Allegations: the complainant organizations allege that various legislative
reforms promoted by the Government are contrary to collective bargaining and the right to
strike and that anti union acts have been committed during protests against those
proposals
- 139. The complaint is contained in a joint communication from the
Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN), the Costa Rican Workers’ Movement
Confederation (CMTC), the Juanito Mora Porras Social Confederation – ANEP (CSJMP), the
Single Confederation of Workers (CUT), the Costa Rican Education Workers’ Union (SEC)
and the National Educators’ Trade Union Association (ANDE), dated 16 November 2018, as
well as a communication dated 9 November 2018 from the Association of Secondary School
Teachers (APSE).
- 140. The Government sent its replies in communications dated 17 March
2020, 29 September 2021, 14 February 2023, 23 April 2024 and 21 April 2025.
- 141. Costa Rica 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 complainants’ allegations
A. The complainants’ allegations- 142. In their joint communication dated 16 November 2018, the complainant
organizations allege: (i) that Bill No. 20580 on strengthening public finances,
introduced in 2018, was not subject to social dialogue and affects the right to
collective bargaining in the public sector by imposing ceilings on remuneration,
removing matters from pay negotiations and eliminating bargaining entities such as the
public sector salary negotiation committee; (ii) that, on the occasion of the strike
against Bill No. 20580 organized on 26 September 2018, the right to free protest was
restricted, with the obstruction and detention of vehicles carrying individuals
travelling from rural areas to the capital to protest, strikers were threatened, actions
were taken to persuade them to desist from the strike and return to work, and other acts
were carried out with the intention of discrediting the acts of protest and the trade
union movement itself; (iii) that the Oil, Chemical and Allied Industries Workers’ Union
(SITRAPEQUIA) was accused of instigating the performance of acts of sabotage of oil
pipelines and multiple-product pipelines, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against four of its leaders (the general secretary, the disputes secretary, the
education secretary and a trade union representative); and (iv) that, in response to the
strike, Bill No. 21049 to provide legal certainty regarding strikes and related
procedures was introduced, amending various sections of the Labour Code, regulating the
content of statutes, limiting the right to strike and even prohibiting this right in
services that should not be considered essential services, permitting punishment for
exercising the right to strike, criminalizing protests and establishing new grounds for
the dissolution of trade unions when freedom of transit of citizens is affected.
- 143. In its communication dated 9 November 2018, the APSE alleges that:
(i) various sections of Bill No. 20580, by reforming the Act on Salaries in the Public
Administration, impose the termination of collective agreements in the public sector and
provide for their renegotiation, subjecting any new agreement to the provisions of the
Act and Government regulations; (ii) the Government has issued other directives and
executive decrees that also violate collective bargaining on salaries in the public
sector by unilaterally regulating the exclusivity bonus (Decree No. 41161-H), allowing
restructuring of public institutions only where it entails no new expenditure (Decree
No. 41162-H), prohibiting the creation of new bonuses or pay incentives and increases in
existing bonuses and incentives (Directive No. 003-H), and blocking the automatic
extension of collective agreements in public institutions beyond their expiration date
and requiring them to be renegotiated (Directive No. 009-H); (iii) through Decree
No. 41167-MTSS-H of June 2018, the Government unilaterally suspended the 2007 Bargaining
Agreement of the public sector salary negotiation committee and unilaterally set salary
readjustments in 2018 and 2019, as well as suspending the application of Decree
No. 35730 MTSS, which created the public sector salary negotiation committee; (iv) as a
result of the strike carried out in September 2018, which was declared illegal in the
first instance, there were acts of violence and hostility towards the strikers as well
as boycotts of the strike action, threats of punishment and cuts in trade union leave,
measures taken to prevent strikers from complying with or desisting from the strike
action and to persuade them to return to work, and calls for the replacement of striking
workers in the supervision of secondary school examinations; (v) Bill No. 21049, which
amends various articles of the Labour Code, provides for the absolute prohibition of
strike action in essential services, establishes rules concerning exceptions for the
classification of strikes in the public sector even in non-essential services,
unreasonably shortens the time frames for responding to requests for classification of
strikes and appealing rulings handed down, allows for salary reductions from the start
of strike action if the strike is declared illegal, allows for strikes to be suspended
if they affect the interests of the citizenry, and adds new grounds for the dissolution
of trade unions when the freedom of transit of individuals is affected.
B. The Government’s reply
B. The Government’s reply- 144. In its communications dated 17 March 2020, 29 September 2021, 14
February 2023, 23 April 2024 and 21 April 2025, the Government submitted its
observations, indicating the following: (i) Bill No. 20580 was approved in December 2018
as Act No. 9635 on strengthening public finances, and Bill No. 21049 was approved in
January 2020 as Act No. 9808 to provide legal certainty regarding strikes and related
procedures, and both laws are currently in force; (ii) as it addresses measures
concerning the restructuring of public finances to support economic stability through
the adoption of actions to reduce public spending, Act No. 9635 provides for the
reduction and regulation of certain elements of public sector salaries, but only for
individuals who enter the public service following the entry into force of the Act, and
given that the Act otherwise addresses tax-related measures that do not have a bearing
on trade union activities, it should not be subject to review by the Committee; (iii)
the Bill was subject to social dialogue with the participation of trade union
organizations and was submitted for an advisory opinion on its constitutionality, and in
Ruling No. 2018-19511 it was determined that there were no constitutional irregularities
in its form or content; (iv) following the adoption of the Bill as Act No. 9635, as a
result of a subsequent constitutional review, 30 claims of unconstitutionality were
filed, 20 of which have already been resolved and, in one of those cases, a full vote is
pending with a view to determining the constitutionality of various sections that would
impose restrictions on collective bargaining with regard to salary bonuses, compensation
and incentives in the public sector; (v) the suspension in 2018 of the 2007 Bargaining
Agreement of the public sector salary negotiation committee was a temporary measure
intended to control public spending without detriment to workers’ rights, and the
negotiation committee resumed its activities in the second half of 2019; (vi) the aim of
the renegotiation of collective agreements was to undertake a comprehensive review of
the terms of those agreements to eliminate abusive privileges and should give rise to
new agreements that entail significant cost savings; and (vii) the other decrees and
directives adopted in 2018 that were mentioned in the complaint also constituted urgent
measures taken to curb public spending.
- 145. As regards the alleged violation of the right to strike as a result
of the first-instance ruling declaring the strike in the education sector to be illegal,
the Government indicates that this ruling was overturned by Ruling No. 2019-0039 of the
Labour Court of Appeal of the Second Circuit, which ultimately declared the strike to be
legal.
- 146. As regards Act No. 9808 to provide legal certainty regarding strikes
and related procedures, the Government indicates that: (i) the Bill in question was
subject to consultations with trade union organizations and employers’ organizations;
(ii) as a result of the prior constitutional review, the reference to certain services
classified as essential was removed from the Bill as it had not been subject to
consultation (certain legal services, the removal, post-mortem examination and release
of bodies of deceased individuals, and emergency forensic medical services, including
the necessary auxiliary services) and the grounds for the dissolution of trade unions
was also removed; (iii) two subsequent constitutional review actions are yet to be
resolved; (iv) Act No. 9808 was the result of a broad process of dialogue with trade
union organizations and is in line with the principles established by the Committee as
regards limitations on the right to strike; and (v) following the adoption of Act No.
9808, between January 2020 and 2023, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security dealt
with four strikes, the courts handed down nine rulings concerning reviews and, in terms
of collective bargaining, 474 collective agreements were registered during that period,
covering more than 164,000 workers on average per year, which indicates, according to
the Government, that the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining have not
been affected.
C. The Committee’s conclusions
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 147. The Committee observes that, in the present case, the complainant
organizations allege violations of freedom of association and collective bargaining
arising from: (i) the introduction of Bill No. 20580, subsequently adopted in December
2018 by the Legislative Assembly as Act No. 9635 on strengthening public finances, as
well as other decrees and directives of the Government that also reportedly affect the
right to collective bargaining regarding public sector salaries; (ii) the introduction
of Bill No. 21049, which amended various sections of the Labour Code, subsequently
adopted in January 2020 by the Legislative Assembly as Act No. 9808 to provide legal
certainty regarding strikes and related procedures; and (iii) various events occurring
in 2018 during the strikes carried out by several trade union organizations against Bill
No. 20580. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, states that: (i) both
laws mentioned above were subject to due consultation and respect the right to
collective bargaining and the right to strike; (ii) it had been necessary in 2018 to
take urgent measures to curb public spending; and (iii) the strike in the education
sector in 2018 was ultimately declared to be legal by the judiciary.
- 148. As regards the allegations relating to Bill No. 20580, adopted as
Act No. 9635, the Committee observes that they form part of the allegations contained in
the complaint submitted in 2016 by several of the complainant organizations under
article 24 of the Constitution of the ILO. In this respect, the Committee takes note of
the report of the ad hoc tripartite committee approved by the ILO Governing Body in June
2025. The Committee notes that the ad hoc tripartite committee requested the Government,
in consultation with the relevant social partners, to review the existing normative
framework, such that, taking due account of the specific characteristics of collective
bargaining in the public sector, it guarantees a significant space for collective
bargaining on working and employment conditions of public sector workers who are not
engaged in the administration of the State, including with regard to remuneration. The
Committee therefore refers to those conclusions and recommendations.
- 149. As regards the allegations of further violations of collective
bargaining of an economic nature in the public sector that reportedly occurred in 2018,
the Committee takes note that the Government indicates that the provisions establishing
the suspension of the 2007 Bargaining Agreement of the public sector salary negotiation
committee constituted temporary measures intended to control public spending without
detriment to workers’ rights and that the public sector salary negotiation committee
resumed its activities in the second half of 2019. The Committee takes due note of these
distinct elements and in particular of the resumption of the work of the public sector
salary negotiation committee. As regards the suspension in 2018 of the 2007 Bargaining
Agreement of the public sector salary negotiation committee, while taking due note of
the Government’s indications that it constituted a temporary measure to control public
spending, the Committee notes the unilateral nature of the suspension and recalls in
this regard that mutual respect for the commitment undertaken in collective agreements
is an important element of the right to bargain collectively and should be upheld in
order to establish labour relations on stable and firm ground [see Compilation of
decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1336]
and that adequate mechanisms for dealing with exceptional economic situations can be
developed within the framework of the public sector collective bargaining system [see
Compilation, para. 1481]. The Committee requests the Government to duly take these
elements into account in future.
- 150. As regards Bill No. 21049, which gave rise to Act No. 9808 to
provide legal certainty regarding strikes and related procedures, the Committee takes
note that the complainant organizations allege that the Bill provides for the absolute
prohibition of strike action in essential services, establishes rules concerning
exceptions for the classification of strikes in the public sector even in non-essential
services, unreasonably shortens the time frames for responding to requests for
classification of strikes and appealing rulings handed down, allows for salary
reductions from the start of strike action if the strike is declared illegal and not
from the point at which the final decision is made, allows for strikes to be suspended
if they affect the interests of the citizenry even when they do not involve essential
services, and adds new grounds for the dissolution of trade unions when the freedom of
transit of individuals is affected.
- 151. The Committee takes note that, for its part, the Government
indicates that Act No. 9808 was subject to consultations with trade union organizations
and employers’ organizations and that, as a result of the prior constitutional review,
the reference to certain services classified as essential was removed from the Bill as
it had not been subject to consultation (certain legal services, the removal,
post-mortem examination and release of the bodies of deceased individuals, and emergency
forensic medical services, including the necessary auxiliary services) and the grounds
for the dissolution of trade unions was also removed, and that two subsequent
constitutional review actions are yet to be resolved. The Committee observes that the
adoption of Act No. 9808 was subject to broad discussions, including on proposed
amendments to the Labour Code not provided for in the original text of Bill No. 21049,
and takes note that the proposed amendment to section 350 of the Labour Code, which
provided for the dissolution of trade unions if it was proven in court that they had
organized or incited their members to obstruct the freedom of transit of citizens, was
ultimately withdrawn from the final text of Act No. 9808.
- 152. The Committee notes the allegations concerning Act No. 9808 to
provide legal certainty regarding strikes and related procedures, as well as the
Government’s observations indicating that the Act was subject to consultations with the
social partners and to constitutional review, within the framework of which amendments
were introduced to the text initially proposed. The Committee further observes that the
legislation has been examined by the competent national authorities, including judicial
bodies, in the exercise of their functions.
- 153. In this context, the Committee emphasizes, first of all, that the
right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their
organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests [see
Compilation, para. 753]. The Committee also recalls that it has acknowledged that the
right to strike can be restricted or even prohibited in the public service or in
essential services in so far as a strike there could cause serious hardship to the
national community and provided that the limitations are accompanied by certain
compensatory guarantees [see Compilation, para. 827]. The Committee also highlights that
what is meant by essential services in the strict sense of the term depends to a large
extent on the particular circumstances prevailing in a country. Moreover, this concept
is not absolute, in the sense that a non-essential service may become essential if a
strike lasts beyond a certain time or extends beyond a certain scope, thus endangering
the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population [see
Compilation, para. 837].
- 154. While duly noting the amendments introduced to the content of Act
No. 9808 prior to its adoption, the Committee observes that several aspects thereof may
raise issues of compatibility with the principle of freedom of association, in
particular those relating to the limitation of the duration of certain strikes, the
impossibility of calling repeated strikes on the same grounds, as well as the extension
of the services considered essential or of vital importance in which the right to strike
may be prohibited or restricted.
- 155. On the basis of the foregoing, the Committee invites the Government,
in consultation with the representative organizations of employers and workers, to
evaluate and review the content of Act No. 9808 with a view to ensuring its full
conformity with the principle of freedom of association, taking into account national
conditions. The Committee invites the Government to keep it informed of any relevant
developments, including decisions adopted by the competent judicial authorities.
- 156. The Committee takes note of the allegations of various anti-union
acts (restrictions on the right to protest, threats and pressure on strikers to return
to work in the absence of a definitive ruling on the legality of the strike,
disciplinary procedures against four trade union leaders and calls from the Ministry of
Education for striking workers to be replaced) that were alleged to have taken place in
2018 during the strike action carried out by various trade union organizations against
Bill No. 20580. The Committee takes note of the Government’s observations in which it
indicates that the declaration of the illegality of the strike in the first instance was
overturned by Ruling No. 2019-0039 of the Labour Court of Appeal of the Second Circuit,
which ultimately declared the strike to be legal, and observes that the Government has
not commented on the other elements of the allegations by the complainant organizations.
While taking due note of the information provided regarding the judicial decision
concerning the strike that took place in the education sector, the Committee requests
the Government and the complainant organizations to report on the current status of the
four leaders of SITRAPEQUIA who were reportedly subject to a disciplinary process as a
result of their participation in strike action in 2018.
- 157. The Committee invites the Government to seek technical assistance
from the Office to facilitate social dialogue and thereby address the recommendations of
this case.
The Committee’s recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations- 158. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the
Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) as regards the
allegations concerning Act No. 9635 on strengthening public finances, the Committee
refers to the relevant recommendations and conclusions of the report of the ad hoc
tripartite committee approved by the ILO Governing Body in June 2025 in relation to
a complaint submitted under article 24 of the Constitution of the ILO, in which the
Government was requested, in consultation with the relevant social partners, to
review the existing normative framework, such that, taking due account of the
specific characteristics of collective bargaining in the public sector, it
guarantees a significant space for collective bargaining on working and employment
conditions of public sector workers who are not engaged in the administration of the
State, including with regard to remuneration;
- (b) the Committee requests the
Government to ensure that, in future, exceptional economic situations that may arise
are dealt with within the framework of the public sector collective bargaining
system;
- (c) the Committee invites the Government, in consultation with the
representative organizations of employers and workers, to evaluate and review the
content of Act No. 9808 with a view to ensuring its full conformity with the
principle of freedom of association, taking into account national conditions. The
Committee invites the Government to keep it informed of any relevant developments,
including decisions adopted by the competent judicial authorities;
- (d) the
Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to report on the
current status of the four leaders of the Oil, Chemical and Allied Industries
Workers’ Union who were reportedly subject to a disciplinary process as a result of
their participation in strike action in 2018; and
- (e) the Committee invites
the Government to seek technical assistance from the Office to facilitate social
dialogue and thereby address the recommendations of this case.
