Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 412, Noviembre 2025

Caso núm. 3474 (Bolivia (Estado Plurinacional de)) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 25-JUN-24 - Cerrado

Allegations: The complainant, a trade union organization at the departmental level, alleges that its national parent entity and the Government refuse to recognize its recently elected officials, despite a court ruling in its favour

1. 183. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 25 June 2024 submitted by the Workers’ Federation of the Department of Santa Cruz (COD Santa Cruz).
2. 184. The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia sent its observations on the allegations in two communications dated 21 November 2024 and 22 October 2025.
3. 185. The Plurinational State of Bolivia 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. 186. In its communication of 25 June 2024, the complainant informs that it is the sole parent entity for the representation of workers of the Department of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, and that it is affiliated with the Bolivian Workers’ Federation (COB), which is the body that recognizes and grants its “trade union approval” to workers’ organizations. It explains that, in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, trade unions are affiliated with departmental and regional trade union organizations, which are affiliated with national trade union federations, confederations and departmental and regional trade union centres, which are in turn affiliated with the COB, thereby creating a centralized structure of workers’ organizations in the country. In this respect, it also indicates that article 51, paragraph IV, of the Political Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia establishes that the State shall respect the ideological and organizational independence of trade unions, and that they shall enjoy legal personality solely by virtue of the fact that they organize and they are recognized by their parent entities.
2. 187. The complainant indicates that, in September 2023, it sent invitations for its 17th Ordinary General Congress on 11, 12 and 13 October 2023, in accordance with its organizational statutes. It affirms that it invited representatives of the COB, its parent entity at the national level, to participate as observers on all three days and that it invited the Minister of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare as a special guest on the opening day, but none of them attended. The complainant indicates that the congress proceeded as usual and that the organization’s new officials were elected on that occasion.
3. 188. The complainant states that it then proceeded with the administrative steps to obtain from the COB and the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare (hereinafter, “the Ministry”) an administrative decision recognizing the aforementioned officials so that they could enjoy trade union immunity and carry out their work on a full-time and exclusive basis. In this respect, it explains that the Agreement between the National Government and the Bolivian Workers’ Federation of 10 May 2001 established what is referred to as the “trade union approval” which must be granted by the COB before the Ministry issues a ministerial decision on recognition and, where applicable, an administrative decision recognizing elected officials as trade union officials vis-à-vis their employers.
4. 189. The complainant states that, on 6 November 2023, it requested the trade union approval of the COB, but that the latter responded in a letter dated 23 November 2023 that approval could not be granted as the COB had not participated in the aforementioned congress due to complaints from some sectors. In the complainant’s view, this response constitutes clear evidence of trade union interference by a national parent entity against a departmental parent entity. It states that such complaints should be handled by it internally, not within the COB, and that the requirement for trade union approval should be complied with while respecting the principle of a trade union’s autonomy, its right to elect its officials, and freedom of association.
5. 190. The complainant also alleges that, generally, when trade union organizations or their officials are opponents of the politics and ideology of the Government and its ally, the COB, the latter does not grant them trade union approval and, consequently, the ministerial decision on recognition is not issued. It affirms that the Government and the COB may thus leave dissenting trade union organizations without leaders and impose the election of their acolytes on the executive boards of affiliated trade unions, in violation of freedom of association. The complainant submits that the COB promptly grants trade union approval for like-minded organizations, which results in discrimination against and interference in organizations that are independent from the Government.
6. 191. The complainant indicates that it filed an application for the protection of constitutional rights against the COB before the First Public Mixed Civil, Commercial, Family and Criminal Court of Cuatro Cañadas. It informs that, in a ruling of 3 January 2024, the court granted it constitutional protection, finding the COB’s denial of trade union approval to be a violation of freedom of association. The complainant indicates that, consequently, the note issued by the COB on 23 November 2023 denying the organization its trade union approval was annulled.
7. 192. However, the complainant states that the COB did not comply with the aforementioned ruling. It indicates that it therefore applied to the Court of Constitutional Guarantees on 5 February 2024 seeking enforcement of the ruling, but the COB has still not complied.

B. The Government’s response

1. 193. In its communication of 21 November 2024, the Government recognizes the right of workers to organize in trade unions and the organizational and ideological independence of those unions. It affirms that the role of the State is not to manage those workers’ interactions within their trade union organizations or parent entities, and that their decisions cannot be subject to oversight by the Ministry. Therefore, it affirms that it does not deliberate, much less intervene, in internal disputes originating within a trade union organization, as they must be resolved within the organization itself.
2. 194. The Government also confirms that in the Agreement between the National Government and the Bolivian Workers’ Federation it was agreed that all applications for ministerial decisions on the recognition of trade union organizations would require the approval of the COB. However, it points out that this requirement was accepted by the labour sector and did not originate from a decision of the Ministry itself. The Government also indicates that trade union approval is not granted by the COB alone, but by any trade union organization constituted as a parent entity, as that approval is used as an instrument of internal oversight with a view to preventing parallel structures.
3. 195. Furthermore, the Government informs that on 14 May 2024, the COB issued its approval to the complainant organization for the procedure of recognition of its executive board, thereby complying with the ruling of 3 January 2024 of the First Public Mixed Civil, Commercial, Family and Criminal Court of Cuatro Cañadas. The Government further indicates that on 22 October 2024, the complainant submitted to the Ministry an application for a ministerial decision recognizing the executive board and board members’ entitlement to union leave, which the Ministry referred to its Directorate General of Trade Union Affairs for handling.
4. 196. In this respect, the Government affirms that the Ministry acts in accordance with the regulations in force and the statutes of trade union organizations. It indicates that, in this case, the list of appointments to the executive board appended by the complainant contemplates a total of 142 officials to be recognized, whereas article 20 of the organization’s statutes allows for only 32 board members. The Government states that, although this observation was brought to the attention of Mr Sócimo Paniagua Revollo, Executive Secretary of the complainant organization, the appendix in question was not corrected.
5. 197. The Government informs that, on 10 December 2020, Mr Paniagua Revollo had submitted to the Ministry a note on the amendment of the complainant organization’s statutes and internal regulations, but that the procedure was not completed by the complainant organization and was therefore archived. Consequently, it indicates that the Ministry recommended that, for the executive board and their entitlement to union leave to be recognized, the complainant organization should complete the aforementioned amendment procedure. In the Government’s view, arguing that the Ministry is violating freedom of association is contradictory when it is the leadership of the complainant organization that is in breach of its own internal regulations.
6. 198. The Government also indicates that the complainant organization lodged an appeal against the Ministry before the First Public Mixed Civil, Commercial, Family and Criminal Court of Cuatro Cañadas and that the outcome is pending.
7. 199. In its communication of 22 October 2025, the Government reports that, in a decision dated 16 December 2024, the Constitutional Court upheld the decision dated 3 January 2024 that the First Mixed Civil and Commercial, Family, and Criminal Court of Cuatro Cañadas had issued in favour of the complainant organization. It indicates that, therefore, on 17 January 2025, the Ministry issued the ministerial resolution recognizing the executive board and board members’ entitlement to trade union leave that had been requested by the complainant organization.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 200. The Committee observes that, in the present case, the complainant, a trade union organization at the departmental level, alleges that its national-level parent entity, the COB, and the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare are refusing to recognize its new union officials, despite a judicial ruling in its favour. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that the COB ultimately granted its trade union approval and that a subsequent application for recognition submitted by the complainant organization to the Ministry, which had initially been rejected owing to an inconsistency with the organization’s statutes, was finally granted following confirmation of the aforementioned judicial decision by the Constitutional Court.
2. 201. The Committee notes that the complainant organization alleges that: (i) in September, it elected its new officials as part of an ordinary congress; (ii) in November 2023, in accordance with the Agreement between the National Government and the Bolivian Workers’ Federation of 10 May 2001, which establishes that the trade union approval by the COB is a prerequisite for obtaining a ministerial decision of recognition, it sought that approval so that its new officials could benefit from trade union leave and carry out their duties full-time, but the COB denied its approval as it had not participated in the aforementioned congress; (iii) this denial constitutes an act of interference, as the requirement for trade union approval should be settled in accordance with the principle of trade union autonomy and the right of organizations to elect their officials; (iv) it filed an application for the protection of constitutional rights against the COB before the First Public Mixed Civil, Commercial, Family and Criminal Court of Cuatro Cañadas, which granted it constitutional protection in a ruling of 3 January 2024, finding the lack of trade union approval to be a violation of freedom of association; (v) the COB did not comply with this ruling, hence the COD Santa Cruz applied to the Court of Constitutional Guarantees on 5 February 2024 seeking its enforcement; and (vi) the COB has still not complied with the ruling.
3. 202. The Committee notes that the Government submits that: (i) the role of the State is not to manage or oversee workers’ interactions within their trade union organizations or parent entities; (ii) on 14 May 2024, the COB issued its approval of the complainant organization, thereby complying with the ruling of 3 January 2024 of the First Public Mixed Civil, Commercial, Family and Criminal Court of Cuatro Cañadas; (iii) on 22 October 2024, the complainant filed with the Ministry an application for a ministerial decision recognizing the executive board and board members’ entitlement to trade union leave; (iv) the Ministry indicated to the complainant organization that the list of appointments to the executive board appended to that application included 142 officials to be recognized whereas the organization’s statutes allows for only 32 committee members, and recommended that it should complete a procedure to amend its statutes that was begun in 2020, but the appendix was not corrected nor were the organization’s statutes amended; (v) the complainant organization lodged an appeal against the Ministry before the First Public Mixed Civil, Commercial, Family and Criminal Court of Cuatro Cañadas, the outcome of which is pending; (vi) on 16 December 2024, the Constitutional Court upheld the aforementioned resolution of 3 January 2024, and (vii) on 17 January 2025, the Ministry issued the ministerial resolution recognizing the executive board and board members’ entitlement to trade union leave which had been requested by the complainant organization.
4. 203. The Committee duly notes this information. The Committee observes that the present case, concerning the recognition of the election of the officials of the COD Santa Cruz, primarily refers to relations between the complainant, a trade union organization at the departmental level, with its parent entity at the national level, the COB, to which the COD Santa Cruz belongs. Concerning the COB’s alleged denial of the trade union approval that is required for the new officials of the COD Santa Cruz to be recognized, the Committee recalls that when internal disputes arise in a trade union organization, they should be resolved by the persons concerned (for example, by a vote), by appointing an independent mediator with the agreement of the parties concerned, or by intervention of the judicial authorities [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1621]. In this respect, the Committee duly notes that: (i) the complainant organization and the Government indicate that, in a ruling of 3 January 2024, the First Public Mixed Civil, Commercial, Family and Criminal Court of Cuatro Cañadas held that the COB’s denial of the trade union approval required for the recognition of the new officials of the COD Santa Cruz violated freedom of association; (ii) the complainant states that, on 5 February 2024, in view of the COB’s refusal to comply with the ruling, it applied to the Court of Constitutional Guarantees seeking its enforcement; and (iii) the Government indicates that on 14 May 2024, the COB granted its approval in compliance with the aforementioned decision of January 2024, which was finally confirmed by the Constitutional Court on 24 December 2024.
5. 204. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that an application for a ministerial decision recognizing the union’s officials and their entitlement to union leave that the complainant filed with the Ministry in October 2024, which had initially been rejected because the number of officials indicated on the appended list of appointments was higher than the number indicated in the organization’s statutes, was finally granted on 17 January 2025, in compliance with the Constitutional Court's ruling of December 2024.
6. 205. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination and is closed.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 206. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
   • The Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination and is closed.