Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Ecuador (Ratification: 1959)

The Committee notes the Government's report, the comments of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Unitary Class Organizations of Workers (CEDOCUT) on the application of the Convention, and the Government's reply along with the conclusions reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association on Case No. 1617 (287th Report, paragraphs 60-65, approved by the Governing Body at its 256th Session, May 1993).

The Committee notes the Government's information that employees and officials in the public sector are governed not by the Labour Code but by the Civil Service and Administrative Career Act which does not provide for the right to collective negotiation. The Committee also observes that under section 2 of the Civil Service Act in question, the Act applies to anyone exercising public functions in fiscal branches or other institutions of public or private law with social or public functions. In turn, in accordance with section 3(g) of this Act, the workers in the institutions mentioned in section 2 are excluded from its application and, under 2(h), teaching staff in educational institutions who are governed by the Basic Laws on Education and Scales and Salaries of the Teaching Profession are also excluded.

In this matter, the Committee requests the Government to specify, first, whether the workers included in section 3(g) of the Civil Service Act mentioned above are covered by the Labour Code and, consequently, their trade union organizations are able to negotiate collectively. Secondly, the Committee requests the Government to specify whether the laws applicable to teaching staff under section 3(h) of the Act allow their trade union organizations to negotiate collectively, and to supply copies of the laws in question.

If the reply is negative, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the relevant measures so that these categories of workers are allowed, through their organizations, to negotiate collectively their conditions of work.

The Committee notes that according to the comments of the CEDOCUT the Telecommunications Corporation (EMETEL) issued resolution No. 93-32 on 6 May 1993 which approves economic and social benefits for workers "excluded from collective contracting", forcing them to resign from the trade union.

In this regard, the Committee reminds the Government that as it has ratified the Convention, under Article 1 it has undertaken to ensure that workers shall have adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment or otherwise prejudice them. The Committee requests the Government to take the appropriate measures so that, in practice, EMETEL workers are not discriminated against in regard to economic and social benefits on grounds of trade union membership.

In relation to Executive Decree No. 2260 which, according to the comments of the CEDOCUT, delays and restricts the exercise of collective negotiation for public sector workers, the Committee, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, requests the Government to provide for a mechanism which ensures that, in the collective bargaining process in the public sector, with the sole possible exception of public employees engaged in the administration of the State both trade union organizations and the employers and their associations are consulted and may express their points of view to the National Secretariat for Administrative Development (the authority responsible for assessing the financial consequences of draft collective agreements) (see 287th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 1617), paragraph 65).