Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 413, March 2026

Case No 3488 (Ecuador) - Complaint date: 12-DEC-24 - Follow-up

Allegations: The complainant organizations allege that the imposition of disciplinary sanctions and dismissal proceedings against the Secretary-General of the Trade Union of Workers of the Public Hydrocarbon Company of Ecuador - EP Petroecuador (SINTEP)

1. 169. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 12 December 2024 submitted by Public Services International (PSI), the Ecuadorian Confederation of Unitary Class Organizations of Workers (CEDOCUT) and the Trade Union of Workers of the Public Hydrocarbon Company of Ecuador - EP Petroecuador (SINTEP).
2. 170. The Government sent its observations on the allegations in communications dated 10 January, 26 February, 22 April and 4 August 2025 and 28 January 2026.
3. 171. Ecuador has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 172. In a communication dated 12 December 2024, the complainant states that: (i) SINTEP’s constitution was approved via Ministerial Agreement No. MDT-2024-015 of 25 January 2024, and Mr David Esteban Almeida Campana has acted as SINTEP’s Secretary-General since its founding; (ii) Mr Almeida Campana, who is also a leader of the National Association of Energy and Petroleum Company Workers (ANTEP), worked at EP Petroecuador (hereinafter “the public company”) as a drilling supervisor until 3 December 2024, when he was formally dismissed for having granted, in his capacity as trade union leader, an interview to the Radio Pichincha radio station on 4 September 2024 in which he stated his opposition to the Government’s intention to privatize the Sacha oil field. According to the complainants, during the interview he said:
   • […] they want to give the Sacha field, for example, to the private sector by doing business away from the public eye, without being transparent about what they’re doing and what’s happening.
   • […] Right now we know, because the oil industry is small, that there’s a push to do it, and it’s being done under the table, behind people’s backs without letting them know what’s being done, and also using the policy and procedure that they used for the famous barges, that is, talking to people who might participate in that process before launching it publicly and being open to receive bids. And that might be happening right now because, like I said, the oil industry is so small that we know when someone visits a field, when private investors are wandering around facilities, and lastly we know that the intention could even be for Petroecuador to return the field to the Ministry so it can be put to tender.
2. 173. The complainants indicate that: (i) on 12 September 2024, Mr Almeida Campana was notified by means of Memorandum No. PETRO-GTH-2024-4841-M that disciplinary proceedings were being launched against him with the aim of applying a “visto bueno” (authorization of dismissal) decision which, under Ecuadorian legislation, leads to dismissal without compensation on the grounds set out in article 172(2) of the Labour Code: ”gross indiscipline or disobedience of legally approved internal regulations”; (ii) Mr Almeida Campana responded to the accusations through his lawyers, indicating that his statements had related to the Government’s public policy and had been made in the exercise of his freedom of expression and in his capacity as trade union leader and that, despite being contacted by him on many occasions, the public company had not responded to requests for clarification and evidence in relation to his dismissal; (iii) Mr Almeida Campana was denied the fair opportunity to defend himself before a labour-management committee established by the company under a collective agreement signed with the works council (CETRAPEP) to review the decision to terminate his contract; (iv) the “visto bueno” procedure, undertaken via the Ministry of Labour through the Labour Inspectorate, was launched without the requested evidence having been presented to the labour-management committee and despite Mr Almeida Campana’s admission to hospital on 21 and 24 October 2024 owing to a surgical procedure and the Labour Inspector’s denial of his requests to defer the hearings held on those dates as part of the proceedings.
3. 174. The complainants indicate that the Labour Inspector issued a resolution confirming the “visto bueno” decision to terminate the contract, and that decision was upheld by the Regional Labour Director on appeal.
4. 175. The complainants state that Mr Almeida Campana’s dismissal owed to the statements on the Government’s intention to privatize the Sacha oil field that he made during a media interview. They also state that according to the public company, those statements and the alleged divulgence of confidential information belonging to the company without the authorization of the general manager would violate article 35 of the company’s internal work regulations, which states that its workers must “keep confidential and protect” any assets entrusted to them in the form of “cash, foreign currency, cheques, documents, reports, letters, technical information, logs, statistics, operating and technological procedures, payroll, workers’ personnel files and others”, as well as article 44(7),(9), (16) and (17) of those regulations, which prohibit workers from making statements on such information to the media without the authorization of their manager. With regard to the reasoning of the Labour Inspector, they allege that he approved the dismissal by maintaining that Mr Almeida Campana should have limited his statements to matters pertaining to the organization over which he presides and refrained from referring to a state institution, whose image and institutional communications must be channelled only through bodies and units authorized by the general manager, thereby making freedom of association conditional on the employer’s authorization.
5. 176. The complainants state that, under the aforementioned article 35 of the internal regulations, the obligation of confidentiality exists only in relation to specific documents in the worker’s possession, which did not occur in the case of Mr Almeida Campana since the public company itself, when launching the dismissal proceedings, indicated that his statements were not evidenced by any formal documents. The complainants also state that the prohibition on making statements to the media or disclosing matters intrinsic to the company’s activities must therefore be understood as limited to information obtained through the possession of confidential documents and must not be applied in a broad, unrestricted manner.
6. 177. The complainants also state that Mr Almeida Campana’s dismissal was unjustified since: (i) the Labour Inspector, when applying and interpreting the company’s internal regulations, did not consider the specific nature of the statements made by Mr Almeida Campana, who, as a trade union leader, was exercising his right to freedom of expression on public matters of general interest related to oil policy, without violating any confidentiality agreement; (ii) the obligation of confidentiality is not an absolute restriction on freedom of expression, but a measure intended to protect sensitive and strategic information in the worker’s possession; and (iii) Mr Almeida Campana did not make use of any confidential information that had been entrusted to him in an official manner or that was contained in internal company documents since his statements on the negotiations surrounding the Sacha oil field were not based on privileged information and did not reveal confidential information. The complainants state that Mr Almeida Campana’s public statements referred to general facts linked to oil field concessions and did not affect the company’s security or operations in a tangible or immediate manner. Moreover, they state that the Labour Inspector’s analysis fails to consider the principle of freedom of association, which protects trade union leaders’ right to express opinions and concerns relating to business management, including in strategic sectors.
7. 178. The complainants state that the restrictive interpretation of the internal regulations and the subjection of freedom of association to the employer’s authorization are incompatible with fundamental rights and violate Article 3 of Convention No. 87, Article 1 of Convention No. 98 and the ILO’s 1970 resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties. Mr Almeida Campana’s dismissal consequently constitutes an act of persecution intended to intimidate and silence a trade union leader and forms part of a pattern of trade union persecution similar to that suffered by trade union leader Mr Iván Bastidas, whose sanctions were overturned by the Ecuadorian courts and whose case was also brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 3367).
8. 179. Lastly, the complainants request: (i) Mr Almeida Campana’s reinstatement to his post as drilling supervisor at EP Petroecuador; (ii) the recognition of the wages that he has not received, up to the date of his reinstatement; and (iii) an end to the use of the “visto bueno” procedure or any other procedure that allows for the dismissal of trade union leaders for expressing their opinions on public and/or economic policy through the media.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 180. In communications dated 10 January, 26 February, 22 April and 4 August 2025 and 28 January 2026, the Government provides the following information on dismissals via the “visto bueno” procedure, indicating that:
   • • All companies, whether public or private, must submit their internal regulations – which create rights and obligations for employers and workers – to the Ministry of Labour for prior approval.
   • • Under article 172 of the Labour Code, if any grounds on which an employer may terminate an employment contract are identified, the “visto bueno” procedure is launched via the Ministry of Labour. Furthermore, those grounds, set out in paragraph 2 of that article, include gross indiscipline or disobedience of legally approved internal regulations.
   • • Until March 2024, the “visto bueno” procedure could only take place via the Labour Inspector; since then, the Labour Inspector’s decisions may be appealed before the Regional Labour Director. Furthermore, the administrative decision does not preclude the right to appeal to the judiciary in order to challenge the “visto bueno” decision.
   • • If the labour judge rejects the “visto bueno” decision (ruling the dismissal unjustified), under articles 69, 111, 113 and 188 of the Labour Code, the company is ordered to pay the corresponding compensation. Should there exist a collective agreement between the employer and the worker, the company must also make the payment set out in the employment stability clause.
2. 181. The Government also refers to the process of dismissing Mr Almeida Campana, indicating in that regard that:
   • • Mr Almeida Campana exercised his right to defence during the “visto bueno” procedure, enjoying the rights of due process.
   • • A complaint was lodged with the Office of the Public Prosecutor against the Minister of Labour, Ms Ivonne Elizabeth Nuñez Figueroa, for crimes of influence peddling and procedural fraud allegedly related to the “visto bueno” procedure. The Government indicates that on 9 January 2025, Ms Nuñez Figueroa and the Labour Inspector appeared before the Office of the Public Prosecutor to provide their accounts of the relevant facts. The Government also indicates that those proceedings remain in the investigation phase, and that responsibility has not yet been determined nor has the presumption of a crime been established that would justify the bringing of criminal charges or the launching of criminal proceedings.
   • • On 10 December 2024, Mr Almeida Campana challenged his dismissal with the labour court, but the claim was deemed inadmissible because it had not been filed at the court in his place of residence. On 18 December a new labour claim for unjustified dismissal was lodged and is pending before the labour court of the commune of Iñaquito in the Metropolitan District of Quito, Pichincha province.
3. 182. With regard to the allegations contained in the complaint, the Government indicates that there is no evidence of the alleged trade union persecution, and a decision on the request for Mr Almeida Campana’s reinstatement and the payment of the applicable compensation will fall within the competence of the judicial authorities. Regarding the request for an end to be brought to the use of the “visto bueno” procedure in relation to the dismissal of trade union leaders, the Government indicates that it is an administrative procedure provided for by the Labour Code that cannot be repealed unilaterally by the executive branch.
4. 183. In relation to the possible anti-union nature of Mr Almeida Campana’s dismissal, the Government attaches to its communication dated 4 August 2025 Memorandum No. MDT DRTSPQ-2025-7415-M of 25 July 2025, issued by the Labour Inspector, who was responsible for the “visto bueno” procedure. The Memorandum indicates that:
   • • On 4 September 2024, Mr Almeida Campana participated in an interview on the Punto Noticias (News Point) programme on Radio Pichincha Multimedia in which he stated that the Government intended to put the Sacha oil field to tender to private companies through clandestine negotiations and without transparency. He indicated that conversations were allegedly taking place with possible investors in advance of any public announcement, practices that were being undertaken – according to him – behind citizens’ backs and as a continuation of past policies, even suggesting that the Sacha oil field might be returned to the Ministry to be put to tender.
   • • Mr Almeida Campana’s statements lack technical and legal substance since they were made in the absence of formal documents supporting his accusations against the management of the public company. His dismissal was based on article 35 of the public company’s internal regulations – which prohibits workers from making statements to the media or disseminating information on the company’s activities without written authorization from the general manager – as well as article 7(2)(2) of the Code of Ethics relating to the use of confidential and privileged information, in line with the confidentiality agreements signed by staff members. Furthermore, no significant formalities were omitted from the “visto bueno” procedure, which respected constitutional due process, confirming its validity.
   • • Under articles 157 and 169 of the Organic General Procedural Code, it falls to the parties to the “visto bueno” procedure to prove the statements made in their initial written submissions. The protective rights and the principles of the administration of justice set out in articles 75, 82 and 169 of the Constitution were observed. Moreover, in line with article 183 of the Labour Code and the jurisprudence of the then Supreme Court of Justice, “visto bueno” decisions may be appealed before the labour judge without the need in the legal system for the possibility of an administrative review of such decisions.
5. 184. In its communication dated 28 January 2026, the Government reiterates the observations contained in its previous communications and indicates that the Labour Inspectorate of Pichincha has concluded the “visto bueno” procedure in line with the provisions of the Labour Code and that the decision may only be appealed before the judiciary. The Government also submits Technical Report MDT-DRTSPQ-2025-00 regarding the Labour Administration’s review of Mr Almeida’s dismissal, which indicates that Mr Almeida claimed that the statements that led to his dismissal were made on behalf of his union organization, whereas they did not concern issues related to workers’ rights or obligations and should have been limited to the organization chaired by Mr Almeida rather than referring to a state institution, particularly one in a strategic sector.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 185. The Committee observes that the present case refers to the dismissal, on 3 December 2024, of Mr David Esteban Almeida Campana, an official at a public company in the oil sector, Secretary General of SINTEP and leader of ANTEP, on the grounds of statements made on 4 September 2024 in a media interview in which he expressed criticism of the alleged intention of the Government of Ecuador to privatize an oil field.
2. 186. The Committee takes note that the complainants state that: (i) Mr Almeida Campana’s statements which gave rise to the aforementioned dismissal procedure were made in the legitimate and regular exercise of freedom of expression on public policies, which belongs to the function of trade union representation; (ii) Mr Almeida Campana’s full exercise of his right to defend himself against the accusations, both before the works council (CETRAPEP) established within the company and before the Labour Inspector during the “visto bueno” procedure, was not guaranteed; (iii) Mr Almeida Campana’s statements did not violate the duty of confidentiality set out in articles 35 and 44 of the public company’s internal regulations since they were not based on confidential documents or information entrusted to him; and (iv) the Labour Inspector’s analysis neglected to consider freedom of association and the right of trade union leaders to express opinions on management and public policies and applied an overly restrictive interpretation of the internal regulations by making the trade union leader’s freedom of expression subject to the employer’s authorization.
3. 187. The Committee takes note that, for its part, the Government indicates that: (i) according to the report of the Labour Inspector, and as confirmed by the Regional Labour Director, Mr Almeida Campana made statements to the media on the public company’s alleged granting of a concession for the Sacha oil field through clandestine negotiations, without producing documents supporting his assertions; (ii) his statements violated article 35 of the internal regulations (prohibition of unauthorized statements to the media) and article 7(2)(2) of the Code of Ethics (use of confidential or privileged information), and the termination of the employment relationship was therefore authorized; (iii) no significant formalities were omitted during the “visto bueno” procedure launched in Mr Almeida Campana’s case, and due process was respected; (iv) there is no evidence of the alleged trade union persecution; (v) a criminal complaint of alleged influence peddling and procedural fraud during the “visto bueno” process was lodged against Ms Ivonne Nuñez, Minister of Labour, and that complaint is in the investigation phase; and (vi) legal action for unjustified dismissal brought by Mr Almeida Campana on 18 December 2024 is under way in the labour court of Iñaquito (Quito).
4. 188. The Committee notes that it is clear from the above-mentioned details that: (i) the dismissal of Mr Almeida Campana, an official at the public company, SINTEP Secretary-General and ANTEP trade union leader, was based on statements that he made to the media; (ii) those statements referred to the alleged granting of an oil field concession to a private enterprise by the public company through clandestine negotiations; and (iii) according to the Government, Mr Almeida Campana’s statements were not supported by documentation or based on specific information. The Committee takes note that in his report, the Labour Inspector deemed the dismissal to be justified owing to a violation of the duty of confidentiality and because Mr Almeida Campana had made statements to the media on a public company in a strategic sector without his manager’s authorization. The Committee takes note that the complainants, for their part, consider that Mr Almeida Campana’s statements were not based on confidential information entrusted to him, were wholly within the scope of his trade union activities and should not, therefore, have been sanctioned by dismissal.
5. 189. While noting the substantial nature of the sanction imposed upon Mr Almeida Campana, SINTEP Secretary-General, the Committee observes that according to the information and appendices provided by the Government, the labour administration’s examination of Mr Almeida Campana’s dismissal which led to the “visto bueno” decision indicated that, although Mr Almeida claimed that the statements that gave rise to his dismissal were issued on behalf of his union, they did not address specific labour rights violations and that they should have been limited to the organization over which he presides and not refer to a state institution, particularly one in a strategic sector.
6. 190. The Committee recalls that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade union rights [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 239]. The Committee further emphasizes that the occupational and economic interests which workers and their organizations defend do not only concern better working conditions or collective claims of an occupational nature, but also the seeking of solutions to economic and social policy questions and problems facing the undertaking which are of direct concern to the workers [see Compilation, para. 64]. Finally, the Committee recalls that it has held that the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas, and to this end workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of other trade union activities. Nevertheless, in expressing their opinions, these organizations should respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language [see Compilation, para. 236].
7. 191. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that, when evaluating the legitimacy of the dismissal of trade union leaders and reflecting on the different aspects of such disputes, the labour administration takes due note of the above considerations on the scope of freedom of association, which also includes the search for solutions to economic and social policy issues and to problems arising within the workplace that directly affect workers, as well as the role and scope of freedom of expression in the exercise of such rights..
8. 192. Observing that no decision appears yet to have been rendered in the judicial proceedings brought in December 2024 against the dismissal of Mr Almeida Campana, the Committee expects that the case will be resolved rapidly and trusts that the present conclusions will be duly taken into consideration. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the status of the criminal complaint lodged in relation to the allegations in the present case.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 193. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that, when evaluating the legitimacy of the dismissal of trade union leaders and reflecting on the different aspects of such disputes, the labour administration takes due note of the above considerations on the scope of freedom of association, which also includes the search for solutions to economic and social policy issues, to problems arising within the company that directly affect workers, as well as to the role and scope of freedom of expression in the exercise of that right.
   • (b) The Committee hopes that the courts will render a decision rapidly on the dismissal of Mr Almeida Campana and trusts that the present conclusions will be duly taken into consideration. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the status of the criminal complaint lodged in relation to the allegations in the present case.