Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2001, Publicación: 90ª reunión CIT (2002)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - Venezuela (República Bolivariana de) (Ratificación : 1968)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2067 (324th, 325th and 326th Reports).

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the sanctions against anti-union discrimination and interference (sections 637 and 639 of the Fundamental Labour Act (LOT) which limit fines to two months’ minimum wages) are not merely symbolic, but are sufficiently dissuasive and effective. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that a Bill has been prepared (to amend section 187 of the Procedural Labour Act) to adjust the rates of fines, based on tariff blocks, with a view to ensuring that such financial sanctions are sufficiently dissuasive and effective. The Committee hopes that the above Bill will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to provide information in this respect in its next report.

Article 4. The Committee recalls that for many years it has been referring to the restrictions on collective bargaining under section 473(2) of the LOT, which provides that to negotiate a collective agreement the trade union concerned must represent the absolute majority of workers in an enterprise. The Committee notes that the Government refers to section 145 of the LOT regulations, under which two or more trade union organizations may act jointly for the purposes of obliging the employer to engage in collective bargaining or to exercise the right to industrial action. While the Government also indicates that in cases in which there have been problems of representivity, in the sense that trade union organizations submitting draft collective agreements do not represent the absolute majority, the Ministry of Labour has encouraged negotiation (the Government cites as an example the case of the negotiation of the collective agreement in the enterprise Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. and that of the employees in the courts), the Committee recalls that the provisions of section 73(2) of the LOT do not promote collective bargaining in the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. In these conditions, the Committee once again asks the Government to take measures to amend this provision so that in cases where no union organization represents an absolute majority of workers, minority organizations may jointly negotiate a collective agreement applicable to the enterprise or negotiating unit, or at least conclude a collective agreement on behalf of their members. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.

The Committee also notes that on 30 January 2000 the National Constituent Assembly adopted a decree suspending the process of discussing the collective contract in the enterprise Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. for a period of 180 days in special consideration of the state of national emergency and that the period in question may be prolonged. The Committee considers that having recourse to the suspension of a process of collective bargaining by decree constitutes an act of interference by the authorities in the relations between the social partners, which is a serious violation of the right to collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to repeal the decree concerned and to inform it in this respect in its next report.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted the comments of the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) dated 11 February 1999 raising objections to the Act to reform the judicial authorities and the Act governing careers in the judiciary, adopted on 26 and 27 August 1998. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided its comments in this respect. The Committee notes that, according to the WCL, a number of the provisions of the above Acts (such as those respecting the increase in the working day, the elimination of the right to annual holidays and the elimination of employment stability) violate the provisions of the collective agreement in force in the sector. The Committee emphasizes in this respect that legislation which modifies collective agreements which are already in force is not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. In these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that effect is given to the clauses of the collective agreement in question.

Finally, the Committee, in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association (see 326th Report, Case No. 2067, paragraph 517(a)), requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the Bill for the protection of trade union guarantees and freedoms and the Bill respecting the democratic rights of workers are withdrawn.