Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) - Colombia (Ratification: 1963)

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on wages, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 26 and 99 (minimum wage) and 95 (protection of wages) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the National Employers Association of Colombia (ANDI) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 99, received on 31 August 2018, and the Government’s reply to these observations. It also notes the observations of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), received on 31 August 2018, on the application of Convention No. 99, and the observations of the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT) on the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 99, received on 1 September 2018, and the Government’s reply to these observations. The Committee further notes the observations of the CUT, the Colombian Federation of Education Workers (FECODE) and the Teachers’ Association of Cundinamarca (ADEC) on the application of Convention No. 95, received on 30 May 2018. It also notes the observations of the CGT, the CTC and the CUT on the same Convention, received on 31 August 2018, and the Government’s reply to these observations.

With regard to the application of Convention No. 95, the Committee notes the Governing Body decision of June 2018 to transmit to the Committee a communication sent under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the CGT, the CTC, the CUT and the National Association of Ecopetrol Retirees (ANPE 2010) alleging non-observance of the Convention. Taking into account that the allegations by the complainant organizations were being examined by the Committee, the Governing Body decided to transmit this communication to the Committee for a full examination of these allegations at its 2018 session.

Minimum wage

Article 3 of Conventions Nos 26 and 99. Participation of the social partners. The Committee notes that, in reply to the observations of the CTC and the CUT on the minimum wage fixing process, the Government provides a copy of Decree No. 2269 of 30 December 2017 establishing the statutory minimum wage for 2018. The Committee notes that, according to the reasoning of the Decree: (i) the tripartite Permanent Committee for Consultation on Wage and Labour Policies held a plenary session over a period of several days in December 2017 with the aim of fixing, in a concerted manner, the increase in the minimum wage for 2018; and (ii) in its session on 7 December 2017, the workers’ confederations (including the CUT, the CGT and the CTC) and the employers’ associations indicated their views on the increase in the statutory monthly minimum wage in force.

Protection of wages

Article 1 of Convention No. 95. Protection of all elements of remuneration. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the CTC, the CGT and the CUT which reported a phenomenon of “de-salarization” in the country, particularly in the oil sector, with the conclusion of “salary exclusion agreements” on the basis of the provisions of section 128 of the Substantive Labour Code (CST). The Committee notes that, in their representation made in 2018, the complainant organizations indicate that a “salary exclusion agreement” is an individual agreement between the employer and the worker which establishes that, in addition to the payment of wages, the employer shall deposit a non-wage payment known as a “savings incentive” every two weeks into the worker’s voluntary pension fund. The Committee notes that the complainant organizations consider that the “savings incentive” constitutes wages, as: (i) it is paid in exchange for work; (ii) in many cases, it represents over 40 per cent of the wages; and (iii) it is paid periodically every 15 days. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 128 of the CST establishes that, by agreement between the worker and the employer, some payments made voluntarily by the employer to the worker do not constitute wages. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention, all the components of the remuneration of workers, however designated or calculated, are protected by the Convention, and the fact that a wage benefit, however designated, does not enter into the definition of wages set out in the national legislation, does not, ipso facto, constitute a violation of the Convention, provided that the remuneration or earnings due, payable under a contracted employment by an employer to a worker, whatever term is used, are covered by the provisions of Articles 3–15 of the Convention (2003 General Survey, Protection of wages, paragraph 47). Under these conditions, the Committee considers that regular payments made by employers to the voluntary pension funds of workers, known as “savings incentives”, shall qualify for the protection afforded by the Convention.

In this regard, in relation to the protection afforded by the Convention, the Committee notes the complainants’ allegations that the “savings incentive” system does not meet the requirements of Articles 5 (direct payment to the worker), 6 (freedom of workers to dispose of their wages) and 15 (inspection) of the Convention. The complainant organizations consider that they do not meet the requirements of Articles 5 and 6 for the following reasons: (i) in view of the dominant position of the employer in the employment relationship, the workers knew that if they did not agree to sign the salary exclusion agreement they would not obtain advancement and would be dismissed from their jobs; (ii) as the “savings incentive” is deposited in the pension fund, it is not paid directly to the workers; and (iii) the workers cannot dispose of these sums as they wish. In its reply, the Government indicates that the salary exclusion agreement is accepted freely by the workers and that their consent is recorded in the contract of employment signed by the parties. The Committee recalls that Article 5 provides that the worker concerned may agree to a different procedure to the direct payment of wages, and that Article 6 refers to the freedom of workers to dispose of their wages. Under these conditions, the Committee considers that the alleged acts do not imply a violation of these Articles. In relation to Article 15, the Committee notes that the complainant organizations allege that the labour inspection services did not inspect this practice of their own motion or penalize it. In this regard, the Committee notes that certain specific cases relating to these matters are being examined by national jurisdictions.

Finally, the Committee notes the complainants’ indications that the fact that “savings incentives” do not constitute wages has an impact on other social benefits, and particularly pensions, the rate of which is calculated on the basis of the amount of the workers’ wages. In this regard, the Committee observes that this issue is not covered by the Convention.

Article 4 of Convention No. 95 and Article 2 of Convention No. 99. Payment of wages in kind. The Committee notes that, in its observations, the CGT indicates that in the agricultural sector it is common for the payment of wages in kind not to observe the maximum amount established by the CST. The Committee observes that section 129 of the CST limits partial payment in kind to 50 per cent of total wages and 30 per cent when workers earn the minimum wage. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to describe the manner in which compliance with the limits established in the national legislation is ensured in practice.

Article 12(1) of Convention No. 95. Regular payment of wages. The Committee notes that, in their observations, the CUT, the FECODE and the ADEC report delays in the payment of wages in the education sector in the department of Cundinamarca. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 4 of Conventions Nos 26 and 99, and Article 15 of Convention No. 95. Inspections and penalties. The Committee notes that, in their observations: (i) the CTC and the CUT indicate that few penalties are imposed compared with the number of cases of non-compliance with provisions on wages; and (ii) the CGT denounces the lack of effective rural inspections which leads to high rates of informality and the failure to pay the statutory minimum wage in force. The Committee notes that the Government: (i) provides information on the preventive action taken by labour inspectors, the number of investigations initiated, the orders issued and the penalties imposed with regard to wages; and (ii) describes the progress made in the implementation of the Information System on Labour Inspection, Monitoring and Control. The Committee hopes that the measures adopted in this regard give rise to progress in compliance with the provisions on wages, and requests the Government to provide information in this regard. The Committee also notes that these matters are examined in the context of the application of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on wages, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 26 and 99 (minimum wage) and 95 (protection of wages) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), on the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 99 (minimum wage) and Convention No. 95 (protection of wages), received in 2016, and the observations of the National Employers Association of Colombia (ANDI) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on the application of Conventions Nos 26 and 99, received in 2016.

Minimum wage

Article 3 of Conventions Nos 26 and 99. Participation of the social partners. The Committee notes the indications of the CTC, the CGT and the CUT that, in most cases, the Government unilaterally adopts decrees fixing the statutory minimum wage without taking into account proposals made by the workers in the framework of the Standing Committee for Consultation on Wage and Labour Policies (CPCPSL). The Committee also notes the indication by the ANDI that the power of the Government to fix the statutory minimum wage only applies when no consensus has been reached in the CPCPSL. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, under the provisions of section 8 of Act No. 278 of 1996: (1) the decisions of the CPCPSL on the fixing of the minimum wage shall be adopted by consensus and must be taken no later than 15 December to be effective the following year; and (2) when no consensus is reached, the Government shall determine the minimum wage by decree no later than 30 December, on the basis of the criteria set out in the Act. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that it has always respected the legal steps for fixing the minimum wage and that, in December 2013, the statutory minimum wage was fixed by consensus in the CPCPSL. The Committee also observes that the statutory minimum wage for 2017 was determined by the Government through Decree No. 2209 of 30 December 2016, which provides detailed grounds for the decision adopted and includes information on the process of consultation held within the CPCPSL.

Protection of wages

Article 1 of Convention No. 95. Protection of all elements of remuneration. The Committee notes that in their observations the CTC, the CGT and the CUT report a phenomenon of “de-salarization” in the country with the conclusion of “salary exclusion agreements” on the basis of the provisions of section 128 of the Labour Code (CST). They make particular reference to the practices which exist in the oil industry. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 4 of Conventions Nos 26 and 99 and Article 15 of Convention No. 95. Inspection and penalties. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the inspection system and penalties with the purpose of ensuring compliance with the national legislation on minimum wages and wage protection. In their observations, the CTC, the CGT and the CUT indicate that, in practice, labour inspectors do not check whether the legislation on wage protection is being applied. The Committee notes that the Government provides the information on the number of investigations launched, the enforceable decisions and the penalties imposed for failure to pay the minimum wage and the wrongful withholding of wages. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that it has received technical assistance from the Office for the development of a new computer system for inspection, monitoring and supervision which will facilitate a more detailed reading of the data on inspections relating to wages.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2018.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention. Protection of wage claims in the event of bankruptcy – Payment of wages at regular intervals. Further to its previous comment, the Committee notes the updated information provided by the Government concerning the liquidation proceedings of the hospital San Juan de Dios and of the Merchant Navy Investment Company, which have been the subject of numerous communications received previously from trade union organizations. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made for the final settlement of these disputes. Moreover, in the absence of any reply concerning the situation of the Airline Pilots’ Provident Fund (CAXDAC), the Committee again requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any developments in this regard.

In addition, the Committee notes the comments of the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC), dated 29 August 2011, according to which the constitutional and legislative provisions on wage protection are not applied in practice. The CUT and the CTC allege that the Government has failed to put in place sufficient inspection mechanisms to ensure the regular payment of wages. The two organizations refer to the current level of the minimum wage which is far below the poverty line and they denounce the lack of social dialogue in these matters. The Committee requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in reply to the observations of CUT and CTC relating to inspection mechanisms to ensure the regular payment of wages.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention. Protection of wage claims in the event of bankruptcy and the payment of wages at regular intervals. The Committee notes that, once again, trade union organizations have brought to its attention problems relating to the preferential treatment of workers’ wage claims in the event of the bankruptcy of the employer, as well as problems relating to the payment of wages at regular intervals. More specifically, the Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments of the Colombian Association of Airline Pilots (ACDAC), dated 25 May 2007. The ACDAC previously drew attention to the alarming situation of the Airline Pilots’ Provident Fund (CAXDAC) and its growing deficit which is due to the fact that, for many years, the Government has not prevented airline companies which have not paid their contributions from filing for bankruptcy without having first paid all outstanding contributions to the Fund. In its reply of 6 March 2008, the Government indicates that, after requesting information from the various regional directorates concerning the investigations carried out for non-payment of contributions due to the CAXDAC, it was found that no investigation is under way at the administrative level with regard to the events alleged by the ACDAC. The Government also indicates that it is awaiting further information from the supervisory authority for ports and transport. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of its further actions and any developments in this regard and to provide the above information as soon as possible.

The Committee also notes the comments submitted by the Union of Maritime and Inland Water Transport Workers (UNIMAR) dated 14 April 2008 and sent to the Government on 7 August 2008. UNIMAR once again refers to the liquidation process of the Merchant Navy Investment Company SA (formally the Grand Colombian Merchant Navy SA) and emphasizes that the liquidator’s advisory board, with the authorization of the Supervisory Authority for Companies, gave the order not to pay the 18 sailors whose employment contracts had been suspended since September 1997, the wages, social benefits and compensation owed to them. UNIMAR adds that 16 final court decisions have ordered that the illegally suspended employment contracts be restored and that the related wages and social benefits be paid, with an order to attach the accounts of the enterprise, which no longer contain any funds allowing the payment of the workers’ claims. The Supervisory Authority for Companies and the former liquidator had assured the Constitutional Court that the rights of the workers would be respected, ordering the payment of wages and social benefits for 2003. UNIMAR indicates that the Government, instead of executing the court decisions, dismissed the workers without paying them the wages and social benefits owed to them. In this regard, the Committee notes the information provided by the Supervisory Authority for Companies and transmitted by the Government in a communication dated 30 April 2009. With regard to the above final court decisions, the Supervisory Authority for Companies indicates that the proceedings are pending before the national courts and that the legal rulings handed down by the magistrates responsible for the enforcement of sentences have been transmitted, firstly, to the magistrate responsible for the liquidation and, secondly, to the liquidator so that the payment of the wages, social benefits and compensation can be made, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any developments in this regard, and in particular to indicate whether the payments have been made and whether the dispute has been resolved.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the comments made by the National Union of Workers of the Enterprise Administradora de Seguridad Limitada (SINTRACONSEGURIDAD) received on 15 August 2008 and recalls that it has already issued an opinion on this point, as raised by the Government in its reply dated 4 November 2008. In so far as the former workers of the company CONSEGURIDAD have exhausted all the legal remedies available, they have to comply with court decisions which have the effect of res judicata. The Committee once again recalls that it has no power to intervene in the operation of the national judicial authorities, particularly in the manner in which they have adjudicated.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide any new information concerning the settlement of the wages owed to the employees of the public hospital San Juan de Dios following the comments made in March 2006 by the National Association of Health, Social Security and Allied Service Workers and Public Employees (ANTHOC). The Committee once again requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any settlement of the dispute or any progress made to that end.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the communications of the Union of Maritime and River Transport Workers (UNIMAR), dated 25 June 2007, and of the Colombian Association of Airline Pilots (ACDAC), dated 25 May 2007, which were forwarded to the Government on 20 August 2007. Both communications follow up on previous observations made by the same organizations concerning the alleged violation of the principles set out in Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention on account of the Government’s failure to protect workers’ wage claims in insolvency proceedings and to prevent the accumulation of wage arrears in certain public and private sector enterprises. With regard to the ongoing liquidation process of the Merchant Navy Investment Company SA (formerly the Grancolombian Merchant Navy SA), UNIMAR claims this process is flawed on multiple grounds and calls for the settlement of all outstanding payments to the former employees of the enterprise. ACDAC, for its part, draws attention to the alarming situation of the Airline Pilots’ Providence Fund (CAXDAC) and its growing deficit which is due to the fact that the Government has not prevented for many years so-called “non-contributing airline companies” to file for bankruptcy without having first paid all outstanding contributions to the Fund.

The Committee requests that the Government transmits its comments in this regard so that it may examine these points at its next meeting. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments concerning the matters raised in its previous observation, in particular the settlement of outstanding payments to the employees of the public hospital San Juan de Dios following the comments of the National Association of Health, Social Security and Allied Service Workers and Public Employees (ANTHOC).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee recalls its previous comments further to the many observations made by the trade union organizations concerned regarding problems of wage arrears in certain public and private sector enterprises, and the protection of wage claims in the context of judicial bankruptcy proceedings.

1. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed reply to the comments of SINTRACONSECURIDAD, received on 21 March 2006, in which the Government refers exhaustively to the various court decisions which found that the Banco Cafetero, now the BANCAFE, is not responsible out of solidarity for the payment of the wages and social benefits of employees of the subcontracting company CONSEGURIDAD and that, consequently, the former workers, who have exhausted all the channels of appeal available, have to comply with court decisions which have the effect of res judicata. In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the Government’s explanations and recalls that it has no powers to intervene in the manner in which the judicial authorities have adjudicated.

2. With regard to the comments of the Colombian Association of Airline Pilots (ACDAC) concerning the accumulation of wage arrears in the Intercontinentale aviation company, the Committee notes the Government’s reply in which it indicates that, following many inspections and meetings which were unproductive, the inspection services imposed a fine of an amount of 10,740,000 pesos (around US$4,900), equivalent to 30 times the minimum wage, on the enterprise. The Government adds that the sanction was notified to the persons concerned, in accordance with ruling No. 01 of 1984, so that they could avail themselves of the respective recourse procedures. The Committee notes the information that no appeals have been lodged and that the case is currently closed.

3. The Committee also notes the communication of the National Association of Health, Social Security and Allied Service Workers and Public Employees (ANTHOC), dated 9 March 2006, concerning the dispute between the employees of the public hospital San Juan de Dios and the management of the establishment concerning unpaid wages. In its reply, the Government announces that a loan contract has been concluded with the Beneficiencia de Cundinamarca which will cover the settlement of the wage debts of the former San Juan de Dios foundation, to which the public hospital and the maternal and children’s institute belong. The Government adds that the funds will be paid when the Beneficiencia de Cundinamarca is capable of issuing a fiduciary order for direct payment to the beneficiaries. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress achieved with a view to the definitive settlement of the dispute.

4. With regard to the latest comments of the Union of Maritime and River Transport Workers (UNIMAR), dated 30 May 2006, which essentially go over the background to the dispute concerning the liquidation of the Merchant Navy Investment Company, S.A., the Committee notes the Government’s detailed information, particularly ruling No. 801 of 26 April 2006, through which the Territorial Directorate of Cundinamarca repealed the Order of 14 April 2003 calling for the establishment and accreditation of cautions and other guarantees and the definitive closure of the enterprise. The Committee also notes that appeals have been made against this administrative decision and that they are under investigation. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress achieved with a view to the definitive settlement of the dispute.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the communications of the National Association of Health, Social Security and Complementary Services’ Workers and Public Employees (ANTHOC) and the Workers’ Union of Administradora de Seguridad Limitada (SINTRACONSEGURIDAD), both of which were forwarded to the Government on 16 September 2005. It also notes another communication of SINTRACONSEGURIDAD dated 19 September 2005 which was forwarded to the Government on 20 October 2005. In its comments, ANTHOC indicates that the majority of the 146 employees of the San Juan de Dios public hospital have not received their wages, wage supplements and holiday pay since October 2003. As regards SINTRACONSEGURIDAD, it alleges that the process of judicial liquidation of Banco Cafetero, which was initiated in March 2005, risks to further compromise the settlement of pay claims of former employees of Conseguridad.

The Committee requests that the Government transmits its comments in this regard so that it may examine these points at its next meeting. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments concerning the matters raised in its previous observation, i.e. the settlement of outstanding payments to employees and pensioners of the Merchant Navy Investment Company and the accumulation of wage debts in the Intercontinental Aviation Company, following earlier comments of the Union of Maritime and Inland Water Transport Industry Workers (UNIMAR) and the Colombian Association of Airline Pilots (ACDAC).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and some earlier observations, which had been received on 24 December 2003, in response to its previous comments. It also notes the new comments made by the Union of Maritime and River Transport Workers (UNIMAR), dated 30 April, 27 July and 21 October 2004. In addition, the Committee notes the communication of the Workers’ Union of Administradora de Seguridad Limitada (SINTRACONSEGURIDAD), dated 23 December 2003, and the Government’s reply, dated 26 May 2004. All these comments concern problems of unpaid wages and the special protection of wage claims in bankruptcy proceedings.

With respect to the detailed comments of UNIMAR concerning the ongoing liquidation of the Merchant Navy Investment Company, S.A. (formerly the Grancolombian Merchant Navy, S.A.), the Committee notes the summary overview of the dispute provided by the Government and the information regarding the latest developments in the liquidation process. The Committee lacks, of course, any authority for intervening in the manner in which the judicial or administrative authorities deal with specific labour disputes, but feels obliged to recall the need for enhanced protection of workers’ earnings for work already performed, as required under the relevant provisions of the Convention. The Committee hopes therefore that the Government will make every effort to put in place accelerated payment procedures to ensure the rapid payment of workers’ privileged claims in similar proceedings. It accordingly requests the Government to keep it informed of any definitive settlement of the outstanding payments to the 23 employees and 774 pensioners of the Merchant Navy Investment Company.

As regards the comments of SINTRACONSEGURIDAD alleging non-payment of wages to former employees of "Conseguridad" for security services provided to Bancafe (formerly Banco Cafetero), the Committee notes the explanations of the Government and the judicial decision of 7 October 2003 in which it was concluded that the bank had no responsibility for settling any service-related claims that the employees of "Conseguridad" might have against their employing company in respect of services provided to the bank. Finally, with regard to previous complaints submitted by the Colombian Association of Airline Pilots (ACDAC), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a labour administrative inquiry is in progress by the competent labour inspection directorate. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to report on the outcome of this inquiry and the measures taken to put an end to the accumulation of wage debts in the Intercontinental Aviation Company. The Committee seizes this opportunity to recall that a State that ratifies the Convention is required not only to apply it scrupulously to public employees but also to ensure that it is applied by local authorities and private enterprises. The Convention, as the Committee has pointed out on several occasions, does not offer ready-made solutions to phenomena such as large-scale wage crises or corporate bankruptcies, but serves as a reminder of the special nature of wages as the workers’ principal, if not sole, means of subsistence, hence the necessity for vigorous and effective action to eliminate abusive pay practices.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s comments, received on 27 October 2003, relating to the new observations made by the Union of Maritime and River Transport Workers (UNIMAR), dated 18 March and 23 May 2003. The Committee also notes the other comments on the application of the Convention made by the Colombian Association of Airline Pilots (ACDAC), dated 31 March and 27 May 2003; the Workers’ Union of Administradora de Seguridad Limitada (SINTRACONSEGURIDAD), dated 25 March 2003; and the Confederation of Pensioners of Colombia (CPC), dated 22 May 2003. The Committee notes that all of these comments once again concern problems related to the preferential treatment of workers’ claims in the event of the bankruptcy of the employer and the payment of wages at regular intervals.

I.  Preferential treatment of workers’ claims

The Committee notes the comments of UNIMAR complaining that the Superintendence of Companies (a public body established by Act No. 222 of 1995 with responsibility for carrying out inspection, supervision and control over commercial enterprises), by ruling No. 440-020886, of 12 December 2002, authorized the implementation of the Payment Plan of the Merchant Navy Investment Company, S.A. (formerly the Grancolombian Merchant Navy, S.A.) and by means of ruling No. 440-002498, of 14 February 2003, it rejected the application for review and the appeal. According to this organization, these rulings ordered the non-payment of the wages owed to the workers for the period between 23 September 1997 and 31 July 2000, and no provision was made for the payment of the cases of the seafarers dismissed in 1997. The organization adds that the Ministry of Social Protection, by decision No. 000804, refused the application of the enterprise for the deposit of cautions or guarantees for wage claims, especially for retirement pensions, in view of the application of the enterprise for closure.

The Government, in its reply, contends that the Payment Plan of 12 December 2002, in its provisions not only complies with the guidelines set forth in Act No. 222 of 1995, but also preserves the preferential ranking of pensioners’ claims as set out in the Constitution in the priorities for the payment of its obligations, in accordance with ruling SU 1023 of 2001 of the Constitutional Court. According to the Government, the fact that all the persons concerned by the actuarial calculations are not covered by the Payment Plan is due to the fact that the latter have not complied with all the requirements to be recognized as having retirement pension claims. The Government adds that the Superintendence of Companies is not empowered to reject workers’ claims and that these subjects have to be dealt with by the competent labour authorities. Finally, the Government adds that the workers with claims that are covered by the declaration identifying the various components which constitute the enterprise (Declaratoria de Unidad de Empresa) have to have the consequences of this ruling upheld through legal action that is separate from the application for administration.

On the basis of the information provided, the Committee understands that the procedure for the liquidation of the assets of the Merchant Navy Investment Company S.A. (formerly the Grancolombian Merchant Navy, S.A.) has been set in motion and is following its course. The Committee notes in particular that the Payment Plan, established on 6 December 2002 by the liquidator and approved on 12 December 2002 by the Superintendence of Companies provides for the distribution of the proceeds from the liquidation of the bankrupt assets according to the order of priority of the privileged claims established by the Civil Code and that workers’ claims are given first rank.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the process of the liquidation of the above enterprise, and on any other related legal action, and to provide precise information on the number of employees who have received the amounts due, the amounts paid and the envisaged schedule for final settlement of all debts. The  Committee considers it necessary to refer to paragraphs 353 and 505 of its General Survey of 2003 on the protection of wages, in which it considers that the designation of employees’ wages and entitlements as a preferential debt is a keystone of labour legislation in practically every nation and it therefore indicates that the need for enhanced protection of workers’ earnings is more pressing than ever and that, in this respect, the significance of Convention No. 173, which provides for the protection of wage claims through a guarantee fund, can hardly be overemphasized.

The Committee also recalls that in its previous observation it requested the Government to provide its comments on the allegations that had been made at that time by SINTRACONSEGURIDAD concerning the non-payment of workers’ wages due to the closure of the enterprise, but that it has not received the Government’s comments up to now. The latter trade union organization indicates, in a further communication dated 25 March 2003, that the problem of the payment of the wages due to the workers has still not been resolved. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to provide its comments as soon as possible on the allegations of the SINTRACONSEGURIDAD and, in any case, to take the necessary measures to guarantee the payment of the wages due to the workers, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention.

II.  Payment of wages at  regular intervals

The Committee notes the comments of the ACDAC alleging that for seven two-weekly periods the wages and other social benefits of employees in the Intercontinental Aviation Company have not been paid. According to this organization, workers are on the verge of economic collapse and cannot cope with their basic subsistence needs and those of their families, such as food, education, housing, transport and health, all of which is giving rise to a situation of stress among the workers, thereby endangering aviation security.

The Committee also notes the observations made by the CPC, denouncing the failure by the Government to pay pensions and health-care benefits to former workers, retirees and pensioners. The latter organization adds that it has been calling upon the Government and the Congress of the Republic to ensure the payment of these pensions for over four years without obtaining a solution to the problem. However, the Committee is bound to note that the CPC’s allegation does not come under wage protection in its strict sense, as defined in Article 1 of the Convention.

The Committee takes this opportunity to recall, as emphasized in paragraphs 355 and 398 of the abovementioned General Survey, that the underlying rationale of the protection of wages is to guarantee a regular payment allowing workers to organize their everyday life with a reasonable degree of certainty and security. In contrast, delays in the payment of wages and the accumulation of wage debts constitute a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Convention and render most of its other provisions inapplicable. Furthermore, the full application of the principle of the payment of wages at regular intervals not only requires the regular payment of wages, but also compliance with the complementary obligation to settle swiftly and in full all outstanding payments upon the termination of the contract of employment. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the allegations referred to above and to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers’ wages, in both the public and private sectors, are paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2004.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s report responding to the comments made in its last observation. It also notes the new comments sent on 23 August 2002 by the Union of Maritime and River Transport Workers (UNIMAR), to which it will refer below.

1. With regard to its previous observation concerning comments made by the Union of State Workers of Colombia to the effect that the municipality of Popayán owed six months’ wages, which affected both serving and retired employees, the Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that, according to the mayor of Popayán, the municipality is now up to date in the payment of wages. The Committee notes this information and once again asks the Government to ensure that the wages of workers employed, at whatever level, in the public administration are paid regularly and at prescribed intervals, as required by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

2. The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply to the comments sent by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the Yumbo subdivision of the National Union of Chemical Industry Workers of Colombia (SINTRAQUIM) alleging non-compliance with the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Convention (final settlement of wages due) by the enterprises Whitehall Robins Laboratorios Ltd. and American Home Products International.

3. The Government states in this connection that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, through the Valle del Cauca Territorial Directorate, initiated an investigation into Whitehall Robins Laboratorios Ltd. which concluded that "the mere proposal of a voluntary retirement plan does not amount to conduct which may be deemed to be in breach of the labour standards in force". The Government indicates that the complainants appealed against that ruling. The decision on the appeals, based on the case law of the Supreme Court of Justice, was that "neither the law nor judicial decisions bar employers from promoting retirement plans (…), nor is it true that the offer by employers of money by way of an allowance accepted voluntarily by a worker constitutes per se an act of coercion". The Committee notes the foregoing information and urges the Government to continue to ensure observance of the workers’ right laid down in Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Convention, with regard to the final settlement of wages due. It hopes that the Government will send information regarding the enterprise American Home Products International and the comments made by SINTRAQUIM.

4. The Committee notes the Government’s observations on the comments made by the Union of Public Employees of the Medellín subdivision (SINDESENA) in connection with a recommendation by the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia to make the corresponding adjustment of the wages. As the Committee understands it, the Government indicates with reference to those comments that, in accordance with Decision No. SU-1052 of 10 August 2000, the Government of Colombia paid in full the wage increase due to employees in the public sector. The Committee takes note of this information and once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the wages of workers in the public service are paid regularly and at the prescribed intervals, as required by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

5. The Committee also notes the new comments, sent on 23 August 2002, by the Union of Maritime and River Transport Workers (UNIMAR). The Committee notes that the International Labour Office informed the above organization that the matters addressed in its comments had been dealt with by the Committee in an observation, and that the Government’s comments were awaited. In its previous observation, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure payment of the wages due to workers in accordance with the Convention (Article 11: treatment of workers as privileged creditors in the event of bankruptcy or judicial liquidation) and to provide information on them.

6. Under cover of its comments of 23 August 2002, UNIMAR sends a copy of a communication which the Ministry of Labour and Social Security sent to the management of UNIMAR stating that the Ministry of Labour "lacks the authority to enforce labour- and pension-related obligations of enterprises or employers, whether public or private". The Ministry of Labour goes on to indicate that it forwarded UNIMAR’s request to its General Directorate of Economic Benefits and Supplementary Social Services so that it may "examine its claim to guarantees once the assets have been liquidated".

7. The Committee notes with regret that the terms of the communication of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security are contrary to section 157 of the Labour Code, as amended in 1990, under which: "Credits payable to workers by way of wages, unemployment and other social benefits and employment allowances belong to class I as established in section 2495 of the Civil Code and shall take precedence over all others." It is also contrary to section 485 of the Labour Code, under which "supervision of compliance with the provisions of this Code and other social provisions shall be carried out by the Ministry of Labour in the manner prescribed by the Government or by the Ministry itself". Consequently, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security will plainly be in breach of the provisions of the Labour Code if it fails to adopt the necessary measures to protect the credits of the workers of the Merchant Fleet Investment Company S.A. (formerly Grancolombia Merchant Fleet) in the liquidation procedure. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to protect the claims (employment and pension) of the above workers, in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code and the Civil Code and Article 11 of the Convention. It also urges the Government to inform the International Labour Office of the action taken to this end.

8. Lastly, the Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted the comments received from the Union of the Administradora de Seguridad Limitada (SINTRACONSEGURIDAD) alleging non-payment of workers’ wages due to closure of the enterprise. The above union indicates that the enterprise known as the Administradora de Seguridad Limitada, established by the Banco Cafetalero, registered with the Ministry of Agriculture, is a mixed economy enterprise. As noted, these comments were transmitted to the Government, which had not sent its comments before the Committee’s meeting. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide as soon as possible its comments on the allegations made by SINTRACONSEGURIDAD and, in any event, to take the necessary measures to guarantee the payment of wages due to workers in accordance with Article 11 (payment of the wages of workers in the event of bankruptcy or judicial liquidation).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

1. The Committee notes the comments made by the Union of State Workers of Colombia (UTRADEC), which were received in February 2001 and transmitted to the Government on 22 March 2001. The Government’s comments thereon were received on 31 August 2001. In April 2001, other comments were received from the Union of the Administradora de Seguridad Limitada (SINTRACONSEGURIDAD), which were transmitted to the Government on 21 May 2001. The Government has not replied to the latter comments.

2. The comments by the Union of State Workers of Colombia alleged that the municipality of Popayán owes them six months’ wages. This situation includes both active employees and pensioners. The workers’ organization also refers to a restructuring which is being undertaken with a view, according to the organization, to abolishing the posts of trade union leaders and unionized employees. In reply, the Government indicates that, according to the information from the municipality of Popayán, the payment of wages has been continued, although with certain difficulties due to the economic situation. This has meant that the above municipality has had to apply Act No. 550 of 1999 with a view to restructuring its debts. The Government also indicates that the process that is being undertaken in the municipality is intended to rationalize expenditure and improve income with a view to ensuring that in future income is higher than expenditure. The Committee notes the Government’s explanations and recalls that one of the fundamental principles of Convention No. 95 is to protect the wages of workers irrespective of the sector in which they work and irrespective of the situation experienced by public administrations. The Committee therefore once again hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure that the wages of workers in the municipality of Popayán are paid regularly and in time in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention (payment of wages at regular intervals).

3. The Committee also notes the comments received from the Union of the Administradora de Seguridad Limitada (SINTRACONSEGURIDAD) alleging the failure to pay the wages of workers due to the closure of the enterprise. The trade union indicates in its allegations that this enterprise, the Administradora de Seguridad Limitada, established by the Banco Cafetalero,  registered with the Ministry of Agriculture, is a mixed economy enterprise. As noted above, these comments were transmitted to the Government, which had not provided its comments before the Committee’s meeting. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide its comments as soon as possible on the allegations of the SINTRACONSEGURIDAD and, in any event, to take the necessary measures to guarantee the payment of the wages due to workers in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention (payment of the wages of workers in the event of bankruptcy or judicial liquidation).

4. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that it requested the Government to report in detail in 2002 concerning the comments made by various trade unions alleging the failure to apply the provisions of this Convention. While awaiting the provision by the Government of the requested report, the Committee recalls the matters raised in its previous observation.

5. With reference to the comments made by the General Confederation of Democratic Workers claiming, among other matters, the payment of wages for workers in various municipalities, the Committee noted the Government’s reply and requested it to provide information on the situation in the various municipalities on which indications had not been provided, including information on the measures adopted to ensure compliance with the right of workers to receive their wages and to ensure the payment of the wages due to these workers. The Committee reiterates its request and hopes that the Government will provide the requested information with its next report.

6. The Committee noted the comments made by the Union of Maritime and River Transport Workers (UNIMAR) alleging non-compliance by the Government with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention. The Committee had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the workers receive their wages at regular intervals (Article 12) and, in the event of the judicial liquidation of the enterprise, also to ensure that they are treated as privileged creditors (Article 11). The Committee reiterates its previous request and hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report on the measures adopted to secure compliance with the above rights of workers in the Grancolombia Merchant Fleet, which is the property of the Coffee Producers Federation.

7. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted the comments made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the Yumbo subdivision of the National Union of Chemical Industry Workers of Colombia (SINTRAQUIM) alleging non-compliance with the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Convention (final settlement of wages due) by the enterprises Whitehall Robins Laboratorios Ltd. and American Home Products International. The above comments were transmitted to the Government in July 2000. However, the Government has not yet commented thereon and the Committee hopes that the Government will provide its comments sufficiently early for the Committee to be able to examine them appropriately.

8. Finally, the Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted that the comments of the Union of Public Employees of the Medellín subdivision (SINDESENA) had been sent to the Government in November 2000 and it requested the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to respond to the claims of the workers alleging the need for the Government, in compliance with a recommendation of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, to make the corresponding adjustment to their wages. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide its comments sufficiently rapidly for the Committee to be able to examine them appropriately.

[The Government is again asked to report in detail in 2002.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

1.  Further to its previous observation, the Committee notes the Government’s reply in its report to the comments made by the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGDT) in April 1999, asking the Government as both an employer and a supervisory body, to respect and enforce the right to payment of wages and the trade union rights of workers in a number of municipalities, which the CGDT cites. The Committee notes the Government’s comments in response to the CGDT’s allegations that wages were improperly withheld or were unpaid. The Government replies that each territorial entity has its own budgetary allocation for the payment of wages, which is approved by the competent authority for a given fiscal period. The Government therefore concludes that in many cases the delay in payment is due to the formalities required for the disbursement and that once the funding is approved the payment is made. With regard to the specific cases referred to by the CGDT, the Government indicates that, in the Hospital San Francisco de Asís in Quibdó, although the employees were on strike the Chocó administrative health department and the unions reached an agreement whereby the manager of the State Social Enterprises (ESE) is to pay all outstanding wages from the efficiency agreement surplus before July 2000. In its reply the Government refers in detail to each of the municipalities mentioned by the CGDT (Ibagué and Arauca) and others which were not mentioned by the CGDT (Putumayo, Sucre, Meta, Quibdó and Caicedonia). However, the Government mentions neither the municipality of Montéria nor the department of Córdoba. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the situation in the various municipalities and departments with regard to the payment of wages, and on the practical measures taken to remedy the non-payment of wages in the public sector referred to by the CGDT.

2.  With reference to its previous observation, the Committee notes the Government’s response in its report to the comments by the Union of Colombian Textile Workers (SINTRATEXTIL) dated August 1999 concerning the non-payment of wages and the dismissal of unionized workers. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that on 24 November 1999 an agreement of reconciliation was reached on wages between SINTRATEXTIL and the legal representative of the company TEXTILES RIONEGRO, in which the latter undertook to pay the wages outstanding. It also notes that TEXTILES RIONEGRO was fined for withholding two weeks’ wages, 50 per cent of the 1999 end-of-year bonus, the family allowance and the bonus for the period June to December of the year.

3.  The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the authorities in charge of enforcing the legislation. It notes that Decree No. 1128 of 29 June 1999 restructuring the Ministry of Labour and Social Security provides, in section 17, for the establishment of a labour inspection, supervision and control unit. The unit is responsible for coordinating, developing and evaluating all activities relating to prevention, inspection, supervision and control throughout the national territory. It also has the authority to establish mechanisms, procedures and instruments to ensure that regulatory standards on the individual and collective rights of workers are observed in both the public and the private sectors.

4.  The Committee notes the comments by the Union of Maritime and River Transport Industry Workers (UNIMAR), received in February 2000, concerning non-compliance by the Government with Article 12 (payment of wages at regular intervals), and 11 (bankruptcy or judicial liquidation) of the Convention. UNIMAR mentions in particular that payment of the sailors of the Grancolombia Merchant Fleet, which belongs to the Coffee Producers’ Federation, has been suspended. UNIMAR asserts that the sailors have been deprived of their wages for 30 months and that, despite being fined by the Ministry of Labour, the company has not resumed payment of their wages. It adds that the company intends to go into liquidation, which means that the sailors will lose all possibility of being paid their wages. The Committee notes that, although this comment was sent to the Government in March 2000 for any comments which it deemed relevant, the Government’s report received in October 2000 contains no reply to the issues raised by UNIMAR. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary concrete measures to ensure that the workers referred to by UNIMAR receive their wages at regular intervals in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention, and to ensure also that they are treated as privileged creditors in the event of the judicial liquidation of the company, pursuant to Article 11.

5.  The Committee also notes the new comments by the Union of Maritime and River Transport Industry Workers (UNIMAR), received in June 2000, concerning Article 11 (bankruptcy or judicial liquidation) of the Convention, asserting that the liquidation plan for the Grancolombia Merchant Fleet is in breach of section 157, superseded by section 36, of Act No. 50 of 1990 concerning the order of priority of credits for wages, social benefits and workers’ compensation. UNIMAR states that, under the said liquidation plan, the privileged creditors, such as workers and pensioners, are relegated to second place. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical measures taken to give effect to this provision of the Convention, and more specifically to state where, in the order of priority of privileged credits, wages rank in relation to the other privileged credits.

6.  The Committee notes the comments by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the Yumbo subdivision of the National Union of Chemical Industry Workers of Colombia (SINTRAQUIM), sent to the Government in July 2000, alleging non-observance of Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The above organizations state that American Home Products International, the parent company of the multinational Whitehall Robins Laboratories Ltd., had decided to close down production in the Yumbo and Bogotá plants owing to their high cost and to transfer them to Mexico. It therefore proposed to the workers that they come to a "voluntary agreement" to terminate their contracts, offering them 100 per cent compensation and assuring them that it had the support of the Ministry of Labour. The organizations add that the workers were pressured to accept the transfer: if they refused, they would be dismissed without compensation. The Committee observes that in its report of October 2000 the Government makes no reference to these comments. The Committee reminds the Government that according to this Article of the Convention, "wages shall be paid regularly" and "upon the termination of a contract of employment, a final settlement of all wages due shall be effected". It therefore urges the Government to consider the observations made by the workers’ organizations, to make any comments it deems fit and to take the necessary practical measures in the near future.

7.  The Committee notes the comments by the Union of Public Employees of the Medellín subdivision (SINDESENA) sent to the Government on 8 November 2000. The Committee hopes that the Government will send its comments at the same time as its report on the measures taken to protect the wages of these workers.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

1. The Committee previously noted the observations made by the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGTD) concerning the delay of wage payment by several months to workers in the public sector, for example, in the Departments of Putumayo, Vinchada, Sucre and Meta, and also in the Municipalities of Tolú, Quibdó, Montería, Puerto Asís and Caicedonia. The Committee also noted the Government's reply that, for all public employment, there should be budgetary appropriation and that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has the competence to carry out investigations in cases of non-payment of wages and to impose sanctions.

A further communication was received from the CGTD in April 1999, which points out that the problem of non-payment of wages to workers in the public sector persists, in contravention of Article 12(1) of the Convention, and refers specifically to the situations in Hospital San Fransisco de Asís of Quibdó, Municipalities of Ibagué, Arauca, Montería and Department of Córdoba. The CGTD considers that the Government has taken a series of actions violating the workers' rights to associate and other rights, and in both its double role of employer and of supervisory organs, fails to respect or make others respect such rights, including that of the payment of wages due. This comment was transmitted in May 1999 to the Government for its observation but the Government's report received in September 1999 only refers to the provision of the labour law with regard to the application of Article 12 and contains no reply to the points raised by the CGTD.

2. Since the last session of the Committee, a communication was received from the Union of Workers in the Textile Industry of Colombia (SINTRATEXTIL), pointing out a situation of non-payment of wages in addition to the dismissal of unionized workers. Although a copy of this communication was sent to the Government for comments in September 1999, no reply has been received.

3. The Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on any concrete measures taken to inquire into and rectify the non-payment of wages in the public sector mentioned by the CGTD, as well as more specific information on measures taken for the application in practice of Article 12 of the Convention concerning the regular payment of wages, including a particular reference to the situation mentioned by the SINTRATEXTIL.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee previously noted the observations made by the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGTD). The CGTD pointed out that, in violation of the Convention, wages had not been paid for several months to workers in the state and public sectors, for example, in the Departments of Putumayo, Vinchada, Sucre and Meta, and also in the Municipalities of Tolú, Quibdó, Montería, Puerto Asis and Caicedonia. The CGTD added that, although this irregularity had been brought to the attention of the Government, in particular, the Ministries of Labour, and the Interior, and the Council of Social Policy, no action had been taken to impose sanctions or other measures to ensure the payment of wages to these workers. The Committee noted the Government's reply as regards the Municipality of Montería, Putumayo and Cartago, and requested the Government to indicate measures taken for the regular payment of wages in the other regions mentioned by the CGTD.

The Committee notes that, in reply, the Government refers to the provision of the Constitution according to which there can be no public employment without functions detailed in a law or regulations. This means that, for all public employment, there should be budgetary appropriation. The Government further states that the budgets of the territorial entities, to be adopted by the competent authority, should include a part corresponding to the payment of wages and that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has the competence to carry out investigations in case of non-payment of wages and to impose sanctions.

In the absence of any further information regarding the situations referred to by the CGTD, the Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on any concrete measures taken to inquire into and rectify the non-payment of wages in the state and public sectors in the remaining regions mentioned by the CGTD, as well as information more generally on measures taken for the application in practice of Article 12 of the Convention concerning the regular payment of wages.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1999.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee previously noted the observations made by the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGTD). The CGTD pointed out that, in violation of the Convention, wages had not been paid for several months to workers in the state and public sectors, for example, in the Departments of Putumayo, Vinchada, Sucre and Meta, and also in the Municipalities of Tolú, Quibdó, Montería, Puerto Asis and Caicedonia. The CGTD added that, although this irregularity has been brought to the attention of the Government, in particular, the Ministries of Labour, the Interior, and the Council of Social Policy, no action had been taken to impose sanctions or other measures to ensure the payment of wages to these workers.

The Committee notes the Government's indication that, according to the Regional Directorate of Labour and Social Security of Córdoba, the Municipality of Montería is in peace with its workers as regards wages; that the Regional Directorate of Putumayo stated that the wages to its workers were liquidated; and that the Labour and Social Security Inspection of Cartago initiated an administrative investigation against the municipal enterprises of Cartago for the violation of the collective agreement of labour, sentencing the enterprises with 30 times minimum wages (as fines). The Committee notes this information, although it notes that the violations referred to regarding the last-mentioned investigation do not directly relate to payment of wages covered by the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate measures taken for the application in practice of Article 12 of the Convention concerning the regular payment of wages in the other regions mentioned by CGTD.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1998.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the observations made by the General Confederation of Democratic workers (CGTD). The CGTD points out that, in violation of the Convention, wages have not been paid for several months to workers in the state and public sectors, for example, in the Departments of Putumayo, Vinchada, Sucre and Meta, and also in the Municipalities of Tolú, Quibdó, Montería, Puerto Asis and Caicedonia. The CGTD adds that, although this irregularity has been brought to the attention of the Government, in particular, the Ministries of Labour, the Interior, and the Council of Social Policy, no action has been taken to impose sanctions or other measures to ensure the payment of wages to these workers.

The Committee notes that the Government has not provided its observations on the points raised in the above comments. It requests the Government to provide full information on this issue in the light of Article 12(1) of the Convention (regular payment of wages).

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Articles 1 and 4 of the Convention. Further to its previous direct request, the Committee notes with interest that section 129 of the Labour Code as amended by section 16 of the Law No. 50 of 28 December 199g establishes a maximum percentage of the wage (50 per cent in general and 30 per cent in the case of workers receiving the statutory minimum wage) which may take the form of allowances in kind. It however notes that under section 128 of the Code as amended by section 15 of the same Law the parties may decide that particular benefits or allowances such as food, lodging or clothes do not constitute part of the wages. The Committee recalls that under Article 1 of the Convention, the term "wages" means remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money and that the Convention does not permit the parties to agree upon exemptions. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of these sections of the Labour Code as well as on measures taken or envisaged to give effect to Articles 1 and 4 of the Convention.

Article 11. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that section 157 of the Labour Code as amended by section 36 of the above-mentioned Law ensures better protection of the workers' right to the payment of wages in the event of the bankruptcy or judicial liquidation of an undertaking.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 4 of the Convention. With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report concerning the new Government's intention to carry through a substantial reform of labour legislation. The Committee hopes that this reform will take into account the comments made with regard to section 129 of the Labour Code, taken in conjunction with the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention. In this connection the Committee takes note of the explanation given concerning its previous comments with regard to the conflict between the provisions of section 129 of the Code and Article 4 of the Convention, although the issue has not been completely cleared up. The Committee recalls that this point was raised some years ago, but it was never the intention of the Committee to view the national legislation as prohibiting the payment of a proportion of wages in kind. The Committee in fact stated that section 129, by specifying the elements that could make up in kind a proportion of wages, does not establish the amount of this proportion with regard to total wages nor the guarantees that should accompany such payment. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in its report for 1976 the Government announced a forthcoming amendment to section 129 providing for the proportion of wages paid in kind not to exceed 30 per cent of the wages agreed between the parties. It would appear that this amendment was not adopted. The Committee also recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that allowances in kind shall be appropriate for the personal use and benefit of the worker and his family.

Article 11. The Committee notes the full information supplied by the Government concerning the observations made by the General Union of Clothing Workers and by the Propaganda Committee of the Workers of Hermega and, in particular, takes note of the information supplied concerning the legal aspects of the agreements and the bankruptcies in that case. The Committee also takes note that the problem of the workers in the Hermega enterprise is being dealt with by a judicial authority. However, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue supplying information on the steps taken in order to guarantee that the rights of the workers are respected, particularly with regard to the payment of their wages.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1987, published 74th ILC session (1987)

Article 4 of the Convention. With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report concerning the new Government's intention to carry through a substantial reform of labour legislation. The Committee hopes that this reform will take into account the comments made with regard to section 129 of the Labour Code, taken in conjunction with the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention. In this connection the Committee takes note of the explanation given concerning its previous comments with regard to the conflict between the provisions of section 129 of the Code and Article 4 of the Convention, although the issue has not been completely cleared up. The Committee recalls that this point was raised some years ago, but it was never the intention of the Committee to view the national legislation as prohibiting the payment of a proportion of wages in kind. The Committee in fact stated that section 129, by specifying the elements that could make up in kind a proportion of wages, does not establish the amount of this proportion with regard to total wages nor the guarantees that should accompany such payment. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in its report for 1976 the Government announced a forthcoming amendment to section 129 providing for the proportion of wages paid in kind not to exceed 30 per cent of the wages agreed between the parties. It would appear that this amendment was not adopted. The Committee also recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that allowances in kind shall be appropriate for the personal use and benefit of the worker and his family.

Article 11. The Committee notes the full information supplied by the Government concerning the observations made by the General Union of Clothing Workers and by the Propaganda Committee of the Workers of Hermega and, in particular, takes note of the information supplied concerning the legal aspects of the agreements and the bankruptcies in that case. The Committee also takes note that the problem of the workers in the Hermega enterprise is being dealt with by a judicial authority. However, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue supplying information on the steps taken in order to guarantee that the rights of the workers are respected, particularly with regard to the payment of their wages.