Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Spain (Ratification: 1977)

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Committees (CCOO), the General Union of Workers (UGT), the Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organizations (CEOE) and the Spanish Confederation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CEPYME), communicated by the Government, and the Government’s comments on all of these observations. It also notes the Government’s indication, relating to the additional observations communicated by the CCOO on 29 August, on which it has not been able to comment.

The Committee regrets to note that, regarding the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received in 2018, in which the Confederation raises several questions concerning the application of the Convention in practice, the Government merely indicates that in general the legislation provides for mechanisms for workers’ protection against anti-union conduct. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments on the above-mentioned observations, in particular those relating to allegations of anti-union dismissals in various private sector enterprises.

Article 4 of the Convention. Promotion of collective bargaining. Legislative reform. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the observations of the CCOO relating to the absence of dialogue on the amendments of sections 41 and 82.3 of the Workers’ Charter, which allow for the suspension of the application of agreed clauses in collective agreements for economic, technical, organizational or production reasons; as well as the Government’s response recognizing the number of non-applications of collective agreements. In this light, the Committee requested the Government to examine the effects of the application of sections 41 and 82.3 of the Workers’ Charter within the framework of social dialogue and to report on the results of those discussions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that any amendment of conditions agreed through collective bargaining, provided for in sections 41 and 82.3 of the Workers’ Charter, is limited to determined cases of exceptions. The Committee also notes that the CCOO and UGT trade union organizations reiterate their concern about the above-mentioned sections, given that they allow for the non-application or the alteration of the results of collective bargaining, highlighting the need to engage in a social dialogue process on this matter. Reiterating the importance of respect for the results obtained through collective bargaining, and that the problem of whether serious economic difficulties for the enterprises can, in certain cases, give rise to amendments to collective agreements, must be taken up in the framework of social dialogue, the Committee once again requests the Government to examine the effects of the application of sections 41 and 82.3 of the Workers’ Charter within the framework of social dialogue and report on the results of those discussions.

Persons authorized to negotiate collectively. “Ad hoc” committees. In its previous comment, the Committee, based on the concerns expressed by the CCOO regarding the alleged proliferation of enterprise agreements concluded by representatives without adequate standing and the role attributed to “ad hoc” committees under the 2012 legislative reform, composed of non-unionized workers, to modify the established content of collective agreements without the presence of legal representation of the workers, the Committee requested the Government to respond exhaustively to the allegations made by the Trade Union Confederation in question.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that: (i) the proliferation of enterprise agreements concluded by representatives without adequate standing corresponded to a situation that occurred after the 2012 labour reform and is now resolved, in which, in enterprises with several workplaces, the legal representatives elected in one or more of them represented the workers of the enterprise as a whole; (ii) the legislation provides that ad hoc committees may intervene in specific negotiations regulated by sections 40, 41, 47, 47 bis, 51 and 82.3 of the Workers’ Charter, only when there are no trade union sections in the enterprise or no legal representation and provided that the workers in these workplaces choose to appoint such an ad hoc committee; and (iii) ad hoc committees cannot intervene in the negotiation of equality plans unless, as has been set out in certain rulings, the trade unions called upon to negotiate do not respond to the request to participate in the negotiating committee for the plan. The Committee also notes the observations of the CCOO and UGT trade union confederations, according to which: (i) the conferral of bargaining power on ad hoc committees, which may agree on less favourable conditions than those agreed collectively, weakens collective bargaining and runs counter to the duty to promote it, established in the Convention, and the need to strengthen the role of the trade union organizations through social dialogue; and (ii) despite the fact that case law does not authorize ad hoc committees to negotiate equality plans, section 11 of Royal Decree 901/2020 allows for the registration of equality plans even where they have not been agreed upon by authorized parties, which provides an opening for the negotiation of these plans by ad hoc committees.

Recalling the importance of promoting collective bargaining with trade union representatives, the Committee once again requests the Government to examine, within the framework of social dialogue, whether the intervention of ad hoc committees, provided for in various sections of the Workers’ Charter, may undermine the bargaining position of existing trade unions or trade union representatives in the respective area, and to provide information on the outcome of the discussions.

Articulation between regional and national collective agreements. The Committee notes that the CEOE and CEPYME express their concern about the amendment to Article 84 of the Workers’ Statute by Royal Decree 2/2024, according to which, under certain conditions, collective agreements and inter-professional agreements of autonomous regions will take precedence over any other sectoral agreement or agreement at the national level. The aforementioned organizations point out that the amendment was not subject to tripartite dialogue and that the use of imprecise terms may affect legal certainty. The Committee notes that the Government states in this regard that: (i) the main objective of the amendment is to improve the regulation of collective bargaining at the level of the autonomous regions; and (ii) the priority introduced by the amendment is not absolute, since the agreement must be more favourable to workers than that established in national agreements or Conventions and several additional conditions must be met. While highlighting the importance of ensuring that any reform relating to the issues covered by the Convention is preceded by substantial consultations with the social partners, the Commission calls on the Government to examine, within the framework of social dialogue, the effects of the application of the amendment to Article 84 of the ET and to report on the results of those discussions.