the present Government sought to eliminate such rights as collective bargaining, the right to strike and pensions financed by employers. The national trade union movement therefore called for the draft to be replaced by a text reflecting the workers’ aspirations. It was essential for the underemployment rate to be significantly reduced, and for productivity and land distribution to be improved. In short, what was needed was to combat poverty, to support regional governments in their efforts to find new ways of combating injustice, social inequality and the imbalance between peoples and countries, and to eradicate hunger and poverty. A combined effort was needed to devise a new financial system and wage policies designed to introduce a fair minimum wage for each region. That should prevent workers from being exploited and employed on precarious contracts. Measures were required to eliminate all forms of child labour and exploitation and to enable young people and women to join trade unions. Trade union action in defence of agricultural workers and Ecuadorian communities abroad needed to be strengthened. Finally, given the abusive dismissal of workers in the public sector and elsewhere, and the fact that a new Labour Code was currently being drafted, he emphasized the need for the ILO to follow up the situation and make its observations on the spot, so that the complaints raised in the present Committee could be verified impartially.

Another Worker member of Ecuador observed that Ecuador’s Constitution provided, among its fundamental precepts, that development should be based on the creation of dignified, and stable work. Development therefore needed to guarantee all workers employment, a fair wage, health and safety at work, stability and social security. Collective bargaining processes had suffered heavily since the fragmentation of the trade union movement. Eight trade union federations existed for fewer than half a million organized workers, and of the 4.5 million Ecuadorians who had the right to belong to trade unions, only 2 to 3 per cent were actually members, most of them in the public sector. Unionization hardly existed in the private sector, which meant that there was no collective bargaining. Various aspects of collective bargaining had been abolished by constituent resolutions and executive decrees. Collective contracts had been reviewed, and in the process the Government had proposed to treat public sector institutions in the same way, meaning that currently certain rights were no longer discussed individually, and wages were tied to inflation. Section 229(3), provided that “public sector workers shall be subject to the Labour Code”, from which it could be clearly inferred that workers whom the Ministry of Industrial Relations classified as career public servants and who worked in public enterprises, were not covered by collective agreements and enjoyed hardly any of the rights that the Constitution considered to be inalienable and intangible. That created inequality before the law and seriously jeopardized the future of trade unions, as at least 60 per cent of unionized workers were subject to that system. He called on the Committee to recommend in its conclusions that the Government should fully respect the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining. On 1 May 2014, a new draft Labour Code had been submitted, which sought to establish a single labour system in the public sector, as a result of which all public sector workers would be excluded from labour legislation, thereby definitively eliminating unionization, collective bargaining and the right to strike for that sector. Finally, he requested the ILO’s technical assistance to ensure that the new legislation would contain elements of social justice and equity for all workers, supervisory mechanisms to guarantee decent conditions of work, job stability and strict compliance with workers’ rights, without any kind of discrimination.

The Employer member of Ecuador said that the request of Committee of Experts to amend section 229 of the Labour Code dealing with the submission of draft collective bargaining texts so that minority trade unions whose membership did not comprise more than 50 per cent of the workers covered by the Labour Code could negotiate on behalf of their own members only addressed part of the problem. The objective of the provision was that employers’ and workers’ organizations needed to be genuinely representative, since the submission of draft agreements could result in a situation where it was a non-representative minority of workers which instigated a collective dispute. If the Legislative Assembly were to agree to the Committee’s suggestion, it would have to reform the whole system of collective bargaining so as to avoid trade unions competing against each other in public and private enterprises and discussing issues that were not of interest to the workers they represented. Neither Convention No. 87 nor Convention No. 98 specified a minimum number of workers for establishing trade unions, yet the ILO Constitution and other instruments referred to the “most representative organizations” as having a role to play in various situations. In its report, the Committee of Experts stated that Constituent Resolutions Nos 002 and 004 and Executive Decree No. 1406, by setting a ceiling on remuneration in the public sector and excluding a series of matters from collective bargaining, were incompatible with the Convention. The same applied to Resolution No. 8 and to other instruments, inasmuch as the prevention of certain abuses in the clauses of collective contracts signed by public bodies or enterprises was a matter not for the administrative authority, but for the judicial authority. Those who represented State institutions in negotiations on collective contracts had to be competent people who would handle the issue with the sense of responsibility and due care of those dealing with the money of others, especially when the resources belonged to the community as a whole. However, Employers agreed that the right way to go about things was to abide by the legislation in force, on a case-by-case basis. It was for the competent judicial authorities to prevent or correct excesses or to make sure that wage demands in public institutions that belonged to the nation as a whole were accepted. With regard to the hope expressed by the Committee of Experts that, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, the Government would amend the provisions in question, as well as revise the Labour Code as a whole, the employers agreed with the principle that legislative reforms should indeed be conducted in consultation with the most representative social partners, in accordance with the ILO Conventions that Ecuador had ratified. He therefore looked forward to the establishment of the institutions that the ILO had helped to design, such as the Labour Board, which had not yet been convened for its members to examine the draft Labour Code currently before the legislature. Employers were willing to join Workers and the Government in creating an environment in which they could reach solutions by consensus to provide the country with a set of modern standards for promoting employment.

The Government member of Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), referred to the progress that had been made in several labour areas in Ecuador since the adoption of its Constitution in 2008, which as a whole, had benefited the workers and their families. The measures adopted were based on respect for human rights and the pursuit of equality and equity for citizens in the exercise their rights, including the right to equal pay for equal work. Regarding the application of Convention No. 98, through the Ministry of Industrial Relations, the Government had, since 2007, encouraged the development of a stronger trade union movement in both the public and private sectors. Some 479 labour organizations had been registered over the period, 300 per cent more than over the preceding decade. The Government had responded to the Committee of Experts’ comments and observations and, where the Committee of Experts had identified outstanding issues, those would be covered by the new Labour Code which, according to information supplied by the Government, was currently being drafted with the assistance of the ILO and of the social partners along the lines set out in Convention No. 98. She trusted that the Government would continue to pursue labour policies that satisfied domestic labour standards and the principles embodied in the ILO Conventions in force.

An observer representing Public Services International (PSI) indicated that in 2009 a delegation of the National Coordinating Body of Public Trade Unions had lodged a complaint concerning regressive labour policies in the public sector. Five years had passed since then and the smear campaign of the public sector trade unions, their leaders and their achievements was continuing. Evidence of that was in the statement made by the Ministry of Industrial Relations during an interview, indicating the fear that the corporate sector might have of the unionization of workers, which could be on account of the unions that existed previously. The trade union organizations of public sector workers no longer had much influence. Public sector workers were committed to social change, justice, equality, equity, democracy and the life of people. What had been considered in 2009 as “isolated facts”, today appeared as part of the steadily regressive State policy which had deepened and affected the right of the population to public services of quality. He called for a high-level tripartite mission to be sent to the country to verify in situ the situation of trade union rights in the public sector and the potential risk of further regression in labour matters in the private sector, and to establish institutional, permanent and representative dialogue with technical assistance from the ILO to comply with the observations and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Employer member of Mexico endorsed the fundamental importance, emphasized by the Committee of Experts, of proceeding in the context of the draft legislative reform, with the real and effective consultations with the most representative organizations of workers and employers. However, he did not support other observations of the Committee of Experts. The request of the Committee relating to the amendment of section 229 of the Labour Code concerning the submission of draft collective agreements did not consider that, in Ecuador, there were two forms of organizations: (1) work councils, composed of workers of the company who could conclude corresponding collective agreements with the employer; and (2) unions formed by diverse workers, including those working in the company in which they intended to conclude a collective agreement. In the latter case, majority representation was required. The opposite would mean the possibility of destroying the representation of workers, which would have negative effects and would complicate the administration of collective labour relations. The legislation in question did not impede the participation of more than one union and one employer in the conclusion of a collective agreement, but rather imposed order and protected the will of the workers so that they could choose the form of organization best suited to their interests. The opinion of the Committee could lead to a situation in which all workers would be subject to an agreement concluded by a minority and which could give rise to the formation of organizations that did not necessarily serve the interests of workers, but had the right to negotiate collective agreements, which would be contrary to Article 2(2) of Convention No. 98 and the principle of non-interference. Under those conditions, the conclusions of the Conference Committee should not support the recommendations of the report of the Committee of Experts. He also referred to the principles set forth by the Committee on Freedom of Association and, in particular: the distinction between representative unions and other unions; the entity of the “exclusive bargaining agent” with responsibility for negotiating of the collective agreement; and the rules on majority representation in collective bargaining.

An observer representing Education International indicated that teachers in Ecuador were covered by the Basic Act of the Public Service and the Basic Act of Intercultural Education, which did not include the right to organize and bargain collectively. Only 6.6 per cent of public employees were unionized and had the formal right to bargain collectively. Through new decrees, the Government was preventing unions from expressing their fundamental functions. The right to deduct union dues had been eliminated in August 2009 by ministerial decree. In September 2009, trade union leave had been abolished and the leaders were prohibited from admission into educational institutions. Executive Decree No. 16 of June 2013 intensified governmental interference in social and union organizations and imposed financial requirements which were impossible to attain. The Decree had been denounced as unconstitutional. In May 2014, the National Confederation of Education Workers (UNE) had been notified by the Ministry of Education that it would not continue to register the new union leadership until the requirements of the Decree were met. She referred to other cases of teachers sentenced to prison for their union activities and indicated that about 1,385 teachers had been dismissed.

The Employer member of the United Kingdom took note of the problems in the application of the Convention indicated in the observation of the Committee of Experts, including the list of public servants who were excluded from the right to collective bargaining which went beyond the exclusions allowed under Article 6 of the Convention. That Article, which needed clarification, provided that the Convention did not deal with the position of public servants engaged in the administration of the State or prejudice their rights or status in any way. Paragraph 172 of the 2012 General Survey concerning the fundamental Conventions referred to the need to distinguish between public servants who might be excluded from the scope of the Convention, and all other persons employed by the government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. Examination of the observation of the Committee of Experts revealed that there were different views on that distinction. It was a matter for the Government to decide, as the employer of public servants, whether to bargain collectively with public servants engaged in the administration of the State. Concerning the need for clarification, the Standards Review Mechanism should be implemented as a matter of urgency.

An observer representing the Confederation of University Workers in the Americas (CONTUA) indicated that, according to official statistics, some 185,000 public sector workers had been dismissed between June 2008 and June 2012, and that the figure was still rising. The dismissed workers included hundreds of union leaders and militants who, under various pretexts, had been denied their right to represent the workers and to engage in trade union activities. In fact, they had been dismissed simply for carrying out their union duties. Freedom of association was being systematically violated by repeated anti-union dismissals in the public sector. He cited specific examples of union leaders being dismissed, adding that, to do so, the Government had resorted to a legal device known as “compulsory resignation”, a euphemism for their arbitrary dismissal. The situation was liable to deteriorate even further in the months ahead because the Government was planning to adopt a new Labour Code that had not been discussed with the trade unions. Moreover, some of the acquired rights of public servants had been removed recently, even though they had been passed into law. He called for urgent action in the form of a direct contacts mission to promote social dialogue, resolve industrial disputes in accordance with the law, halt the dismissal of union leaders and create machinery for resolving current and future disputes.

The Government member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia supported the statement made on behalf of GRULAC and welcomed the Government’s efforts to support and strengthen the exercise of labour rights by workers and trade unions. The alignment of substantive labour standards with the new Constitution adopted in 2008 was a process which was accompanied by a series of social measures to benefit workers and society as a whole. It was significant that the measures and actions carried out by the Government had contributed to the establishment of new trade unions in recent years. The request for ILO technical assistance regarding labour law reform was important in bringing national standards into line with workers’ fundamental rights and promoting measures of equality and equity in full cooperation with the social partners.

The Worker member of the United States said that the regressive labour reform, which had begun in 2007 concerning public sector workers, now risked extending into the private sector, as was evidenced by the proposed new Labour Code. That proposal incorporated regressive legislation that had greatly reduced the collective bargaining rights, practices and coverage in the public sector over the last seven years, directly contradicting the overall observations and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts. Compared to the terms of Convention No. 98, the provisions of the draft law: (1) did not adequately safeguard and protect the exercise of freedom of association, the right to organize, bargain collectively and take collective action, such as strikes, and did not provide for sanctions against employers to prevent repeat offences; (2) failed to provide protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and to extend the right to collective bargaining to different classes of workers; (3) failed to penalize employers or public authorities which practiced or promoted acts of anti-union interference, although it equipped those who sought to interfere with union organization; (4) reduced union autonomy by setting lengthy and excessive financial and bureaucratic requirements to create and register unions and denied due process in legal status procedures; (5) eliminated the right to strike in the public sector and declared sympathy strikes to be illegal, while expressly precluding the right to voluntary negotiation; and (6) did not include the workers’ input despite the Government’s claim to have consulted the social partners pursuant to the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). He requested ILO assistance in ensuring that civil society had the requisite time and expertise to evaluate those proposals.

The Worker member of Brazil said that the case of Ecuador before the Committee provided the opportunity for an international tripartite discussion. The classification of public servants as workers engaged in the administration of the State was an old definition which, in the case of Ecuador, removed them from the scope of labour law and placed them under administrative law. The legislation that governed public servants did not recognize their right to organize or to engage in collective bargaining. According to the ILO General Survey of 2013 on labour relations (public service) and collective bargaining in Ecuador, public employment accounted for 10 per cent of the workforce (nearly 600,000 workers). Of those, 125,000 were manual workers and only 40,000 belonged to a trade union. The other 475,000 were career public servants, organized in employees’ associations, and public servants on casual service contracts and other forms of precarious employment, which implied that only career public servants were members of branch federations and confederations, and that most of those workers could not legally belong to another organization. The figures showed that barely 6.6 per cent of public workers to date were unionized and had a formal right to engage in collective bargaining. It also meant that already constituted organizations, whether unions or associations, had been prevented from fulfilling their mandate of defending the rights of their members. That policy was reflected in the adoption of provisions that ruled out the possibility in practice of establishing independent organizations, in arbitrary interference in the exercise of that right, in the promotion of the establishment of parallel workers’ organizations, in the compulsory dissolution of certain workers’ organizations, or in the indirect obstruction of organizations’ activities, for example through changing check-off criteria or refusing to provide premises or authorize the participation of workers in meetings and other union activities during working hours. Executive Decree No. 16 of June 2013 issuing the regulations for the operation of a consolidated information system for social and citizens’ organizations and Ministerial Order No. 130 of August 2013 issuing regulations for labour organizations denoted a tightening of government control in social organizations in general, and in workers’ organizations, in particular. Hence, there was a need for a direct contacts mission and for the establishment of a standing dialogue forum for dialogue to ensure a fairer future and the full participation of all Ecuadorian workers.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela emphasized that he supported the claims of the Ecuadorian workers who had been unjustly dismissed. Similarly, he offered the support of the Venezuelan workers in drafting the new Labour Code, which should be an instrument arising from social dialogue that acknowledged the aspirations of the Latin American working class. Finally, he stated his willingness to create bridges of communication with the Government.

The Government representative welcomed the support from Costa Rica as coordinator of the 34 countries that comprised GRULAC. She also thanked the delegations that had expressed their intention of sharing information on subjects related to Convention No. 98. The Government fully concurred with the Committee of Experts’ statement in paragraph 31 of the introduction to its 2014 report to the effect that “its opinions and recommendations are non-binding, being intended to guide the actions of national authorities” as they held a “persuasive” value, and it recognized that the Committee’s opinions did indeed provide valuable guidance even though they were non-binding. With regard to the comments she had heard, particularly from the Worker members, during the Constituent Assembly in charge of preparing the 2008 Constitution, the Ecuadorian people’s objective in issuing Constituent Resolutions Nos 002, 004 and 008, which were at the root of the complaints against Ecuador, was not concerned with the trade union movement or with collective bargaining in the public sector, but was rather intended to prevent the continuation of the abusive practices of certain minority higher-level workers’ organizations which were the source of inequality among the vast majority of Ecuadorian workers. Ecuador was engaged in full discussion of the new Labour Code, the first draft of which had been submitted to the National Assembly on 1 May 2014 in commemoration of Labour Day. The purpose of the new Code, which had been drafted in cooperation with the ILO, was above all to introduce labour standards that corresponded with present-day realities and in greater conformity with the international standards ratified by Ecuador. The desire of employer and worker representatives desire to be more directly involved in the discussion would be passed on to the country’s labour authorities, which were open to dialogue. The Government had responded to the appeal by the social partners with a readiness to listen to what they had to say and felt strengthened by the discussion in the Conference Committee. It therefore did not consider that it had been the object of criticism, but rather that it had been party to the democratic exercise of tripartite dialogue. In keeping with the transparent approach that the country had adopted in the process of reform and in its efforts to improve its social policies, in general, and its labour policies, in particular, she invited a new ILO technical cooperation mission to visit Ecuador, as it had in 2011.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative and other speakers. The case was long-standing and serious, as evidenced by the violence against trade unionists and by the growing trend to criminalize the exercise of trade union rights. This year again, the Committee of Experts had noted multiple cases of violations of trade union rights in Ecuador, in both the private and public sectors: many unions had been eliminated, union leaders dismissed, collective representation cancelled and measures were practiced which tended, in fact, to destroy the free and pluralistic trade union movement. It was urgent to oppose the new draft Labour Code which, if passed as it was, would eliminate trade union action and the right to collective bargaining. The Government needed to stop continuing on that path and engage in a constructive dialogue with those concerned, in particular with trade unions, whose rights and freedoms in training, operation and administration were re-established. It was essential that technical assistance from the Office, as it had requested it. In this regard, the Worker members agreed with the suggestion of the Employer members to propose a direct contacts mission. Time was pressing since the adoption of the new Labour Code was scheduled for the end of August 2014.

The Employer members made the following observations: (a) protection against acts of discrimination required specific legislation; (b) the legislation did not provide for penalties for acts of discrimination or interference in the public sector; (c) Decree No. 1406 established wage ceilings in the public sector and excluded certain issues, which went beyond the provisions of ILO Conventions; and (d) within the framework of Ministerial Order No. 0080 and Order No. 1551, the determination of the abusive nature of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector should be carried out by the judicial authorities. Those issues required legislative reforms, which should be undertaken adopting an integrated and systematic approach, on a tripartite basis, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations and in compliance with ILO Conventions. The new Labour Code should specify the requirement to hold consultations with the most representative groups of employers and workers, especially for amendment of the legislation. Those consultations should be real and effective, and merely communicating the bill to the organizations was not enough. The Employer members did not share the Committee of Experts’ opinions with respect to the following points: (a) the restrictive interpretation of Article 6 of Convention No. 98 which, according to the Employer members, allowed governments to exempt specific public officials from the application of the Convention; and (b) section 229 of the Labour Code respecting the submission of draft collective agreements by minority trade unions should not be amended, as the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 did not set thresholds in that respect. They thanked the Government for accepting a direct contacts mission to address issues related to Convention No. 98 and emphasized the need to amend the corresponding legal provisions comprehensively and systematically in tripartite consultations with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations in order to respond to the observations of the Committee of Experts on compliance with Convention No. 98. The Government was also asked to provide information on progress made to the next meeting of the Committee.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1999, Publication: 87th ILC session (1999)

The Government has supplied the following information:

During the workshop-seminar on international labour standards and their application in Ecuadorean law, organized from 17-18 February 1999 in Quito, under the auspices of the ILO Regional Office in Lima, there was a significant dialogue as well as a rapprochement between the deputies of the National Congress attending the event and the Minister of Labour and Human Resources. The possibility of communicating to the Congress a draft law revising the Labour Code and related laws was raised, in particular as concerns Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

A new Constitution entered into force on 10 August 1998 resulting in a reinterpretation of all national legislation and an ongoing reform process. In light of the new Constitution and the results of the aforementioned workshop-seminar, the Minister of Labour and Human Resources collected and updated proposals for two draft reforms prepared in the context of the technical assistance mission (4 to 10 September 1997) to bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Thus, exemptions and modifications are planned regarding certain legislative provisions criticized in observations and direct requests from the Committee of Experts, since the Government has already undertaken to implement the technical directives suggested by the ILO.

It is important to emphasize that certain suggested reforms will be routed alternatively as the length of the examination of the reforms by the Congress remains undetermined. As in the past the ILO will be informed as soon as the results of these various initiatives are known.

Argumentation

Since its entry into force on 10 August 1998 the Constitution sets forth the protection that the State owes to the worker, its attachment to the principles of social law, the intangibility of workers' rights, and, in particular, as is set forth in paragraphs 6 and 9 of article 35 which set forth respectively: "In case of doubt on the extent of legal, regulatory or contractual provisions as regards labour, these shall be applied in the manner most favourable to workers"; "The right of workers and employers to organize is guaranteed, as well as their free development, without prior authorization and in conformity with the law." The right to freedom of association is an inalienable principle and even in case of doubt in legal terms it must be defended and promoted by the State.

The harmonization of national legislation with a view to bringing it into conformity with the provisions of ratified international labour Conventions is an obligation from the time the Government joined the ILO and ratified the Conventions in question. This remains in practice a necessity according to the comments sent to the Government by the Committee of Experts concerning the failure to respect these Conventions. In this perspective, Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, which set forth rights and principles applicable to employers and workers would tacitly derogate, by virtue of article 163 of the Constitution, from various articles of the national Constitution and would entail the obligation to modify other articles. Thus, the provisions of these Conventions must be explicitly incorporated into the national legislation.

For the aforementioned reason, the Government presents the following draft of the law revising the Labour Code to ensure conformity of national legislation to current necessities and requirements.

Proposal for the revision of the Labour Code

Art. 1: Following article 452 of the Labour Code, the following paragraph will be inserted:

"Following communication of the refusal of official registration, a request for legal verification can, within 30 days, be filed with the competent legal authorities."

Art. 2: Article 466, paragraph 2 of the Labour Code, will include the following paragraph:

"In case of refusal to approve the works committee because of provisions contrary to the Constitution or to laws, the regulation will be as indicated in article 452."

Art. 3: Article 454, paragraph 11, will include the following paragraph:

"Under the protection granted by constitutional standards, higher-level organizations will have the right to express their opinions peacefully as to the economic and social policy of the Government."

Art. 4: In article 466, paragraph 4, the word "Ecuadoreans" is deleted.

In addition, a Government representative expressed his Government's regret at the observations regarding the lack of conformity of its national legislation to the provisions of Convention No. 98. He stated that he would take all steps to achieve the required harmonization. Over the past two years Ecuador had been through particularly difficult political circumstances, having removed a constitutional President of the Republic, established an interim Government which, 18 months later, yielded power to the present President of the Republic, who although legally and democratically elected by the people in May 1998, only took up his post last August. At the end of 1997, a constituent National Assembly had been established in Ecuador, charged by the people to draft a new Constitution. The Assembly, after six months' deliberation, set out a new Constitution, which entered into force on the day of accession of the new Government, that is, only on 10 August 1998. Among its basic standards, the Constitution included the following: it set forth the protection that the State owes the worker, its attachment to social law and the intangibility of workers' rights. The speaker referred to the text of article 35, paragraphs 6 and 7, on the right to organize, reproduced in the written information communicated by the Government, and stressed that the right to freedom of association was an inalienable principle which could not be violated and which the State must defend and promote. Further, paragraph 12 of article 35 of the Constitution expressly guaranteed the right to collective bargaining. Consequently, any legal agreement thus established could not be unilaterally modified or altered in any way. Article 163 was of special importance, since by virtue of this article the standards set forth in international treaties and Conventions, when promulgated, would become an integral part of the national legislation and would take precedence over lower-ranking laws and other standards. Thus, under the terms of the Constitution, international Conventions, and in this specific case of the ILO, would be automatically incorporated into Ecuadorean legislation and would be accorded a special importance, taking precedence over such laws and standards as might be in opposition to them.

However, it goes without saying that the drafting of a new Constitution involves alterations in national standards, and as such represents a major legal undertaking, so as to bring secondary legislation into line with the text of the new Constitution as well as several texts which had already been elaborated, with the cooperation of the ILO through a technical assistance mission in 1997, agreement of the texts with the new Constitution should be attained, with no concurrent diminution in their value and applicability. Finally, he stressed the value of the constitutional standards and their guaranteed application, by stating that whoever claimed his rights as a worker, as guaranteed under article 163 cited above, and had been infringed could submit an appeal in two ways: either in the form of a habeas corpus procedure, before a judge of the first instance, or directly to the Constitutional Tribunal, court of the highest independent jurisdiction.

In conclusion, he reiterated his regret that, for reasons already expressed centering around the political and legal instability through which his country had been passing until only a few months previously, and the recent entry into force of a new Constitution, that it was not possible on this occasion to report any definite results regarding the observations made on Ecuador's application of the Convention. In this connection, an information campaign launched this year with the aid of the ILO Regional Office (Lima) would raise awareness of legal and judicial functions and increase the scope of the country's commitment to ILO Conventions, thereby ensuring their application by the legal administrators; the campaign would also encourage members of National Congress to establish joint action with the Government and most importantly, with employers' and workers' organizations. This should yield definite progress in a very short time, with the drafting of legal standards in harmony with the Conventions and the constitutional standards. Thus worker and employer groups would join with the Government, with a view to stimulating legal action in all necessary fields. The speaker closed, thanking the ILO for the great help it had already given to Ecuador, and expressed his hope that his country could continue to count on the Office's aid.

The Worker members recalled that for several years previously the Committee had examined this case concerning the application by Ecuador of several Conventions, including the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The current situation in Ecuador as regards trade unions has been examined since 1987 and in 1988 and 1989 the case of Ecuador was even mentioned in a special paragraph. Specific observations had been formulated by the Committee of Experts in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1998 as regards the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Several technical assistance missions had been carried out in Ecuador by the ILO with a view to ensuring that the appropriate measures be taken. The Worker members had nonetheless had to conclude that these actions had had no effect on the content of the responses by the Government; it continued to assert that it was examining the problem and that it would soon enact new legislation. The progress that occasionally had been noted had been too slight to be credible.

The Worker members noted that the Government made reference to the new Constitution both in its written and oral submissions. This Constitution provided expressly that freedom of association be implemented by legislation. The relevant legislation had, however, not yet been amended although the Minister of Labour had announced future amendments. Furthermore, the Government had only made reference to certain selected parts of the Constitution. Other provisions of the Constitution, such as the imposition of a trade union monopoly within state institutions, did not, however, conform to international standards. The Government did in fact limit itself to citing selected provisions and principles of the Constitution, but did not make reference to any other concrete measures that would have been taken in response to the main substantive issues and the frequent discrepancies noted by the Committee of Experts. The Government had even succeeded in surprising the Committee of Experts last year by wholly ignoring the results obtained during the technical assistance mission.

According to information from Worker members, the Government had decided in April 1999 to replace the SENDA (the National Secretariat of Administrative Development) by another system -- the National Council for Wages in the Public Service. This Council was composed of three members -- the Ministers of Finance and of Labour, and a worker member. The Council took its decisions by majority and had been given wide competence. It had total control over collective bargaining and fixed maximum wage levels. It could also forego the application of a collective agreement. The Committee of Experts noted in its report again this year that no measures had yet been taken to amend article 3(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act to allow members of the public service or other public institutions or private institutions with social or public function to exercise the rights provided for in the Convention. The Committee of Experts regretted that the report of the Government made no reference to the questions raised regarding protection against acts of discrimination against trade unionists in employment or to the provisions in the Labour Code regulating the submission of draft collective agreements. Finally, the Committee of Experts had felt compelled to recall to the Government that, as regards teachers, it was requested to take measures to amend its legislation so that teachers could exercise the right to collective bargaining at all levels. In its examination of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee of Experts "while taking note of the goodwill expressed by the Government, observes that there continues to be a large number of provisions that should be modified in order to bring the legislation and the practice into conformity with the Convention". Furthermore, the Committee had noted that certain new provisions of the 1998 Constitution gave rise to, or could give rise to, problems with respect to the application of the Convention.

The Worker members emphasized that they agreed that the Committee of Experts should make reference to the good intentions expressed by the Government. However, although the Government had good intentions, they might prove wholly insufficient. It was becoming increasingly difficult to accept recurrent declarations of good intentions reiterated year after year, in particular as the ILO had spared no efforts to provide technical assistance to the Government. The Worker members declared last year that "technical assistance and direct contacts missions of the ILO were not intended to serve as means to gain time. They were intended to promote the application of the Conventions by a thorough examination of the problems and by a search for and implementation of efficient solutions". The Worker members therefore had demanded that specific conclusions should be formulated. They had requested that the Committee re-examine the case again this year and they had also requested that this demand be contained in the conclusions by the Committee. The authorities should cease to interfere with collective bargaining and should bring their legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention both in the private and public sectors taking into account all the observations made for more than ten years by the Committee of Experts. The Government should provide a detailed report of measures taken in time for an analysis by the Committee of Experts. Finally, should no progress be noted in the course of the next year, the Worker members would propose another set of conclusions in the Committee's report.

The Employer members noted that last year this Committee had examined the case of Ecuador with regard to its application of Convention No. 87. Although the case before this Committee was not on the same subject-matter as that case, the problems which had occurred with respect to the implementation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 were similar. They noted that following a technical assistance mission in 1997, two Bills had been drafted for the purpose of repealing, inter alia, section 1 of Decree No. 2260 which imposed the requirement that the National Secretariat of Administrative Development (SENDA) provide advice on draft collective agreements in the public sector. In this respect, they agreed with the findings of the Committee of Experts in its observation that this provision itself was not contrary to the provisions of the Convention, and pointed out that the ILO had no right to interfere with national matters in this respect. Moreover, they noted the information communicated by the Government in its report to the Committee of Experts to the effect that SENDA no longer existed.

With reference to collective bargaining in the public sector, they said that legal action should be taken in order to enable workers in official departments or other public sector institutions, as well as private sector institutions within the social or public sphere, to enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention. In addition, it was necessary that provisions be modified so that the establishment of works committees was not dependent on the requirement that they be established by more than 50 per cent of the workers in question. With regard to the education sector, they recalled that although teaching staff did enjoy the right to organize and to bargain collectively at the national level, it should be for the trade union to decide at which level -- national, regional, provincial or branch -- it wished to carry out collective bargaining. However, they appreciated the attitude of the Government with respect to the need to take appropriate action. In conclusion, they stated that the preparation and adoption of the new Constitution referred to by the Government representative was not sufficient. A constitution provided a framework which needed to be implemented by law. Therefore, the Government should be requested in the conclusions of this Committee to continue at a rapid pace the legislative process that had already begun in order to bring its national legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker member of the United States indicated that the Committee in its consideration of this case seemed to be constantly searching for the truly honest government, since the same basic issues concerning the country's non-compliance with the Conventions on freedom of association, the right to organize and to bargain collectively had come before this Committee a number of times. He noted that during the course of an ILO technical assistance mission, the Government had stated that it was taking all the necessary measures to remedy several areas of non-compliance with the Convention. The Government had pointed in particular to two bills drafted in 1997; however, these bills had still not been enacted into law. While recognizing that this Committee had chosen to discuss the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning Convention No. 98 rather than Convention No. 87, he stressed that the rights set out in these two Conventions are closely intertwined, and the issues related thereto are often difficult, if not impossible, to separate.

The Worker member stated that, despite the Government's assertions, a large portion of public sector workers classified as civil servants and administrative career personnel, including public school teachers, did not have the right to bargain collectively or to strike. He noted that while the National Union of Educational Personnel may be allowed to take part in a sort of collective forum, this could not be equated with the right to bargain collectively concerning wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment, nor was it an acceptable substitute for the right to strike. He also pointed to the fact that although SENDA no longer existed according to the Government, due to a law enacted in April 1999, this body had been replaced by the National Public Sector Remuneration Council, which could not be considered to be truly tripartite since the Government representatives sitting on the Council could outvote the social partners. He emphasized that this Council had total authority to determine wages, hours and terms and conditions in the public sector, and that collective agreements with public sector workers could not include indexed wages. In addition, public sector employers illustrating economic difficulties were entitled to suspend their obligations under collective agreements.

Like the Committee of Experts, he expressed regret that there had been no response from the Government concerning the lack of legislative protection against anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment in both the public and private sectors. He asserted that without such provisions, one could not reasonably find that there had been effective compliance with either Convention No. 87 or 98. With respect to workers in the public sector who are denied the right to bargain collectively, as well as those private sector workers classified as being employed in a social or a public sphere, who may only exercise that right if they succeed in establishing Committees authorized by more than 50 per cent of the entire workforce, he emphasized that this continuing legal obstacle effectively denied collective bargaining rights to a large segment of the workforce.

Although it had not been raised by the Committee of Experts, he drew the Committee's attention to the 1990 Export Processing Zone Law. In his view, this Law gave rise to significant problems with respect to the country's obligations under the Convention, since it allowed any enterprise to obtain EPZ status regardless of where it was located in the country, thus enabling temporary workers to be hired outside the scope of the guarantees provided in the Labour Code, particularly with respect to the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Furthermore, he asserted that there could be no effective or substantial compliance with either Convention No. 87 or 98 where the Government and the legal system could not protect the physical integrity and the freedom of expression of workers and their representatives. In this context he indicated that on 30 September 1998, a government official had publicly threatened to prosecute the President of the Confederation of Ecuadorean Free Trade Unions on the basis of "disparaging remarks about the country and for threatening national security". He asserted that this illustrated that trade unionists exercising freedom of expression in the country suffered threats of reprisals. In addition, on 5 September 1998 the tortured corpse of an executive officer of the Ecuadorean Trade Union Central was found.

The Worker member of the United States then concluded by expressing his full agreement with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, and he hoped that the Government would be able to demonstrate real progress with regard to compliance with the Convention.

The Worker member of Guatemala welcomed the explanations given by the Minister of Labour of Ecuador and confirmed that Ecuador's new Constitution did indeed contain social and labour rights that guaranteed collective bargaining and gave priority to international standards over national standards. Problems arose, however, in their practical application. Constitutions were not regulations and only contained principles that then had to be given effect by ordinary domestic legislation. He stated that taking into account the background, the Committee should reach the conclusion that the problems relating to the application of Convention No. 98 persisted and needed to be resolved, thus the conclusions of the Committee of Experts should be supported. As the Minister of Labour had indicated, an appeal could be lodged and there were other ways of contesting constitutionality, but the procedures were lengthy and did not prevent damage being caused. Ecuador should not only bring its legislation into line with ILO standards, but also with the principles set out in its new Constitution. He underlined the benefits of negotiation for resolving social problems. Lastly, he indicated that in Ecuador there were limitations on the right of association and collective bargaining in the teaching sector.

The Worker member of Ecuador commended the Committee of Experts on its report, particularly in relation to the application by Ecuador of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. He stated that one of the draft laws prepared by a technical assistance mission in 1997 had envisaged the abolition of the National Secretariat of Administrative Development (SENDA), after consensus had been reached between the Government, workers and employers, in view of the fact that SENDA could unilaterally, under the terms of Decree No. 2260, modify agreements which had been freely concluded by the parties through a collective agreement. In its report, the Government had stated that SENDA no longer existed and that it was about to take measures to abolish its functions. In practice, these functions had been assigned to a body called the National Public Sector Remuneration Council, with the aggravating factor that it had been given unlimited powers to establish maximum levels of wage increases, social benefits and conditions covered by collective agreements, thereby eliminating the freedom to negotiate. Although this body included a workers' representative (the other two were from the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Finance), it was clear that its decision would be taken in the exclusive interests of the Government, which had, therefore, become both judge and jury.

With regard to the request made by the Committee of Experts that section 3(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act be amended, it was essential to take into account the provisions of section 253 of the Labour Code, which protected the right of all workers in social and public bodies to collective bargaining, and only excluded managerial and administrative level officials. Similar protection was set out in article 35 of the Political Constitution of the State.

He recalled that the Government had not taken any measures to overcome the incompatibility between national law and practice and the Convention. Anti-union discrimination had worsened, as evidenced through various practices and laws. Dating from the reform of the Labour Code in 1991, employers were recruiting workers through intermediaries and contractors, although they always avoided taking on more than 29 workers, so that the workers were not able to establish a trade union or engage in collective bargaining. In Ecuador, the minimum number of workers required to be able to exercise this right was 30. Moreover, there was no legal right to conclude sectoral-level collective agreements. These could only be concluded at the enterprise level. Many employers required workers to join associations which were controlled by the enterprise. When workers decided to organize for the first time and proposed a collective agreement, they were dismissed and had to initiate legal action to obtain compensation. This situation had given rise to great fear among workers who were trying to organize and propose collective bargaining that they ran the risk of losing their job in a country in which, of the economically active population of 4.2 million persons, around 3 million were unemployed or underemployed.

With regard to the freedom of association and right to collective bargaining of teaching personnel, there had been no progress. Teachers were obliged to call at least one lengthy strike each year to obtain wage increases.

He stated that the Government's report encouraged the hope that progress could be made in law and practice for the application of the Convention. However, in practice, exactly the contrary was occurring, as illustrated by an examination of the content of sections 51 to 57 of the Act to reform public finances of 30 April 1999. This Act was in contradiction with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

Nevertheless, despite the above, there was a readiness on the part of the Government to undertake legislative reforms for which, as it had stated in its report, it would call upon the technical assistance of the ILO. Based on this statement, and in view of the fact that technical assistance missions had been undertaken on various occasions, it might be necessary to send a direct contacts mission to achieve once and for all the harmonization of national law and practice with the Convention.

The Government representative stated that the National Secretariat of Administrative Development (SENDA) no longer existed; therefore, its authority unilaterally to amend agreements reached freely by parties to a collective agreement had been abolished. As far as the situation in Ecuador was concerned, he explained that the Constitution itself could not give effect to the provisions of the Convention, which required the enactment of hundreds of laws that would be adopted over the next four years. He highlighted the work carried out by the ILO Office in Lima, which supported the Government's efforts to promote ILO standards. Lastly, he reaffirmed the Government's intention to bring its legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee noted the statement made by the Minister of Labour and the written information supplied by the Government as well as the discussion which took place thereafter. It noted the constitutional developments which had taken place recently, but expressed serious concern that there had been very little progress in the situation of compliance in law and practice with the Convention. It urged the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to bring its legislation into full conformity with this fundamental Convention ratified 40 years ago. In particular, it stressed the need to reinforce the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and to remove the administrative obstacles to free collective bargaining in the private sector. The Committee also strongly urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that workers in official departments or other public or semi-public sector institutions, as well as teachers at all levels, enjoy fully the right to organize for the protection of their occupational interests and the right to bargain collectively their employment terms and conditions. It recalled that the International Labour Office was at the Government's disposal to provide technical assistance which might be necessary in this regard. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply detailed information to the Committee of Experts in its next report on the measures effectively taken to ensure in the very near future full compliance with the Convention in law and in practice.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

See under Convention No. 87, as follows:

The Government has communicated the following information:

A new Minister has been in charge of the country's labour policy since 12 May 1987. He will try, when the opportunity presents itself, to push for the legal amendments which have been proposed. For this reason, he requests a judicious measure of patience.

The Government reports that the Court of Constitutional Guarantees, on the occasion of a proceeding brought by workers' representatives challenging the continuing validity of Legislative Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, confirmed that it was still in effect, since it did not violate any constitutional principles. When the Court's decision was presented to the Plenary of the Permanent Legislative Committees of the National Congress, the Parliament confirmed the judgment.

This situation reaffirms and confirms the position which the Government has been maintaining with regard to the above mentioned Legislative Decree, to the effect that it in no way infriges upon the right to organise, or freedom of association, or the spirit or the letter of Convention No. 87.

Primacy of the Constitution over other laws. This concept, embodying the legal hierarchy, is set forth in the Constitution. The guiding principles for labour rights are incorporated in this Constitution. The right to organise trade unions is guaranteed by the Constitution; it is a constitutional precept. Workers' right to strike and employers' right to lock out are guaranteed by the Constitution: they are constitutional precepts.

The right to strike, guaranteed. by the Constitution and effectively protected by the laws, constitutes the suspension of work, called by workers under certain circumstances specifically set forth in positive norms, within the framework of a collective dispute between the employer and his or her workers, as made known to the competent authorities on the subject. This enables the strikers to remain at the workplace and to be watched over by the police, who guarantee order and protect the strikers from the involvement of agitators or strikebreakers. The penalty for leaders of a strike which has been declared illegal is none other than the loss of their stability of employment. The "lock-out" or "work stoppage" (paro) is, in the labour field, the suspension of work provided by the employer, under certain precise circumstances and also within the framework of a process subject to the jurisdiction of the labour authorities. The "stoppage" (paro) referred to in Legislative Decree No. 105 of the National Assembly is something else, since this Legislative Decree is not labour-related in nature.

Legislative Decree No. 105 refers to activities which criminally paralyse the entire nation or locality for disruptive purposes. It refers to misdeeds which fall within the scope of crimes against the internal security of the State or public safety. It is related to the chapters of the Penal Code which are pertinent for the characterisation of such infractions and in particular sections 129, 130, 135, 136, 153, 155, 158, 159, 218 and 221 of that Code.

The Government requests that it be acknowledged in respect to the continuing allegations made concerning Legislative Decree N o. 105, approved by the National Constituent Assembly, that the Legislative Decree in no way runs counter to legal strikes. which are broadly protected by the Constitution and the laws, and that it does not in any way diminish the application of the Convention.

The legal value protected by Legislative Decree No. 105 is public order and the internal security of the State. The direct victim of the crimes could be any inhabitant of the Republic, whether a national or a foreigner; the indirect victim is civil society in general and could even be the State itself in terms of its political organisation.

When the Legislative Decree uses the word "stoppage" (paro), it does not use it in the same sense as the Labour Code: it does not deal with" a suspension of work ordered by an employer or combination of employers".

In this case the word "stoppage" ("paro") is used to mean "paralisation", arbitrarily imposed, by means of a rebellious attitude toward the legitimate authorities, in which daily life in an area is completely suspended in a region or in the nation as a whole, taking advantage of a situation of total or partial anarchy in the community affected and disturbing the peace of the inhabitants.

The penalties provided for in our Penal Code, in order to protect the internal security of the State and public order, are not unknown in the legislation of other countries. All civilised nations on the globe in one way or another envisage measures designed to defend the survival of the state entity and to protect society from anarchy. As Beccaria said, "The primal and the ultimate crimes, since they are the most dangerous, are those termed lèse majesté...; any crime, even a private crime, is an offence to society, but not every crime aims at its immediate destruction."

In addition, a representative of the Government of Ecuador cited in full the comments of the Committee of Experts in its 1987 report with regard to the Convention. Subsequently, he referred to the information provided by his Government in writing and also read out certain provisions of the Constitution and the Labour Code relating to the right to organise and the right to strike.

The Workers' members insisted upon the fact that national legislation was not in conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Two direct contacts missions had taken place in 1980 and 1985. Amendments to the legislation were prepared at the time of the direct contacts mission in 1985. They stated that it was essential to adopt these amendments. They did not think that a new mission of direct contacts was necessary since this would only delay matters. They requested the Government representative to furnish information on the implementation of the legislative reforms which were envisaged.

The Employers' member reminded the Committee that the report of the Committee of Experts had clearly drawn attention to a number of violations, which varied in their importance, with respect to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. At the time of the direct contacts mission in 1985, draft proposals had been worked out so as to ensure the conformity of national legislation with the Conventions. They thought it would be helpful if the Government representative could indicate whether the legislative reforms which had been envisaged had been adopted and, if not, to indicate whether they would be adopted in the near future. They were not convinced that a new direct contacts mission, as requested by the Government, would serve a useful purpose since the amendments necessary to ensure the compliance of national legislation with the Conventions had already been developed at the time of the 1985 direct contacts mission.

The Worker member of Ecuador expressed his complete disagreement with the information communicated in writing by the Government, as well as with the statement made by the Government representative. He stated that government policy with regard to labour matters rested with the President of the Republic through the labour co-ordination office, and not with the Minister of Labour. The nomination of a new minister would not therefore have an important impact on the situation and would not lead to the adoption of legislation giving effect to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, whose provisions were not respected. He added that, certainly, the Constitution and the Labour Code honoured the basic principles of labour law. In practice, however, these principles were not respected. This meant that public employees did not have the right to form trade unions, although the Constitution guaranteed the right. Nor did they enjoy the right to strike, although this was permitted under the Constitution. The Act concerning the civil service and carreers in the administration was contrary to the Constitution. It was essential for the Government to take the necessary measures to reform this Act, since it was the basis of the problem. Furthermore, in practice, when workers presented their demands or gave notice of a strike, employers responded by dismissing workers, often en masse. In other cases, they dismissed trade union leaders. Although arbitration and conciliation tribunals had the right to insist on the reinstatement of workers who had been dismissed for having gone on strike, no one had been reinstated. The prohibition imposed on trade unions to participate in the activities of political or religious parties was also a violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The granting of exclusive rights to bargain collectively to "work councils" was another violation of these Conventions. What was even more serious was the classification of public servants into two categories, those who were covered by the Labour Code and those who were covered by the Act concerning careers in the administration.

As far as Legislative Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967 was concerned, the Government had declared that its objective was to penalise criminal acts aimed at paralysing the activities of national or local communities. He stated that this was false; work stoppages punished by Legislative Decree Nos. 105 were specifically industrial strikes since these were organised and carried out by the four central trade union organisations. It was not, therefore, a question of crimes against the internal security of the State. Nevertheless, Legislative Decree No. 105 had to considered as abolished by the 1979 Constitution and should not, therefore, be applied.

Another Government representative, the Deputy Minister of Labour of Ecuador, indicated that the labour co-ordination office under the responsibility of the President of the Republic was not in charge of the country's labour policy, but was responsible for co-ordinating everything that related to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Constitution guaranteed the right to organise. Civil servants had enjoyed the right to strike since 1979 following the adoption of amendments to the Labour Code, as the last direct contacts mission had been able to observe. As far as the legal provisions on the prerequisites for workers in the public sector to organise were concerned, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees had suspended them for some time. With regard to Legislative Decree No. 105 of 1967, he stated that it was still in effect and its validity had been confirmed in January 1987 by this Court. He said that the Government of Ecuador had noted with interest the comments of the Committee of Experts. This was why the Government was interested in a new direct contact mission to visit the country so that it could familarise itself with the situation. It would be able to see the existence of trade unions and get in touch with the members of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees as well as with the representatives of Parliament. For this reason, he thought that it was not the time to adopt conclusions critical of Ecuador. He added that there was at the moment an ILO official in Ecuador studying the difficulties with respect to applying vari- ous standards concerning civil servants, which proved the Government's willingness to guarantee the full exercise of rights, not only for workers in the public sector but for all workers. Legislative Decree No. 105 of 1967 did not penalise either the workers or their leaders since in Ecuador the right to strike was guaranteed, but rather the Decree was intended to punish criminal acts, no matter who was responsible for them, which were meant to endanger the internal peace and security of the State.

The Worker member from the United Kingdom recalled that the Committee of Experts had expressed its regrets that the Government had not furnished information on the measures which it intended to undertake so as to give follow-up to the direct contacts missions. The information provided by the Government in writing did not provide any new information on this point. With regard to the Government's request for a new direct contacts mission, he could not see the value of this, since the Committee of Experts had already established the fact that the legislation must be amended. He added that the Government representative of Ecuador should be requested to state specifically if the legislation was going to be amended in such a way as to ensure the application of the relevant Conventions.

The Deputy Minister of Labour declared that it was because his Government considered that certain points had not been settled during the last direct contacts mission, despite the excellent work achieved in the course of this visit, that it had requested a new mission to come to Ecuador to complete the task which had already been undertaken. Furthermore, following the last visit, certain decisions had been taken by certain bodies independent of the executive branch of government, such as for instance the above-mentioned decision taken by the Court of Constitutional Guarantees.

The Workers' members emphasised the fact that the 1985 direct contacts mission had worked out precisely the changes which needed to be made so as to bring national legislation into conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. A new mission would not contribute anything new, and would merely delay by one or two years the adoption of the reforms which were necessary. Under these conditions and given the fact that the problem was an old one which had been dealt with for some time, they proposed the adoption of a special paragraph to express the concerns of the Committee and to request the Government to give follow-up to the draft reform proposals prepared during the course of the last direct contacts mission and to adopt the legislation to the requirements of the Conventions.

The Employers' members recalled the fact that no new information had been provided concerning changes in the legislation within the context of the draft proposals prepared during the last direct contacts mission, and expressed the view that they did not find the request for a new direct contacts mission to be very convincing. Given the importance of the question which had been considered in the Committee for a number of years, they expressed their support for the proposal of the Workers' members to include a special paragraph in the report of the Committee concerning this problem in the hope that the Government would put into effect measures which had been proposed for a long time.

The Committee took note of the detailed discussions which had taken place on the application by Ecuador of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, and in particular and especially the information furnished by the representatives of the Government. The Committee regretted that no measures had yet been taken to give effect to the Conventions with regard to several points raised by the Committee of Experts. The Conference Committee drew attention once more to the comments of the Committee Experts and to the detailed proposal which had been worked out during the direct contacts mission in December 1985. It requested the Government to consider taking the necessary measures to revise the legislation. The Committee hope that the Government would take action rapidly on the basis of the observations and proposals mentioned above and that it would be able to indicate next year that substantial progress had been achieved towards ensuring compliance of the legislation with the Conventions. Finally, the Committee decided to mention this case in a special paragraph.

The Deputy Minister of Labour said he reserved the right to express certain reservations once he had studied the text and the terms of the conclusions.

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

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

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in June 2025 in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the Conference (the Conference Committee) regarding the application of the Convention by Ecuador. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee noted the Government’s stated readiness to cooperate with the ILO, make use of its technical assistance and continue its consultation with the social partners to strengthen legal protection that fully guarantees the right to organize and collective bargaining. Taking into account the discussion, the Conference Committee urged the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the collective labour law framework, in alignment with the Convention and in consultation with social partners at the National Labour and Wage Council, ensuring reasonable coherence and taking effective measures to: ensure that collective bargaining occurs in a conducive environment, establishing appropriate mechanisms and respective legal protections for all categories of workers and employers covered by the Convention; review regulations concerning the establishment of employers’ and workers’ associations and collective bargaining practices; provide data on: (i) collective bargaining in the public and private sectors, including the number of collective agreements in force in the country, the date of entry into force and renewal, and the number of workers covered by sectoral collective agreements; (ii) the number of affiliated workers and their respective unions, the number of enterprise committees, and the number of employers’ organizations and respective affiliated members; address anti-union discrimination, prevent interference in workers’ and employers’ organizations and guarantee the right to collective bargaining in law and practice and provide information on cases processed, sanctions imposed or effective corrective measures taken.

The Conference Committee invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to effectively implement all the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee requested the Government to provide a detailed report on progress made to implement the above recommendations to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2025.

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

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

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

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

Application of the Convention in the p rivate sector

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

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

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

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

Application of the Convention in the public sector

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the observations of the Trade Union Association of Agricultural, Banana and Rural Workers (ASTAC), the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CEOSL), the Federation of Petroleum Workers of Ecuador (FETRAPEC), the National Federation of Education Workers (UNE) and Public Services International (PSI) in Ecuador of 2022, and the Government’s reply to the joint observations of the FETRAPEC, PSI in Ecuador and the United Workers’ Front (FUT) of 2023. The Committee also notes the detailed joint observations of PSI in Ecuador, the CEOSL and FETRAPEC received on 31 August 2024, and the observations of the CEOSL received on 5 October 2024, and notes the Government’s reply in this respect. The Committee notes that these observations deal in detail with issues that the Committee is examining in the present comment and allege acts of anti-union discrimination, including anti-union dismissals, blacklisting and partial compliance with rulings ordering the reinstatement of trade union leaders. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these allegations.

Technical assistance, direct contacts mission requested by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (hereinafter the Conference Committee) in the context of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee notes that, when examining the application of Convention No. 87 by Ecuador in June 2024, the Conference Committee once again addressed issues that have a direct impact on the capacity of workers to engage in collective bargaining of their terms and conditions of work and consequently on the application of the present Convention. The Conference Committee expressed concern that the Government had not yet accepted the direct contacts mission requested in 2022 and had not had recourse to ILO technical assistance for the effective application of all the recommendations made by the Conference Committee. The Committee firmly trusts that the Government will accept the direct contacts mission requested by the Conference Committee in 2022 and hopes that the direct contacts mission and ILO technical assistance will contribute to finding appropriate solutions to all the pending issues raised by the ILO supervisory bodies for many years.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. For over a decade, the Committee has been referring to the need to include provisions in the legislation that guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the provisions of two Ministerial Decisions: Decision No. MDT-2017-0082, issuing regulations that guarantee non-discrimination, including during selection processes and during the existence of the employment relationship, and Decision No. MDT-2020-44 respecting discrimination, work-related harassment and/or any form of violence against women at the workplace. However, the Committee notes that the Ministerial Decisions do not contain explicit provisions guaranteeing protection against anti-union discrimination in access to employment and do not therefore address the request made by the Committee. The Committee notes the indication by PSI in Ecuador, the CEOSL and FETRAPEC that the regulations respecting harassment, violence and discrimination at work do not apply directly to discrimination against trade union leaders. Recalling that Article 1 of the Convention addresses the prohibition of anti-union discrimination at the time of the recruitment of individual workers, so that access to employment is not made subject to the condition that workers shall not join a union or shall relinquish union membership, the Committee once again emphasizes the need for provisions explicitly prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment to be included in the legislation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

The Committee also notes that the trade union confederations reiterate that many trade union leaders cannot find work because employers consult the website of the judiciary, which contains publicly accessible information on labour claims, and they avoid recruiting applicants who have made claims against previous employers. They add that, in February 2024, with a view to regulating the handling of personal data and preventing discrimination based on judicial records, Regulations were issued on the handling of personal data in judicial proceedings. They indicate that, although this is a significant step forward, it is not known how many applications have been made for personal data to be kept anonymous and their outcome. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact in practice of the Regulations on the handling of personal data in judicial proceedings.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with section 221 of the Labour Code, collective labour contracts must be concluded with the enterprise committee (one of the forms, in accordance with the Labour Code, that can be taken by trade unions in the enterprise) or, if one does not exist, with the organization with the highest number of worker members, on condition that it represents over 50 per cent of the workers in the enterprise. Emphasizing the link between the low coverage of collective agreements in the country and the restrictive requirements set out in law for participation in collective bargaining, the Committee previously emphasized the need to amend the section so that, where there is no organization that represents over 50 per cent of the workers, minority trade unions are at least able, alone or jointly, to negotiate a collective or direct agreement on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes that the Government confines itself to indicating that 68 collective agreements were concluded in the country in 2023. The Committee regrets that information has not been provided on the adoption of the measures requested or greater detail provided on the collective agreements referred to. The Committee notes the indications by PSI in Ecuador, the CEOSL and FETRAPEC that: (i) according to the data provided by the Government, between December 2023 and the middle of 2024, there were 14 collective agreements concluded in the private sector covering 6,029 workers; (ii) the majority of the agreements were revisions of pre-existing collective agreements; and (iii) information is not available on the coverage of collective agreements at the national level. The Committee once again emphasizes that, even though the requirement of representativity for signing collective agreements is fully compatible with the Convention, the level of representativity set should not be such as to hinder the promotion and implementation of free and voluntary collective bargaining, as envisaged in Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee once again emphasizes the need to amend section 221 of the Labour Code in the manner indicated and urges the Government to provide information in this respect. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, and to indicate the sectors covered (including the agricultural and banana sector), the number of workers covered by the agreements and whether they are new or revised collective agreements.

Collective bargaining in sectors composed mainly of small enterprises. The Committee recalls that, in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87, it has been calling for many years for the amendment of the following aspects of the legislation, which significantly restrict the capacity of workers to organize in unions: (i) the requirement of a minimum of 30 workers to establish unions and enterprise committees; and (ii) the impossibility of establishing first-level unions composed of workers from different enterprises. The Committee noted with concern that these restrictions on the right to organize, combined with the absence of a legal framework for collective bargaining at the sectoral level, as alleged by the trade unions, appear to exclude any possibility for workers in small enterprises to exercise their right to collective bargaining. The Committee has previously requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote collective bargaining in sectors of production composed mainly of small enterprises. The Committee notes that the Government refers to two Ministerial Decisions issued in 2024: (i) Decision MDT-2024-012, issuing the Regulations on labour organizations for the exercise of freedom of association and trade union independence; and (ii) Decision No. MDT-2024-080, issuing the Regulations on the presentation, negotiation and conclusion of collective labour agreements and transitional acts in the private and public sectors. However, the Government has not indicated how the Ministerial Decisions relate to the comments that the Committee has been making in the context of this Convention and Convention No. 87. The Committee notes the indication by PSI in Ecuador, the CEOSL and FETRAPEC that there are no branch collective labour agreements or accords that protect sectors in which the Government has denied the possibility to organize (which according to these unions represent over 90 per cent of the production units in the country). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to: (i) reduce the number of workers required to establish unions and enterprise committees; and (ii) enable the establishment of first-level unions composed of workers from different enterprises, in order to make collective bargaining possible in production sectors composed mainly of small enterprises.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 3347) have requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector includes provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public servants, and not only the leaders of committees of public servants (a specific mechanism for the representation of workers in the public sector), against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, as well as provisions establishing penalties that are dissuasive in the event of such acts. The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication that protection against acts of discrimination and the right to establish trade unions are set out in explicit legislative texts, both in the Political Constitution of the Republic and the Basic Public Service Act (LOSEP), which prohibits any act of discrimination against public servants. The Committee also notes the allegations made by PSI in Ecuador, the CEOSL and FETRAPEC that, in the public sector and in the context of the violence that is affecting the country, trade union leaders do not have a legislative framework that protects them from acts of discrimination in their individual recruitment or measures that guarantee their safety against threats related to the exercise of their freedom of association. The Committee once again emphasizes the importance of legislation that provides the same type of protection against possible acts of anti-union discrimination and interference for all leaders of all organizations of public servants equally. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the measures indicated above and requests it to provide information in this respect.

The Committee previously noted a ruling by the Constitutional Court issued in 2020 declaring unconstitutional the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism (under which the public administration, in exchange for the payment of compensation, could unilaterally terminate the employment of public servants without the need to indicate the grounds for such termination), and it requested the Government to provide information on any action taken to comply with this ruling. The Committee regrets to note that the Government has not provided this information. The Committee notes the indications by PSI in Ecuador, the CEOSL and FETRAPEC that: (i) on 5 June 2024, the National Court of Justice issued ruling 10-2024, indicating that the finding that the administrative act of purchasing the compulsory redundancy of a public servant is unconstitutional, in accordance with the constitutional ruling, implies that matters return to their previous state, for which reason the effects include reinstatement of the public servant, the payment of unpaid wages; and that the public servant, in exchange, must return the total amount of the compensation for the purchase of compulsory redundancy, the value of which will be offset from the amount to be reimbursed by the public authority; (ii) in response to a petition for clarification concerning the interpretation of ruling 10-2024, two judges of the Administrative Dispute Chamber of the National Court of Justice indicated that it is only applicable in the case of public servants who have submitted an administrative dispute action that is still under consideration; and (iii) the majority of those who were dismissed did not appeal to the Administrative Dispute Chamber, and those that did saw their challenges set aside, shelved or declared in abeyance. Recalling that the trade union organizations have alleged that the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism in the public sector was applied for at least eight years with a clear anti-union intent, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any challenges brought under the 2020 ruling and ruling 10-2024 of the National Court of Justice.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee previously noted with concern that the Basic Reform Act and Ministerial Decision No. MDT-2018-0010 do not recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants and that only public sector workers governed by the Labour Code could engage in collective bargaining. The Committee urged the Government, in consultation with the representative organizations of workers, to take the necessary measures to establish adequate collective bargaining machinery for all categories of public sector employees covered by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that only the enterprise committee is empowered to conclude collective agreements and that for the conclusion of collective agreements it is necessary to obtain favourable budgetary certification in the public sector, as set out in the respective legislation and the Labour Code, and other related texts. The Committee notes the indication by PSI in Ecuador, the CEOSL and FETRAPEC that, during the period between December 2023 and the middle of 2024, some 22 collective agreements were concluded in the public sector and that this low number of collective agreements is a result, among other factors, of the fact that only the special committees composed of employed persons classified as manual workers may conclude collective agreements and that it is necessary to obtain favourable budgetary certification. PSI in Ecuador, the CEOSL and FETRAPEC add that: (i) in ruling No. 68-20-IN/24, handed down on 27 June 2024, the Constitutional Court set aside a challenge to find unconstitutional section 26 of the Basic Act on Public Enterprises (LOEP), which excludes public servants from collective bargaining in public enterprises (the Court found that the legislation makes a distinction between manual workers and other public servants and explicitly establishes clear differences between them, and that as collective bargaining in the public sector is only intended for workers governed by the Labour Code, the prohibition set out in section 26 of the LOEP lies within the margin of discretion of the legislator); and (ii) the final resolution of Case No. 3564-22-JP is pending before the Constitutional Court in which in the first instance and on appeal, the courts ordered the National Telecommunications Corporation to apply the Labour Code to public servants and include them within the benefits of collective bargaining. PSI in Ecuador, the CEOSL and FETRAPEC allege that two Ministerial Decisions issued in 2024 amount to a further attack on collective bargaining in the public sector, namely: (i) Decision MDT 039 on the setting of the remuneration of public servants and “workers” in public sector entities; and (ii) Decision MDT 080, which requires a favourable opinion of the Ministry of Finance for the conclusion of collective agreements in the public sector that have already been negotiated by the parties, and sets in motion a process of the unilateral revision of collective agreements and transactional acts, including the exclusion from the benefits of these agreements of workers classified as public servants. The Committee notes all these developments and once again expresses concern at the absence of recognition of the right to collective bargaining of public servants, despite the fact that many of them (public sector teachers, employees in the public health system, employees in public enterprises, municipal services and decentralized bodies, etc.) are not engaged in the administration of the State and therefore have to benefit from the guarantees provided by the Convention. The Committee once again regrets that, despite its requests, the Government has not taken specific initiatives for the re-establishment of the rights referred to above. Recalling once again that there are mechanisms that permit the harmonious coexistence of the mission of the public sector to serve the public interest and the responsible exercise of collective bargaining, the Committee once again firmly urges the Government, in consultation with the representative organizations of workers, to take the necessary measures to establish adequate collective bargaining machinery for all categories of public sector employees covered by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report any developments in this respect. It also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the Ministerial Decisions referred to above.

The Committee expresses its deep concern regarding the complete absence of consideration of its requests made over many years to address the serious shortcomings in the application of the Convention observed in both the public and private sectors. While noting the persistence of numerous allegations of anti-union discrimination, the Committee deeply regrets that no legislative amendments have been made or considered to prohibit anti-union discrimination in recruitment processes or to ensure that provisions with dissuasive sanctions against anti-union discrimination and interference in the public sector protect the leaders of all public service organizations.The Committee also notes with deep concern that: (i) the combination of severe legislative restrictions on the right to organize, as noted in its comments on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the high threshold of representativeness required for collective bargaining, and the lack of a legal framework for sectoral collective bargaining alleged by the trade union organizations, effectively prevent, both in law and in practice, the vast majority of the country's private sector workers from exercising their right to collective bargaining; and (ii) the current legislation in the public sector excludes most public sector workers covered by the Convention from the right to collective bargaining.In these circumstances, the Committee considers that this case meets the criteria set out in paragraph 90 of its General Report to be asked to be submitted to the Conference.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 113 th  Session and to reply in full to the present comments in 2025.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the detailed joint observations of the Federation of Petroleum Workers of Ecuador (FETRAPEC), Public Services International (PSI) in Ecuador, and the United Workers’ Front (FUT), received on 31 August 2023, which address thoroughly the matters examined by the Committee in the present comment and allege acts of anti-union persecution. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect, and also with respect to the observations sent in 2022 by the Trade Union Association of Agricultural, Banana and Rural Workers (ASTAC), the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CEOSL), FETRAPEC, the National Federation of Education Workers (UNE), and PSI in Ecuador.

Technical assistance. Direct contacts mission requested by the Committee on the Application of Standards (Conference Committee) in the context of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). In its last comment, the Committee noted that the Conference Committee, when examining the application of Convention No. 87 by Ecuador in June 2022, addressed matters that had a direct impact on workers’ capacity to negotiate collectively their terms and conditions of work, and therefore on the application of the present Convention. The Conference Committee invited the Government to avail itself of technical assistance from the Office and asked it to accept a direct contacts mission. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report on Convention No. 87, that in view of the current political situation in the country and the change of Government, the Ministry of Labour will resume talks and liaison with the Office in 2024 with a view to a possible direct contacts mission. The Committee firmly hopes that the direct contacts mission requested by the Conference Committee with regard to Convention No. 87 will take place as soon as possible and also hopes that the Government will avail itself of technical assistance from the Office, trusting that such assistance will contribute to progress in the adoption of specific, effective and time-bound measures, in consultation with the social partners, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention with regard to the points set out below.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. For more than a decade, the Committee has been referring to the need to include provisions in the legislation that guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new executive and legislative authorities will analyse the necessary reforms once they take up office. The Committee recalls that Article 1 of the Convention prohibits anti-union discrimination at the time of the recruitment of individual workers, so that access to employment is not made subject to the condition that workers shall not join a union or shall relinquish union membership. In light of the above, the Committee once again emphasizes the need for provisions expressly prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment to be included in the legislation and requests the Government to provide information on any measures adopted in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that, under section 221 of the Labour Code, collective labour agreements must be concluded with the enterprise committee (one of the forms that, under the Labour Code, trade unions can take within an enterprise) or, if one does not exist, with the organization with the largest number of worker members, on condition that it represents over 50 per cent of the workers in the enterprise. The Committee previously urged the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 221 so that, if there is no organization that represents over 50 per cent of the workers, minority trade unions can, either separately or jointly, negotiate at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes with regret that the Government merely reiterates once again that this requirement for the negotiation of a collective agreement is closely related to principles such as democracy, participation and transparency, since the benefits obtained in the collective agreement apply to all workers in the enterprise or institution. The Committee is bound to emphasize once again that, even though the requirement of representativeness for signing collective agreements is fully compatible with the Convention, the level of representativeness set should not be such as to hinder the promotion and implementation of free and voluntary collective bargaining, as referred to in Article 4 of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee recalls that in previous comments it noted the low rate of coverage of collective bargaining in the private sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that between May 2021 and May 2023, a total of 57 collective agreements were concluded in the private sector. The Committee notes that FETRAPEC, PSI in Ecuador and the FUT, apart from highlighting the low number of collective agreements in the private sector, indicate that the Government does not specify whether the figures it provides refer to new collective agreements or revised versions thereof and that it also does not provide exact data on the number of persons covered by any collective agreements concluded or in which sectors they are concentrated. Once again emphasizing the link between the low coverage of collective agreements in the country and the restrictive requirements set out in law for participation in collective bargaining, the Committee once again urges the Government, after consulting the social partners, to take the necessary steps to amend section 221 of the Labour Code as indicated above. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, with an indication of the sectors covered (including the agricultural and banana sector), the number of workers covered and whether they are new or revised collective agreements.

Collective bargaining in sectors composed mainly of small enterprises. The Committee recalls that, in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87, it has been calling for many years for the amendment of the following aspects of the legislation, which significantly restrict the capacity of workers to organize in unions: (i) the requirement of a minimum of 30 workers to establish unions and enterprise committees; and (ii) the impossibility of establishing primary-level unions composed of workers from different enterprises. Having noted with concern that these restrictions on the right to organize, combined with the absence of a legal framework for collective bargaining at the sectoral level, as denounced by the trade unions, appear to exclude any possibility for workers in small enterprises to exercise their right to collective bargaining, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote collective bargaining in sectors of production composed mainly of small enterprises. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a decision on an extraordinary protection order applied for in the Constitutional Court is still pending, in relation to a ruling ordering the Ministry of Labour to register ASTAC as a branch union, despite it being composed of workers from various enterprises, and to adopt regulations on the registration of branch unions. The Government also indicates that, as indicated by the Basic Act to promote the Violet Economy, published on 20 January 2023, its priority focuses on promoting, through collective bargaining, the establishment of positive action measures for the effective application of the principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination in conditions of work for women and men. While noting this information, the Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide information on the measures requested by the Committee. In light of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote collective bargaining in sectors of production composed mainly of small enterprises.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Convention. Protection of workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector contains provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the Government’s assertion that the legislation grants protection to public servants against acts of discrimination through the fact of their belonging to the committees of public servants and reiterates once again that protection against acts of discrimination and the right to establish unions is provided for in both the Political Constitution and the Basic Public Service Act (LOSEP), which prohibits any act of discrimination against public servants. The Committee notes with regret that the Government merely reiterates what it already indicated on previous occasions, and in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association, when it examined Case No. 3347, the Committee once again emphasizes the importance of the legislation providing the same type of protection against possible acts of anti-union discrimination and interference for all leaders of all public servants’ organizations alike. In light of the above, the Committee is bound to urge the Government once again to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector includes provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public servants, and not only the leaders of the committees of public servants, against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, as well as provisions establishing penalties that act as a deterrent in the event of such acts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee also previously noted a ruling issued in 2020 declaring unconstitutional the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism under which the public administration, in exchange for the payment of compensation, could unilaterally terminate the employment of public servants without the need to indicate the grounds for such termination. The Committee observed that although the ruling removed the prohibition for persons who have been dismissed to return to work in the public sector, PSI in Ecuador alleged that the Government had not complied with this aspect of the ruling. The Committee notes that FETRAPEC, PSI in Ecuador and the FUT indicate that: (i) although by an agreement of March 2023 that the Government had undertaken to examine a possible return to office in the April-May period of 15 dismissed former public officials and a road map for the recall of another 192 persons by August 2023, so far five individuals have been recalled but under temporary arrangements instead of within the career public servant system; and (ii) through a series of judicial actions, a number of persons have been reinstated in the public posts from which they were dismissed and in some cases have even been the beneficiaries of rulings with financial compensation for the injury suffered. The Committee duly notes this information provided by the trade unions and once again requests the Government to send information on any action taken to comply with this ruling.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee previously observed that the Basic Reform Act and Ministerial Order No. MDT-2018-0010 did not recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants and that only public sector workers governed by the Labour Code could engage in collective bargaining. The Committee also noted that the 2015 amendments to the Constitution excluding the entire public sector from the scope of collective bargaining had been annulled by the Constitutional Court in 2018 and that Ministerial Order No. 373 had been issued in 2019 to give effect to the ruling. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that further to the amendments adopted by the National Assembly in 2015 being declared unconstitutional, the text that existed prior to their promulgation remained valid, and so the Constitution does not enshrine public servants’ right to organize for the defence of their interests and improvements in the provision of services. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that from May 2021 to May 2023, a total of 139 collective agreements were concluded in the public sector. The Committee notes that FETRAPEC, PSI in Ecuador and the FUT indicate that the small number of collective agreements in the public sector is due, inter alia, to the fact that only the special committees composed of workers governed by the Labour Code can conclude collective agreements, and budgetary approval is required. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to FETRAPEC, PSI in Ecuador and the FUT, the Basic Employment Bill, which, they indicated, would contain a provision on the elimination of collective bargaining in the public sector, was discarded. The Committee is bound to note with concern that the legislation still does not recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants, despite the fact that many of them (public sector teachers, employees in the public health system, employees in public enterprises, municipal services and decentralized bodies, etc.) are not engaged in the administration of the State and should therefore benefit from the guarantees provided by the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that, despite its requests, the Government has not provided information on specific initiatives for the re-establishment of the rights referred to above. Recalling once again that there are mechanisms that permit the harmonious coexistence of the public sector’s mission to serve the public interest and the responsible exercise of collective bargaining, the Committee once again urges the Government, in consultation with the representative organizations of workers, to take the necessary steps to establish adequate collective bargaining machinery for all the categories of public sector employees covered by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report any developments in this respect and to also provide information on the motions submitted to have the Humanitarian Act of June 2020, declared unconstitutional, which, according to PSI in Ecuador, imposed restrictions on collective bargaining by public sector workers governed by the Labour Code.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2024.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Association of Agricultural, Banana and Rural Workers (ASTAC), received on 30 August 2022, which relate to matters examined by the Committee in the present comment. The Committee also notes the joint observations of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CEOSL), the Federation of Petroleum Workers of Ecuador (FETRAPEC), the National Federation of Education Workers (UNE) and Public Services International (PSI) in Ecuador, received on 1 September 2022, which also relate to matters examined by the Committee in the present comment. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in relation to all the observations referred to above.

Direct contacts mission requested by the Committee on the Application of Standards in the context of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee notes that the application of Convention No. 87 by Ecuador was examined by the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) at the 110th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2022. The Committee observes that the discussions and conclusions of the CAS address matters that have a direct impact on the capacity of workers to negotiate collectively their terms and conditions of work, and therefore on the application of the present Convention. The Committee observes in this context that the CAS requested the Government in particular to: ensure full respect for the right of workers, including public servants, to establish organizations of their own choosing, for the collective defence of their interests; give effect to the road map presented in December 2019 by the ILO technical assistance mission; avail itself of technical assistance from the Office; and accept a direct contacts mission.

Technical assistance. The Committee also recalls that in its previous comment it regretted to note that the Government had not taken action to follow up the technical assistance provided by the Office in December 2019 concerning measures to respond to the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its interest in receiving technical assistance to reactivate tripartite social dialogue and develop a new road map for this purpose. The Committee expresses the firm hope that, as a result of the dynamic generated by the direct contacts mission requested by the CAS in relation to Convention No. 87 and with the support of the further technical assistance that the Government is interested in receiving, the Government will take specific, effective and time-bound measures, in consultation with the social partners, to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in relation to the matters indicated below.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. For more than a decade, the Committee has been referring to the need to include provisions in the legislation that guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment. The Committee notes in this regard that the Government has confined itself to reiterating that labour regulations give an adequate level of protection and that it is not necessary to adopt further provisions in this respect. The Committee once again reminds the Government that Article 1 of the Convention prohibits anti-union discrimination at the time of the recruitment of individual workers, so that access to employment is not made subject to the condition that workers shall not join a union or shall relinquish union membership, as well as practices such as ‘blacklisting’ union members to prevent them from being hired. The Committee notes that, according to the indications of the CEOSL, FETRAPEC, UNE and PSI, dismissed union leaders cannot find work and that this difficulty is experienced by any workers, whether or not they are union members, who have taken legal action against their employer, as labour claims are published on the website of the judiciary so that any employer can check whether applicants have made legal claims against previous employers before recruiting them. In light of the above, the Committee once again emphasizes the need for provisions expressly prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment to be included in the legislation and requests the Government to provide information on any measures adopted in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with section 221 of the Labour Code, collective labour contracts must be concluded with the enterprise committee or, if one does not exist, with the organization with the largest number of worker members, on condition that it represents over 50 per cent of the workers in the enterprise. The Committee previously urged the Government to adopt the necessary measures to amend section 221 so that, if there is no organization that represents over 50 per cent of the workers, minority trade unions can, either separately or jointly, negotiate at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee observes that the Government has confined itself to reiterating that this requirement for the negotiation of a collective contract is closely related to such principles as democracy, participation and transparency, as the benefits obtained in the collective contract apply to all workers in the enterprise or institution. The Committee once again emphasizes that, while it is acceptable for the union which represents the majority or a high percentage of workers in a bargaining unit to enjoy preferential or exclusive bargaining rights, in cases where no union meets these conditions, or does not enjoy such exclusive rights, minority trade unions should at least be able to conclude a collective or direct agreement on behalf of their own members (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 226). The Committee recalls that, even though the requirement of representativeness for signing collective agreements is fully compatible with the Convention, the level of representativeness set should not be such as to hinder the promotion and implementation of free and voluntary collective bargaining, as referred to in Article 4 of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee recalls that in previous comments it noted the low rate of coverage of collective bargaining in the private sector. The Committee observes that, according to the information provided by the Government, between May 2021 and June 2022, a total of 37 collective contracts were concluded in the private sector. The Committee observes that the CEOSL, FETRAPEC, UNE and PSI indicate that the Government has not specified whether the figures refer to first collective contracts or revised versions of contracts that have already been concluded. Emphasizing the link between the low coverage of collective agreements in the country and the restrictive requirements set out in law for participation in collective bargaining, the Committee once again urges the Government, after consulting the social partners, to take the necessary measures to amend section 221 of the Labour Code as indicated above. It requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, with an indication of the sectors covered (including the agricultural and banana sector), the number of workers covered and whether they are new or revised collective agreements.

Collective bargaining in sectors composed mainly of small enterprises. The Committee recalls that, in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87, it has been calling for many years for the modification of the following aspects of the legislation, which significantly restricts the capacity of workers to organize in unions: (i) the requirement of a minimum of 30 workers to establish unions and enterprise committees; and (ii) the prohibition on establishing first-level unions composed of workers from different enterprises. The Committee notes with concern that these restrictions on the right to organize, combined with the absence of a legal framework for collective bargaining at the sectoral level, as denounced by the ASTAC, appear to exclude any possibility for workers in small enterprises to exercise their right to collective bargaining. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to promote collective bargaining in sectors composed mainly of small enterprises.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Convention. Protection of workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee previously observed that the Basic Act reforming the legislation governing the public sector (the Basic Reform Act) contained provisions which explicitly protected executive members of public servants’ committees, and it requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector includes provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public employees against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, as well as provisions establishing dissuasive penalties in the event of such acts. The Committee observes the Government’s reiterated indication that protection against acts of discrimination and the right to establish unions is envisaged in both the Political Constitution and section 187 of the Labour Code, and the Basic Public Service Act (LOSEP), which prohibits any act of discrimination against public servants. The Government considers that the legislative labour principles in force offer an adequate level of protection for public servants. In the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association, when it examined Case No. 3347, the Committee once again emphasizes the importance of the legislation providing the same type of protection against possible acts of anti-union discrimination and interference for all leaders of all public servants’ organizations. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector contains provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, and also provisions that establish dissuasive penalties against committing such acts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures adopted or envisaged in this regard. The Committee also previously noted a ruling issued in 2020 declaring unconstitutional the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism under which the public administration, in exchange for the payment of compensation, could unilaterally terminate the employment of public servants without the need to indicate the grounds for such termination. The Committee observed that, although the ruling removed the word “compulsory” and the prohibition for persons who have been dismissed to return to work in the public sector, PSI-Ecuador alleged that the Government had not complied with the ruling in respect of the removal of the prohibition to return to work in the public sector. The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments on the matter. The Committee notes that the Government confines itself to recalling the content of the ruling, but does not refer to compliance with the ruling. The Committee also observes that the CEOSL, FETRAPEC, UNE and PSI have sent a list of leaders of associations of public servants who have been dismissed using this mechanism. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments on compliance with the ruling.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee observed previously that the Basic Reform Act and Ministerial Order No. MDT-2018-0010 did not recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants and that only public sector workers governed by the Labour Code could engage in collective bargaining. The Committee also noted that the 2015 amendments to the Constitution excluding the entire public sector from the scope of collective bargaining had been annulled by the Constitutional Court in 2018 and that Ministerial Order No. 373 had been issued in 2019 to give effect to the ruling. The Committee requested the Government to ensure the full implementation of the Order and urged it to intensify its efforts to reopen an in-depth debate with the trade unions concerned with a view to establishing adequate collective bargaining machinery for all categories of employees in the public sector covered by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication that, although there are no regulations on collective bargaining machinery for public servants, as this right is only conferred on workers in the sector who are covered by the Labour Code, it undertakes to promote tripartite dialogue and encourage constant discussion on matters of labour law. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, during the period between May 2021 and June 2022, a total of 78 collective agreement were concluded in the public sector. The Committee also notes the indication by the CEOSL, FETRAPEC, UNE and PSI that the Constitutional Court has not yet ruled on the appeals to find unconstitutional the Humanitarian Support Act which, as indicated by PSI-Ecuador, imposes restrictions on collective bargaining by public sector workers governed by the Labour Code. The organizations add that, although on 16 June 2022, the National Assembly approved a Bill repealing the Humanitarian Support Act almost in its entirety, the executive power vetoed the Bill on 20 July 2022. They further indicate that the Government is seeking to introduce in the National Assembly a Bill entitled the ‘Basic Employment Act’, which is reported to contain a provision for the elimination of collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee notes these various elements and observes with concern that the legislation still does not recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants, despite the fact that many of them (public sector teachers, employees in the public health system, employees in public enterprises, municipal services and decentralized bodies, etc.) are not engaged in the administration of the State and must therefore benefit from the guarantees provided by this Convention. Observing that the Government has not provided information on specific initiatives for the re-establishment of the rights referred to above and recalling once again that in many countries there are mechanisms that permit the harmonious coexistence of the public sector’s mission to serve the public interest and the responsible exercise of collective bargaining, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation with representative organizations of workers, to take the necessary measures to establish adequate collective bargaining machinery for all the categories of public sector employees covered by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report any developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the joint observations of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Unitary Class Organizations of Workers (CEDOCUT) and the Trade Union Association of Agricultural, Banana and Rural Workers (ASTAC), received on 1 October 2020.

The Committee also notes the observations of Public Services International in Ecuador (PSI-Ecuador), received on 1 September 2021, on issues examined by the Committee in the present comment, and also the Government’s reply in this regard.

Technical assistance. The Committee recalls that in December 2019 the Office, at the request of the Government, carried out a technical assistance mission which presented the tripartite constituents with a draft road map for initiating a tripartite dialogue with a view to adopting measures to address the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, although the undertaking given previously did not result in practical action, the Government wishes to receive technical assistance, for the time being with regard to tripartite social dialogue. Noting with regret that the Government has not taken action to follow up the technical assistance provided by the Office in December 2019 concerning measures to respond to the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies, the Committee firmly hopes that the assistance in which the government has expressed an interest will be given practical effect very soon and that any strengthening of social dialogue that results from it enables progress to be made with regard to adopting the measures needed to bring the legislation into line with the Convention with respect to the points set out below.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the need to include provisions in the legislation that guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the labour regulations in force give an adequate level of protection and that it does not consider it necessary to issue an additional standard in this respect. Recalling that Article 1 of the Convention covers the prohibition of anti-union discrimination at the time individual workers are hired, so that access to employment is not made subject to the condition that workers shall not join a union or relinquish union membership, as well as practices such as “blacklisting” members to prevent them being hired, the Committee underlines the need for the above-mentioned provisions to be included in the legislation and requests the Government to provide information on any measures adopted in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that in accordance with section 221 of the Labour Code, collective labour agreements must be concluded with the enterprise committee or, if one does not exist, with the organization with the largest number of worker members, provided that the latter represents over 50 per cent of the workers in the enterprise. The Committee previously urged the Government to adopt the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to amend section 221 so that if there is no organization that represents more than 50 per cent of the workers, minority trade unions can, either separately or jointly, negotiate at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that this requirement for the negotiation of a collective agreement is closely connected to the principles of democracy, participation and transparency since the benefits obtained in the collective agreement apply to all workers in the enterprise or institution. The Committee once again points out that while it is acceptable that the union which represents the majority or a high percentage of workers in a bargaining unit should enjoy preferential or exclusive bargaining rights, the Committee considers that in cases where no union meets these conditions, or does not enjoy such exclusive rights, minority trade unions should at least be able to conclude a collective or direct agreement on behalf of their own members (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 226). The Committee recalls that, even though the requirement of representativeness for signing collective agreements is fully compatible with the Convention, the level of representativeness set should not be such as to hinder the promotion and implementation of free and voluntary collective bargaining as referred to by Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in previous comments it noted the low rate of coverage of collective bargaining in the private sector. The Committee observes that, according to the statistics provided by the Government, between 2019 and August 2021 a total of 45 collective agreements were signed in the private sector. In light of the above, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures, after consulting the social partners, to amend section 221 of the Labour Code so that if there is no organization comprising more than 50 per cent of the workers, trade unions can, either separately or jointly, negotiate at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all the measures taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements signed and in force in the country, and also the sectors of activity (including agriculture and the banana sector) and the number of workers covered by them.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the protections against anti-union discrimination and interference, including with regard to the “compulsory purchase of redundancy mechanism”, set out in the Basic Act reforming the legislation governing the public service (Basic Reform Act). Having observed that the said Act contained provisions which explicitly protected Civil Service Committee officers, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation contained provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee also asked the Government to indicate the penalties and compensation applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination and interference committed in the public sector and to provide information on the outcome of the legal action brought to have the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism declared unconstitutional. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that protection against acts of discrimination and the right to form trade unions are established through explicit standards, both in the Constitution of the Republic and section 187 of the Labour Code and in the Basic Public Service Act (LOSEP), which prohibits all acts of discrimination against public servants. The Government considers that the labour regulations in force provide an adequate level of protection for public servants. The Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association recently examined allegations of dismissals of leaders of organizations of public servants, stating that it trusted that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure that the legal provisions applicable to the public sector, currently focusing on the protection of Civil Service Committee officers, protect all leaders of public servants’ organizations against possible acts of anti-union discrimination (see Report No. 393, March 2021, Case No. 3347, paragraph 433). The Committee once again emphasizes that it is important that the legislation should grant the same type of protection against possible acts of anti-union discrimination and interference to all leaders of all organizations of public servants on equal terms. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector contains provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, and also provisions that establish penalties constituting a deterrent against committing such acts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged in this regard. Furthermore, with regard to the legal action brought to have the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism declared unconstitutional, the Committee notes the indication by PSI-Ecuador that the Constitutional Court, by a ruling issued on 28 October 2020, declared the compulsory nature of the purchase of redundancy with compensation to be unconstitutional. The Committee recalls that the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism allowed the public administration, in exchange for payment of compensation, to unilaterally terminate the employment of public servants without the need to indicate the grounds for such termination. The Committee recalls that it previously underlined the importance of measures being taken to ensure that use of the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism did not give rise to acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee duly notes the Constitutional Court ruling and observes that it indicates that the rules governing redundancy purchase with compensation will remain in force but application of that mechanism must not be compulsory. The Committee observes that PSI-Ecuador considers that the ruling represents an important step forward but does not provide the protection against anti-union discrimination provided by the Convention since, although it removes the word “compulsory” and also the obstacle to returning to work in the public sector for persons who have been dismissed, it leaves victims unprotected, with no consideration of restitution or compensation. PSI-Ecuador also alleges that the Government has so far not complied with the ruling as regards removing the obstacle to returning to work in the public sector. Recalling that the trade unions previously denounced the use of the compulsory redundancy purchase mechanism to dismiss public servants for their trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to send its comments in this regard.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the Basic Reform Act and Ministerial Order No. MDT-2018-0010 did not recognize the right to collective bargaining for public servants and that only public sector workers governed by the Labour Code could engage in collective bargaining. The Committee also noted that the 2015 amendments to the Constitution excluding the entire public sector from the scope of collective bargaining were annulled by the Constitutional Court (ruling No. 018-18-SIN-CC of 1 August 2018) and that on 4 December 2019 the Ministry of Labour issued Ministerial Order No. 373 in order to apply the Constitutional Court ruling. The Committee asked the Government to ensure the full implementation of the above-mentioned Ministerial Order in the various state institutions and urged the Government to intensify its efforts to reopen an in-depth debate with the trade unions concerned with a view to establishing an adequate collective bargaining mechanism for all categories of employees in the public sector covered by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that although there are no regulations on collective bargaining mechanisms for public servants, since this right is conferred only on other categories of workers in the sector, the Government reiterates its undertaking to promote tripartite dialogue in this respect. With regard to the application of Ministerial Order No. 373, the Government indicates that: (i) on 6 February 2020, the Directorate for Legal Advice issued a legal opinion on the applicability of the Order; (ii) on 15 May 2020, the Ministry issued a series of circulars asking public sector entities to provide information on compliance with the Order; (iii) a total of 87 public sector institutions provided documentation and 57 of them changed the employment regime for a total of 346 public servants from the Basic Public Service Act (LOSEP) to the Labour Code; and (iv) the Ministry changed the employment regime for 242 workers. The Committee duly notes the foregoing and also observes that, according to the Government, between 2019 and August 2021, a total of 85 collective agreements were signed in the public sector. The Committee also notes that, according to PSI-Ecuador, the Basic Act on humanitarian support to combat the health crisis resulting from COVID-19 (Humanitarian Support Act), published on 22 June 2020, imposes restrictions on collective bargaining for public sector workers governed by the Labour Code. PSI-Ecuador indicates that various legal actions to declare the Act unconstitutional have been brought in this regard and that the Constitutional Court has not yet handed down any rulings. Moreover, observing that the legislation continues not to recognize the right of collective bargaining for public servants, the Committee is bound to recall once again that, under Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, persons who are employed in the public sector but by their functions are not directly engaged in the administration of the State (employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and those in decentralized entities, public sector teachers, transport sector personnel, etc.) are covered by the Convention (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 172) and should therefore be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including their wage conditions, since mere consultation of the unions concerned is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Convention in this respect (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 219). The Committee therefore urges the Government to reopen an in-depth debate with the trade union organizations concerned with a view to establishing an adequate collective bargaining mechanism for all categories of public sector employees covered by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the collective agreements signed with public sector workers and also information on the outcome of the legal actions to declare the Humanitarian Support Act unconstitutional.

The Committee notes with regret that it has so far been unable to observe progress with regard to the adoption of measures needed to bring the legislation into line with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, because of the upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is currently giving priority to an Opportunities Bill, which incorporates the different views of the stakeholders in the labour and social spheres and through which the Government is endeavouring to stimulate and revitalize the labour market. While taking due note of these indications, the Committee recalls the fundamental importance of ensuring the full application of the Convention to tackle the consequences of the pandemic and urges the Government to make the necessary efforts to adopt specific measures in relation to the points highlighted in this comment. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour, through the Directorate of Labour Organizations, expresses the intention of collaborating on any legislative initiative aimed at improving the exercise of workers’ rights. The Committee hopes that the technical assistance referred to by the Government for strengthening social dialogue is put into practice very soon and that its results enable progress with regard to the matters raised in the present comment. In this regard, the Committee hopes that any legislative reforms undertaken, in consultation with the social partners, will contribute towards ensuring observance of the rights established by the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the Government’s response to the observations of Public Services International in Ecuador (PSI-Ecuador) of August 2019.

The Committee also notes the observations of the Trade Union Association of Agricultural, Banana and Peasant Workers (ASTAC), received on 24 January 2020, and the observations of PSI-Ecuador, received on 25 September 2020, and the joint observations of ASTAC and the Ecuadorean Confederation of Unitary Class Organizations of Workers (CEDOCUT), received on 1 October 2020. The Committee notes that these observations refer to, in addition to the issues examined in the context of the present comment, allegations of anti-union dismissals and a number of administrative and legislative measures adopted by the Government during the pandemic that were not subject to tripartite consultation, such as the Basic Act on humanitarian support to combat the COVID-19 health crisis, of 22 June 2020, which the organizations claim introduced regressive reforms to the Labour Code with regard to the rights of public sector workers in addition to new violations of collective bargaining rights. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments in this regard.

Technical assistance. In its previous comment, the Committee welcomed the Government’s request for technical assistance from the ILO in relation to the legislative reform process and with a view to following up on the observations and recommendations made by the ILO supervisory bodies. For this reason, the Committee’s observation was limited to a brief summary of the issues to be addressed, having expressed trust that the technical assistance would enable the Government to adopt the necessary measures in this regard. The Committee notes the report of the technical assistance mission carried out in Ecuador from 16–20 December 2019. In this regard, it notes that: (i) the mission submitted to the tripartite constituents a draft roadmap to address the priority issues discussed in the meetings, which provided that the constituents would in March 2020, with ILO technical assistance, commence tripartite dialogue with a view to adopting specific measures to address the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies; and (ii) the mission encouraged the tripartite constituents to finalize the roadmap as soon as possible and invited them to continue the dialogue with the aim of achieving tangible and sustainable outcomes. The Committee regrets to observe that the Government’s report omits all reference to the technical assistance mission and the draft roadmap. The Committee notes in this regard the allegations of PSI-Ecuador that the Government failed to act on its commitment to the mission to hold a new tripartite meeting in January 2020 to sign the roadmap.

The Committee recalls below the points it has emphasized in its previous comments and which require the adoption of specific measures to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention.

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Convention. Protection of public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the protections against anti-union discrimination and interference set out in the Basic Act reforming the legislation regulating the public service (Basic Reform Act). It also observed that Ministerial Order No. MDT-2018-0010, which regulates the exercise of the right to organize of public servants, seemed to be limited to acts of interference. Recalling the importance of effective and dissuasive penalties in this regard, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on: (i) the penalties and compensation applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination and interference committed in the public sector; (ii) whether, in addition to the leadership of the Civil Service Committee, the leaders of organizations of public servants also benefit from additional protection against the elimination of positions or benefit from other similar measures, including in the event of recourse to the “purchase of compulsory redundancy” mechanism; and (iii) the outcome of a legal action to have the above mechanism declared unconstitutional that, according to PSI–Ecuador and the National Federation of Education Workers (UNE), had been submitted. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the second general provision of the Basic Reform Act specifies that in the event of dismissal due to retrenchment and the purchase of compulsory resignation with compensation or unfair dismissal of members of the Civil Service Committee, the provisions of the Labour Code that regulate “dismissal without effect” as provided for in section 195.2 of the Labour Code are applicable; (ii) sections 187 and 195(1) and (2) of the Labour Code provide that the unfair dismissal of trade union leaders is considered to be without effect; and (iii) section 195.3 of the Labour Code provides that, when dismissal is declared to be without effect, the employment relationship is considered not to have been interrupted and outstanding wages are ordered to be paid with a 10 per cent supplement; and if the worker decides not to continue the employment relationship, he or she shall receive compensation equivalent in value to the yearly wage the worker had been receiving, in addition to compensation for unfair dismissal. The Committee observes, however, that it is not clear from the above whether there are any provisions applicable to the public sector that explicitly protect leaders of organizations of public servants who are not part of the leadership of the Civil Service Committee. In this context, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector contains provisions that explicitly protect the leaders of all organizations of public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and that set forth dissuasive penalties for these acts. In addition, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the legal action that, according to PSI-Ecuador and the UNE, had been brought to have the “purchase of compulsory resignation” mechanism declared unconstitutional.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the Basic Reform Act and Ministerial Order No. MDT-2018-0010 do not recognize the right to collective bargaining for public servants and that only public sector workers, who are regulated by the Labour Code, may engage in collective bargaining. The Committee also noted that the constitutional amendments of 2015, which excluded the entire public sector from the scope of collective bargaining, had been nullified by the Constitutional Court (ruling No. 018-18-SIN-CC of 1 August 2018). The Committee previously urged the Government to reopen an in-depth discussion with the trade unions concerned with a view to establishing an adequate collective bargaining mechanism for all categories of public employees covered by the Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that although dialogue has been maintained with public sector trade unions, the lack of cohesion between the representative trade unions and their divergent criteria and interests has made discussions difficult. The Committee also notes that, according to allegations made by the ASTAC and CEDOCUT in their observations, despite the fact that on 4 December 2019 the Ministry of Labour issued Ministerial Order No. 373 giving effect to Constitutional Court ruling No. 018-18-SIN-CC of 2018, a high percentage of public sector institutions have not complied with the Order. They also allege that even individuals who entered employment after the amendments were declared unconstitutional remain in a legal limbo, being considered neither public employees nor public sector workers, and that as a result they are not allowed to be members of existing trade unions or engage in collective bargaining. The Committee once again recalls that under the terms of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, all workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State (such as employees in public enterprises, municipal service employees and those in decentralized institutions, teachers in the public sector and personnel in the transport sector) are covered by the Convention (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 172) and should therefore be permitted to collectively bargain their conditions of employment, including wage conditions, and that mere consultation of the unions concerned is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Convention in this respect (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 219). The Committee once again urges the Government to intensify its efforts to reopen an in-depth debate with the trade unions concerned with a view to establishing an adequate collective bargaining mechanism for all categories of workers in the public sector covered by the Convention. It also requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the full implementation of Ministerial Order No. 373 in the various State institutions and to provide information in this regard.

Article 1. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee once again recalls that it has been commenting for many years on the need to include provisions in the legislation guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has no current plans to adopt specific legislation on this issue, since the labour legislation in force provides adequate guarantees and protection for workers to exercise their right and freedom to organize when they deem it necessary. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes the need to include the above-mentioned provisions in the legislation and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee previously observed that, in accordance with section 221 of the Labour Code, collective labour agreements must be concluded with the works council, or, if one does not exist, with the organization with the largest number of worker members, provided that it represents over 50 per cent of the enterprise’s workers. The Committee previously requested the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to adopt the necessary measures to amend section 221 so that if there is no organization that represents more than 50 per cent of the workers, minority trade unions can, either separately or jointly, negotiate at least on behalf of their own members. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication that it does not plan to amend section 221 of the Labour Code, since its provisions are strictly aligned with the principles of democracy, participation and transparency insofar as the benefits obtained in the collective agreement apply to all workers in the employing enterprise or institution. The Committee is bound to once again recall in this regard that, while it is acceptable for the union which represents the majority or a high percentage of workers in a bargaining unit to enjoy preferential or exclusive bargaining rights, the Committee considers that in cases where no union meets these conditions, or does not enjoy such exclusive rights, minority trade unions should at least be able to conclude a collective or direct agreement on behalf of their own members (see the 2012 General Survey, paragraph 226). The Committee therefore urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to finally adopt the necessary measures to amend section 221 of the Labour Code so that, where there is no organization that represents over 50 per cent of the workers, minority trade unions can, either separately or jointly, negotiate at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements signed and in force in the country, and on the sectors and the number of workers covered by these agreements.

Ministerial Orders establishing new forms of contract for banana plantation workers and agricultural workers. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide its comments regarding the allegations made by the ASTAC that Ministerial Orders Nos. MDT-029-2017, MDT-074-2018 and MDT-096-2018, which establish new forms of contract for banana plantation workers and agricultural workers, would obstruct the effective exercise of the right to collective bargaining in those sectors. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the forms of contract issued by the Ministry of Labour are not intended for a specific group of people and do not specifically cover certain jobs; and (ii) the form of contract is for temporary jobs, which are common in all economic activities and particularly in the banana sector, but that it was precisely this fact that had allowed contractual relationships in the banana sector to be regularized and enabled workers to benefit from all their labour rights. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government’s indications, during the June 2019–June 2020 period, a total of four collective agreements were signed and in force in the agricultural sector and three in the banana sector. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government, in the context of the statistics requested in the preceding paragraph, to continue providing detailed information on the existing collective agreements in the above-mentioned sectors, and on the number of workers covered.

The Committee regrets to observe that, although it has made available the requested technical assistance, it has not to date observed any progress in the adoption of the necessary measures to bring the legislation into line with the Convention. The Committee particularly regrets that it has not received information from the Government on the follow-up to the ILO mission of December 2019. The Committee urges the Government to intensify its efforts to adopt the necessary measures in relation to the points emphasized in its comments and, to this end, to hold a constructive dialogue with all representative employers’ and workers’ organizations with the aim of achieving tangible and sustainable results. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2021.]

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

The Committee notes the joint observations of Public Services International in Ecuador (PSI–Ecuador) and the National Federation of Education Workers (UNE), received on 28 August 2019, which refer to issues examined in the context of the present comment. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2019, which refer to issues examined in the context of the present comment, as well as specific allegations of anti-union discrimination in the public and private sectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the above allegations of anti-union discrimination.

The Committee welcomes the request for technical assistance submitted by the Government to the Office in relation to the legislative reform process and with a view to following up on the observations and recommendations formulated by the ILO supervisory bodies. The Committee trusts that this technical assistance will enable the Government to take the necessary measures regarding the issues raised in previous comments with respect to the present Convention, which are recalled below.

Regarding the application of the Convention in the public sector, the Committee requested the Government to:

• -report on the penalties and compensation applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination and interference committed in the public sector, indicating the legislative or regulatory provisions that establish them;
• -indicate whether, in addition to the leadership of the Civil Service Committee, the leaders of organizations of public servants also have extra protection against the elimination of positions or benefit from other similar measures, including in the event of recourse to the compulsory purchase of redundancy mechanism;
• -provide information with respect to an application for a constitutional review, which, according to PSI–Ecuador and UNE, was submitted in relation to the compulsory purchase of redundancy mechanism; and
• -reopen an in-depth debate with the trade unions concerned with a view to establishing an adequate collective bargaining mechanism for all categories of workers in the public sector covered by the Convention.

Regarding the application of the Convention in the private sector, the Committee requested the Government to:

• -take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation includes a specific provision guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment;
• -in consultation with the social partners, take the necessary steps to amend section 221 of the Labour Code so that where there is no organization with over 50 per cent of the workers as members, minority trade unions may, either alone or jointly, at least negotiate on behalf of their members;
• -communicate their comments on the observations of the Trade Union Association of Agricultural, Banana and Rural Workers (ASTAC), transmitted by PSI–Ecuador and UNE, on the effects of the ministerial orders which establish new forms of contract for banana plantation workers and agricultural workers in the effective exercise of the right to collective bargaining in those sectors.

The Committee trusts that the technical assistance which will be afforded shortly will enable significant progress to be made in relation to the above issues.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2020.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the joint observations of Public Services International in Ecuador (PSI–Ecuador) and the National Federation of Education Workers (UNE), received on 31 August 2018, which refer to issues examined in the context of the present comment and to specific allegations of anti-union discrimination in the public and private sectors. The Committee notes that these observations also refer to matters relating to the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which will therefore be taken into consideration during the next examination of the application of that Convention by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on the aforementioned allegations of anti-union discrimination and also on those contained in the 2016 observations of the UNE and PSI–Ecuador. The Committee urges the Government to send its comments on the specific allegations of anti-union dismissals at an enterprise in the banana industry contained in the 2014 observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Convention. Protection of public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, after noting with interest that the Basic Act reforming the laws regulating the public service (Basic Reform Act) contains various provisions providing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, including with regard to the “compulsory purchase of redundancy” mechanism, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the penalties and compensation applicable to the aforementioned acts and on the scope of application of some of these provisions. The Committee notes that the Government reports the adoption of Ministerial Order No. MDT-2018-0010 regulating the exercise of public servants’ right to organize. The Committee notes in this regard that: (i) the fourth general provision of the aforementioned Ministerial Order provides that any act that seeks to hamper, restrict or undermine the right to organize shall be grounds for dismissal of the person committing the act; and (ii) section 15 regarding violations of the right to organize provides that any public servant or committee of public servants can obtain protection of the right to organize from the competent jurisdiction. However, the Committee observes that: (i) the definition of a violation of the right to organize laid down by the aforementioned provision is limited to acts of interference and therefore appears narrower in scope than the relevant provisions of the Basic Reform Act, which prohibit both anti-union interference and discrimination; and (ii) with the limited exception of the fourth general provision, which is only concerned with penalties applicable to persons carrying out certain anti-union acts, the Ministerial Order does not determine the other penalties and compensation applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination or interference. Recalling once again the importance of having effective and dissuasive penalties in this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the penalties and compensation applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination and interference committed in the public sector, indicating the legislative or regulatory provisions that establish them. The Committee also once again requests the Government to indicate whether, in addition to the leadership of the Civil Service Committee, the leaders of organizations of public servants also have extra protection against the elimination of positions or benefit from other similar measures, including in the event of recourse to the compulsory purchase of redundancy mechanism. Lastly, observing that PSI–Ecuador and the UNE indicate that legal action has been taken to have the above mechanism declared unconstitutional, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the legal action.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee noted with concern that the constitutional amendments adopted in December 2015 limit the right to engage in collective bargaining to the private sector and that the Basic Reform Act adopted in May 2017 does not provide for collective bargaining mechanisms but only recognizes the possibility of social dialogue between the Civil Service Committee and the public institutions on a limited number of subjects not including remuneration. On the basis of the above, the Committee urged the Government to reopen an in-depth debate with the trade unions concerned with a view to re-establishing an adequate collective bargaining mechanism for all categories of workers in the public sector covered by the Convention. The Committee also asked the Government to provide information on collective agreements signed with public sector workers hired prior to the entry into force of the constitutional amendments of 2015.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in this regard that: (i) on 4 April 2018, the Ministry of Labour issued two circulars (No. MDT-2018-0018 and No. MDT-2018-0019) confirming that there are no restrictions preventing persons hired as public employees before the 2015 constitutional amendments – who are therefore subject to the provisions of the Labour Code – from retaining their right to collective bargaining; (ii) since the two circulars were issued, six new collective agreements have been signed in the public sector for the above-mentioned category of workers; and (iii) as previously mentioned, Ministerial Order MDT-2018-0010 regulating the exercise of the right to organize for public servants was adopted in 2018. The Committee also notes the indications of PSI–Ecuador and the UNE that: (i) the constitutional amendments of 2015 excluding the entire public sector from the scope of collective bargaining have been annulled by the Constitutional Court (Judgment No. 018-18-SIN-CC of 1 August 2018) for procedural flaws, which intensifies the legal limbo for public sector workers who were previously subject to the provisions of the Labour Code; (ii) the Ministry of Labour reported a proposal to reform the Labour Code which would cover both private and public sector workers but the drafting of the proposal is making slow progress; (iii) a public sector committee with an advisory role regarding remuneration has been set up within the National Labour and Wage Board but there are problems regarding trade union representatives on that committee being co-opted by the Government; and (iv) even though there has been some resumption of collective bargaining with public sector workers hired prior to the 2015 constitutional amendments (and who therefore retain their right to collective bargaining), the aforementioned negotiations are subject to multiple restrictions which have been observed since 2008 by the ILO supervisory bodies, especially as regards remuneration.

While welcoming the resumption of collective bargaining with public sector workers hired prior to the 2015 constitutional amendments, the Committee observes that the Basic Reform Act and the new Ministerial Order regulating the exercise of public servants’ right to organize still do not recognize the right to collective bargaining for other public sector workers. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that under Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, persons employed in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State (including employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and those in decentralized entities, public sector teachers and transport personnel) are covered by the Convention (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 172). Hence they should be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of work, including their wage conditions, and mere consultation of the unions concerned is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Convention in this respect (see 2012 General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 219). Observing that both the effects of the Constitutional Court judgment of 2018 concerning the constitutional amendments of 2015 and the planned revision of the Labour Code may constitute a favourable context in this respect, the Committee once again urges the Government to reopen an in-depth debate with the trade unions concerned with a view to establishing an adequate collective bargaining mechanism for all categories of workers in the public sector covered by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on progress made in this regard and reminds the Government that it may avail itself of technical assistance from the Office in this respect.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation includes a specific provision guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) on 16 June 2017, Ministerial Order No. 16 was issued, containing regulations for the elimination of discrimination in the workplace; (ii) however, the regulations in force do not contain specific provisions regarding the prohibition of anti-union discrimination in access to employment; and (iii) measures ensuring compliance with the comments of the Committee will be decided upon in the regulatory reform process and in the adoption of secondary legislation. Recalling that it has been repeating its comments on this matter for decades, the Committee trusts that the Government will very soon be in a position to report that a specific provision has been introduced into the legislation guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out the need to amend section 221 of the Labour Code with respect to the submission of draft collective agreements so that, where there is no organization with over 50 per cent of the workers as members, minority trade unions may, either alone or jointly, negotiate on behalf of their members. The Committee once again notes that the Government again indicates that the content of section 221 of the Labour Code, in line with sections 452 and 459 of the Code concerning enterprise committees, is based on democratic principles in determining that the most representative organization shall be the one authorized to negotiate with the employer. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that, while it is acceptable that the union which represents the majority or a high percentage of workers in a bargaining unit should enjoy preferential or exclusive bargaining rights, the Committee considers that in cases where no union meets these conditions, or does not enjoy such exclusive rights, minority trade unions should at least be able to conclude a collective or direct agreement on behalf of their own members (see 2012 General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 226). In the light of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps to amend section 221 of the Labour Code so that where there is no organization with over 50 per cent of the workers as members, minority trade unions may, either alone or jointly, at least negotiate on behalf of their members. Moreover, noting the Government’s indication that it is not currently in a position to provide the requested statistics, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements signed and in force in the country, the sectors of activity and the number of workers covered by them.

Ministerial Orders establishing new forms of contract for banana plantation workers and agricultural workers. The Committee notes that PSI–Ecuador and the UNE have sent observations from the Trade Union Association of Agricultural, Banana and Rural Workers (ASTAC) claiming that Ministerial Orders Nos MDT-029-2017, MDT 074-2018 and MDT-096-2018, which establish new forms of contract for banana plantation workers and agricultural workers, obstruct the effective exercise of the right to collective bargaining in those sectors. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments in this regard and to provide information on existing collective agreements in the above-mentioned sectors.

Recalling that in 2017 the Government agreed with the Office on the provision of technical assistance on legislative matters but that the Committee has not received any further information on this matter, the Committee continues to trust that the Government will very soon be in a position to report the adoption of legislative provisions that take account of the comments that the Committee has been making for a number of years regarding both the public and private sectors.

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

The Committee notes the joint observations of the National Federation of Education Workers (UNE) and of Public Services International in Ecuador (PSI–Ecuador), received on 1 September 2017, which refer, among other things, to the adoption on 19 May 2017 of the Basic Act reforming public sector legislation (Basic Reform Act) and also to allegations of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on the aforementioned allegations of anti-union discrimination and also on those contained in the 2016 observations of the UNE and PSI–Ecuador. The Committee also urges the Government to send its comments on the specific allegations of anti-union dismissals at an enterprise in the banana industry contained in the 2014 observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

The Committee welcomes that the Government has agreed with the Office on the provision of technical assistance in the context of the legislative reforms under way.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Convention. Protection of public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector contains provisions, at least for workers not covered by the exception in Article 6 of the Convention, prohibiting and establishing dissuasive penalties for any acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, as set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, and also urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the use of the “compulsory purchase of redundancy” procedure does not give rise to acts of anti-union discrimination. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that the Basic Reform Act contains provisions which: (i) protect public servants against any act of discrimination related to the exercise of their right to organize (section 11); (ii) protect the independence of organizations of public servants and prohibit interference by the public authorities in the establishment of such organizations (section 11); and (iii) provide that any termination of employment or “compulsory purchase of redundancy” with compensation for public servants who are members of the board of the Civil Service Committee shall be null and void (general provisions). Recalling the importance of having effective and dissuasive penalties in this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the penalties and compensation applicable to acts of discrimination and anti-union interference committed in the public sector, indicating the legislative or regulatory provisions that establish them. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether, in addition to the Civil Service Committee members, the leaders of organizations of public servants also have extra protection against the termination of employment or benefit from other similar measures.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee observed with deep concern that, in violation of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, and despite its reiterated comments and those of other ILO supervisory bodies, the constitutional amendments adopted in December 2015 exclude the public sector as a whole from the scope of collective bargaining. The Committee urged the Government to reopen in the near future an in-depth debate with the trade unions concerned with a view to re-establishing collective bargaining for all categories of workers in the public sector covered by the Convention. The Committee also urged the Government to respect fully the right of workers in the public sector recruited prior to the entry into force of the constitutional amendments to continue negotiating their terms and conditions of employment.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) in Ecuador the concept of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State does not exist; (ii) collective bargaining has not disappeared from the public sector since public sector workers hired before the entry into force of the constitutional amendments of 2015 continue to enjoy this right; and (iii) the possibility of taking account of the Committee’s observations in the legislative reforms under way will be examined. The Committee also notes that PSI–Ecuador and the UNE maintain that the Basic Reform Act adopted on 19 May 2017 has missed the opportunity to reintroduce the right to collective bargaining in the public sector since it only recognizes the possibility for dialogue between the Civil Service Committee and the public institutions with respect to a limited number of matters which do not include remuneration.

The Committee observes that, on the basis of the final part of section 326.16 of the Constitution as amended in December 2015, which provides that collective bargaining will only apply to the private sector since the State and the public administration are obliged to take care of the public interest, the Basic Reform Act does not recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants but establishes, through section 11, a mechanism for social dialogue between the Civil Service Committee and the public institutions. The Committee also observes that section 11 provides that: (i) it is for the Civil Service Committee to take the initiative with regard to the social dialogue process; (ii) social dialogue may cover the following subjects: training and technical instruction; improvements to conditions of work and the working environment; occupational safety and health and the integration of vulnerable groups into the labour market; (iii) the results of the social dialogue will be recorded in a report to be sent to the Ministry of Labour; and (iv) any disputes arising from failure to implement the results of the social dialogue will be submitted to compulsory mediation and, if no solution is reached by this means, the disputes will be referred to the conciliation and arbitration tribunal.

The Committee notes that even though the social dialogue mechanism established by the Basic Reform Act lays down dispute settlement procedures, it does not provide for the conclusion of agreements whereby public sector employees can endorse their conditions of employment. The Committee also notes that the subjects for dialogue are limited and do not include, in particular, questions of remuneration. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, under the terms of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, all workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State (such as employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and those in decentralized institutions, teachers in the public sector and personnel in the transport sector) are covered by the Convention (see the 2012 General Survey on fundamental Conventions, paragraph 172) and therefore, must be able to engage in collective bargaining concerning their conditions of employment, including pay conditions, and that mere consultation of the unions concerned is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Convention in this respect (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 219). Recalling that the particular characteristics of the public administration may make a degree of flexibility necessary and that the Convention may therefore be compatible with systems that require parliamentary approval of certain conditions of work or financial clauses of collective agreements in the public sector, and observing that in many countries mechanisms are in operation which allow the harmonious coexistence of the public sector’s mission of general interest with the responsible exercise of collective bargaining, the Committee urges the Government once again to reopen an in depth debate with the trade unions concerned with a view to establishing an adequate collective bargaining mechanism for all categories of workers in the public sector covered by the Convention. The Committee reminds the Government that it may seek support from the Office in the context of the current technical assistance provided. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on collective agreements signed with public sector workers recruited prior to the entry into force of the constitutional amendments of 2015.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation includes a specific provision guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment. The Committee notes that the Government concurs once again that the current legislation does not contain specific provisions prohibiting anti-union discrimination in recruitment and there is a need to engage in reflection so as to be able to combat effectively any discrimination in employment. In the light of the above and encouraged by the legislative reform process under way with technical assistance from the Office, the Committee trusts that the Government will very soon be in a position to report that a specific provision has been introduced into the legislation guaranteeing protection against acts of anti union discrimination in access to employment.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out the need to amend section 221 of the Labour Code with respect to the submission of the draft collective agreement so that, where there is no organization with over 50 per cent of the workers as members, minority trade unions may, either alone or jointly, negotiate on behalf of their members. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it will forward these observations to the authorities responsible for implementing the legislative reforms in progress but that it should also be recalled that the purpose of the existing legislation is to ensure the representativeness of trade unions vis-à-vis employers with a view to concluding majority agreements. The Committee recalls that, while it is acceptable that the union which represents the majority or a high percentage of workers in a bargaining unit should enjoy preferential or exclusive bargaining rights, the Committee considers that in cases where no union meets these conditions, or does not enjoy such exclusive rights, minority trade unions should at least be able to conclude a collective or direct agreement on behalf of their own members (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 226). In light of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps to amend section 221 of the Labour Code so that, where there is no organization with over 50 per cent of the workers as members, minority trade unions may, either alone or jointly negotiate on behalf of their members. The Committee also requests the Government once again to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded in recent years and the number of sectors and workers covered.

Noting that the Government has agreed with the Office on the provision of technical assistance, the Committee trusts that the Government will very soon be in a position to report the adoption of legislative provisions that take account of the comments that the Committee has been making for a number of years regarding both the public and private sectors.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2018.]

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 2016, the joint observations of the National Federation of Education Workers (UNE) and Public Services International (PSI), received on 1 September 2016, and the joint observations of the UNE and Education International (EI), received on 7 September 2016, all of which refer to issues examined in the present observation.

The Committee also notes the observations of the National Federation of Chambers of Industries of Ecuador, received on 2 September 2016, which also refer to matters examined in the present observation.

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments on the specific allegations of anti-union dismissals in an enterprise in the banana sector contained in the ITUC’s 2014 observations.

Follow-up to the discussion of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 105th Session, May–June 2016)

The Committee notes the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (hereinafter the Conference Committee) in June 2016 on the application of the Convention by Ecuador. The Committee notes that in its conclusions the Conference Committee requested the Government to:

• -initiate a process of consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations prior to any amendment to the law, in order to bring all the relevant legislation into compliance with the Convention;
• -amend the Basic Act on the Public Service (LOSEP) and the Basic Act on Public Enterprises (LOEP) so as to ensure that all workers, with the possible exception of persons engaged in the administration of the State, enjoy the right to establish trade unions and to bargain collectively in accordance with the Convention;
• -repeal Ministerial Orders Nos 00080 and 00155 which allow clauses in public sector collective agreements to be qualified as abusive, an authority which should come only within the purview of the judiciary;
• -accept a programme of technical assistance of the Office in conducting the consultations referred to above and the subsequent legislative reform; and
• -ensure that collective bargaining can be exercised in a climate of dialogue and mutual understanding.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Convention. Protection of public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector contains provisions, at least for workers not covered by the exception set out in Article 6 of the Convention, which prohibit and establish dissuasive penalties for any acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, as set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee emphasized that the procedure known as “compulsory purchase of redundancy”, as examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2926, which allows the public administration, through the payment of compensation, to unilaterally dismiss public servants without having to indicate the grounds for the termination of the employment relationship, makes it even more necessary to adopt provisions affording effective protection to public servants against any acts of anti-union discrimination. In this regard, the Committee notes, firstly, that the Government confines itself to indicating that the “compulsory purchase of redundancy” can only be applied during processes of restructuring or reorganization of public institutions, following examination by a Public Management Committee of the relevance and feasibility of the use of this procedure, but does not provide information on the measures taken to give effect to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention in the public sector. The Committee also notes that the PSI and the UNE denounce in their observations a series of specific cases of anti-union dismissals, several of which were carried out through the “compulsory purchase of redundancy” procedure. The Committee also notes that the PSI and the UNE provide with their observations the text of the Bill to reform the legislation governing the public sector, which is currently under examination by the National Assembly. The Committee notes that this Bill contains a provision protecting public servants against acts of discrimination relating to the exercise of their right to organize and, in addition, a provision on the independence of organizations of public servants in relation to the public authorities. However, the Committee observes that the text of the Bill to which it has had access does not envisage specific penalties for cases of anti-union discrimination or interference. In the light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the use of the “compulsory purchase of redundancy” procedure does not give rise to acts of anti-union discrimination and requests the Government to provide its comments on the specific cases of anti-union dismissal in the public sector denounced by PSI and the UNE. The Committee also trusts that the current reform of the legislation governing the public sector will give full effect, at least in relation to public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State, to the guarantees set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Recalling that the Government may have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office, the Committee requests the Government to report any progress in this respect.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that various laws governing the public sector did not recognize the right to collective bargaining for public servants, and that only public sector workers governed by the Labour Code could engage in collective bargaining. Recalling that the Convention applies to public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to extend the right to collective bargaining to all the categories of public employees covered by the Convention. Moreover, in its latest comment, the Committee noted that, with a view to unifying the legal regime governing workers in the public sector, the adoption of constitutional amendments was under discussion and intended to extend the scope of application of the above laws governing the public sector to all workers in the sector, with the sole exception of wage earners in the public sector recruited prior to the entry into force of the amendments. In so far as these laws governing the public sector did not recognize the right of public servants to engage in collective bargaining, the Committee, in the same way as the ILO technical mission which visited the country in January 2015, noted with concern that the adoption of the constitutional amendments would result in an extension of non-compliance with Article 4 of the Convention. In the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 2970, 376th Report, October 2015), the Committee of Experts requested the Government to engage immediately in consultations with the workers’ organizations concerned with a view to ensuring that the draft constitutional amendments contribute to the application of Article 4 of the Convention and that the legislation governing the public sector is in conformity with that Article.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the constitutional amendments referred to above were adopted on 3 December 2015 and that, under the terms of these amendments: (i) new Article 326(16) of the Constitution provides that “whereas the State and the public administration have the obligation to ensure the general interest, there shall only be collective bargaining in the private sector”; and (ii) the first transitional provision of the amendments provides that “workers in the public sector who prior to the entry into force of the present constitutional amendments were governed by the Labour Code, shall maintain the individual and collective rights guaranteed by that legislation. Once the present constitutional amendment has entered in force, public servants who enter the public service shall be governed by the provisions that regulate it”.

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) collective bargaining is a process that is only justified in order to distribute the profits generated from private activities; (ii) any surplus generated by public sector institutions shall be redistributed equally to society as a whole; (iii) the remuneration of public servants is on average substantially higher than that received in the private sector; and (iv) the protection of the rights acquired by workers in the public sector recruited prior to the entry into force of the amendments means that processes of collective bargaining initiated prior to 3 December 2015 have to be completed and that the collective contracts in force have to be fully respected. The Committee also notes the observations of the PSI, EI and UNE which indicate that: (i) completing a process initiated in 2008, the adoption of the constitutional amendments of December 2015 marks the complete disappearance of collective bargaining in the public sector in Ecuador; (ii) workers in the public sector, who are now a defunct category, recruited prior to the entry into force of the constitutional amendments are currently in a legal void; and (iii) in practice, despite the wording of the first transitional provision, the processes of collective bargaining covering workers in the public sector have been halted in their entirety.

The Committee observes with deep concern that, in violation of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, and despite its reiterated comments and those of other ILO supervisory bodies, the constitutional amendments adopted in December 2015 exclude the public sector as a whole from the scope of collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of these provisions of the Convention, all workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State (such as employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and those in decentralized institutions, teachers in the public sector and personnel in the transport sector) must be able to benefit from the right to collective bargaining. The Committee also recalls that this right constitutes an important element of social democracy and that in many countries mechanisms are in operation which allow the harmonious coexistence of the public sector’s mission of general interest with the responsible exercise of collective bargaining. The Committee, therefore, urges the Government to reopen an in-depth debate with the trade unions concerned in the near future with a view to re-establishing collective bargaining for all categories of workers in the public sector covered by the Convention. Recalling its various comments made since 2008, the Committee also urges the Government to respect fully the right of workers in the public sector recruited prior to the entry into force of the constitutional amendments to continue negotiating their terms and conditions of employment and work. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on this subject.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation includes a specific provision guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the current legislation does not contain specific provisions prohibiting anti-union discrimination in recruitment; and (ii) it agrees on the need to engage in reflection so as to be able to combat effectively any discrimination so that victims can be reintegrated into the labour market in accordance with their constitutional right to work. In light of the above, the Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation includes a specific provision guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out the need to amend section 221 of the Labour Code with respect to the submission of the draft collective agreement so that, where there is no organization with over 50 per cent of the workers as members, minority trade unions may, either alone or jointly, negotiate on behalf of their members. The Committee notes that both the Government and the National Federation of Chambers of Industries of Ecuador indicate that this provision of the Labour Code guarantees the representativeness of the workers’ organization with which the collective agreement is concluded which, once signed, will apply to all workers whether or not they are unionized. The Committee recalls that, although the requirement of representativity for the conclusion of collective agreements is fully compatible with the Convention, the level of representativity established should not be such as to be an obstacle to the promotion and development of free and voluntary collective bargaining, as set out in Article 4 of the Convention. In this regard, while noting the Government’s indication that between 2010 and June 2016 a total of 267 collective agreements were concluded in the private sector, the Committee also emphasizes that, in its conclusions, the ILO technical mission which visited the country in January 2015, as a follow-up to the discussion in the Conference Committee in 2014, expressed concern at the low rate of coverage of collective bargaining, especially in the private sector. In light of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to amend section 221 of the Labour Code as indicated above. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements concluded in recent years and the number of workers and sectors covered.

The Committee observes with concern that, despite its reiterated comments and the discussions held on the application of the Convention in the Conference Committee in 2014 and 2016, restrictions on freedom of association and collective bargaining which are contrary to the guarantees of the Convention are being extended in the public sector. The Committee urges the Government to take fully into consideration the content of the present observation, both with regard to the legislation in force and its application, and in relation to the draft legislation currently under discussion, and particularly the draft reform of administrative laws. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the Government may have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the joint observations of the National Federation of Education Workers (UNE), Public Services International–Ecuador (PSI–E) and the United Front of Workers (FUT), received on 23 August 2015, and the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2015, which contain denunciations of violations of the Convention in practice, as well as legislative issues that the Committee is examining in the present observation. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the denunciations of violations in practice contained in these trade union observations. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide its comments on the allegations of anti-union dismissals in an enterprise in the banana sector contained in the 2014 ITUC observations.

The Committee also notes the report of the ILO technical mission which visited the country at the invitation of the Government, from 26 to 30 January 2015, as a follow-up to the discussion in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference in June 2014 on the application of the Convention by Ecuador.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes with interest that section 33 of the Act on labour justice and the recognition of household work (hereinafter, the Labour Justice Act), adopted in April 2015, which amends section 187 of the Labour Code, provides that the unjustified dismissal of members of the executive committee of a trade union shall have no effect. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice.

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation includes a specific provision guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in access to employment. Noting that the Government’s report does not refer to this matter, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the measures requested and to report on any progress made in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out the need to amend section 221 of the Labour Code respecting the submission of the draft collective agreement, so that, where there is no organization with over 50 per cent of the workers as members, minority trade unions may, either alone or jointly, negotiate on behalf of their members. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this provision of the Labour Code guarantees the representativity of the workers’ organization with which the collective agreement is concluded. Recalling that the requirement of an excessively high percentage of representativity in order to be allowed to participate in collective bargaining can hinder the promotion and development of free and voluntary collective bargaining in accordance with the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 221 of the Labour Code as indicated. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the number of collective agreements concluded in recent years, and the number of workers and sectors covered.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1 and 2. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, noting the absence of specific provisions respecting anti-union discrimination and interference in the Basic Act on the Public Service (LOSEP), the Basic Act on Public Enterprises (LOEP), the Basic Act on Higher Education (LOES) and the Basic Act on Intercultural Education (LOEI), the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector, at least for workers not covered by the exception set out in Article 6 of the Convention, contains provisions prohibiting and establishing dissuasive penalties for any acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, as envisaged in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the ILO technical mission which visited the country in January 2015, in its report, noted the undertaking by the Ministry of Labour to include in the LOSEP a provision similar to that in the Labour Justice Act, which inserted into the Labour Code a provision establishing that the unjustified dismissal of trade union representatives shall be null and void. However, the Committee notes that the Government’s report, which refers to the general prohibition of discrimination in the Constitution and the LOSEP, does not contain information on this subject. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes that the procedure known as “compulsory purchase of redundancy”, as examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2926, which allows the public administration, through the payment of compensation, to unilaterally remove public servants without having to indicate the grounds for the termination of the employment relationship, makes it even more necessary to adopt provisions affording effective protection to public servants against any acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation applicable to the public sector contains provisions prohibiting and establishing dissuasive penalties for any acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, as set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention.

Articles 4 and 6. Personal scope of collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the LOEP, LOSEP, LOES and LOEI do not recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants, and that only public sector workers governed by the Labour Code may engage in collective bargaining. Recalling that the Convention applies to public servants not engaged in the administration of the State (such as employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and employees in decentralized bodies, public sector teachers and air transport personnel), the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to extend the right to collective bargaining to all the categories of public employees covered by the Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that public servants enjoy the right to organize and that they benefit from financial conditions that are better than those in the private sector, as well as a broad series of rights which respond to their needs. Emphasizing that, under the terms of the Convention, workers who are covered by the Convention have the right to engage in collective bargaining, irrespective of the other rights or benefits that they enjoy, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the trade union organizations concerned, to take the necessary measures for the revision of the LOSEP and related legislation so as to recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee further notes that the UNE, PSI–E, FUT and ITUC allege that a draft set of constitutional amendments, which have been under examination since June 2014 by the National Assembly, and which provide that public sector workers currently governed by the Labour Code will be subject to administrative laws governing the terms and conditions of work of public servants, has the objective of completely eliminating the right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee notes that the draft constitutional amendments did not give rise to broad discussions before the ILO technical mission in January 2015 and were the subject of the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in November 2015, in the context of Case No. 2970. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association referred to the legislative aspects of the case.

In this regard, the Committee notes that: (i) with a view to unifying the legal regime governing workers in the public sector, these constitutional amendments envisage the deletion of the third indent of article 229 of the Constitution and the amendment of the 16th indent of article 326 such that wage earners in the public sector, who are currently governed by the Labour Code, will be subject to the LOSEP and the other administrative laws governing terms and conditions of work in the public sector; and (ii) the single transitional provision in the draft amendments provides that wage earners in the public sector recruited prior to the entry into force of the amendments will not lose the rights guaranteed by the Labour Code.

The Committee therefore observes that the adoption of the constitutional amendments would have the effect of extending the scope of application of the LOSEP and other administrative laws to all public sector workers, with the sole exception of wage earners in the public sector recruited prior to the entry into force of the amendments. Since, as noted above, the administrative laws referred to do not recognize the right of public servants to collective bargaining, the Committee notes with concern that the adoption of the constitutional amendments would result, with the legislation in its current form, in an extension of non-compliance of Article 4 of the Convention, which recognizes the right to collective bargaining of all public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the State. In this respect, the Committee considers, in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association, that the discussion of the draft constitutional amendments makes it even more urgent to amend the LOSEP and other administrative laws in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention. While noting that the Government informed the Committee on Freedom of Association that provisions would be adopted regulating more specifically the trade union rights of public servants, once the constitutional amendments had been adopted, the Committee notes that it has not received information on specific initiatives to amend the legislation as indicated. The Committee therefore urges the Government to launch immediately a process of consultation with workers’ organizations in the public sector with a view to taking the necessary measures to ensure that the draft constitutional amendments contribute to the application of Article 4 of the Convention and that the legislation applicable to the public sector is in conformity with that Article. Recalling that the Government may avail itself of ILO technical assistance, the Committee requests it to report on any developments in this regard.

Material scope of collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the LOSEP and the LOEP do not allow public sector workers who have the right to conclude collective agreements (public service workers governed by the Labour Code), to negotiate the level of their remuneration. Recalling that the Convention applies to public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to restore the right of public sector workers covered by the Convention to engage in collective bargaining with regard to their remuneration. In this respect, the Committee again notes the Government’s indication that public sector workers enjoy better financial conditions than those in the private sector, as well as a broad range of rights which respond to their needs. The Committee also notes that the new section 118 of the Labour Code, as amended by the Labour Justice Act adopted in April 2015, provides that the Ministry of Labour shall set remuneration and determine the scales of increments applicable to public servants and public sector workers. Recalling once again, in reply to the Government’s earlier comments, that there are arrangements which allow for the conciliation of the protection of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value in the public sector and the respect for budgetary allocations, on the one hand, and the recognition of the right to collective bargaining, on the other, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to restore the right to collective bargaining on all matters affecting the working and living conditions of public servants and public sector workers covered by the Convention, and to report on any developments in this regard.

Determination of the abusive nature of collective agreements in the public sector by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee recalls that the Committee on Freedom of Association drew its attention to the legislative aspects of Case No. 2684 (Report No. 372, paragraphs 282 and 285) relating to the violation of the right to collective bargaining as a result of empowering the Ministry of Industrial Relations through Ministerial Order Nos 00080 and 00155 to determine the abusive character of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the determination of any abusive clauses in collective agreements in the public sector lies within the competence of the judicial authorities. The Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that the administrative authorities are not judges and parties to the revision of collective agreements in the public sector, as they provide equitable support to both employers and workers. The Committee highlights once again that, in light of the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining enshrined in Article 4 of the Convention, the determination of the abusive nature of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector should only apply to cases of violation of the legislation or to very serious cases of distortion of the collective bargaining purposes, and that this determination should lie with the judicial authorities. The Committee therefore urges again the Government to take the necessary measures in this respect, including the repeal of the provisions of the national legislation which empower the Ministry of Labour to determine the abusive nature of collective agreements in the public sector. The Committee requests the Government to report on any developments in this regard.

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, which refers to issues dealt with by the Committee and to anti-union dismissals in an enterprise in the banana production sector. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on this subject. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the previous observations of ITUC and those of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) of 2006. The Committee regrets that the Government has not provided its complete comments on the observations of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers of Ecuador (CSE) received on 6 September 2013, or to the observations of the Public Services International (PSI)-Ecuador received on 16 September 2013, which condemn the incompatibility of many provisions in national law relating to the public sector with the Convention and which will be examined in the present observation.

Follow-up to the discussion of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 103rd Session, May–June 2014)

The Committee notes the discussion that was held at the Conference of the Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2014 concerning the application of the Convention in Ecuador. The Committee appreciates the invitation that was extended by the Government on that occasion for an ILO mission to visit the country to address the issues raised relating to the application of the Convention and notes that this visit is planned for early 2015.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation includes a specific provision guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government requests the Committee to clarify this point as it considers that anti-union discrimination cannot exist at the time of recruitment given that it is only once a person is employed he or she can join a union. In this respect, the Committee recalls that Article 1 of the Convention expressly prohibits anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment of the individual worker, so that access to employment does not depend on the worker’s non-affiliation with a trade union or their relinquishment of their membership to a trade union, as well as practices such as the formulation of “black lists” of members in order to prevent their recruitment. Under these conditions, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation includes a specific provision guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of access to employment and that it reports on any development in this regard.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out the need to amend section 221 of the Labour Code (previously section 229(2)) respecting the submission of the draft collective agreement, so that minority trade union organizations with a membership amounting to no more than 50 per cent of the workers subject to the Labour Code may, on their own or jointly (when there is no majority union representing all the workers), negotiate on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the purpose of the requirement under section 221 is to increase the legitimacy of the collective bargaining process. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the requirement for an excessively high percentage of representativity in order to be allowed to participate in collective bargaining can hinder the promotion and development of free and voluntary collective bargaining in conformity with the Convention and that the rule in section 221 can remove the opportunity for collective bargaining for a representative trade union which does not reach an absolute majority. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take measures to amend section 221 of the Labour Code in the manner indicated and to report on any new developments in this regard.

The Committee also recalls that various national trade union federations allege that the social partners were not being consulted about the draft revision of the Labour Code. While it notes the information provided by the Government in its report on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which indicates that the draft has been widely disseminated among the public and that, moreover, the President of the Republic announced on 15 November 2014 a new proposed revision of various aspects of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that any draft reform is the subject of in-depth consultations with the representative organizations of workers and employers, to reach, in so far as possible, joint decisions.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

Articles 1 and 2. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that the Committee on Freedom of Association has referred to it the examination of the legislative aspects of Case No. 2926 regarding allegations of numerous anti-union dismissals in the public sector through the procedure known as the “compulsory purchase of redundancy”. Established by Executive Decree No. 813, this procedure allows public administration, through the payment of compensation, to unilaterally remove public servants without having to indicate the grounds for the termination of the employment relationship. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain information on the absence in the Organic Act on the Civil Service (LOSEP), the Organic Act on Public Enterprises (LOEP), the Organic Act on Higher Education (LOES) and the Organic Act on Intercultural Education (LOEI) of specific provisions relating to anti-union discrimination and interference. Under these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that legislation applicable to the public sector contains: (i) provisions which prohibit any acts of anti-union discrimination envisaged in Article 1 of the Convention; (ii) provisions which prohibit any acts of interference envisaged in Article 2 of the Convention; and (iii) provisions which set forth dissuasive penalties where such acts are committed.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the LOSEP and the LOEP increased, especially in relation to remuneration, the limitations to the right to collective bargaining in the public sector, which had been introduced by Constituent Resolutions Nos 002 and 004, and Executive Decree No. 1406, and that these restrictions were incompatible with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the intention of Constituent Resolutions Nos 002 and 004 is to: (i) regulate, not prohibit, workers’ right to collective bargaining; (ii) ensure respect of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value within public entities; and (iii) eliminate the privileges and abuse that comprise public funds. The Committee notes, however, that the Government’s report does not contain any information on the limitations to the scope of collective bargaining contained in the LOSEP and the LOEP. In this regard, the Committee notes with particular concern section 51(k) of the LOSEP, under which the Ministry of Industrial Relations is empowered to determine, in all public sector bodies subject to that Act, the salary increase percentage and any other benefits which entail expenditure, and the fifth and 14th transitional provisions which prohibit in the public sector, including public enterprises, any expenditure beyond that provided for in the legislation. Recalling that there are mechanisms to allow the protection of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value in the public sector and compliance with budgetary availability to be reconciled with the recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to restore the right to collective bargaining in all areas affecting the living and working conditions of public sector workers enshrined in the Convention, and to report on any developments in this regard.

Determination of the abusive character of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector by the Ministry of Industrial Relations. The Committee recalls that the Committee on Freedom of Association was referred to it with the examination of the legislative aspects of Case No. 2684 (report No. 372, paragraphs 282 and 285 of June 2014) relating to the violation of the right to collective bargaining as a result of empowering the Ministry of Industrial Relations through Ministerial Orders Nos 00080 and 00155 to determine the abusive character of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Ministerial Orders do not restrict collective agreements but regulate them by setting parametres for bargaining; and (ii) the administrative authority is not judge and jury in the revision processes of the collective agreements in the public sector since it provides equal support to employers and workers alike. The Committee recalls that the power to determine the abusive character of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector should fall on the judicial authority and that in order to restore the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining enshrined in the Convention, the provisions in national law that empower the Ministry of Industrial Relations to determine the abusive character of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector need to be removed, which entails an amendment of Executive Decree No. 225 of 2010. Under these conditions, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures so that the determination of the abusive character of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector falls within the competence of the judicial power.

Article 6. Scope of application of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under the terms of the LOEP, LOSEP, LOES and LOEI, the list of public servants excluded from the right to collective bargaining goes beyond the exclusions allowed by Article 6 of the Convention, which stipulates that public servants engaged in the administration of the State are excluded from the application of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) there is no category in Ecuador for public servants who do not work in the administration of the State; and (ii) the persons set out in section 26 of the LOEP (public servants freely appointed, in general occupying executive, management, trust, representative positions, consultants and career public servants who do not enjoy the right to collective bargaining as they perform functions of trust within the highest levels of public entities and businesses). In this respect, the Committee recalls that, in order to give effect to Article 6 of the Convention, a distinction should be drawn between public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (such as, in some countries, civil servants in government ministries and other comparable bodies, and ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention, and all other persons employed by the government, public enterprises or autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 172). Under these conditions, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all categories of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the right to collective bargaining.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take account of all the comments that it has been making for many years and that, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, it will take the necessary measures to amend the provisions of the above laws and regulations, including those contained in the Labour Code that is currently under revision. The Committee trusts that the follow-up mission to the discussion in the Committee on the Application of Standards will be an opportunity to report progress made in this regard.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments of the Ecuadorian Medical Federation of 2012 and the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2011.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation includes a specific provision guaranteeing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment. In view of the lack of information provided by the Government on this issue, the Committee cannot but reiterate its previous request.

The Committee also regrets that the Government has not provided its observations on the comments made by the ITUC in 2009 which referred to serious allegations of anti-union practices in various enterprises and institutions. The Committee requests the Government to conduct an inquiry into these allegations and, if these practices are confirmed, to take the necessary measures to ensure that they are punishable by sufficiently dissuasive penalties.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee noted previously the need to amend section 229(2) of the Labour Code respecting the submission of the draft collective agreement, so that minority trade union organizations with a membership amounting to no more than 50 per cent of the workers subject to the Labour Code may, on their own or jointly (when there is no majority union representing all the workers) negotiate on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to take measures for this purpose.

The Committee also notes that various national trade union federations allege that the social partners have not been consulted concerning the draft reform of the Labour Code, which is reported to contain provisions that are contrary to the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on this matter and to ensure that any draft reform is the subject of in-depth consultations with the representative organizations of workers and employers.

Application of the Convention in the public sector

The Committee notes the 2013 comments of the ITUC and of the Trade Union Confederation of Ecuador and the joint comments by Public Services International Ecuador, the National Confederation of Educational Workers, the General Confederation of Workers of Ecuador, the Federation of Oil Workers of Ecuador, the Trade Union Confederation of the Public Sector in Ecuador, the Confederation of Health Professionals, the National Federation of Public Servants and various local trade union organizations referring to matters already raised by the Committee and also indicating that: (i) the new legislation applicable in the public sector does not provide for penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination or interference; (ii) the legislation classifies as public servants the great majority of workers in the public sector, thereby denying them the right to collective bargaining; (iii) Executive Decree No. 225 of 2010 institutionalizes the capacity of the Ministry of Industrial Relations to unilaterally revise collective agreements applicable to workers in the public sector; and (iv) the Basic Act on Higher Education (LOES) of 2010 and the Basic Act on Intercultural Education (LOEI) of 2011 do not recognize the right of public employees in the education sector to engage in collective bargaining. The Committee expresses its concern at the content of these allegations and requests the Government to provide its observations on this matter.

Articles 1 and 2. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association drew to its attention the legislative aspects of Case No. 2926 relating to allegations of numerous anti-union dismissals in the public sector through the procedure of the “compulsory purchase of redundancy” introduced by Executive Decree No. 813 [see Committee on Freedom of Association, 370th Report, paragraph 385]. In this respect, the Committee observes that the legislation respecting the public sector adopted in recent years (Organic Act on the Civil Service (LOSEP), LOEI, LOES) in general prohibits discrimination in employment, but does not contain specific provisions respecting anti-union discrimination. Under these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to indicate: (i) the provisions applicable to the public sector which guarantee that any acts of anti-union discrimination envisaged in Article 1 of the Convention are effectively prohibited; (ii) the procedures and mechanisms applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination; and (iii) the provisions establishing penalties applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination in the public sector. Furthermore, under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions which protect organizations of public servants and public sector workers against acts of interference by the employer, and to specify the penalties applicable in such cases.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee noted Constituent Resolutions Nos 002 and 004, and Executive Decree No. 1406, which set a ceiling on remuneration in the public sector and exclude from collective bargaining a series of matters, even where public sector enterprises have sufficient income, and accordingly impose permanent limitations on collective bargaining that are incompatible with the Convention. The Committee notes that the LOSEP and the Organic Act on Public Enterprises (LOEP) contain provisions which maintain these limitations and even extend them in relation to remuneration. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to restore the right to collective bargaining on all matters which affect the working and living conditions of workers in the public sector that are covered by the Convention, and to provide information in this respect.

Furthermore, with reference to constituent Resolution No. 008, Ministerial Order No. 00080 and Order No. 00155A, the Committee recalled in its previous comments that the determination of any abusive character of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector should not be carried out by the administrative authorities, but by the judicial authorities. The Committee notes that section 18 and the first transitional provision of Executive Decree No. 225 of 2010 continue to empower the Ministry of Industrial Relations to determine any abusive character of clauses in collective agreements in the public sector. Under these conditions, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the determination of any abusive clauses in collective agreements in the public sector lies within the competence of the judicial authorities.

Article 6. Scope of application of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under the terms of the LOEP and the LOSEP, the list of public servants excluded from the right to collective bargaining goes beyond the exclusions allowed by Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee also notes that the LOES and LOEI exclude all public servants in the education sector, including teachers, from the right to collective bargaining. Under these conditions, and recalling that under Article 6 of the Convention, only public servants engaged in the administration of the State may be excluded from its scope of application, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all categories of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the right to collective bargaining.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take into account all of the comments that it has been making for years and that, in consultation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, it will take the necessary measures to amend the provisions of the laws and regulations referred to above, including those contained in the Labour Code that is currently being revised. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any developments in this respect and reminds it that the technical assistance of the Office is at its disposal.

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

The Committee takes note of the comments dated 4 August 2011 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention. It requests the Government to send its observations thereon and on the ITUC’s comments dated 26 and 28 August 2009, referring to serious anti-union practices and the absence of sufficiently dissuasive penalties in the law to punish breaches of labour and trade union legislation.

With regard to the comments of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CEOSL) alleging the use of “blacklists” in one province, the Committee points out that the practice of blacklisting trade union officials or trade unionists is a serious threat to the free exercise of trade union rights. It again requests the Government to hold an inquiry and, if the allegation of blacklisting is confirmed, to take the necessary steps to ensure that the practice is punishable by sufficiently dissuasive penalties.

New Constitution

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that in the context of the adoption of the New Constitution of Ecuador, the Constituent Assembly passed a number of “constituent resolutions” which are mandatory decisions of a “supraconstitutional” nature and are not subject to oversight or challenge by any other authority (including judicial review). The Committee observed that the Committee on Freedom of Association examined the consistency of these resolutions with the provisions of the Convention in Case No. 2684 and criticized the unilateral review of collective agreements deemed to be improper by the administrative authority in the petroleum and health sectors. The Committee notes in this connection the report of the Technical Cooperation Mission carried out in Quito from 15 to 18 February 2011, in the course of which the issue of constituent resolutions was examined. The Committee notes that on that occasion the Government stated that: (1) the constituent resolutions are lawful since they were issued after several public consultations which yielded a high percentage of favourable votes; and (2) Constituent Resolution No. 23 provides that such resolutions may be amended through the procedure applying to the adoption of ordinary laws. The Committee nonetheless observes that in its report the Government states that constituent resolutions are not subject to amendment because they were issued by means of a nationwide consultation in which the Ecuadorean public responded to the call of the Constituent Assembly. The Committee stresses the need to amend the provisions that are inconsistent with the Convention, namely:

• – Constituent Resolutions Nos 002 and 004, which place a ceiling on public sector pay, compensation for unfair dismissal and other grounds of termination of the employment relationship, and ban supplementary private pension funds that involve input from state funds (Executive Decree No.1406 provides that no state resources shall be contributed to supplementary funds). The Committee considers that these provisions, which apply even when public-sector enterprises have sufficient income, impose permanent limitations on collective bargaining that are incompatible with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to remove these limitations and to reinstate the right to collective bargaining on all subjects that affect the working and living conditions of workers.
• – Constituent Resolution No. 008 provides that it is necessary to revise clauses in public-sector contracts that contain undue and disproportionate privileges and benefits, and Ministerial Order No. 00080 and Order No. 00155A lay down administrative procedures for the automatic adjustment and revision of work contracts that include such clauses. The Committee points out in this connection that the checking of clauses in public-sector agreements for possible flaws should be done not by the administrative authority – which in the public sector is both judge and party – but by the judicial authority, and only in extremely serious cases. The Committee considers that regulations that allow the administrative authority unilaterally to cancel or cut clauses in collective agreements are contrary to the principle of free and voluntary bargaining. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend Ministerial Order No. 00080 and Order No. 00155A and to indicate whether Constituent Resolution No. 008 is compatible with judicial review of certain clauses in public-sector collective agreements that may be flawed.

Pending legislative issues

The Committee again points out that for several years it has been commenting on the following matters:

• – the need to include in the legislation provisions that ensure protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment;
• – the need to amend section 229, second paragraph, of the Labour Code respecting the submission of the draft collective agreement, so that minority trade union organizations with a membership amounting to no more than 50 per cent of the workers subject to the Labour Code may, on their own or jointly (when there is no majority union representing all the workers), negotiate on behalf of their own members;
• – the need for teachers and heads of education establishments in the public sector and for staff performing technical and vocational duties in the education sector who are governed by the Higher Education Act (Act No. 2000-16) and the Act on Educational Careers and Posts in the Public Teaching Sector (Act No. 94 of 1990) to enjoy the right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes in this connection that the Government refers to articles 96 et seq. of the new Constitution of Ecuador which deal with the right to organize and dispute settlement. It requests the Government to indicate whether these workers may conclude collective agreements through their organizations.

Noting the Government’s statement that the National Assembly is in the process of amending the Labour Code, the Committee hopes that in the course of this work – to which the Office provided technical assistance – the Government will take account of all the comments the Committee has been making for years regarding protection against anti-union discrimination and interference and collective bargaining, and requests it in its next report to provide information on all developments in these areas.

Laws adopted in the public sector

Article 6. Exclusion of certain public employees from the guarantees laid down in the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee took note of two bills under debate by the National Assembly, namely: the Basic Bill on Public Enterprises and the Basic Public Service Bill. The Committee notes that they were enacted into law on 24 July 2009 and 6 October 2010, respectively. The Committee notes in this connection that the Basic Act on Public Enterprises states, in section 26, that “in public enterprises or entities established under private law in which public resources account for the majority share, collective bargaining is not open to human resources that are not deemed to be workers as defined in the law, namely public servants who can be freely appointed and removed and, in general, persons holding executive office or positions as directors, senior representatives, managers, advisers, positions of trust, general representatives, consultants and career public servants”. The Committee considers that Article 6 allows exclusion from the Convention’s scope only for public servants engaged in the administration of the State (particularly those who are employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff) (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 262), and that the list of public servants excluded from the scope of application of the abovementioned legislation goes beyond the exclusions allowed by Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the right to collective bargaining.

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

The Committee notes the comments of 24 August 2009 by the National Federation of Workers of the Enterprise “Petróleos del Ecuador” (FETRAPEC) alleging that some provisions of the new Constitution of Ecuador are inconsistent with the Convention. The Committee also notes the comments of 26 August 2009 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) referring to legislative issues raised by the Committee, and particularly certain provisions of the new Constitution of Ecuador and to the following matters: anti-union repression and intimidation of trade union officers and workers in a telecommunications enterprise; the dismissal of four trade union officers in the petroleum sector; lengthy proceedings; restriction of the subjects that may be negotiated collectively in cement enterprises and electricity and drinking water supply enterprises; interference by employers who encourage the establishment of “solidarista” organizations and acts of anti-union persecution against union officials in the judiciary which are being examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on these matters and on the ITUC’s comments of 28 August 2007 asserting that the law does not provide for sufficiently dissuasive penalties for breaches of labour and trade union law.

The Committee furthermore notes with regret that the Government has not sent its observations on the comments of 10 August 2006 by the ITUC concerning the lack of collective bargaining rights for subcontracted or outsourced workers, the use of “blacklists” in Los Ríos Province and anti-union dismissals. Observing that, according to the ITUC’s latest comments, subcontracting persists through so-called “complementary services”, the Committee reminds the Government that the right to negotiate working conditions freely with employers is an essential component of freedom of association and that all workers, with the possible exception of the armed forces, the police and persons engaged in the administration of the State, are covered by the Convention and particularly Article 4. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that workers performing “complementary services” are able fully to exercise trade union rights and, in particular, bargain collectively.

Furthermore, with regard to the alleged use of “blacklists” in one province, the Committee points out that the practice of placing trade union officials or members on “blacklists” is a serious threat to the free exercise of trade union rights, and requests the Government to hold an inquiry and, if the allegation of blacklisting is confirmed, to take the necessary steps to ensure that this practice is sanctioned by sufficiently dissuasive penalties.

New Constitution of Ecuador

The Committee notes that on 28 September 2008 a new Constitution was adopted and that it entered into force on 20 October 2008.

The Committee notes that, in the context of the Constitution’s adoption, the Constituent Assembly passed a number of “Constituent Resolutions”, which are mandatory decisions of a “supraconstitutional” nature and are not subject to oversight or challenge by any other authority (including judicial review). The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association examined the conformity of these resolutions with the provisions of the Convention in the context of Case No. 2684. The Committee refers in particular to:

–           Constituent Resolutions Nos 002 and 004 which place a ceiling on public sector pay, compensation for unfair dismissal and other grounds of termination of the employment relationship, and ban supplementary private pension funds that involve input from state funds (Executive Decree No. 1406 provides that no state resources shall be contributed to supplementary funds). The Committee is of the view that these provisions, which apply even when public sector enterprises have sufficient income, impose permanent limitations on collective bargaining that are incompatible with the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps for the removal of these limitations and for the reinstatement of the right to collective bargaining on all subjects that affect the working and living conditions of workers.

–           Constituent Resolution No. 008 establishes the need to revise clauses in public sector contracts that contain abuses and undue privileges, and Ministerial Order No. 00080 and Order No. 00155A lay down administrative procedures for the automatic adjustment and revision of work contracts that include such clauses. The Committee points out in this connection that the checking of clauses in public sector agreements for possible abuses should be done not by the administrative authority – which in the public sector is both judge and party – but by the judicial authority, and only in extremely serious cases. The Committee is of the view that regulations that allow the administrative authority unilaterally to cancel or reduce the clauses of a collective agreement are contrary to the principle of free and voluntary bargaining. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend Ministerial Order No. 00080 and Order No. 00155A and to indicate whether Constituent Resolution No. 008 is compatible with judicial review of certain clauses in public sector collective agreements that may contain abuses.

The Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2684 objecting to the unilateral review by the administrative authority of collective agreements it deemed abusive in the petroleum and health sectors. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the constituent resolutions abovementioned and the provisions adopted in its development are still in force or whether they have been modified or repealed by the new Constitution.

Pending legislative issues

The Committee again reminds the Government that for several years it has been commenting on the following matters:

–           The need to include in the legislation provisions that ensure protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that the protection is ensured by virtue of section 44(f) of the Labour Code which provides that it is prohibited “to require a worker, by whatever means, to leave the association to which he belongs …”. The Committee points out that this protection covers anti-union discrimination: (1) at the time of recruitment; (2) in the course of employment; and (3) upon termination of the employment relationship, and includes all measures that are discriminatory in nature (whether dismissals, transfers, relegations in grade or any other measures adversely affecting the worker).

–           The need to amend section 229, second paragraph, of the Labour Code respecting the submission of the draft collective agreement, so that minority trade union organizations with a membership amounting to no more than 50 per cent of the workers subject to the Labour Code may, on their own or jointly (when there is no majority union representing all the workers), negotiate on behalf of their own members.

–           The need for teachers and heads of education establishments in the public sector and for staff performing technical and vocational duties in the education sector who are governed by the Higher Education Act (Act No. 2000-16) and the Act on Educational Careers and Posts in the Public Teaching Sector (Act No. 94 of 1990) to enjoy the right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes that in this connection that the Government refers to articles 96–99 of the new Constitution of Ecuador. The Committee also observes that Constituent Resolution No. 008 guarantees collective bargaining in public sector institutions. It requests the Government to indicate whether this guarantee extends to public sector teaching staff.

Noting the Government’s statement that the National Assembly is working on amendments to various laws including a proposal for a Labour Code Reform Act, a proposal for a Basic Public Service Act and a proposal for a Basic Act on Public Enterprises, the Committee expresses the hope that these will take full account of the provisions of the Convention recognizing the right to collective bargaining of public sector organizations and adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. It reminds the Government that it may seek technical assistance from the ILO in proceeding with the amendment of the Labour Code and the Public Service Act.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and observes that it does not contain specific information relating to the legislative issues that have been under examination. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) according to which the penalties established in law against violations of the labour legislation are not sufficiently dissuasive, which prevents workers from being able to exercise their trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

Pending matters. The Committee once again recalls that it has been making comments for several years on the following matters:

–           the need to include provisions in the legislation that guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in relation to recruitment;

–           the need to amend section 229, second paragraph, of the Labour Code respecting the submission of the draft collective agreement, so that minority trade union organizations including not more than 50 per cent of the workers subject to the Labour Code may negotiate, on their own or jointly, on behalf of their own members;

–           the need for public teaching staff and the heads of educational institutions, and for staff who perform technical and occupational duties in the education sector who are governed by the Higher Education Act (Act No. 2000-16) and the Act on educational careers and posts in the public teaching sector (Act No. 94 of 1990) to benefit from the right to organize and collective bargaining, not only at the national level, but also at the local and establishment levels. The Committee noted in its previous observation that, under the terms of section 5(d) of Act No. 94, teachers enjoy the right to freedom of association for the purposes of studying, participation in the planning and implementation of education policy and for the defence of their occupational interests. The Committee nevertheless notes that the legislation does not establish the right of teachers to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that all personnel in the public administration who are not engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy the right to collective bargaining and, in this respect, considers that teachers are not engaged in functions related to the administration of the State and that they should therefore be able to engage in collective bargaining with a view to regulating their terms and conditions of employment through collective agreements;

–           the need to amend section 3(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act so that workers in government departments and other public sector institutions and in private sector institutions that pursue social or public objectives enjoy the rights guaranteed in the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the deletion of this provision as a result of the recent adoption of the codified version of the Organic Act respecting civil service and administrative careers and the unification and standardization of public sector remuneration.

Noting that it has been commenting on these provisions for many years, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

Furthermore, in its previous observation the Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of the Bill on the Organic Act respecting the civil service and administrative careers and the unification and standardization of public sector remuneration and the ruling by the Constitutional Court on its conformity with the Constitution. The Committee notes that the Government has provided a copy of both documents. The Committee notes that the above Organic Act was declared constitutional and that subsequently the codified version of the Organic Act respecting the civil service and administrative careers and the unification and standardization of public sector remuneration was approved supplementing and replacing the Bill, which was also declared constitutional. While noting that the above text repeals the prohibition on the establishment of trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, under the terms of the text, public servants and public sector workers in general may negotiate collective agreements and, if so, to explain the envisaged procedure for wage bargaining.

The Committee recalls that it noted previously that section 94 of Chapter XII of the Basic Act of 29 February 2000 on the economic transformation of Ecuador, which relates to amendments to the Labour Code, explicitly prohibits any revision or increase of the supplementing bonus or the compensation for cost-of-living increases, or the introduction of any other wage or remuneration supplement. The Committee also observed that section 95 of the same Act provides that the current amendments to the Labour Code are mandatory, unless there are provisions to the contrary in existing collective agreements or legally concluded contractual arrangements, for as long as they remain in force and unless otherwise agreed. In this respect, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether, under sections 94 and 95 of the above Act, employers or their organizations and workers’ organizations continue to be subject to the limitations referred to above in freely concluding wage adjustment clauses through collective agreements.

Draft constitutional reform. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Minister of Labour and Employment announced that draft provisions would be submitted to the President for inclusion in the new Political Constitution of the Republic in the section on “Labour” for analysis and possible submission for consideration by the Constituent National Assembly. The Government is facilitating the examination of the draft text of this section, some of the provisions of which are not in full conformity with the Convention:

–           section 32(13) provides that employers with 15 or more workers who are members of a trade union organization shall be obliged to conclude a collective agreement when the organization so requests. In this respect, the Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention establishes the obligation to promote collective bargaining; and

–           section 32(14) provides that collective disputes shall be submitted to conciliation and arbitration tribunals, which shall be the only bodies competent for the classification, examination and resolution of claims. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, in general terms, recourse to compulsory arbitration when the parties have not reached an agreement through collective bargaining is only acceptable in the context of essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or in the case of public servants engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments relating to the draft text of the new Political Constitution and hopes that the latter will be in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Draft reform of the Labour Code. The Committee has been informed of the existence of a draft reform of the Labour Code, formulated with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee understands that its examination is suspended in view of the constitutional reform process. This being the case, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments relating to the examination of this legislative text.

Pending comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC). The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it requested the Government to send its observations concerning the comments made by the ICFTU concerning the lack of collective bargaining rights of subcontracted or outsourced workers, the use of “blacklists” in the province of Los Ríos and anti‑union dismissals.

The Committee notes that the Government provides a copy of the Act amending the Labour Code (Act respecting outsourcing and supplementary services) of 23 June 2006, regulating employment mediation services and the outsourcing of supplementary services, and setting out the obligations of new enterprises devoted to employment mediation and the users of such services. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that workers in enterprises engaged in employment mediation and the outsourcing of supplementary services enjoy the right to organize and collective bargaining. The Committee also requests the Government to reply to the ICFTU’s other comments.

Finally, the Committee reminds the Government that in the context of the current legislative and constitutional reforms it may benefit from the technical assistance of the ILO with a view to ensuring their conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) of 10 August 2006, which refer, in part, to outstanding legislative issues on the application of the Convention that are now being examined. Moreover, the ICFTU indicates the lack of collective bargaining rights of subcontracted or outsourced workers, the use of “blacklists” in the province of Los Ríos, and anti-union dismissals. In this regard, the Committee asks the Government to send its observations concerning the ICFTU’s comments.

Moreover, the Committee requests the Government to communicate, in accordance with the regular reporting cycle and in time for the Committee’s next session in November-December 2007, its observations on all the legislative issues, and the  issues relating to the application of the Convention in practice mentioned in its previous observation in 2005 (see 2005 observation, 76th Session).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It also notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention, which principally refer to matters already raised by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect, and particularly on the comments relating to the dismissal of unionized workers following the presentation of a draft collective agreement in a banana plantation.

The Committee notes once again that it has been making comments for several years on the following matters:

–      the need to include provisions in the legislation that guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in relation to recruitment;

–      the need to amend section 229, second paragraph, of the Labour Code respecting the submission of the draft collective agreement, so that minority trade union organizations, which include not more than 50 per cent of workers subject to the Labour Code, may negotiate, on their own or jointly, on behalf of their own members;

–      the need for public teaching staff and the heads of educational institutions, and for staff who perform technical and occupational duties in the education sector (who are subject to the basic laws on education and the salary scales of teachers), referred to in section 3(h) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act, to benefit from the right to organize and bargain collectively, not only at the national level, but also at the local and establishment levels (the Committee requested the Government to provide in its next report the legislative provisions governing the labour relations of these workers, with an indication of whether they are covered by the guarantees set forth in the Convention); and

–      the need to amend section 3(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act so that workers in government departments or other public sector institutions and in private sector institutions that pursue social or public purposes enjoy the rights guaranteed in the Convention.

In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that a project of amendment of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act has been elaborated and that technical assistance has been requested from the subregional office so as to carry out an in-depth study on the necessary reforms before forwarding them to the legislature. Moreover, the Committee takes note of the Act on Teachers’ Career and Posts in the Public Teaching Sector of 1990 which provides that teachers have the right to freedom of association for the study, participation in the planning and execution of educational policy as well as the defence of their professional interests.

In these conditions, the Committee expresses the hope that the necessary modifications will be made in the framework of the envisaged legislative reform so that public teaching staff and the heads of educational institutions, as well as staff who perform technical and occupational duties in the education sector, enjoy the right to organize and collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on all developments relative to the amendment of the legislation.

Finally, the Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted that the Confederation of Workers of Ecuador (CTE) and the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) had sent comments on the application of the Convention objecting to section 8 of Executive Decree No. 44 of 30 January 2003, prohibiting any increase in wages and remuneration in the budgets of public sector entities for the financial year 2003, and the decision of the National Remuneration Council (No. 197) prohibiting wage increases in 2004 and 2005 and that it requested the Government to provide its observations on these matters. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that: (1) the formulation and implementation of the fiscal policy in the country is the responsibility of the executive authorities, and is discharged by the Ministry of Economy and Finance; (2) to guarantee a disciplined fiscal policy through which public expenditure is compatible with the real financing capacity, the Organic Act on fiscal responsibility, stability and transparency was adopted, section 3 of which establishes macrofiscal rules to limit the real growth of primary expenditure; (3) the responsibilities of the Ministry of Economy and Finance include ensuring that such macrofiscal rules are strictly complied with in all state activities, and one of these rules relates to the management of remuneration in the public sector and its corresponding financing; (4) the National Remuneration Council (CONAREM) was competent (according to the Government, this body is no longer legally in existence) to establish economic ceilings with which labour agreements between workers and their employers had to comply; and (5) both the Ministry of Economy and Finance and CONAREM have discharged their statutory duties within the context of a disciplined fiscal policy and austerity in public expenditure. The Committee recalls in this respect that all workers in the public administration who are not engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy the guarantees of the Convention and therefore be able to negotiate collectively their terms and conditions of employment, including wage conditions, and that if, under an economic stabilization or structural adjustment policy, that is for imperative reasons of national economic interest, a government provides that wage rates cannot be fixed freely by means of collective bargaining, this restriction should be applied as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, should not exceed a reasonable period and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect effectively the standard of living of the workers concerned, in particular those who are likely to be the most affected (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 262 and 260). It is the Committee’s understanding that the provisions of Executive Decree No. 44 of 30 January 2003 and the decision of the National Remuneration Council (No. 197), to which objections were raised, are no longer in force and it requests the Government to ensure that any future restriction on wage negotiations takes into account the principle set out above.

The Committee also noted in its previous observation that the CTE objected to the Civil Service and Administrative Careers and Unification and Standardization of Public Sector Remuneration Act of 6 October 2003 which, in its opinion, infringes Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 (the CTE indicated that it had requested the Constitutional Court to declare certain sections of the Act unconstitutional), as well as to a draft amendment to the above Act submitted to the National Congress on 16 December 2003. The Committee requested the Government to provide the ruling issued by the Constitutional Court and a copy of the Bill referred to above. The Committee regrets to note that the Government has not provided the requested documentation and asks it to provide it in its next report.

Finally, the Committee recalls that it noted previously that section 94 of Chapter XII of the Basic Act of 29 February 2000 on the economic transformation of Ecuador, which relates to amendments to the Labour Code, explicitly prohibits any revision or increase of the supplementing bonus or the compensation for cost-of-living increases, or the introduction of any other wage or remuneration supplement. The Committee also observed that section 95 of the same Act provides that the current amendments to the Labour Code are mandatory, unless there are provisions to the contrary in existing collective agreements or legally concluded contractual arrangements, for as long as they remain in force and unless otherwise agreed. In this respect, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether, under section 95 of the above Act, employers and their organizations and workers’ organizations are free to include in collective agreements wage adjustment clauses that take into account cost-of-living increases.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the Confederation of Workers of Ecuador (CTE) and the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) sent comments on the application of the Convention by letters of 17 December 2003 and 14 January 2004, objecting to section 8 of Executive Decree No. 44 of 30 January 2003 prohibiting an increase in wages and remuneration in the budgets of public sector entities for the financial year 2003. They also refer to a decision of the National Remuneration Council (No. 197) prohibiting wage increases in 2004 and 2005. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s communication dated 17 August 2004 does not provide a reply to the Committee’s comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in its next report. In any case, the Committee recalls that in its previous observation it referred to the Decree in question and reiterates what it said on that occasion, namely that:

… all workers in the public administration who are not engaged in the administration of the State must be able to enjoy the guarantees laid down in the Convention and, consequently, negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including wages, and that if, under an economic stabilization or structural adjustment policy, i.e. for imperative reasons of national economic interest, wage rates cannot be fixed freely by means of collective bargaining, these restrictions should be applied as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, should not exceed a reasonable period and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to effectively protect the standard of living of the workers concerned, in particular those who are likely to be the most affected (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 262 and 260).

The Committee also notes that the CTE objects to the Civil Service and Administrative Careers and Unification and Standardization of Public Sector Remuneration Act of 6 October 2003, which, in its opinion, infringes Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 (the CTE states that it requested the Constitutional Court to declare certain sections of the Act unconstitutional), as well as to a draft amendment to the abovementioned Act presented to the National Congress on 16 December 2003. The Committee requests the Government to send the ruling handed down by the Constitutional Court. The Committee also hopes that the draft in question will be in conformity with the Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the draft and reminds it that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

The Committee intends to examine the remaining issues concerning the application of the Convention in the context of its regular reporting cycle (see 2003 observation and direct request, 74th Session).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes that section 94 of Chapter XII of the Basic Act of 29 February 2000 on the economic transformation of Ecuador which concerns the Labour Code reform, explicitly prohibits any revision or increase of the supplementing bonus or the compensation for the cost-of-living increase, or the introduction of any other wage or remuneration supplement. The Committee observes that section 95 of the same Act provides that the current amendments of the Labour Code are mandatory, unless there is some provision to the contrary in existing collective agreements or legally concluded contractual arrangements, for as long as they remain in force and unless agreed otherwise. The Committee requests the Government to state in its next report whether, under section 95, employers and their organizations and workers’ organizations are free to include in collective agreements wage adjustment clauses that take account of cost-of-living increases.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It notes with regret that the Government has sent no information in response to most of the comments that the Committee has been making for several years on the following matters.

Article 1 of the Convention. With regard to the need to include in the legislation provisions that guarantee protection against anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment the Government states that no legislative initiative has been introduced in this respect. The Committee emphasizes the need for such provisions to be included and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken to that end.

Article 4. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there has not been any development with regard to the comments relative to the need to amend the second paragraph of section 229 of the Labour Code, regarding the submission of the draft collective agreement, so that minority trade union organizations which include not more than 50 per cent of workers subject to the Labour Code may negotiate, on their own or jointly, on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to take steps for the necessary amendments to be made as soon as possible.

The Committee had also referred to the need for the public teaching staff and heads of educational institutions, and for staff who perform technical and occupational duties in the education sector (who are subject to the basic laws on education and the salary scales of teachers) referred to in section 3(h) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act, to benefit from the right to organize and bargain collectively, not only at the national level but also at the local and establishment levels. The Committee observes that the Government mentions the Act on education and hierarchical promotion but has not transmitted the Act. The Committee again requests the Government to provide in its next report the legislative provisions governing the labour relations of these workers and under which they benefit from the guarantees set forth in the Convention.

Article 6. With regard to the need to amend section 3(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act so that workers in government departments or other public sector institutions and in private sector institutions that pursue social or public purposes enjoy the rights guaranteed in the Convention, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, no progress has yet been made in the reform of the above Act. The Committee recalls that under Article 6 of the Convention, only public servants engaged in the administration of the State may be excluded from its scope, and that the workers referred to in section 3(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act do not fall into this category. The Committee again asks the Government to take steps to amend the abovementioned Act and to provide information on all such measures taken in its next report.

Lastly, the Committee notes that the United Workers’ Front (FUT) sent comments on the application of the Convention by a letter of 11 March 2003, objecting to section 8 of Executive Decree No. 44 of 30 January 2003 prohibiting an increase in wages and remuneration in the budgets of public sector entities for the financial year 2003. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not sent its comments thereon. The Committee recalls that all workers in the public administration who are not engaged in the administration of the State must be able to enjoy the guarantees laid down in the Convention and, consequently, negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including wages and that if, under an economic stabilization or structural adjustment policy, i.e. for imperative reasons of national economic interest, wage rates cannot be fixed freely by means of collective bargaining, these restrictions should be applied as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, should not exceed a reasonable period and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to effectively protect the standard of living of the workers concerned, in particular those who are likely to be the most affected (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 262 and 260).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s comments.

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it had referred to the need to include provisions in the legislation which guarantee protection against anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there do not exist acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and that the rights and guarantees set forth in international instruments are directly applicable (article 18 of the National Constitution). In this respect, the Committee insists on the need to adopt the above provisions and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect.

Article 4. The Committee recalls that it had referred to the need to amend section 229 of the Labour Code, regarding the submission of a draft collective agreement, so that minority trade union organizations which do not include more than 50 per cent of workers subject to the Labour Code can negotiate, on their own or jointly, on behalf of their own members. The Committee regrets that the Government did not refer to this matter in its report. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to carry out the necessary amendments as soon as possible.

For several years the Committee has been referring to the need for teaching staff and heads of educational institutions, as well as those who carry out technical and professional functions in the education sector (who are subject to the laws respecting education and the salary scales of teachers), referred to in section 3(h) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act, to benefit from the right to organize and bargain collectively, not only at the national level, but also at the local and establishment levels. Furthermore, in its previous observation, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that the right of association of teaching staff is guaranteed throughout the entire country by the National Union of Education Personnel (UNE), through the existence of UNE branch offices at the local level in each province, and that teaching staff may also form associations in each educational institution, as actually occurs in practice. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the legal provisions governing the labour relations of these workers and under which they benefit from the guarantees set forth in the Convention.

Article 6. The Committee recalls that it had referred to the need to amend section 3(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act so that workers in official departments or other public sector institutions, as well as private institutions in the social or public spheres, can enjoy the rights guaranteed in the Convention. The Committee regrets to note that the Government’s report does not refer to this matter. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, only public servants engaged in the administration of the State may be excluded from its scope, but not the workers referred to in section 3(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act. The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to amend the above Act and to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it is resolutely examining the adoption of all the suggested reforms which are necessary and desirable in the light of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee suggests that the Government should have recourse to the Office’s technical assistance to ensure that the amendments that are proposed are in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report of any progress achieved in relation to the matters raised above.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report, as well as the information provided by a Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 1999, and the subsequent debate.

In its previous observation the Committee recalls that it had referred to the need to amend: (1) section 3, paragraph (g), of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act so that workers in official departments or other public sector institutions as well as private sector institutions in the social or public spheres can enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Convention; (2) include in its legislation provisions which guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment; and (3) amend section 229, paragraph 2, of the Labour Code, regarding submission of a draft collective agreement, so that minority trade union organizations which do not include more than 50 per cent of workers subject to the Labour Code may negotiate, on their own or jointly, on behalf of their own members.

In this respect, the Committee regrets that the Government's report does not refer to these questions in a detailed manner. However, the Committee notes that the Government indicates its intent to guarantee the spirit and practice of the Convention and that new efforts are being made both in the Legislature and in other instances to achieve this. The Committee hopes that these will soon yield concrete results. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the measures adopted will permit, as soon as possible, the amendment of these provisions according to the terms of the Convention.

Finally, the Committee recalls that in its previous observation it had referred to the need to extend the right to organize and bargain collectively, not only at the national level but also at local and workplace levels, to teaching staff and heads of educational institutions as well as those who carry out technical and professional functions in the education sector (who are subject to the laws pertaining to education and the salary scales of teachers), referred to in section 3(h) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government's indication that the right of association of teaching staff is guaranteed throughout the entire country by the National Union of Education Personnel (UNE), by UNE branch offices at local level in each province and that teaching staff may also form associations in each educational institution as happens in practice. In this connection, so as to bring the legislation into full conformity with practice and with the provisions of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take the measures to amend the abovementioned legislation.

The Committee asks the Government to transmit in its next report detailed information on any progress achieved as regards the above questions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it had noted that two Bills were drafted in September 1997 during the course of a technical assistance mission requested by the Government. These draft Bills provide for:

-- the repeal of section 1 of Decree No. 2260 which imposes the requirement of the prior advice of the National Secretariat of Administrative Development (SENDA) on draft collective agreements in the public sector (a provision which in itself is not contrary to the Convention but the repeal of which was the subject of consensus by the social partners and the authorities interviewed by the mission); in its report, the Government indicates that SENDA no longer exists and that provisions are due to be taken concerning who will assume the responsibility for the functions discharged by this Institute or alternatively the provision noted by the Committee will no longer remain in force in the absence of a body to implement the standard; and

-- the addition to section 3, paragraph (g), of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act whereby workers in official departments or other public sector institutions as well as private sector institutions in the social or public spheres are covered by the Labour Code, thereby enabling these workers to enjoy the right to organize and the right to bargain collectively.

The Committee observes that the Government, referring to the technical assistance mission, indicates in its report that: (1) at no time has it rejected the possibility of proposing reforms to the legislation and if the Ministry of Labour found it necessary, it would have recourse once again to the technical assistance of the Office to update Ecuadorean labour legislation; (2) the Ministry of Labour is very well disposed to make best use of the positive aspects of the technical assistance mission which visited Ecuador in 1997; and (3) it requests the Committee to indicate what could be retained from the agreements reached during the 1997 mission in the light of the new political Constitution so that it can follow them up as appropriate.

In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 3, paragraph (g), of the Act pertaining to the Civil Service and Administrative Careers so that workers in official departments or other public sector institutions as well as private sector institutions in the social or public spheres enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention.

2. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it had requested the Government to take measures: (i) to include in its legislation provisions which guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment; and (ii) to amend paragraph 2 of section 229 of the Labour Code relating to the submission of a draft collective agreement which provides in its second paragraph that "in public sector institutions, entities and enterprises or those in the private sector in the social or public sphere, in which no works committees exist, the workers subject to the Labour Code shall set up a sole central committee, be it on the national, regional, provincial or branch level, as appropriate, established by more than 50 per cent of the said workers" so that when minority trade unions do not meet this percentage, they may, on their own or jointly, negotiate at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee regrets to note that the Government's report does not mention these matters and once again requests it to take the necessary measures to amend these provisions in line with the requirements of the Convention.

3. Moreover, the Committee had noted in its previous observation that teaching staff and heads of educational institutions as well as those who carry out technical and professional functions in the education sector are subject to the laws pertaining to education and the salary scales of teachers referred to in section 3(h) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act, and therefore do not enjoy the right to organize and to bargain collectively.

In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that although teaching staff and heads of educational institutions and others do not enjoy the right to organize or bargain collectively, they do have the right of association, through which they raise issues concerning their collective rights and defend those rights under the auspices of the National Union of Educational Personnel. Within the context of the special rules applying to them, these educational personnel use all valid means to further the aspirations and rights of their members, in a similar manner as do workers who enjoy the right to organize and bargain collectively.

In these conditions, the Committee would recall that the Convention guarantees the right to collective bargaining of teachers at all levels and requests the Government to take measures with a view to amending legislation so that teachers have the right to bargain collectively not only at the national level but also at the local and workplace levels.

4. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will provide detailed information in its next report on any progress made with regard to the issues raised.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

The Committee observes that the Government requested the technical assistance of the Office to bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention and that a mission visited the country from 4-10 September 1997. The Committee notes with interest that during the mission one Bill was drafted providing for the repeal or amendment of certain legislative provisions commented on by the Committee in its previous observations and direct requests.

Specifically the Committee observes that the draft Bill in question provides for (i) the repeal of section 1 of Decree No. 2260 which imposes the previous advice of the National Secretariat of Administrative Development on draft collective agreements in the public sector; and (ii) the addition to section 3, paragraph (g), of the Act pertaining to the Civil Service and Administrative Careers whereby workers in official departments or other public sector institutions as well as private sector institutions in the social or public spheres are covered by the Labour Code, thereby enabling these workers to enjoy the right to organize and the right to bargain collectively.

Moreover, the Committee notes that according to the mission report, teaching staff and heads of educational institutions as well as those who carry out technical and professional functions in the education sector are subject to the laws pertaining to education and the salary scales of teachers referred to in section 3(h) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act, and therefore do not enjoy the right to organize and to bargain collectively.

Finally, the Committee recalls that in its previous observation it had requested the Government to take measures: (i) to include in its legislation provisions which guarantee protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment; and (ii) to amend the unnumbered section in the Labour Code (which figures at the end of section 230) relating to the submission of a draft collective agreement which provides in its second paragraph that "in public sector institutions, entities and enterprises or those in the private sector in the social or public sphere, in which no works committees exist, the workers subject to the Labour Code shall set up a sole central committee, be it on the national, regional, provincial or branch level, as appropriate, established by more than 50 per cent of the said workers" so that when minority trade unions do not meet this percentage, they may, on their own or jointly, negotiate at least on behalf of their own members.

After having taken note of the mission report and the Government's report, the Committee finds it surprising that the Government does not mention in its report the draft Bill drawn up during the technical assistance mission. In these circumstances, the Committee must insist that the Government take the necessary measures as soon as possible to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will transmit information in its next report on any progress made relating to these questions raised for the past several years.

[The Government is requested to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 86th Session.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report, the comments of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Unitary Class Organizations of Workers (CEDOCUT) on the application of the Convention, and the Government's reply along with the conclusions reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association on Case No. 1617 (287th Report, paragraphs 60-65, approved by the Governing Body at its 256th Session, May 1993).

The Committee notes the Government's information that employees and officials in the public sector are governed not by the Labour Code but by the Civil Service and Administrative Career Act which does not provide for the right to collective negotiation. The Committee also observes that under section 2 of the Civil Service Act in question, the Act applies to anyone exercising public functions in fiscal branches or other institutions of public or private law with social or public functions. In turn, in accordance with section 3(g) of this Act, the workers in the institutions mentioned in section 2 are excluded from its application and, under 2(h), teaching staff in educational institutions who are governed by the Basic Laws on Education and Scales and Salaries of the Teaching Profession are also excluded.

In this matter, the Committee requests the Government to specify, first, whether the workers included in section 3(g) of the Civil Service Act mentioned above are covered by the Labour Code and, consequently, their trade union organizations are able to negotiate collectively. Secondly, the Committee requests the Government to specify whether the laws applicable to teaching staff under section 3(h) of the Act allow their trade union organizations to negotiate collectively, and to supply copies of the laws in question.

If the reply is negative, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the relevant measures so that these categories of workers are allowed, through their organizations, to negotiate collectively their conditions of work.

The Committee notes that according to the comments of the CEDOCUT the Telecommunications Corporation (EMETEL) issued resolution No. 93-32 on 6 May 1993 which approves economic and social benefits for workers "excluded from collective contracting", forcing them to resign from the trade union.

In this regard, the Committee reminds the Government that as it has ratified the Convention, under Article 1 it has undertaken to ensure that workers shall have adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment or otherwise prejudice them. The Committee requests the Government to take the appropriate measures so that, in practice, EMETEL workers are not discriminated against in regard to economic and social benefits on grounds of trade union membership.

In relation to Executive Decree No. 2260 which, according to the comments of the CEDOCUT, delays and restricts the exercise of collective negotiation for public sector workers, the Committee, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, requests the Government to provide for a mechanism which ensures that, in the collective bargaining process in the public sector, with the sole possible exception of public employees engaged in the administration of the State both trade union organizations and the employers and their associations are consulted and may express their points of view to the National Secretariat for Administrative Development (the authority responsible for assessing the financial consequences of draft collective agreements) (see 287th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 1617), paragraph 65).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report and recalls that its previous comments concerned:

- lack of protection against anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment; and

- the requirement that 50 per cent of all workers in the public sector who are covered by the Labour Code, or in the private sector working in the social or public spheres, must be in a negotiating body in order to submit a draft collective agreement (section 230, as amended, of the Labour Code).

The Committee notes with interest that, according to the information supplied by the Government, section 43(f), as amended, of the draft reforms to the Labour Code which is before Congress protect the worker against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment.

The Committee regrets to observe that in its report the Government has not replied to its comment that the requirement of 50 per cent of those workers in the public sector, or in the private sector working in the social or public spheres (who are covered by the Labour Code), must be in a negotiating body in order to submit a draft collective agreement (section 230, as amended, of the Code) is too high.

The Committee indicates that when the conditions referring to the number of members of a trade union or to the voting powers of workers in a negotiating body are such that the workers of a union may be deprived of the right to collective negotiation, even when there exists one, or more, legally constituted trade union, this legislation should recognize that the union or unions have the right to negotiate at least on behalf of their own members. Further, the Committee recalls that even in those systems in which a negotiating agent must be designated exclusively, when no trade union can be designated as representative due to the lack of the required percentage, the most representative trade union in the body, although it may not represent 50 per cent, must be recognized as having the right to collective bargaining.

The Committee asks the Government once again to adopt, as soon as possible, the necessary measures so that both legislation and practice are in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention, and that the frequently announced approval of draft legal reforms should take place in the near future.

The Committee requests the Government in its next report to inform it of any progress made in connection with its previous comments.

The Committee is also sending a direct request to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning Case No. 1617 (287th Report, paragraphs 60-66, approved by the Governing Body at its 256th Session, May 1993).

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned:

- lack of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment;

- the requirement that 50 per cent of all workers in the public sector who are covered by the Labour Code, or in the private sector working in the social or public spheres, have to establish a single central committee in order to submit a draft collective agreement (section 230, as amended, of the Labour Code);

- the ban on collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not covered by the Labour Code and are not engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not reply to its comments on the lack of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and on the ban on collective bargaining for public sector workers who are not covered by the Labour Code and are not engaged in the administration of the State. It therefore urges the Government to reply to these points as soon as possible.

With regard to the requirement in amended section 230 of the Code, the Committee notes the Government's indication that this provision on collective bargaining in the public sector merely establishes that when there are several trade union organizations in an institution or enterprise and none of them represents 50 per cent of the workers, a non-permanent committee ("single central committee") must be set up with representatives from the various trade union organizations, and must represent at least 50 per cent of the workers.

The Committee again points out that the legislation should allow a trade union organization representing less than 50 per cent of the workers to negotiate collective agreements directly, at least on behalf of its members.

While noting the Government's statement that the draft reforms bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention, it is bound to note with regret that they have still not been adopted despite the time that has elapsed.

The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the amendments to the national legislation ensure the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment, allow a trade union organization representing less than 50 per cent of the workers to negotiate collective agreements directly, at least on behalf of its members; allow public sector workers who are not covered by the Labour Code and who are not engaged in the administration of the State to bargain collectively. The Committee asks the Government to inform it in its next report of progress in the adoption of the above-mentioned amendments to the legislation.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee asks the Government to supply in its next report detailed information on the possibility for federations and confederations to bargain collectively, in particular at branch level (indicating law and practice).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the Government's report, and in particular the adoption of Act No. 133 published in the Official Bulletin on 21 November 1991 to reform the Labour Code.

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest that the new Act No. 133 provides that employers may not dismiss any of their workers from the time that they notify the respective labour inspector that they have met in a general assembly in order to establish a workers' association until the first meeting of the executive committee, and that the same prohibition applies from the time that a draft collective agreement is submitted.

The Committee notes with regret that the above legal text does not contain amendments dealing with the lack of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment, despite the fact that the Committee has been pointing out for many years that the lack of such amendments is incompatible with the Convention.

Articles 4 and 6. The Committee takes due note of the fact that Act No. 133 introduces into the Labour Code the possibility for workers in the public sector who are covered by the Labour Code to be able to bargain collectively. Nevertheless, the Committee notes in this respect that by virtue of section 230, as amended, of the Labour Code, 50 per cent of all workers in the public sector who are covered by the Labour Code, or of the private sector working in the social or public spheres, have to establish a single national, regional, provincial or sectoral central committee, as appropriate, in order to submit a draft collective agreement. The Committee considers that as a minimum the most representative trade union organisation should be able to bargain collectively on behalf of its own members, even if its own membership does not reach the minimum level of 50 per cent established by the new Act (see paragraph 295 of the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining). The Committee also notes that the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure before the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, if the parties do not reach agreement on a draft collective agreement, raises problems in relation to the application of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee regrets to note that no amendment has yet been made to the provision, which for many years the Committee has been drawing attention to is incompatible with the Convention, that prohibits public sector workers who are not covered by the Labour Code from bargaining collectively, since the only exception to the coverage envisaged by the Convention is public servants engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee notes the Government's information concerning the submission on 22 May 1990 to the Secretariat of the National Congress by a member of the Congress of four draft texts of amendments and two legal interpretations, the purpose of which is to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to bring its law and practice into full conformity with the Convention and requests it to supply detailed information in this respect in its next report.

Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on whether federations and confederations can bargain collectively, particularly at the branch level (and to indicate the situation in law and practice).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee refers to its comments under Convention No. 87 respecting protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment, as follows:

The Committee takes note of the Government's report.

1. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the following provisions of the legislation which were incompatible with the requirements of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98:

- the prohibition placed on public servants from setting up trade unions (section 10(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act of 8 December 1971), although they have the right to associate and to appoint their representatives (section 9(h) of this Act);

- the requirement that members of the executive committee of a works council be Ecuadorian (section 455 of the Labour Code);

- the administrative dissolution of a works council when its membership drops below 25 per cent of the total number of workers (section 461 of the Code);

- the prohibition placed on unions from taking part in religious or political activities, with the requirement that provisions to this effect shall be included in the by-laws of the unions (section 443, paragraph 11, of the Code);

- the penalty of imprisonment laid down by Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967 for the instigators of collective work stoppages and for those who participate in them;

- the lack of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment.

The Committee recalls that, at the Government's request, an advisory mission visited Ecuador (November-December 1989) to examine, inter alia, questions relating to the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. According to the mission's report, the mission prepared jointly with the authorities of the Ministry of Labour and Human Resources, drafts which would satisfy all the points raised by the Committee of Experts concerning freedom of association, and the authorities undertook to submit these texts to the appropriate parliamentary committees. The Committee noted that, according to the Government's report, these drafts were to be submitted immediately to Congress with the support of the Executive and its recommendation that they be adopted.

In this connection, the Government indicates in its latest report that the drafts prepared jointly by the above mission and the Government were formally submitted to the Secretariat of the Congress, but that it cannot guarantee that they will become law. Furthermore, the Government states in its report that, at the initiative of the Minister of Labour and Human Resources, labour experts are discussing the enactment of a new law to cover the unionisation of public employees in general.

The Committee stresses the importance of the provisions of the legislation which are incompatible with the requirements of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, and asks the Government to report on progress with regard to the drafts submitted to Congress and on the status of the work to draft legislation on the trade union rights of public employees. It hopes that in its next report the Government will be able to indicate that there has been progress in the application of these Conventions.

2. Furthermore, the Committee had noted the comments on the application of this Convention sent by the Ecuadorian Confederation of Class Organisations (CEDOC) in 1988. The CEDOC referred to a number of provisions which the Committee has already criticised and pointed out that requirements not provided for in the legislation are imposed on public sector workers subject to the Labour Code, if they wish to establish trade union organisations (for example, that they must present work contracts and daily wage slips). In addition, the authorities make unnecessary observations and changes to the bye-laws of incipient organisations and, according to the CEDOC, decisions concerning refusal to register are illegally delegated to officials of a lower category.

The Government indicates that the CEDOC's comments refer to the period of the previous Government and that it is therefore virtually impossible for the present Government to give a detailed account of the activities of the Office of Trade Union Organisations during that period. The Government denies that decisions concerning registration are illegally delegated to officials of a lower grade.

In view of the Government's statement, the Committee invites the CEDOC to indicate whether its comments on the application of the Convention which it made when the former Government was in power still apply and, if so, to specify actual cases of infringements of the Convention.

The Committee notes that the Ecuadorian Confederation of "Classistas" Organisations (CEDOC) sent comments in 1989 which emphasised that General Clause 12 of the State's 1988-89 budget obstructs collective bargaining.

In this respect, the Committee notes that this General Clause provides: (a) for a report by the Ministry of Finance on draft collective agreements to determine, on the basis of the budget situation and the parties concerned, the limits up to which the public sector institution concerned may negotiate; (b) for a report by the Co-ordinating Office for Labour Matters of the President of the Republic on the draft collective agreement; (c) and for the wage increases in the public sector provided for in collective agreements not to exceed similar levels applied to public servants in general.

The Government states in its report that the State Budget contains a series of items with specific limits that may not be exceeded and that the intervention of the Ministry of Finance is intended to prevent this; the use of such funds for other purposes is considered to constitute the offence of "misappropriation of public funds" for which the cashiers, treasurers, accountants and chiefs of offices are held responsible.

The Committee considers that in the case of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State, bargaining rights must be protected. Where a state budget is set which purports to limit the money available for wage settlement, prior discussion with the nominal employer and the trade union organisations concerned are important. Subsequent bargaining at the workplace should also retain as much flexibility as possible so that it enjoys a substantial measure of effectiveness. The Committee asks the Government to supply in its next report information on progress achieved in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee refers to the comments made under Convention No. 87, concerning protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of contracting, as follows:

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and the discussions that took place in the Conference Committee in 1989.

The Committe notes that, at the Government's request, an advisory mission visited Ecuador from 27 November to 1 December 1989 to examine questions relating to the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, among others. According to the mission report, the mission prepared jointly with the authorities of the Ministry of Labour and Human Resources drafts which would satisfy all the points raised by the Committee of Experts concerning freedom of association, and the authorities undertook to submit these texts to the appropriate parliamentary committees. The Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, these drafts are to be submitted immediately to Congress with the support of and recommendation for adoption expressed by the Executive.

The Committee has been pointing out that the following provisions of the legislation are incompatible with the requirements of the Convention:

- the prohibition placed on public servants from setting up trade union (section 10(g) of the Civil Service and Administrative Careers Act of 8 December 1971), although they have the right to associate and to appoint their representatives (section 9(h) of this Act);

- the requirement to be Ecuadorian for membership of the executive committee of a works council (section 455 of the Labour Code);

- the administrative dissolution of a works council when its membership drops below 25 per cent of the total number of workers (section 461 of the Code);

- the prohibition placed on unions from taking part in religious or political activities, with the requirement that provisions to this effect shall be included in the by-laws of the unions (section 443(11) of the Code);

- the penalty of imprisonment laid down by Decree No. 105 (7 June 1967) for the instigators of collective work stoppages and for those who participate in them;

- the lack of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment.

Furthermore, the Committee had noted the comments on the application of this Convention sent by the Ecuadorian Confederation of Class Organisations (CEDOC) in a communication of 22 January 1988. The CEDOC referred to a number of provisions which the Committee has already criticised, and pointed out that requirements not provided for in the legislation are imposed on public sector workers subject to the Labour Code, if they wish to establish trade union organisations (for example, that they must present work contracts and daily wage slips). In addition, the authorities make unnecessary observations and changes to the by-laws of incipient organisations and, according to the CEDOC, decisions concerning refusals to register are illegally delegated to officials of a lower category. Subsequently, on 13 April 1989, the CEDOC sent further comments stressing that General Clause 12 of the State's 1988-89 Budget obstructs collective bargaining. The Committee regrets that the Government has not replied in detail on these points.

The Committee requests the Government to inform it of progress in the passage of the drafts that have been submitted to Congress and expresses the hope that in its next report the Government will be in a position to indicate progress in the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and that it will send a detailed reply to the CEDOC's comments.