Display in: French - Spanish
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body- 23. The Committee last examined this case, concerning alleged legislative
obstacles to the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike of inter-company
trade unions (those representing workers from two or more different employers) and
decreased protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination such as
dismissal, at its October 2015 meeting [see 376th Report, paras 245–275]. On that
occasion, noting that a partial draft reform of the Labour Code was under discussion in
the National Congress, the provisions of which addressed some of the points raised in
the complaint in a manner so as to bolster the principles of freedom of association and
collective bargaining, the Committee requested the Government to communicate the text of
the act as soon as it was adopted.
- 24. In a communication dated 5 October 2017, the Government indicates
that: (i) the bill that had been under consideration was approved by Act No. 20.940,
which entered into force on 1 April 2017; (ii) the Act modernizes the labour relations
system by amending certain provisions on unionization and replacing in their entirety
those relating to collective bargaining contained in Book IV of the Labour Code; (iii)
the content of the aforementioned Act and a description of the manner in which its
amendments strengthen the implementation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 were included in
the reports submitted by the Government to the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR); and (iv) the Committee noted with interest
and satisfaction the amendments introduced by the Act aimed at promoting collective
bargaining, simplifying the formal collective bargaining procedure, broadening the
issues that might be covered by negotiation and extending the scope of protection
against anti-union discrimination.
- 25. The Committee recalls that this complaint, submitted in 2014 and
examined in 2015, concerns mainly the fact that, unlike with company trade unions, the
ability of inter-company trade unions to negotiate depended on the willingness of
employers and that, if companies did agree to negotiations, these were conducted without
any formal procedure or guarantees such as trade union immunity or the right to strike.
The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government and notes with
interest the adoption of Act No. 20.940.
- 26. The Committee observes that, in recent years, when examining the
implementation of Convention No. 98, the CEACR: (i) noted with satisfaction that the Act
repealed the rule contained in section 334 bis of the Labour Code, which provided that,
for employers, bargaining with the inter company union was voluntary or optional and
that, where an employer refused, the workers in the company who were not members of the
inter-company union could submit draft collective agreements; (ii) noted that this
provision had been replaced with a rule allowing inter-company unions to submit draft
collective agreements at the company level on behalf of their members; (iii) also noted
that, under new section 364 of the Labour Code, employers in small enterprises of up to
50 workers retained the right to refuse to negotiate with inter-company unions and had,
according to the interpretation of the Labour Directorate, a period of ten days to
express such refusal; and (iv) requested the Government to provide information on the
measures taken or planned to promote collective bargaining in all productive sectors and
at all levels, on the number of collective agreements concluded by level and sector,
comparing in particular the company level with higher levels, and on the number of
workers covered.
- 27. Taking into consideration the follow-up carried out by the CEACR,
having received no information from the complainant organizations in the context of the
Committee’s follow-up on this case, and recalling the importance of continuing to
encourage the full development and use of collective bargaining procedures at various
levels, the Committee considers that this case is closed and does not require further
examination.
