Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 415, Junio 2026

Caso núm. 3507 (Ecuador) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 05-DIC-24 - Cerrado

Allegations: The complainants allege the refusal to process the first draft sectoral collective agreement applicable to domestic workers

1. 141. The complaint is contained in communications dated 5 December 2024, 15 July 2025 and 15 September 2025, submitted by the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (CSA), the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Union Organizations (CEOSL) and the National Union of Domestic and Related Workers (UNTHA).
2. 142. The Government sent its observations on the allegations in communications dated 14 November 2025 and 13 April 2026.
3. 143. 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 complainants’ allegations

1. 144. In a communication of 5 December 2024, the complainants state that: (i) the UNTHA constitution was approved through Ministerial Agreement MDT No. 2018-0139, of 19 June 2018; (ii) the organization represents domestic workers at the national level, irrespective of the type of contractual relationship with the employer; (iii) it is the first and one of the few unions by branch of activity registered in Ecuador; and (iv) the Ministry of Labour has denied it the right to negotiate collectively and conclude collective agreements at the national level.
2. 145. The complainants indicate that (i) on 3 June 2024, through document MDT-DRTSPQ 2024-21371-EE, the UNTHA deposited with the labour inspectorate the first draft sectoral collective agreement (identified as No. 329196-2024) and requested that the agreement be processed, with notification being provided to all the employers in the national domestic work sector; (ii) on 18 June 2024, by digital order notified by email, the labour inspector of the Guayas Labour Inspectorate, responsible for the processing, requested the UNTHA, within 72 hours, to indicate the type of employment dependency relationship that the affected workers have with their employers, and the clear and precise address of the place where the employer, with whom the collective labour agreement would be signed, would be notified.
3. 146. The complainants state that in response to the labour inspector’s request, on 21 June 2024, the UNTHA indicated that: (i) the Labour Code and the Instructions for the Presentation, Negotiation and Subscription to Collective Agreements, in force at the time the application was filed, as well as the Regulations that subsequently replaced these Instructions, did not require the organization to justify the type of employment dependency relationship with the employers in order to present the draft collective agreement; (ii) the UNTHA represents workers engaged in all types of domestic work, irrespective of their type of employment relationship; and (iii) the Ministry of Labour could notify the employers concerned, based on the information registered in the Single Labour System (SUT), which keeps a record of all the employment contracts of domestic workers, and of the physical and email addresses of all the employers to whom notifications are sent. They also point out that in its response the UNHTA requested that, should the processing application be rejected, including regarding the notification to all the employers of the draft collective agreement, and the case be closed, the Ministry of Labour should explain the reasons for the decision. The complainants indicate that, through the digital order notified by email on 17 July 2024, the labour inspector decided to close the case, indicating that the requested measures had not been taken. They state that the UNTHA decided to file an appeal against that decision, which has been pending before the Ministry of Labour since July 2024.
4. 147. Finally, the complainants maintain that the processing of the draft UNTHA collective agreement by the labour administration does not comply with ILO Conventions, in particular Convention No. 98, the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), and the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), and requests the Government to: (i) compile the physical and email addresses of the domestic sector employers that are registered in the SUT; (ii) notify these employers immediately of the draft collective agreement; and (iii) promote and facilitate the negotiation process, in accordance with international labour standards.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 148. In its communications, the Government provides the following information on the processing of the draft collective agreement presented by the UNTHA:
   • • In accordance with article 223 of the Labour Code, once the draft collective agreement has been presented, the Labour Inspector will state that the agreement should be notified to the employer or their representative within 48 hours. Similarly, article 3 of Ministerial Agreement MDT-2024-080 provides that the application shall indicate the exact address of the domicile, place of work and email address of the employer, so that they may be legally notified.
   • • In the case of the draft presented by the UNTHA, no employer has been individualized. The draft collective agreement application by branch did not identify natural or legal persons from the private sector, with whom an attempt is made to initiate the negotiation process, which would make it impossible to continue the processing.
   • • Similarly, the UNTHA did not specify the employment dependency relationship between the parties and did not satisfy the requirement of article 142(4) of the General Basic Code of Procedure (COGEP): providing the employer’s name, domicile and notification data. Without the employers being identified, it is not possible to initiate collective bargaining or establish a valid bilateral legal relationship. Moreover, the absence of data prevented compliance with the compulsory notification, an essential requirement in the process.
   • • In a procedural order dated 17 July 2024, the Labour Inspector ordered the administrative process to be closed, owing to the fact that the UNTHA did not provide the information requested for the employers to be legally notified within the period fixed in the Labour Code.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 149. The Committee notes that the present case refers to the decision of the Ministry of Labour, through a decision taken by the Guayas Labour Inspectorate, to reject the processing of an application for a draft sectoral collective agreement applicable to domestic workers, presented by the UNTHA.
2. 150. The Committee notes that the complainants state that: (i) the UNTHA is a national trade union which represents domestic workers, irrespective of the type of contractual relationship; (ii) in June 2024, the UNTHA presented the first draft sectoral collective agreement that would apply to all domestic workers and to their employers; (iii) the Guayas Labour Inspectorate requested additional information on the type of employment dependency relationship and clear and precise data to notify the employers concerned; (iv) the UNTHA responded that the rules in force did not require that the type of employment dependency relationship be indicated, that it represents domestic workers irrespective of their contractual relationship and that the Ministry could obtain the information necessary for employers to be notified through the Single Labour System (SUT); and (v) in July 2024, the labour inspector closed the case as the additional information requested had not been provided and the UNTHA lodged an appeal against this decision with the Minister of Labour.
3. 151. The Committee notes that, for its part, the Government indicates that: (i) the rejection of the draft collective agreement submitted by UNTHA was in accordance with the law and the regulations requiring that each of the employers concerned be identified, including their addresses and contact details, so that the labour inspectorate can notify them within the prescribed time limits; (ii) the UNTHA presented a draft by branch of activity without individualizing specific employers or detailing the employment dependency relationship; and (iii) faced with the absence of legal requirements, it was decided to close the case to guarantee due process and legal certainty.
4. 152. The Committee notes that the above information shows that the first draft sectoral collective agreement presented by the UNTHA to the Ministry of Labour was rejected as it did not show the employment dependency relationship of the domestic workers to whom the collective agreement would apply, nor the data for the notification of their respective employers. In relation to the first requirement – indicating the employment dependency relationship of the workers to whom the collective agreement would apply – the Committee notes that according to the complainants said information would not be necessary for the continuation of the proceedings, since the law of Ecuador does not indicate that, and that the UNTHA represents domestic workers subject to different contractual relationships. In relation to the second requirement – providing the data to identify and notify the employers concerned – the Committee notes that the Government confirms that it possesses an information system which contains the identification and notification data for the employers of domestic workers, although it indicates that the UNTHA presented a draft collective agreement by branch of activity, without individualizing specific employers and that the Government cannot be responsible for identifying all the domestic employers and carrying out mass searches in the SUT, and indicates that providing such information is the responsibility of the organization which presents the draft collective agreement.
5. 153. The Committee observes that the allegations in this matter call for resolving the tension between the Government's contention that UNTHA failed to comply with what it contends are reasonable statutory requirements and complainants’ allegations that the statutory requirements present unreasonable impediments to the realization of freedom of association and collective bargaining for domestic workers. The Committee encourages the Government to maintain broad consultations with the most representative social partners concerning the possibility of adapting the rules relating to the presentation of draft collective agreements to the particularities of domestic workers and their employers so as to promote and encourage the development of collective bargaining in that sector.
6. 154. In this context, noting that Ecuador has ratified Conventions Nos 98 and 189, the Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), and considers that this case does not call for further examination and is closed.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 155. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee encourages the Government to maintain broad consultations with the most representative social partners concerning the possibility of adapting the rules relating to the presentation of draft collective agreements to the particularities of domestic workers and their employers so as to promote and encourage the development of collective bargaining in that sector.
   • (b) The Committee, noting that Ecuador has ratified Conventions Nos 98 and 189, refers the legislative aspects of this case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR).
   • (c) The Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination and is closed.