Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 412, Noviembre 2025

Caso núm. 3495 (Ecuador) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 31-DIC-24 - En seguimiento

Allegations: The complainant alleges that national legislation excludes public servants from collective bargaining and that, although a court ruling recognized these rights for public servants in a specific public enterprise, they were subsequently revoked as a result of proceedings brought by the Government

1. 276. The complaint is contained in two communications dated 31 December 2024 and 19 March 2025 submitted by the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT).
2. 277. The Government sent its observations on the allegations in communications dated 3 April and 30 June 2025.
3. 278. 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. 279. In a communication dated 31 December 2024, the complainant indicates that: (i) the National Electricity Corporation public enterprise (“the enterprise”) was established in 2013 as a result of the voluntary dissolution without liquidation and merger of ten pre-existing electricity distribution enterprises and/or public limited enterprises belonging to the State, and their staff were originally covered by the Labour Code, and (ii) each of these enterprises was an average of 20 years old, with its respective pay scales subject to the legal regime of its staff under the Labour Code.
2. 280. The complainant alleges that the labour rights previously acquired by the staff who provided services in those enterprises should be maintained as the assets of each worker, as they are economic rights protected by the principles of inalienability and inviolability, given that the current enterprise is not a recently established one, but is made up of several public limited enterprises that preceded it and that already had duly concluded collective agreements. The complainant indicates that the enterprise is the result of the transformation and merger of pre-existing State-owned enterprises, whose sole shareholder is the Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy, which also merged with the Guayaquil Public Electricity Enterprise in 2014, and therefore the staff from these State-owned enterprises had acquired labour rights under the Labour Code.
3. 281. The complainant indicates that: (i) Executive Decree No. 1701 of 2009, as amended by Decree No. 225 of 2010, establishes provisions on collective bargaining in the public sector, explicitly differentiating between manual workers and public servants; (ii) under that Decree, collective bargaining applies exclusively to manual workers, whose classification is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour Relations, and who may benefit from trade union oversight; (iii) the Decree establishes that public servants who perform representative, managerial, administrative or professional activities are excluded from collective bargaining; (iv) the Decree defines manual workers as being those who participate directly in operational, production or industrial specialization processes, governed by the Labour Code; and (v) in accordance with the Decree, staff members who are reclassified from manual worker to public servant retain acquired rights in terms of remuneration, retirement and the employer’s pension scheme if they have at least 13 years of service in the institution; it also establishes that the economic rights that shall be maintained are those not eliminated or excluded under that same Decree; for persons who were public servants and become manual workers, the time worked in the same institution shall be taken into account for the calculation of rights. The complainant alleges that the process of classifying the staff of the enterprise should have been subject to trade union oversight and that the parameters of Decree No. 225 should have been applied in this regard.
4. 282. The complainant indicates that the legal regime for human resources in the enterprise is governed by the Basic Act on Public Enterprises, its regulations and the Labour Code, as applicable to the relevant classification.
5. 283. The complainant states that: (i) the former National Technical Secretariat for Human Resources Development and Remuneration in the Public Sector issued the technical regulations governing the procedure for the classification of manual workers and public servants in the public sector through Decision No. SENRES-2009-000141 of 2009; and (ii) subsequently, Ministerial Agreement No. MRL-2012-0164 was issued in 2012, containing the technical regulations governing the procedure for classifying manual workers and public servants in the sector, article 2 of which states that: “The classification of the labour regime shall consist in an analysis of the activities performed by manual workers and public servants in their jobs in order to determine the labour regime under which they are covered; to this end, the Ministry of Labour Relations shall have the authority to classify and determine the labour regime of the manual workers covered under the Labour Code ..., the Basic Act on Public Enterprises ...”.
6. 284. The complainant states that staff members who, on the date on which the enterprise was established, were working in the ten enterprises that were merged then became part of the new entity while retaining the same individual rights and work obligations. In this regard, the complainant states that the acquired rights relate both to the regime of remuneration they had been receiving and to the benefits derived from collective bargaining.
7. 285. The complainant asserts that, in the case of the enterprise, approximately 1,700 workers were unjustifiably excluded from the benefits of collective bargaining; of those, approximately 1,400 were excluded on the basis of the nature of their duties, which were directly linked to operational, production and industrial specialization processes, and should have been considered as manual workers under the Labour Code, rather than as career public servants.
8. 286. The complainant indicates that, as a result of the foregoing: (i) on 28 October 2021, an application for the protection of rights was filed on behalf of 1,579 career public servants of the enterprise against the acting general manager of the enterprise (file No. 12332-2021-00485); (ii) in a ruling of 16 November 2021, the judge of the Judicial Unit found that the rights to equality and non-discrimination and to legal certainty had been violated and ordered the enterprise to inform the applicants, within three days, that they would henceforth enjoy the benefits of the collective agreement signed with the works council, and to settle and pay, within 15 days, all benefits flowing from the collective agreement to all applicants; and (iii) the ruling was declared to have inter comunis effects, making it applicable to third parties who were not parties to the proceedings.
9. 287. The complainant indicates that: (i) the enterprise appealed and, in a ruling of 14 December 2021, the Multicompetent Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Los Ríos rejected the appeal and upheld the ruling at first instance in its entirety; (ii) although on 13 January 2022 the enterprise filed an extraordinary application for the protection of rights against first- and second-instance rulings, it withdrew the application on 24 January 2022; (iii) by a ruling of 31 January 2022, the Provincial Chamber ordered that the complete case file be referred to the Constitutional Court pursuant to the extraordinary application; (iv) on 9 December 2022, the Constitutional Court received certified copies of the first- and second instance rulings in the context of the application for the protection of rights No. 12332 2021-00485 and it opened selection process No. 4648-22-JP; (v) in a submission of 1 February 2022, the enterprise requested that its motion to withdraw the application be processed and that the order of 31 January 2022 be overturned; and (vi) on 10 February 2022, the enterprise reiterated its request to withdraw the application it had filed, and in an order of 11 February 2022, the Provincial Chamber accepted the request to withdraw the extraordinary application for the protection of rights and closed the proceedings.
10. 288. The complainant alleges that, by an order of 16 August 2023, the Second Selection Chamber of the Constitutional Court considered Case No. 4648-22-JP in relation to the selection process and unanimously decided not to select it for judicial review (development of jurisprudence) and ordered the closure of the proceedings, as it had not identified any elements that would justify the Court’s intervention, such as the seriousness of the matter, the novelty of the case, the absence of or disregard for constitutional precedents, or the significance or national relevance of the dispute settled in the impugned ruling.
11. 289. The complainant alleges that: (i) since early 2024, the Ministry of Labour has undertaken a very aggressive campaign to discredit collective agreements concluded in public enterprises, accusing them of being excessive in terms of the benefits granted to workers; (ii) on 1 July 2024, the Minister of Labour submitted a request to the State Comptroller General’s Office for a special review of the first collective agreement, concluded on 18 May 2021, between the enterprise and the works council; (iii) that request for review focuses on two aspects: (1) the lack of a favourable opinion from the Ministry of Finance and (2) the inclusion of career public servants under the benefits of the collective agreement; (iv) with regard to the first point, the complainant states that the requirement of a favourable opinion is a serious restriction on the signing of collective agreements, because the information can be submitted only by the enterprise: if the enterprise does not intend to sign the collective agreement, even if it has already been agreed on, it can misrepresent the information and delay the process of concluding the collective agreement for years; (v) the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal to which the application was submitted for the first collective agreement determined that the opinion was unnecessary, since under the Labour Code, the Tribunal’s ruling does not require any administrative action to ensure compliance; and (vi) the Attorney General’s Office stated in its binding decisions (Official Letters PGE-13275 of 2013 and PGE-11004 and 11163 of 2012) that such an opinion was not necessary.
12. 290. The complainant indicates that: (i) on 30 July 2024, in the context of Case No. 4648-22-JP (the aforementioned selection proceedings), the Minister of Labour and the Legal Coordinator of the Ministry of Labour appeared before the Constitutional Court to request that the case be selected for the development of jurisprudence; (ii) on 20 September 2024, in violation of the procedural rules and the statute of limitations, the Admissions Chamber of the Constitutional Court, almost a year after considering the case, decided to amend its view and now admit the extraordinary application for the protection of rights of 13 January 2022, which had previously been withdrawn and not admitted; (iii) in its ruling of 20 September 2024, the Admissions Chamber considered that, based on its examination of the case, there was an opportunity to resolve a potential serious violation of rights related to the misuse of the application due to an alleged disregard for its purpose in view of the declaration by the judicial authorities of the right to collective bargaining of a public enterprise; and (iv) this contradicts previous decisions and involved reopening a case that had already been closed and calling into question rulings of lower courts that were already final.
13. 291. The complainant indicates that section 26 of the Basic Act on Public Enterprises explicitly excludes from the benefits of collective bargaining career public servants who work in public enterprises and perform technical activities. The complainant considers that this provision violates Article 6 of Convention No. 98, which only excludes from its scope public servants engaged in the administration of the State, that is, not workers in public enterprises who have the status of public servants and who work in productive, operational and/or industrial specialization processes.
14. 292. The complainant alleges that the aforementioned actions of the Constitutional Court are politically motivated, in that it admits and joins cases without legal justification, through scrutiny exercised by the Minister of Labour towards the country’s union leaders and unionized workers, in order to discuss the collective rights of workers in public enterprises, presumably with the aim of aligning the jurisprudence with the views of the current Minister of Labour. The complainant also indicates that the Rules of Procedure for proceedings under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court do not provide for any additional body or appeals proceedings concerning rulings of inadmissibility; therefore, by reopening a case that was already dismissed and closed, the Court is acting contrary to express rules, violating the right to legal certainty and affecting acquired rights of workers that were already subject to decisions that were final in form and substance with respect to their right to collective bargaining. The complainant alleges that the working class has consolidated acquired rights in labour matters, underpinned by principles such as pro homine and in dubio pro operario and by precedents from the inter-American system; once a favourable constitutional ruling had been enforced, the economic benefits derived from collective bargaining became part of a consolidated legal situation; however, the Government, through the Ministry of Labour and the Comptroller General’s Office, is seeking to annul these collective agreements and eliminate their benefits through political persecution.
15. 293. In its communication of 19 March 2025, the complainant indicates that on 14 February 2025, the Constitutional Court handed down Judgment No. 1788-24-EP/25, in which it: (i) accepted the extraordinary application for the protection of rights proposed by the enterprise, rendering the rulings of 2021 null and void; (ii) ordered the State Comptroller General’s Office to immediately initiate a special review to determine responsibilities arising from compliance with the overturned rulings; and (iii) ordered the enterprise to recover the amounts paid to the workers who benefited from the overturned rulings in their entirety, through monthly repayment agreements for up to 36 months, via payroll, with quarterly reports and a warning of a constitutional penalty for non-compliance.
16. 294. The complainant indicates that, on 7 March 2025, the Constitutional Court issued a clarification and extension order in which: (i) it rejected the workers’ clarification requests on the grounds that they did not refer to unclear points in the judgment, and declared that enforcement is exclusively the responsibility of the enterprise, which must conduct the settlement on a case by case basis without the possibility of cancelling obligations, but could consider situations of vulnerability only to determine the form of repayment; (ii) it declined to rule on the effects of the judgment on pensions, alimony, social security contributions or tax rebates, declaring those responsibilities to be outside its direct jurisdiction; (iii) it also declined to clarify whether the judgment implies that employment contracts must be terminated, but confirmed that all the effects to which the overturned rulings gave rise must be reversed, without it being considered unfair dismissal or giving rise to compensation; and (vi) it indicated that the enterprise may take legal, administrative or extrajudicial action to recover the amounts paid, within its legal framework, including collective agreements, alternative methods and coercive proceedings.
17. 295. The complainant alleges that the judgment and order issued in 2025 by the Constitutional Court are ambiguous, create legal uncertainty and contradict constitutional precedents on acquired rights and established legal situations. The complainant also alleges that the Court did not invite the workers to a hearing or listen to them despite multiple requests and the fact that its decision has had serious social effects, especially on workers in situations of vulnerability (such as pregnant women and persons with disabilities or serious illnesses), who are not guaranteed sufficient income for a dignified life.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 296. In communications dated 2 April and 26 June 2025, the Government provides the following chronological account relating to Case No. 12332-2021-00485 and Extraordinary Application for Protection No. 1788-24-EP and indicates the following:
   • • On 28 October 2021, an application for the protection of rights was filed on behalf of 1,579 career public servants of the enterprise against the acting general manager of the enterprise (Case No. 12332-2021-00485).
   • • In a ruling of 16 November 2021, the judge of the Multicompetent Judicial Unit declared that the rights to equality and non-discrimination and to legal certainty had been violated, and ordered that the enterprise must inform all applicants, within three days, that they would henceforth enjoy the benefits of the collective agreement signed with the enterprise’s works council. In addition, it ordered that, within 15 days, all benefits under the collective agreement must be settled and paid to all applicants. The ruling was declared to have inter communis effects.
   • • The enterprise lodged an appeal, and in a ruling of 14 December 2021, the Multicompetent Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Los Ríos rejected the appeal and upheld the ruling at first instance in its entirety.
   • • On 13 January 2022, the enterprise filed an extraordinary application for the protection of rights against the first- and second-instance rulings. However, on 24 January 2022, the enterprise requested to discontinue the application. On 31 January 2022, the Provincial Chamber ordered that the complete case file be referred to the Constitutional Court pursuant to the extraordinary application for the protection of rights. In a letter of 1 February 2022, the enterprise requested that its motion to withdraw the application be processed and that the order of 31 January be overturned.
   • • On 10 February 2022, the enterprise amended its request (discontinuance of its application), indicating that it was requesting the withdrawal of the motion (the extraordinary application for the protection of rights filed on 13 January 2022). On 11 February 2022, the Provincial Chamber rejected the discontinuance and accepted the request to withdraw the extraordinary application for the protection of rights, ordering that it be dismissed.
   • • On 2 March 2022, the enterprise informed the judge of the agreement signed with the enterprise’s works council on 25 February 2022, whereby agreements were reached for compliance with the judgment issued in the present proceedings.
   • • On 8 September 2022, the Administrative Disputes Tribunal of the District of Guayaquil was requested to initiate the remediation process.
   • • On 22 February 2023, the Administrative Disputes Tribunal approved the assessment made by the relevant expert and determined that the amount to be paid by the enterprise was US$79,859,837.61. The enterprise lodged an appeal to overturn the decision, which was rejected by order of 12 April 2023, as there was no provision for an appeal in this type of proceedings.
   • • On 27 April 2023, the judge ordered the enterprise to pay the amount determined in the order of 22 February 2023 within 48 hours. The enterprise requested that the judge make a pronouncement on the submissions arguing that the judgments were unenforceable and that their effects needed to be adjusted, and also requesting that the time limit be vacated.
   • • On 8 May 2023, the judge ordered the seizure and freezing of the enterprise’s bank accounts at various financial institutions and ordered that “the sum of US$19,800,000, equivalent to 25 per cent of the total amount ordered to be paid, be transferred to the bank account of the works council”. In addition, the judge ordered that the remainder be paid in monthly instalments over 24 months.
   • • The Attorney General’s Office and the enterprise filed separate appeals to overturn the decision, which were denied by an order of 15 May 2023. In addition, the judge granted a period of 20 days for the parties to reach agreements regarding the payment of the amount owed.
   • • On 10 May 2023, the Attorney General’s Office requested that the case be referred to the Constitutional Court for a resolution on the admissibility of the application filed by the enterprise on 13 January 2022, as the Provincial Chamber was not competent to rule on its admissibility. In an order dated 31 May 2023, the request was denied, given that the judgment had already been enforced and the closure of the application had been ordered.
   • • On 11 May 2023, the enterprise filed an extraordinary application for the protection of rights against the order of 22 February 2023.
   • • On 1 June 2023, the enterprise filed a new extraordinary application for the protection of rights against the order of 8 May 2023, Case No. 2375-23-EP. In an order of 15 December 2023, the Third Tribunal of the Admissions Chamber of the Constitutional Court dismissed the application for the protection of rights filed by the enterprise on 1 June 2023 (the application of 13 January 2022 was considered to have been withdrawn).
   • • On 4 October 2023, the judge overturned the seizure provided for in the order of 8 May 2023.
   • • On 18 January 2024, the judge ordered the enterprise to include in its annual budget the unpaid difference in the settlement approved by the District Administrative Disputes Tribunal for the fiscal years 2024 to 2027.
   • • On 3 July 2024, the Minister of Labour requested the Provincial Chamber to notify her of the judgment of 14 December 2021, on the grounds that she should have been a party to the proceedings. In an order of 8 July 2024, the Provincial Chamber denied the request, considering that the parties to the proceedings had been lawfully and appropriately notified and that the Ministry of Labour had not been a party to the proceedings nor should it have been. The Minister of Labour sought to have the ruling overturned, which was rejected on 1 August 2024.
   • • By an order of 20 September 2024 issued in Case No. 1788-24-EP and notified on 8 October 2024, the Tribunal of the Admissions Chamber decided to admit the extraordinary application for the protection of rights filed on 13 January 2022 and to dismiss the extraordinary application for the protection of rights filed on 11 May 2023 in the case (No. 1788-24-EP).
   • • In a session held on 8 November 2024, the Plenary of the Constitutional Court approved the application to modify the chronological order of consideration of cases to prioritize Case No. 1788-24-EP.
   • • In a judgment dated 14 February 2025, the Constitutional Court allowed the extraordinary application for the protection of rights filed against the first- and second-instance rulings in Application No. 12332-2021-00485 for the protection of rights, finding that the judges involved violated the right to legal certainty in that they breached due process by disregarding its purpose and using it as a mechanism to declare collective labour rights in favour of public servants subject to the Basic Act on Public Enterprises and modify their labour regime. Additionally, the Court ruled that there had been an inexcusable error by the judges of the Multicompetent Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Los Ríos who handed down the majority ruling in the appeal, and referred the case to the Attorney General’s Office to initiate an investigation and to determine whether there is evidence to establish the offence of breach of public duty. Furthermore, it referred the case to the State Comptroller General’s Office to initiate a special review to determine the responsibilities that may apply, and declared an abuse of law by the applicants’ legal representatives and their defence lawyers.
2. 297. The Government also refers to the process for selecting judgments and indicates in this regard that:
   • • On 9 December 2022, the Constitutional Court received copies of the first- and second-instance rulings relating to application for the protection of rights No. 12332-2021-00485 and it opened selection process No. 4648-22.
   • • On 16 August 2023, the Second Selection Chamber of the Constitutional Court decided not to select the case and ordered that it be closed, as it had not identified any elements that would justify the Court’s intervention, such as the seriousness of the matter, the novelty of the case, the absence of or disregard for constitutional precedents, or the significance or national relevance of the dispute settled in the impugned ruling.
   • • In a submission filed on 30 July 2024, the Minister of Labour and the General Coordinator of Legal Advice of the Ministry of Labour requested that Case No. 4648-22 be selected for the development of jurisprudence.
   • • The Admissions Chamber of the Constitutional Court amended its pre-existing view and, in a ruling of 20 September 2024, stated that: “... from an examination of this case, there is an opportunity to resolve a potential serious violation of rights related to the misuse of the application due to an alleged disregard for its purpose in view of the declaration by the judicial authorities involved of the right to collective bargaining of a public enterprise”. Thus, the order of 20 September 2024 admitting Case No. 1788-24-EP was inconsistent with the pre-existing decision by the Selection Chamber in that it admitted the extraordinary application for the protection of rights of 13 January 2022, which had been withdrawn and closed, against the first- and second-instance rulings that the Selection Chamber had decided, at its session of 16 August 2023 on Case No. 4648-22-JP, not to admit.
3. 298. After the chronological account of the judicial proceedings related to the case, the Government states that: the Ministry of Labour is not included as a party to the aforementioned judicial proceedings nor as an interested third party and is therefore not competent to make any pronouncements on the present complaint. It adds that, in accordance with article 226 of the Constitution of the Republic and the principles of the administration of justice, the Ministry of Labour cannot be involved in or in any way influence the decisions taken by the Constitutional Court, within its jurisdiction, as the highest organ of oversight, constitutional interpretation and administration of justice in this matter.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 299. The Committee observes that, in the present case, the complainant alleges that national legislation excludes public servants from collective bargaining and that, although court proceedings brought in 2021 recognized these rights for public servants in a public enterprise, they were revoked in early 2025 as a result of a legal proceedings brought by the Government.
2. 300. The Committee notes that the complainant alleges that: (i) the enterprise was established in 2013 as a result of the merger of ten State-owned electricity enterprises in which workers with more than 20 years of service were employed under the Labour Code; (ii) Executive Decree No. 1701 of 2009, as amended by Decree No. 225 of 2010, establishes provisions on collective bargaining in the public sector, expressly differentiating between manual workers and public servants and, in accordance with that Decree, collective bargaining applies exclusively to manual workers, whose classification is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour Relations, and who may benefit from trade union oversight; (iii) subsequently, the Basic Act on Public Enterprises was enacted, section 26 of which expressly excludes career public servants working in public enterprises from the benefits of collective bargaining; (iv) although, upon joining the enterprise, workers were supposed to retain their previously acquired rights (including the remuneration regime they were under and the benefits derived from collective bargaining), the public enterprise excluded approximately 1,700 workers from those benefits (of those workers, nearly 1,400 whose activities are directly linked to operational, production and industrial specialization processes should have been classified as manual workers under the Labour Code, and not as career public servants); (v) in 2021, an application for the protection of rights was filed against the enterprise on behalf of 1,579 career public servants of the enterprise, and both the first- and second-instance courts ordered that the Labour Code regime be applied to public servants and that the benefits of collective bargaining be extended to them; (vi) in 2022, the enterprise filed an extraordinary application for the protection of rights against those rulings and, although it later withdrew that application, the file was in any case referred to the Constitutional Court; and (vii) in 2023, the Second Selection Chamber of the Constitutional Court considered the case and decided not to select it for review (that is, not to select it for the development of jurisprudence) and ordered that it be closed, as it had not identified any elements that would justify its intervention.
3. 301. The complainant further alleges that: (i) since early 2024, the Ministry of Labour has been waging a campaign to discredit collective agreements concluded in public enterprises; (ii) in July of that year, the Minister of Labour applied to the State Comptroller General’s Office for a special review of the first collective agreement of 2021 between the enterprise and the works council (citing the lack of a favourable opinion from the Ministry of Finance and the inclusion of career public servants under the benefits of the collective agreement); (iii) the Minister of Labour and the Legal Coordinator of the Ministry of Labour requested that the Constitutional Court select for the development of jurisprudence the case that the Chamber had decided not to select for review; and (iv) in contravention of the procedural rules and the statute of limitations, the Admissions Chamber of the Constitutional Court decided to amend its view and admitted the extraordinary application for the protection of rights of 13 January 2022 that had been withdrawn by the enterprise, thus reopening a closed case that had already been ruled on and become res judicata. The complainant alleges that the Constitutional Court’s action was politically motivated, violating legal certainty and acquired rights that were already protected by the principle of res judicata with regard to collective bargaining.
4. 302. The complainant states that: (i) in a judgment of 14 February 2025, the Constitutional Court accepted the extraordinary application for the protection of rights filed by the enterprise, overturned the rulings of 2021 (“finding that the judges ... declared collective labour rights in favour of public servants subject to the Basic Act on Public Enterprises and modified their labour regime”) and ordered the enterprise to recover all the amounts paid to the workers who were beneficiaries of the overturned rulings, through monthly payments for up to 36 months, with a warning of a penalty for non-compliance, and (ii) in an order of 7 March 2025, the Court indicated that the enterprise must settle each case individually, considering situations of vulnerability only to determine the form of repayment, and indicated that judicial, administrative or extrajudicial actions may be taken to recover the amounts paid.
5. 303. The Committee notes that, in the Government’s response, after recalling the chronology of the judicial proceedings related to the present case, it indicates that the Ministry of Labour is not included as a party to the aforementioned judicial proceedings nor as an interested third party and therefore is not competent to make any pronouncements on the matter and that, in accordance with article 226 of the Constitution of the Republic and the principles of the administration of justice, the Ministry of Labour cannot be involved in or in any way influence the decisions taken by the Constitutional Court, within its jurisdiction, as the highest body of oversight, constitutional interpretation and administration of justice in this matter.
6. 304. The Committee takes note of these indications and observes that, as stated in the judgment of 14 February 2025, a copy of which was provided by the Government, on the extraordinary application for the protection of rights brought by the Minister of Labour against the rulings issued in 2021, it was argued that the judges who issued those rulings acted contrary to express law, because the Basic Act on Public Enterprises “excludes career staff from collective bargaining”. In that application, the Minister of Labour argued that the rulings of 2021 disregarded paragraphs 13 and 16 of article 326 of the Constitution and section 26 of the Basic Act on Public Enterprises.
7. 305. The Committee notes that the Ecuadorian legal system distinguishes between manual workers and other public servants and that section 26 of the Basic Act on Public Enterprises of 2009 expressly excludes career public servants working in public enterprises from the benefits of collective bargaining. Based on the foregoing, only manual workers in the public sector governed by the Labour Code may engage in collective bargaining.
8. 306. The Committee observes that the allegations in this case concern the exclusion of numerous employees of a public enterprise from the scope of collective bargaining as a result, on the one hand, of the application of the legislation in force which limits access to collective bargaining in public enterprises to manual workers only and, on the other hand, of the classification of a large number of employees of that enterprise as public servants rather than manual workers. With regard to the second aspect, the Committee does not have the necessary information to comment on the alleged broad definition of the employees of the enterprise who were classified as public servants.
9. 307. With regard to the first aspect, the Committee recalls that all public service workers other than those engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy collective bargaining rights, and priority should be given to collective bargaining as the means to settle disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service [see Compilation of Decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1241].
10. 308. The Committee also notes that for more than a decade, in the context of its examination of Ecuador’s application of Convention No. 98, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has expressed concern about the lack of recognition of the right of public servants to bargain collectively, even though many of them are not engaged in the administration of the State and should therefore benefit from the guarantees of the Convention.
11. 309. The Committee observes that, in its last comment, the Committee of Experts strongly 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 also notes that Ecuador’s application of Convention No. 98 was discussed by the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 113th Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2025). That 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 ... to ensure that collective bargaining takes place in a conducive environment, establishing adequate mechanisms and respective legal protections for all categories of workers and employers covered by the Convention”.
12. 310. In view of the above, the Committee firmly expects the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible to establish adequate collective bargaining machinery for all categories of public sector employees covered by the right to collective bargaining laid down in the relevant Conventions, in particular those employed by public enterprises.
13. 311. The Committee refers the legislative aspects of the case to the Committee of Experts and, noting with concern the possible repercussions of the practical implementation of the judgment of 14 February 2025, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant organization to keep the Committee informed in this respect, particularly in relation to workers in situations of vulnerability.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 312. In light of the foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee firmly expects the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible to establish adequate collective bargaining machinery for all categories of public sector employees covered by the right to collective bargaining laid down in the relevant Conventions, in particular those employed by public enterprises.
   • (b) The Committee refers the legislative aspects of the case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and, noting with concern the possible repercussions of the practical implementation of the judgment of 14 February 2025, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant to keep it informed in this respect, particularly in relation to workers in situations of vulnerability.