Definitive Report - Report No 353, March 2009

Case No 2606 (Argentina) - Complaint date: 31-OCT-07 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges that it has been excluded from the wage bargaining process and that agreements have been reached with only one public sector trade union, even though the ATE has official trade union status

1. 301. The complaint is contained in a communication from the ATE dated October 2007. The ATE presented further allegations in a communication dated May 2008. The Government submitted its observations in a communication dated 17 October 2008.
2. 302. Argentina has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 303. In its communication of October 2007, the Association of State Workers (ATE) presented a complaint against the Government of Argentina concerning the violation of ILO Conventions Nos 87, 98, 151 and 154 as a result of the violation of the right of collective bargaining for national civil servants. The ATE states that it is a first-level trade union with official trade union status (No. 2), operates throughout the territory of Argentina, and is affiliated to the Confederation of Argentine Workers (CTA), a third-level trade union organization registered under No. 2.027. The ATE sets out the constitutional and legal provisions that guarantee trade unions the right to collective bargaining and freedom of association as a fundamental right. The ATE alleges that, despite this formal protection of the right to collective bargaining, the Government, during collective wage talks with civil servants, practised discrimination, and obstructed and ultimately abandoned collective bargaining, in flagrant violation of ILO Conventions Nos 87, 98, 151 and 154.
2. 304. Specifically, the ATE states that, in the context of open collective bargaining between the Government, as employer, and the National Civil Servants’ Union (UPCN) and the ATE, representing employees, a collective labour agreement for the national civil service was signed on 29 December 2005 and later approved by Decree No. 214/06, which contains provisions relating to the negotiation of sectoral collective agreements within the overall framework of the general collective agreement.
3. 305. With regard to collective wage bargaining, the collective labour agreement (Decree No. 214/06) provides that: “The staff member’s remuneration shall comprise a base amount, an amount reflecting his or her grade or equivalent, plus any additional payments, supplements, bonuses and incentive payments that correspond to his or her category, in accordance with the regulations laid down in the sectoral agreements ...” (section 148). In other words, pay is subject to sectoral bargaining on the basis of the wage standards and structure outlined in the general collective labour agreement. Furthermore, in order to ensure that pay levels can still be negotiated to reflect current inflation and the consequent decline in real wages, the agreement allows for a six-monthly review, so that amendments can be made to the text of the agreement without terminating it (section 80(e)).
4. 306. Therefore, although the general collective agreement was signed in December 2005, the parties called for a pay review in May 2006 and May 2007. In this regard, the ATE has always argued that the starting point of any such review must be the minimum wage provided for in the Constitution and defined in section 116 of the Employment Contracts Act (Act No. 20744), that is, the amount needed to ensure that all workers and their families have access to adequate food, decent housing, education, clothing, health care, recreation, transportation, holidays and social security. In other words, the starting point for any wage negotiations must be the minimum amount provided for by law and by the Constitution, which was estimated in December 2006 at 2,513 pesos, as had been stated by the CTA in the National Wage Council.
5. 307. According to the ATE, the first stage in a wage negotiation process should be joint meetings aimed at reaching a negotiated agreement on the wage review. However, on 19 April 2006, the Government, represented by the President of Argentina, and the UPCN, as a representative union, held an official press conference at Government House announcing a 19 per cent wage increase for civil servants, to be implemented in the form of a 10 per cent increase with effect from June 2006 and a 9 per cent increase with effect from August the same year. In other words, without engaging in a bargaining process and without consulting the ATE, which is a signatory to the general collective agreement and a member of the general negotiating committee, the Government, having consulted only one of the parties (the UPCN), announced a wage increase.
6. 308. According to the ATE, it is clear that this wage increase was imposed because on 21 April 2006, two days after the 19 per cent increase was announced in the press, it was invited to attend a meeting at the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security, where it was expected to sign a document outlining the wage increase and thereby endorse the wage deal that had been imposed. At the meeting, after the ATE stated its objections to and rejection of the Government’s position, the Ministry of Labour refused to allow the ATE’s position to be reflected in the record of the meeting, which had to be set out in a separate document. It is clear that there was no collective wage bargaining for 2006 in the national public sector, and that this 19 per cent wage increase for civil servants was quite simply imposed by the Government.
7. 309. The ATE, reiterating that collective bargaining must be free and that the starting point for negotiations should be the minimum wage established by law and by the Constitution, adds that with the onset of 2007 and the need to carry out a wage review for that year, the ATE and the civil servants were once again denied their right to negotiate freely. Adopting the same approach as in 2006, the President of Argentina and the Secretary-General of the UPCN, among other unions, on 20 April 2007 announced a 16.5 per cent wage increase for civil servants, to be implemented in the form of a 10 per cent increase effective as from June 2007 and a further 6.5 per cent increase effective as from August. Once again, without any form of bargaining and without the signatories to the general collective agreement being invited to negotiate a fair wage increase for civil servants, the 16.5 per cent increase was imposed following its announcement in the media on 20 April 2007, as the attached documentation makes clear.
8. 310. In this regard, a week after that announcement was made, on 3 May 2007, the parties were called to the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security to sign a document accepting the increase which had been announced a few days earlier. The ATE reiterated its rejection of the procedure adopted by the Government but, as at the 2006 meeting, was denied the opportunity to place its views on record and had to set out its position in a separate document.
9. 311. According to the ATE, the position adopted by the Government constitutes a systematic violation of freedom of association and collective bargaining. First, there has been a denial of the right to free collective bargaining. Second, there has been an absence of formal collective bargaining, an agreement being reached informally with only one of the unions concerned, which violates the principle of bargaining in good faith and discriminates against one of the representative unions. Third, there has been no sectoral collective bargaining, which means that sectors have been unable to discuss and negotiate the most favourable wage conditions.
10. 312. As has been noted, the practice systematically adopted by the Government of Argentina in these two sets of pay negotiations for civil servants has been as follows: (a) to announce the wage increase for civil servants in the media; (b) to call a meeting of the general negotiating committee to “rubber stamp” the announced increase; and (c) to call on meetings of the sectoral negotiating committees to implement the increase. No in-depth analysis is required to conclude that there is de facto an absence of collective wage bargaining in the public sector.
11. 313. There is indeed a de facto denial of the right to collective wage bargaining, and hence there is no suitable negotiation forum in which the parties could express their views on the wage increase for the year in question. Instead, wage increases previously announced in the media have been imposed arbitrarily and without justification, in violation of the employees’ right to negotiate. This is how the Government has fixed the wage ceilings for 2006 and 2007, without giving civil servants the opportunity to discuss collectively the wage policies that affect them.
12. 314. The ATE considers this to be quite simply a refusal to allow collective wage bargaining for civil servants, as well as being a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith. The ATE believes that, as the ILO has stated, the principle of bargaining in good faith involves recognizing representative organizations, making every effort to reach an agreement, engaging in genuine and constructive negotiations, avoiding unjustified delays in the negotiations, and respecting commitments undertaken, taking into account the results of negotiations made in good faith. The Government, as the employer, decided to exclude the ATE from the agreements, which constitutes discriminatory treatment. Indeed, the employer, rather than holding negotiations in accordance with the principle of representation that it itself acknowledged in the general negotiating committee for the general collective agreement No. 214/06, bypassed the ATE and chose instead to deal with another union. Although the collective agreement provides that both the ATE and UPCN should be involved in the negotiation of any wage agreements for the national civil service, the wage increases were announced with the consent of only one of the parties. In this regard, the Government, as the employer, circumvented the general negotiating committee by agreeing on an inadequate wage increase with another trade union without consulting the ATE or the workers, which constitutes discrimination.
13. 315. The ATE indicates that, following the media announcements and a meeting of the general negotiating committee at which the announced increase was imposed without the ATE having any opportunity to negotiate or even to place its views on record, the Government convened sectoral negotiating committees with a view to concluding similar agreements and pursuing its economic policy. The meetings of the sectoral negotiating committees were all held at the same time, on 10 May 2006 and 22 May 2007, and at no time was the ATE given the opportunity to express its views. Collective bargaining in the civil service sectors has been blocked as a result of the imposition of a wage by the general negotiating committee which held no discussion or debate, something which constitutes a violation of the internationally recognized right to collective bargaining.
14. 316. The ATE adds that attention should also be given to the action of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security, which, far from acting as an impartial body, endorsed the irregular actions of the employer (the Government). According to the ATE, the implementing authority complied with the Government’s instructions, in other words, it did not convene joint wage negotiations until after the increase had been announced in the media and did not allow the ATE to put on record its views and its rejection of the agreement, thereby preventing free collective bargaining. The ATE considers that this situation is a result of the approach taken by the employer in making its offers, setting dates, issuing threats and carrying out specific functions that belong to the capacity of the “impartial body” responsible for facilitating talks. The Minister of Labour is, administratively speaking, an employee of the central Government and as such is bound to respect the hierarchical principle that prevails in administrative law. This in itself shows that it is inadequate to negotiate with the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security, which in such matters is both judge and jury.
15. 317. The Ministry of Labour is not an independent body, as its actions have shown. There is clearly no spirit of negotiation and the Ministry has failed to provide an opportunity to negotiate freely. The ATE considers the complicity of the Ministry of Labour in that it had a role to play in the Government’s bad faith, by forcing a workers’ organization to accept imposed conditions without any further opportunity for discussion.
16. 318. In its communication of May 2008, the ATE alleges that on 29 April 2008, the Government, represented by the President of Argentina, and the UPCN, as a representative union, held an official press conference at Government House announcing a 19.5 per cent pay increase for civil servants, to be implemented in the form of a 10 per cent increase with effect from June 2008, and a 9.5 per cent increase with effect from August. On that occasion, the increase was not only announced but approved in the record of a meeting to which the ATE was not even invited. In other words, once again, without engaging in a bargaining process and without consulting the ATE, which is a signatory to the general collective agreement and a member of the general negotiating committee, the Government, in consultation with only one of the parties (the UPCN), announced a wage increase for the national civil service.
17. 319. According to the ATE, this compounds the discriminatory attitude demonstrated by the implementation of wage increases for national civil servants in 2006 and 2007, and reflects a deteriorating situation in terms of violation of collective bargaining, discrimination and the imposition of a wage increase, in so far as an official document was signed at Government House without consulting the ATE and without any negotiation.
18. 320. The ATE emphasizes that the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security, far from acting as an impartial body, endorsed the irregular actions of the Government employer in the approach it has taken in recent years. Lastly, the complainant organization points out that, on 5 May 2008, the ATE was called upon to endorse the increase which had already been agreed with another trade union one week earlier, and was again denied the opportunity to place on record its rejection of the increase and had to do so in a separate document.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 321. In its communication of 17 October 2008, the Government indicated that workers in the public administration had opted for trade union pluralism, which means the coexistence of different representative bodies with official trade union status. The ATE, established in 1925, with official trade union status (No. 2), and the UPCN, established in 1948 with official trade union status (No. 95), are first-level trade union organizations to which all public sector workers at national, provincial, municipal and territorial levels, and throughout the whole of Argentina, are affiliated.
2. 322. Trade union pluralism in the public sector was formalized in resolution No. 255 of 22 October 2003 adopted by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security, which adopted the principle of trade union pluralism regarding representativeness on the basis of the provisions contained in sections 4 and 6 of Act No. 24185 relating to collective bargaining and in the light of the historical context of worker representation, thus allowing a trade union to be granted official trade union status even if an existing union with official trade union status already operates in the same area, activity or category. Both organizations have exercised their rights to collective bargaining which are derived from their status as official trade unions.
3. 323. The Government notes that the level of representativeness was determined using the criteria laid down in Convention No. 151, a fact never disputed by the complainant organization. It should therefore be understood that both entities had established their representative status in an objective manner, as required by the ILO, and had at all times respected the principle of freedom of association. Moreover, in certain sectors or national bodies, as well as provincial or municipal public sector bodies, different trade unions can perform similar functions, so that there are sometimes more than two unions with official trade union status. In view of this fact, the collective bargaining system in the national public sector envisages a general or framework agreement incorporating sectoral agreements, the negotiating committees including representatives of sectoral unions as well as national trade unions with official trade union status.
4. 324. This means that the general collective agreement is signed by the ATE and UPCN on the trade union side, but collective bargaining for each sectoral collective agreement (under the terms of the general agreement) involves the organizations with official trade union status that are active in that field. The signatories of the Collective Bargaining Convention No. 214/06 are the State, the UPCN and the ATE. The collective agreement in question was concluded following difficult talks between the workers and the employer which were then reflected in the various documents contained in files 1090812/04 and 1169018/06. Discussions between the parties were free and open. In addition, collective bargaining in the national public administration is guided above all by the provisions of Convention No. 154.
5. 325. The Government denies that it is the task of the negotiating committee merely to approve official announcements. In fact, Argentine legislation envisages, as the first step to initiating sectoral collective bargaining, the establishment of the bargaining committee by which authorized representatives are appointed to participate in collective talks. It should be noted that legislation does not stipulate the number of representatives, which means that the number of members is determined by the parties involved (section 4 of Act 23546). The Government points out that the ILO has not objected to bodies of this kind provided that, whatever the system adopted, its main objective is to foster, by all possible means, free and voluntary collective bargaining involving all parties. The negotiating committee was set up precisely with the aim of facilitating collective bargaining between the social partners in a free and voluntary manner.
6. 326. The Government states that, as further proof of total collective independence and trade union pluralism in the public sector, section 4 of Act No. 24185 stipulates that “… the representation of public employees will be undertaken by trade union associations, unions or federations with official trade union status and a national mandate, in accordance with section 6 …”. However, in relation to the most representative trade union bodies, it stipulates that if “... there is a lack of consensus between the trade unions with collective bargaining rights in relation to the collective bargaining committee, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security shall determine, in accordance with the relevant regulations, the percentage of votes that corresponds to each party. To this end, it shall take into account the number of paid-up members belonging to each association in the corresponding sector …”. For their part, the legislative regulations clearly state that “if more than one trade union association with official trade union status and national remit is represented on the collective bargaining committee for the general collective agreement, the number of votes corresponding to each of these associations shall be proportional to the number of paid-up union members in the public sector”.
7. 327. The Government adds that in this case, the representativeness of the two organizations was compared on the basis of the lists of paid-up members provided by the organizations themselves. The UPCN was shown to be the more representative union. The data were obtained in an objective manner, as required by the ILO, and the matter of representativeness has not been contested.
8. 328. The Government states that, in the light of the above and after the formal opening of negotiations, numerous meetings were held and all were chaired by the appointed official. The Government categorically denies that the ATE did not participate in subsequent meetings. The trade union organization in question had the right to be heard and to state its position under article 18 of the national Constitution, as the records of subsequent meetings show. The truth is that the ATE is less representative than the UPCN and has filed this complaint under false pretences. The collective agreement for public sector employees was concluded within the framework of, with respect for and in compliance with, the relevant legislation. The process complied with both national labour law and the ILO’s recommendations.
9. 329. The Government also states that it is aware of and abides by its obligation to comply with Conventions Nos 87, 98, 151 and 154, and that the legislation in force supports and defends the collective independence of the social partners participating in collective bargaining. Furthermore, Act No. 25164, which governs the system of employment in the public sector, provides that, through an agreement between the parties, the legislative provisions may be adapted to the sectors of the public administration which present specific characteristics in terms of collective bargaining, as laid down in Act No. 24185. That is to say, the complainant organization is signatory to sectoral agreements in the negotiation and approval of which it was fully involved. According to the Government, the complainant’s allegations are unfounded, as it participated at all stages of the collective bargaining process and was able to express its own position. This procedure has never been challenged, either in relation to the issue of representativeness or the building of consensus. At any event, the complainant failed to win support for its own position during negotiations under the normal conditions of freedom and independence enjoyed by the various representative unions in the sectors.
10. 330. The ATE always declared its position at the start of collective negotiations. The Government denies that there was any de facto denial of collective bargaining, or that there was any attempt to circumvent discussions. It therefore considers that the allegation of a de facto denial of collective bargaining must be rejected.
11. 331. The Government adds that the complainant organization filed its complaint following the announcement of a 19 per cent wage increase for civil servants, to be implemented in the form of a 10 per cent increase effective as of June 2006 and a 9 per cent increase effective as of August the same year. The announcement was made on 19 April 2006 by the highest official authorities and members of the trade union organization which had signed the agreement. The Government states that the ATE was invited to all the meetings of the bargaining committee, as the record of the meeting of 21 April 2006 shows. The Government, as the employer, and the UPCN and ATE, all signatories to collective agreement No. 214/06, were present at the Labour Ministry. The Government, as the employer, made an offer to these two official trade union organizations. The UPCN accepted the offer, while the ATE of its own free will rejected it.
12. 332. However, internal matters concerning trade union representation and the reasons given by one or other organization for differences between their negotiating strategies are not the Government’s concern. What has been acknowledged by the Government is the fact that an organization representing a majority accepted the offer. According to the Government, the complainant organization is trying to involve the Government in an internal union matter by filing an international complaint. The Government informed the complainant organization that an agreement had been approved by the majority, which meant that it complied with the law, as section 4 of Act No. 24185 states that: “Representation of public sector employees shall be carried out by trade union associations, unions or federations with official trade union status and national remit, under the terms of section 6. If there is no consensus between trade unions with collective bargaining rights regarding the membership of the negotiating committee, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security shall define, in accordance with the regulations, the percentage of votes appropriate to each party. To this end, it shall take into account the number of paid-up members belonging to each association in the relevant sector.”
13. 333. The Government states that it was necessary, from a legal point of view, to finalize the records of meetings and have them approved by the majority in order to avoid confusing the employers when it came to applying them. This was the reason for requesting that the minority organization (the complainant) place its opinions on record in a separate document. As a result, section 4 of Act No. 24185 was invoked in response to the complainant’s challenge but there was never any final closure and no discriminatory attitude.
14. 334. The Government states that the ATE participated in every joint meeting called by the Ministry of Labour. As the records state, Mr Eduardo De Gennaro, Mr Leopoldo González, Dr Matías Cremonte and other representatives of the ATE took part in the joint meetings. The trade union representatives were not coerced into signing the agreement, and the result was wholly the product of direct negotiations between the parties. The right to collective bargaining and freedom of expression was thus respected, as the complainant organization always expressed its opinion, and the allegation concerning a lack of freedom of association is unfounded, as the Ministry of Labour never interfered in the activities and internal affairs of the ATE. The ATE was never excluded from meetings falling under the remit of the respective negotiating committee, and the minutes of those meetings, which mention the trade union organization in question, are evidence of this.
15. 335. According to the Government, the statements concerning the wage increases in 2007 are not true. With regard to the complainant’s statement that “the starting point for any wage negotiations must be the minimum amount provided for by law and by the Constitution, which was estimated in December 2006 at 2,513 pesos”, the Government states that, under section 135 of Act No. 24013, the National Council for Employment, Productivity and the Minimum Adjustable Wage is a tripartite body presided over by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security. The Council’s rules of procedure are laid down in Decree No. 2725/91 and section 5 of Decree No. 1095/04. Section 15 stipulates that, once the debate has ended, the president must propose a vote or votes on the matter at hand. Voting cannot be repeated on the same issue during the same session, except when it is authorized by more than 50 per cent of the council members present. All council resolutions must be approved by two-thirds of the 32 council members.
16. 336. The Government states that on 13 July 2007 the Council was convened and, following tripartite negotiations, the minimum salary was then set, with effect from 1 August 2007, at 900 pesos for workers on monthly contracts who work with the statutory working hours stipulated in section 116 of Act No. 20744, except under the specific circumstances stipulated in section 92 of that law, which established an appropriate proportion of salary payable, and 4.50 pesos per hour for workers on daily contracts. From 1 October 2007, the respective amounts increased to 960 pesos for workers on monthly contracts and 4.80 pesos per hour for workers on daily contracts. From 1 December 2007, the rates were 960 pesos for monthly workers and 4.90 pesos per hour for daily workers. In line with resolution 1 of 28 July 2008, the minimum wage was fixed from 1 August 2008 at 1,200 pesos for monthly workers and 6.00 pesos per hour for workers on daily contracts, and from 1 December 2008 the monthly and daily rates were at 1,240 pesos and 6.2 pesos per hour respectively.
17. 337. The Government points out that the primary criterion used to establish the minimum wage is that of “reasonableness”. That is what is laid down in section 116, according to which pay is established by the Council “taking into account the data regarding the socioeconomic situation, the objectives of the institution, and extent to which the two can be reasonably matched”. Section 116 has to be interpreted in the light of section 139 of Act No. 24013, which stipulates that workers are guaranteed a minimum wage which will allow them to address their basic needs in terms of food, accommodation and leisure. The Government believes that the ATE’s statement that the starting point for wage negotiations must be 2,513 pesos from December 2006, does not comply with the legislation. The pay increase must also meet the criterion of reasonableness. By contrast, the ATE’s statement is a dogmatic assertion and is not accompanied by any documentary evidence to support its claims or the amount stated as a minimum. According to the Government, when the complainant organization states, regarding the sectoral wage negotiations, that the Government “convened sectoral negotiating committees with a view to concluding similar agreements”, this constitutes bad faith, as it abandons the principle of reasonableness which is the product of tripartite dialogue.
18. 338. The Government rejects the claim that an agreement was imposed during sectoral collective bargaining in the public administration. In May 2008, the complainant organization itself requested that the collective bargaining process continue, and the Government consented in accordance with the principles of freedom of association. The ATE requested that sectoral negotiations begin in order to guarantee the right to collective bargaining for all the workers involved, and negotiations are now under way with the Ministry. Although this process was not immediately implemented in all sectors, given the scope of the negotiations, it does address operational issues. As a result, the ATE actively participated in concluding a number of specific sectoral agreements, including the following: National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA), Decree No. 968/08 of June 2008; Seafarers Decree No. 974/08 of 25 June 2008; National Parks Administration (Guarda parques) Decree No. 967/08 of June 2008, Receiver General of Argentina (SIGEN) Decree No. 961/08 of 18 June 2008, National Institute of Industrial Technology (INTI) Decree 970/08 of 18 June 2008, National Commission for Space Activities Decree No. 964/08 of 18 June 2008, National Administrative Profession System (SINAPA) Decree No. 883/08 of 29 May 2008; Orchestras, Choirs and Ballet of the National Ministry of Culture, Decree No. 986/08 of June 2008, National Service for Agrifood Sanitary Inspection and Quality (SENASA), Decree No. 966/08 of June 2008; Professionals in Hospitals and Nursing Centres and Research and Production Institutes of the Ministry of Health, Decree No. 963/08 of 18 June 2008; National Institute of Agricultural and Livestock Technology (INTA) Decree 962 of 18 June 2008; Civilian Staff and Management in the Armed Security Forces (UPECIFA) Decree No. 1055/08 of 14 July 2008; the 18 APEN grades, Decree No. 985/08 of 25 June 2008. It should be made clear that the Labour Ministry resolution 757/2007, which approved the abovementioned agreements in section 5, reads as follows: “inform the Permanent Bicameral Commission of the Honourable National Congress”, and also enables the legislature to take action in the event of any irregularities.
19. 339. According to the Government, it is difficult to understand the attitude of the complainant organization and its reasons for filing a complaint, and the Government categorically denies the ATE’s allegations regarding the violation of freedom of association, as it used its right to vote and expressed its opinion in all joint meetings that took place. In addition to making its position clear on the matter of wage increases raised during the debate, its rejection of the proposal was recorded in the minutes drafted at the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security.
20. 340. Finally, the Government states that: (1) collective bargaining is promoted in the public sector by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security, which convenes the signatory organizations, in this case the UPCN and the ATE, with a view to establishing a negotiating committee for the purpose of initiating sectoral collective bargaining; (2) the Government recognizes the ATE as a party authorized to sign collective agreements, with the right to be heard, the right to a reasoned decision and the right to put forward proposals, which, in the case of the wage increases, did not meet the criterion of “reasonableness”; (3) trade union representation is allowed in the public sector in accordance with the principles of freedom of association; (4) if, during the discussions, the complainant organization was unable to impose its view, then this is a matter to be resolved with the other trade union body and every effort should be made to find a common position; (5) the minimum wage is established by means of a tripartite system involving all sectors, whereby each party is able to exercise its rights and the majority view takes precedence; and (6) the criticism regarding the lack of an impartial body is not pertinent to the complaint, which concerns decisions made by bodies which have led to a bipartite or tripartite agreement which fails to satisfy a minority; nothing has occurred here that would justify the intervention of an impartial body.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 341. The Committee notes that in this case the complainant organization alleges that despite being a signatory, together with the UPCN, to the collective labour agreement for the national civil service, which provides that collective wage bargaining is subject to sectoral bargaining, no such negotiations have taken place. In addition, the ATE alleges that representatives of the Government and the UPCN held meetings and jointly announced wage increases (apparently for all public service employees) for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, without the participation of the ATE.
2. 342. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s statements to the effect that: (1) in the public administration, workers opted for trade union pluralism, that is, the coexistence of different trade union bodies with official trade union status (the ATE and UPCN); (2) regarding the issue of wage increases, the ATE was invited to attend all the meetings of the joint negotiating committee, as is clear from the record of the meeting held on 21 April 2006; (3) the meeting in question was attended by representatives of the Ministry of Labour, UPCN and ATE, and the representatives of the Government made an offer which was accepted by the UPCN – the most representative organization – but rejected by the ATE; (4) during the meetings the trade union representatives were not coerced into signing the agreement and the outcome was entirely the product of direct negotiations between the parties; (5) the ATE was never excluded from the meetings, and the claim that any agreement was imposed during the negotiations is not true; and (6) in May 2008, the ATE requested that collective negotiations begin and the Ministry of Labour has consented. Although the process may not have been immediately implemented in all sectors, given the scope of the negotiations, it does address operational issues (the Government mentions more than ten collective agreements that were concluded in 2008 with the participation of the ATE).
3. 343. Under the circumstances, given the clarifications provided by the Government, and having observed that, in any event, sectoral collective bargaining is indeed taking place in the public administration with the participation of the ATE, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 344. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.