Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) - El Salvador (Ratification: 1995)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2023, Publication: 111st ILC session (2023)

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative (Minister of Labour and Social Welfare) – From El Salvador, I send a fraternal greeting of solidarity to the whole of the working class throughout the world. As a founder country, we respect the ILO’s international Conventions and its supervisory mechanisms, such as the present Committee. We are convinced of the fundamental role that they play in achieving decent work and the construction of peace in the world.

Nevertheless, I wish to express my concern, disquiet and indignation that this supervisory body is being used today for political reasons. We are one of the Governments invited to provide information to the Committee, following negotiations with little transparency, imbued with misgivings and secrecy, far distant from the values promoted by this institution, in practices that call into question the leadership of the ILO, its honour, credibility and the transparency of its supervisory mechanisms.

It is strange that many of the cases of serious violations of labour rights are not even aired in this forum, and it raises the question of whether this is in response to the political or geopolitical manipulation of cases. Those who negotiate the cases need to search their consciences that, while they are engaging in political attacks on countries such as ours, in other latitudes there are trade unionists who are being murdered, tortured and silences for defending their rights or those of the great majority of persons.

May I make some reflections on the working methods of the Committee. It is to be supposed that the selection of cases corresponds to criteria of geographical balance and the seriousness of the cases.

With regard to geographical balance, the Central American subregion represents fewer than 1 per cent of the world population, but has 17 per cent of the cases under discussion. Demonstrating a clear lack of proportion, it would appear that the majority of the problems of the world are in this small subregion.

In relation to the seriousness of the situation, why are certain countries included in which there are violations of fundamental Conventions, where there is abundant evidence of the damage that is being wrought, not only against labour and union rights, but also against human rights, through labour exploitation, forced labour, child labour, discrimination, the murder of trade union leaders, unjustified detentions, among other practices. It should be noted in passing that these countries are not even included in the first negotiations or the final negotiation.

Why are countries not included where there has been a disproportionate use of the police to put down workers’ protests against labour reforms implemented without consultation?

On the other hand, we see countries with controversial cases relating to the violation of labour rights in which there have even been attempts to corrupt some of the leadership of the workers at the global level in order to obtain favourable opinions and to clean their image at the international level.

We see countries with cases of serious violations of the rights of indigenous peoples, which have not been called upon to answer for their acts as a result of their lobbying power, for which we are used as petty change in the negotiation process. And there is a hegemonic country, in which there are serious and well-known discriminatory acts and the violation of the rights of migrant workers, and yet it is a country that we have never yet seen called upon to answer for its acts, and it is certainly one of the major sources of financing for the Organization.

We would not like to think that the proportion of financial contributions could be an excuse for not being called upon for examination, while countries with lower economic potential are more likely to be selected in this group. For this reason, the negotiation of the list of cases has to be carried out transparently.

We would feel proud as a country to come before this Committee and present our situation, and to provide any reports deemed appropriate to all the Organization’s supervisory mechanisms, if the serious violations of fundamental Conventions were resolved in these major economic powers.

El Salvador is a small country with an honourable people which is redefining its future under the leadership of President Nayib Bukele. We have begun rebuilding our dignity, and this involves seeking our own identity and determination, without interference by other Governments. This creates resentment and discomfort in one of the most powerful States, which for many years determined the direction taken by our country.

In order to make progress in El Salvador, we have had to free ourselves from the power structures which were dominating our society, and these structures have lost their power of influence, which means that they are fighting to recuperate the privileges from which they benefited for decades.

Our Government has taken the firm decision to protect the lives of people, courageously standing up to criminality, one of the main problems which most afflicted our society. A security plan has been implemented which has had outstanding success, based on two priorities. On the one hand, the criminal and terrorist organizations which for decades brought pain and grief to our families have been neutralized and, on the other, investments are being made in education, health, the prevention of violence and the construction of a culture of peace.

As with any public policy there are winners and losers, and what we need to seek is the maximum social benefits for the great majority. And there are two types of reactions to this. On the one hand, there is broad and generalized support by the population which now has time to breathe and to hope, while, on the other, there is a small group who consider that the measures adopted are not sound. They mainly consist of those for whom insecurity was a business. And during these debates, what is clear is that we are rescuing generations of boys and girls from the claws of delinquency, and now they no longer dream of being a member of a gang, but of being a doctor, engineer, architect or teacher.

This opportunity to dream of a better future is something that we have long craved. The economic and social measures adopted by right-wing governments, in which the cabinet members came from the National Business Association (ANEP), left the country drowning in despair, poverty and exclusion. All while they profited and became rich.

I wish to emphasize that we are continuing to promote tripartite social dialogue in our country, for which reason we have institutionalized the National Prize for Decent Work and the Prize for Collective Bargaining, which seek to recognize good practices by enterprises in compliance with the national and international legal framework governing labour matters, and to promote good relations between workers and employers.

I wish to emphasize that, in accordance with the conclusions of this Committee, the Higher Labour Council (CST) was set up in 2021 and has held meetings, including more frequently than required by its rules. The operation of the CST was noted by the high-level tripartite mission that visited El Salvador, with broad participation by all the social partners. The mission was invited and accepted in the plenary of the CST.

Moreover, in accordance with the conclusions of the high-level mission and the conclusions of this Committee, the Government has submitted various Conventions, Protocols, Recommendations and reports for consultation with the CST.

In a paper issued on 19 May 2022, three international ILO Conventions and seven Recommendations were submitted to the CST for tripartite consultation.

In a paper issued on 1 September 2022, 17 ILO Conventions and one Protocol were submitted to the CST for tripartite consultation. In a paper issued on 13 March 2023, 13 reports on ILO Conventions were submitted to the CST for tripartite consultation.

All of these consultations were carried out with workers’ and employers’ representatives, and in the latter case through the President of the ANEP, Augustín Martínez, in his capacity as Vice-President of the CST. It should be emphasized that up to now there has been no response from the ANEP, although replies have been received from the workers. Due to the lack of a response from the ANEP, it has not been possible to make progress in the process of the ratification of other more important Conventions and to advance on other subjects.

Last year this Committee indicated in its conclusions, surprisingly and at the bidding of the ANEP, that it “regretted” that five ILO Conventions had been ratified without consulting the most representative employers’ organization. As a result, we proceeded to consult the ANEP on international labour standards, but we have not received any reply to the communications sent up to now. This is clear evidence that the ANEP is not seeking to be consulted or is not interested in tripartite social dialogue.

It is well demonstrated that its motives are eminently political so as to be able to play the role of victim in this forum, making use of this supervisory mechanism for its own ends.

Nevertheless, these consultation processes bear witness to the intense activity of the CST as a consultation body on international labour standards. All of the above has been indicated to the corresponding ILO bodies, but in addition we have today provided physical documents to this Committee in support of the indications provided above.

Moreover, the Government is open to hearing proposals from the social partners, just as it has been requested by workers’ representatives to submit a series of proposals on labour issues, which have been heeded with the establishment of a dialogue forum in which workers presented their projects, such as the increase in the minimum wage, the ratification of Conventions and proposals for the reform of the Labour Code, including on matters such as the extension of the validity of trade union credentials, on which we are working together.

The ANEP complains repeatedly of not being recognized, which is unfounded, as its President is the Vice-President of the CST representing employers. Employers are also represented on the bipartite and tripartite bodies in the country, and it is paradoxical that the ANEP has objected to bipartite bodies becoming tripartite, for which reason we do not understand the coherence of its complaint to this supervisory body.

Furthermore, within the framework of tripartite social dialogue, I can report that, as part of the commitments made by the State to improving the dignity of the working class, a new Act has been adopted on pensions, offering equity and justice to workers, which involved withdrawing certain privileges accorded to major entrepreneurs, which were costly for workers. The Act created a forum in the El Salvador Pensions Institute with tripartite composition (Government, workers and employers) for the administration and management of decisions in relation to the social insurance system in El Salvador, as a mechanism that had long been denied to all the social partners.

I wish to recall that the objective of the Convention, as indicated in Article 2(1), is that each Member of the ILO which ratifies the Convention undertakes to operate procedures which ensure effective consultations, with respect to matters concerning the activities of the ILO, between representatives of the Government, employers and workers.

Moreover, these matters are set out and defined clearly in Article 5(1) of the Convention, and include: (a) the agenda of the International Labour Conference; (b) the submission of ILO Conventions and Recommendations; (c) the re-examination of unratified Conventions; (d) the submission of reports on Conventions; and (e) the denunciation of ratified Conventions.

In the specific light of the Convention, and reviewing the recommendations made by the Committee last year, in which it called on El Salvador to repeal 23 legislative decrees, I raise the question of the legal basis for establishing such a conclusion, the provisions of the Convention that establish such power, and the methods of work of the Committee which require the repeal of national laws. We believe that this conclusion runs counter to the principles of non-interference, autonomy and the free determination of countries.

As I come almost to the end of my intervention, I reiterate my call to the leaders of the ILO to seek transparency and maintain these supervisory mechanisms outside the reach of political influences. The workers of the world must be protected and these mechanisms have been created for this purpose, for which reason it is necessary to engage in a process of profound reflection.

Finally, I reaffirm that our commitment to the values and principles of the ILO is unshakeable and we will continue working resolutely to strengthen tripartite social dialogue and decent work in El Salvador.

Worker members – This is the eighth consecutive occasion on which we have examined the case of El Salvador in the Committee, and the sixth consecutive time for the application of Convention No. 144. At the last session, we noted some progress made by the Government. We welcomed the fact that the CST had started operating again after many years of paralysis.

Moreover, we noted the ratification of various ILO Conventions which have entered into force this June in response to demands by our fraternal unions in El Salvador. We welcome the clarification by the Government that the social partners were consulted before the ratification of the Conventions.

The Government also accepted the visit of a high-level tripartite mission in May 2022. The mission made important recommendations, which had received tripartite agreement. Despite these undoubted steps forward, we cannot fail to indicate, as we did last year, that there remain certain challenges in relation to the application of the Convention.

First, we must repeat the indications that we have made on other occasions that legal obstacles persist which prevent trade unions from participating in tripartite bodies and even from freely exercising their rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining. In particular, these include the obligation set out in the Labour Code which requires workers’ organizations to renew the composition of their executive bodies every 12 months. This requirement constitutes a form of interference in the operation of trade unions. It should be recalled that Article 3 of the Convention provides that representatives shall be freely chosen and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which restricts or impedes the legitimate exercise of this right. As indicated by the Committee of Experts, the Government must adopt the necessary measures without delay to repeal the legal requirement for trade unions to request the renewal of their legal status every 12 months.

Moreover, we have been informed that the Government has recently introduced the payment of fees for the alleged services provided by the Ministry of Labour, including the provision of credentials to unions. This measure amounts to an additional obstacle in a process that was already in itself very onerous.

We also note that for organizations representing employers the period of renewal of their credentials is more reasonable, as it is a period of over two years.

We take careful note that the Government claims to have initiated a process of reflection to propose reforms to the Labour Code with a view to facilitating and accelerating procedures for the provision of credentials.

We also note the decision by the Ministry of Labour to establish a Trade Union Office in the General Directorate of Labour with a view to the provision of legal assistance to trade union representatives. We urge the Government to guarantee that this measure makes a specific contribution to full compliance with the Convention.

However, this latter measure is not a solution to the problem and therefore we are bound once again to urge the Government to repeal this legal requirement so as to be in full compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

We previously recognized the positive steps taken by the Government to restore the operation of the CST. However, we hear that the plenary of the CST has not met since the conclusions were adopted by this Committee last year and that there have not been meetings of its executive board since then.

This is a worrying indication, as the tripartite consultation promoted by the CST will ensure a more balanced approach to the decisions taken by the Government by taking into consideration the interests and concerns of all the parties involved.

In particular, the CST plays an essential role in the implementation of the recommendations of both the tripartite mission undertaken in 2022 and the conclusions adopted by this Committee.

One of these points is precisely the formulation and development of a road map agreed with the social partners for the application of all the recommendations made by the tripartite mission.

Finally, the Government must cease all acts of harassment, interference and hostility towards workers’ and employers’ organizations. The role of the Government is to facilitate and provide a platform for effective dialogue between the social partners, without exercising undue influence or control over their participation.

All of these considerations imply that, despite the significant progress achieved and assessed in the report, the Government is still not in full compliance with the requirements of the Convention.

Employer members – I wish to thank the Minister for the information provided to the Committee today, although we have to say that we do not agree with the content of several of his comments.

We regret today that the Employer delegate of the ANEP is not accredited to this Committee, by virtue of the decisions taken by the Government, and that therefore he will be in this gathering as a representative of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).

I would therefore like to start by referring to this case, which involves Convention No. 144, and to emphasize our concern as employers’ representatives that it is the sixth successive occasion on which the same matter has arisen in relation to an issue which fundamentally remains practically the same and which, moreover, has deteriorated in certain respects.

We recall with concern that the Committee of Experts has been making comments since 2013, only interrupted in 2020, along the same lines on the grounds of the failure of El Salvador to comply with Convention No. 144 in law and practice, despite the fact that it is a governance Convention that is highly relevant to the ILO, and that it is continuing to fail to give effect to it in view of the erratic use of the CST, Government interference in the administration and operation of the ANEP, which is the most representative organization of employers, attacks against its representatives and serious deficiencies in the functioning of social dialogue and tripartite consultation, as well as delays in issuing credentials for members of workers’ organizations.

I will now provide specific information as evidence. The failure to comply with the Convention is very serious in the view of the Employers’ group, particularly in light of its links with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which is fundamental for this Organization. That is why we qualify this case as serious and urgent.

First, the reactivation and functioning of the CST and deficiencies in tripartite consultations. In the first place, we recall that the CST was established on a temporary basis in 2019, but more as a symbol than for any other purpose, as we saw last year. Subsequently, following the interruption for the pandemic and the post-pandemic, the Government once again re-established the CST in December 2021. The information provided by the Government suggests that progress is being made in social dialogue with the election of the representatives of workers, employers and the Government. The Government adds that the CST has since held five meetings, and ten of its executive board (which has met more frequently than set out in the rules), which served for the development of a tripartite strategy for the creation of decent work and benefited from the technical assistance of the ILO Regional Office.

However, it should be emphasized that the ILO undertook a direct contacts mission in May 2022. Although the mission noted that the CST had started to operate once again, both the ITUC and the IOE indicate anomalies in its operation which are not in compliance with the terms of the Convention. For example, following the end of the ILO mission, the CST has not met again. The only session that was convened did not have the necessary quorum as the President did not attend, nor the deputy. Furthermore, the Government made the commitment to the mission to hold consultations in the CST on the ratification of five Conventions, which did not happen.

This is having consequences for the processes of labour law reform in El Salvador, as neither the CST nor the social partners are being consulted. Proof of this is provided by the fact that, prior to the approval in two weeks of five ILO Conventions submitted to the National Assembly in May 2022, no consultations were held with the ANEP as the most representative employers’ organization, thereby showing clear disdain for social dialogue and tripartite consultation and being in violation of both national law and the provisions of the Convention. This was documented when we examined the case last year.

Although there is no question concerning the sovereign will of the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador, we consider it to be very serious that the Government disdains Article 5 of the Convention, without prejudice to the fact that appropriate compliance with treaties can only be achieved when exhaustive analyses have been undertaken of the implications in law and practice of the transposition of an international standard into internal law, on the basis of consultation with the most representative groups of employers and workers.

With reference to the road map that this Committee called for last year, we note that the CST has not met on this subject, nor has there been any consultation on the tripartite formulation of responses for the application of the recommendations made by the mission.

Second, Government interference. Since the IOE indicated that Government interference is continuing through the harassment of the ANEP and its member associations, on every occasion that representatives have to be elected for any institution, reference is made in the observation to the case of the El Salvador Vocational Training Institute (INSAFORP) as an example of interference and weakening, as well as a series of other examples in which employers’ representatives have not been elected: the Maritime Port Authority (AMP), the International Centre for Fairs and Conventions (CIFCO); the Independent Executive Committee for Ports (CAPA); the Salvadorean Tourism Corporation (CORSATUR); the Salvadorean Environmental Fund (FONAES) and the National Fund for Public Housing (FONAVIPO).

Between April and July 2022, the Government proceeded to the election of employers’ representatives on the National Minimum Wage Council, for which the organizations affiliated to the ANEP put forward candidates. However, over four months following the elections, those elected have not taken their oaths.

The Government claims that it is working in a harmonious, professional and technical tripartite manner. Nevertheless, the case of the greatest and most serious interference has been the reform of 23 laws, under which employers’ representatives no longer elect their representatives to the executive boards of the 23 tripartite and joint bodies covered by these laws. This power has been transferred to the President of the Republic, who not only elects employers’ representatives, but also has the discretional and arbitrary power to remove employers’ directors from the executive boards of these 23 institutions.

Finally, I wish to indicate that the Ministry of Labour recently announced that it would not be inviting the ANEP to the Conference on the grounds that the ANEP had worked to have El Salvador included on the short list for this Committee. This cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of the Government, as it is an obligation assumed by the State as a Member of this Organization and through ratification of the Convention. Moreover, the situation has also been used to create pressure on certain employer delegates to leave the ANEP umbrella organization.

This situation that we are denouncing is extremely serious and, in addition to being in violation of the Convention, is also in violation of Convention No. 87, as explained.

Finally, we share the observations made by workers’ representatives concerning the obstacles faced by trade union members, authorities and federations in obtaining the credentials required every year in an appropriate and flexible manner, which also amounts to undue interference in trade union activities in El Salvador.

Worker member, El Salvador – I wish to refer to freedom of association in the country where, although there are clearly significant challenges, we now have a forum for the strengthening of the trade union movement, the promotion of collective bargaining and decent work, and to reduce the stigmatization of trade unions, which has been inherited from right-wing governments.

With reference to tripartite consultation, I wish to indicate that, as representatives of workers, we are fully represented on tripartite bodies, and we have elected our representatives without interference by the State, as we have asserted our independence and autonomy. We have won spaces for dialogue and we have been heard in relation to the development of public policies that are of benefit to our people.

For example, the recent pension reform took into consideration the proposals made by workers, and a new tripartite body has been created in the El Salvador Pensions Institute for the governance of the social insurance system with the participation of workers and employers, in accordance with the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), which has recently been ratified. In the past, workers did not have access to influencing the administration of pensions, which was the exclusive domain of private enterprise.

Over the past three years, the trade union movement has grown by 65 new unions and four workers’ federations. Moreover, 58 collective contracts have been concluded, 35 in the private sector, 11 in autonomous institutions and 12 in the public sector.

We also recognize that progress has been made in reducing the delay in issuing credentials, and many unions have made use of the advice provided by the trade union office which was created in 2022 in the Ministry of Labour, substantially reducing the waiting time to obtain our credentials.

As a trade union movement, we have made a series of proposals to the Government on labour matters. Through the establishment of technical committees in the Ministry of Labour, these proposals are aimed at increasing the minimum wage, the ratification of Conventions, unemployment insurance and the reform of the Labour Code, in which we have called for the validity of trade union credentials to be extended to three years. This would undoubtedly amount to substantive progress, and we therefore call on the Government to forward this reform to the national Congress as soon as possible.

As workers’ representatives, we have also participated actively in the CST, both in the meetings that have been held, and in the consultation processes that have been undertaken with our representatives in relation to the submission of Conventions and the preparation of reports on Conventions, which we have reviewed and discussed, and provided comments and proposals through the worker Vice-President of the CST.

Certain organizations have claimed today that freedom of association does not exist in El Salvador. It should be recalled that, for many years, under the right-wing governments, the trade union movement was attacked, reduced and stigmatized. They privatized the national bank, the pensions system, telecommunications, energy distribution, and they banded together with gangs and criminal groups and did many other things that they shared, and never engaged in tripartite consultation on any of them

They even attempted to privatize health and education, and the only things that prevented such privatization were the marches and the struggle by the authentic trade union movement, in the face of repression and violence by the Government of the time, in which many trade union companions lost their lives.

As a representative of trade unions, I wish to give my assessment of the ANEP, the institution that made the complaint to this Committee. My country was for decades sullied and corrupted by the power structures, which took over the State and its institutions for their own benefit. These power structures were always in line with the ANEP.

(Point of order.)

Employer members – I believe that the intervention that is being made is going beyond the objective of today’s discussion and is outside the limits of our dialogue, particular as it has identified, commented upon and described an organization using its name, which is not what we came here to discuss today. I therefore call for the discussion to be brought back to the purpose of our meeting and, of course, that any reference identifying the employers’ organization in question is removed from the record.

Worker member, El Salvador – It was such that it was a political platform to put forward presidential candidates and, as is public knowledge, one of the former Presidents is now imprisoned for serious crimes of corruption and embezzlement of the State. It is for this reason that, as workers, we view with indignation the hypocritical attitude of claiming to be the victim of a system when for years they have harmed the rights of millions of workers.

For 20 years, the ANEP governed through its political party, ARENA. At that time, the ILO did not register problems of tripartite social dialogue in El Salvador, not because there was genuine tripartite social dialogue, but because it was the ANEP that decided everything and because it corrupted false trade union representatives, offering them privileges provided that supported its interests, without concern for the burden visited upon the working class. It should be added in passing that some of the false trade unionists have been engaged in extortion against enterprises and continue to defend the ANEP, including within these walls.

It is for that reason that, in view of the loss of these privileges, they are making use of the ILO supervisory mechanisms to raise issues that are solely political, under the false argument of social dialogue and democracy. And they never engaged in dialogue, they just imposed their will.

Now that they cannot impose anything, and have lost the role of telling the Government what it has to do, they consider themselves to be injured and prejudiced. During their governments, when they were repressing and killing trade unionists, when they adopted hundreds of laws for their own benefit without consultation, they never came to the ILO with complaints, and they even blocked the access of the genuine trade union movement to the mechanisms of the Organization.

They are including the country in the list of individual cases for a subject on which progress is being made at the national level, while our brother trade unionists in other countries are harassed, murdered and disappeared. We believe that those are the cases that should be discussed in this Committee. In this regard, I also wish to refer to the manner in which the countries are chosen which are called before the Committee.

It appears to me that there is a lack of transparency in the process of negotiation and that to ensure objectivity and impartiality in the decisions taken by the Committee it is necessary for the representatives of each country to participate, because the views of the genuine representatives of workers have not been taken into account. Moreover, the meetings are not even public, and it is not known where and when negotiations are held on the countries included on the short list. We cannot deny that there are interests of powerful countries, which are making use of these procedures as mechanisms for exerting geopolitical pressure, as is the case of the imperial power.

We have many challenges to face in our country, which we have to confront, and the trade union movement in El Salvador is committed to making progress towards a society that is more just and equitable.

Third, we welcome the fact that there is freedom of enterprise in the country, with the promotion of private investment, which can be seen in the large number of new enterprises created, which is a fundamental pillar for the generation of decent employment and national development.

However, we regret the scarce recognition given to the information provided by the genuine trade union movement in the country, and instead the opinions of a minuscule group of pseudo-trade unionists who are still linked to the ANEP are taken as the general view.

Finally, we call on the Government not to take a backwards step in the public policies that are being implemented, not to give in to ANEP pressure, which would be tantamount to reducing the influence of the authentic and genuine trade union movement, and not to go back on the protection policies for millions of workers in El Salvador.

(Point of order.)

Employer members – I wish to record that the Employers totally reject anything said that involves any assessment of the ANEP as being outside the mandate of the Committee and we therefore want any reference made to the ANEP by the speaker to be kept out of the record. We came here with an objective on the agenda which is to discuss compliance, or possibly the lack of compliance with the Convention, and we are open and ready to enter into dialogue in this respect. We also call for effect to be given to the demand made by the Employers’ group.

Government member, Sweden – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The candidate countries Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro and Serbia, and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country, Norway, Member of the European Economic Area (EEA), align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights. We actively promote the universal ratification and implementation of the fundamental international labour standards. We support the ILO in its indispensable role to develop, promote and supervise the effective implementation of ratified international labour standards and of fundamental Conventions in particular. We firmly believe that compliance with ILO Conventions is essential for social and economic stability and that an environment conducive to dialogue, consultation and trust between employers, workers and governments is the basis for solid and sustainable growth and inclusive societies.

The EU and its Member States stand with the people of El Salvador and we are committed to strengthening our cooperation through political and trade ties as well as our important cooperation portfolio. The EU-Central America Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement (PDCA) and the provisional application of the trade pillar of the EU-Central America Association Agreement provide a framework for further developing our partnership, including through cooperation on trade, sustainable development and the effective implementation, in law and practice, of the fundamental ILO Conventions. Furthermore, we are currently discussing the establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding on Bilateral Consultations that will allow for intensifying our bilateral engagement and dialogue with El Salvador.

Last year, the EU welcomed the steps taken by the Government towards compliance with the Convention, including the re-establishment of the Higher Labour Council for the biennium 2021–2023 and the creation of a tripartite technical commission to operationalize the Council agenda. However, we take note with concern of the ITUC and IOE observations regarding the complexity of the current administrative process for designating employers’ and workers’ representatives, the numbers of empty seats on the body hindering the representativeness of the Higher Labour Council, the legal obstacles and complex process of appointment and the inactivity of the Council itself.

We are deeply concerned by the human rights’ situation in the country, not least by the new allegations of acts of interference and harassment against and marginalization of activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations, including on social networks. We regret that 23 decrees adopted in 2021 prevent employers’ organizations from electing their representatives in 23 tripartite and joint bodies and we call on the Government to repeal them. The obligation on trade unions to request renewal of their legal status every 12 months should also be repealed.

We sadly take note of the steps backwards that have been taken with regard to the expectations of past years, namely that social dialogue and tripartite consultations would become fully functional in the country. We note that the case has already been discussed at the last five sessions of the Committee, including as a serious case in 2017.

We urge the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective and immediate operation of the Higher Labour Council and other tripartite entities, respecting the independence of the social partners, including in the appointment of their representatives.

We reiterate the Committee of Experts’ call urging the Government to fully respect the autonomy of the employers’ and workers’ organizations, both in law and in practice. We call on the Government to implement essential measures to ensure without delay the repeal of any legal provisions that allow for any interference in the autonomy of these organizations, in conformity with the instruments ratified by the country. This also includes that the Government takes the necessary measures to guarantee the prompt delivery of credentials for all organizations.

We echo the Committee of Experts’ urgent call for the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the content and outcome of tripartite consultations, including within the Higher Labour Council. We expect the Government to comply with these reporting obligations.

We recall the importance of ILO technical assistance in facilitating compliance with all ratified ILO Conventions and the promotion of tripartism. We also emphasize that the extent and content of such assistance should be defined through social dialogue, for example within the framework of the Higher Labour Council.

We expect to see progress in achieving full and sustained compliance with the Convention as soon as possible, given the long-standing issues and the crucial importance of well-functioning social dialogue. In this regard, we recall that the Government should elaborate, in a tripartite manner, a road map to implement, without delay, the recommendations formulated by the ILO high-level tripartite mission, as requested by this Committee last year.

The EU and its Member States remain committed to joint constructive engagement with El Salvador with the aim of strengthening the Government’s capacity to address the issues raised in the Committee of Experts’ report.

(Point of order.)

Government representative – I believe that this is the best way for all those present to be able to have the opportunity of putting forward their views. It is precisely the action that has just been taken by the employers’ representative, which is the essence, as illustrated on this occasion, of not wishing to allow freedom of expression by the genuine working class. I only ask that everyone can intervene in a normal and calm environment, that we let everything proceed normally with the meeting and that we allow the free participation of all representatives.

Government member, Colombia, speaking on behalf of a substantial majority of countries of Latin America and the Caribbean – We appreciate the hindsight offered by the Government, through the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, Rolando Castro, concerning compliance with the Convention.

We have been informed of the significant progress made in El Salvador in promoting tripartite social dialogue. As provided in section 11 of the Statute of the CST, it has to meet at least twice a year in ordinary plenary session and each occasion that it is convened by the President or upon the application of one of the Vice-Presidents, who in this case are the social partners.

In 2022, as indicated by the Government, the CST held five meetings, during which important subjects were discussed, such as the Act on growing together for the comprehensive protection of infants, children and young persons, which was submitted for discussion in the CST and received proposals from both workers and employers, and finally entered into force in January 2023.

A tripartite technical committee was set up for the examination of the Bill and the formulation in consultation of the National Strategy for the Generation of Decent Employment. We note the Government’s indication that the committee was also given the task of following up the submission of international Conventions, Protocols and Recommendation, and accordingly, as required in the submission process, three ILO Conventions and seven Recommendations were submitted for consultation.

We note that in May 2022 a high-level tripartite mission chaired by the Mexican delegation visited El Salvador and was able to verify the functioning of this body. It is also important to emphasize that legally constituted tripartite institutions in El Salvador are in operation and meet regularly, which is an illustration of respect for tripartite social dialogue.

All of this is in contrast with the inclusion of El Salvador once again in the list of 24 countries called upon to provide information to the Committee. We therefore welcome the commitment of the Government to the application of the Convention and we encourage the ILO to continue providing technical cooperation to the Government and to all the tripartite constituents.

Employer member, Colombia – In the first place, it is important to bear in mind that this is the sixth time that the application of the Convention has been examined by the Committee. In 2022, the Committee adopted a series of conclusions, although regrettably the Government has not given effect to any of them. In this regard, I wish to refer to two fundamental aspects of the case.

In Article 2, the Convention refers to the commitment to hold effective consultations and is based on the principle of social dialogue, which is an essential tool for the development of joint proposals by workers, employers and the Government with a view to promoting growth, peace and general well-being.

It is therefore a matter of concern that, despite these reiterated calls by the ILO supervisory mechanisms, the CST has continued to be inactive since May 2022, thereby denying tripartite social dialogue with the most representative organizations.

We reiterate that it is of the greatest importance for consultations to be held in good faith and trust and for employers and workers to be allowed to express their views, analysis and proposals with a view to achieving genuine consensus and making progress in seeking improvements in industrial relations through social dialogue.

Secondly, with reference workers’ and employers’ representatives, it is necessary to recall that they have to be elected freely and be represented on an equal footing, in accordance with Conventions Nos 87 and 144, in Article 3. The Committee of Experts has indicated on repeated occasions that it is the responsibility of workers’ and employers’ organizations to establish the conditions for the election of their leaders and that the authorities should refrain from any undue interference in the exercise of this right.

For these reasons, we note with concern that the Government, on the one hand, continues to disregard the ANEP as the most representative organization of employers in El Salvador and, on the other, has not accredited the employers selected by the ANEP to participate in this Conference. This is in complete disregard for the spirit of the ILO Constitution and denies the right of the most representative employers’ organization to appoint its delegates. This violation forms part of an environment in El Salvador that is opposed to freedoms, and in particular freedom of association.

In conclusion, we request the Government, in compliance with and respect for the Convention, to recognize the ANEP as the most representative organization of employers, to reactivate the CST as soon as possible to advance with tripartite social dialogue and to engage in effective consultations on matters relating to the ILO and all issues regarding labour and social policies in the country.

Government member, Panama – The fundamental ILO process of promoting peace in the world through a spirit of collaboration with a view to protecting labour rights is based on tripartite social dialogue.

Within the context of the discussion of this individual case, we recall that the objective of the Convention, ratified by El Salvador in 1995, is tripartite consultation on matters concerning the activities of the ILO, which are set out in Articles 2 and 5. Let us therefore consider in this respect the commitment of El Salvador to the supervisory bodies of this Organization as set out in the report of the high-level tripartite mission which visited the country in 2022 as a follow-up to the conclusions adopted by this Committee.

According to the information provided, the high-level mission was invited and received by the plenary of the CST in El Salvador and noted its establishment and operation, while making certain recommendations on progress to be made in the development of tripartite social dialogue.

In light of the information reported, we recognize that the establishment of the CST in itself constitutes important progress, as it had not been in operation in El Salvador for many years.

We also note the communications sent by the Government to workers and employers concerning the submission for tripartite consultation of: 20 ILO Conventions, seven Recommendations and a Protocol, as well as 13 reports on Conventions, which were submitted to the Vice-Presidents of the CST, taking into account its substantial workload and in line with the recommendations of this Committee and the provisions of the Convention.

Panama has a long history of tripartite social dialogue. At the present time, we are in the process of setting up the Higher Labour Council. It is therefore important to note that, if the objective of consultations is limited to international labour standards, not all the issues that arise in each country have to be submitted for tripartite consultation, but only those relating to the world of work, without disregarding the important value placed on social dialogue in our countries.

We therefore encourage the tripartite partners in El Salvador to go forward on the road of dialogue, and we urge the social partners to provide their response to the consultations undertaken by the Government for the promotion of social peace and social, labour and economic well-being.

Employer member, Honduras – We are currently reviewing a governance Convention of our Organization, in respect of which the Government has failed to give effect to the provisions of the Convention, to the detriment of social dialogue and the most representative organization of employers in the country, the ANEP.

It will be recalled that the Government issued 23 laws removing the ANEP from representation of the same number of bipartite and tripartite dialogue bodies, even though this Committee had issued its observations and conclusions calling for the repeal of the laws and due respect for the employers’ organization, which has not happened up to now. Moreover, the Government has been appointing employers’ representatives directly, leaving aside employers’ organizations. The road map for the re-establishment of dialogue and tripartite consultation was not drawn up on a tripartite basis.

Attacks are continuing on the leaders and organizations affiliated to the ANEP with a view to exerting pressure on the organization and its members to give up their positions, especially those with work or contracts with the State. This is unacceptable and must not be tolerated by this Organization.

In its desire to disregard and with clear contempt for the representative organization of El Salvador, the Government accredited an employer representative for this Conference who had not been proposed by the ANEP and without listening to the views of the ANEP, as part of its attack on employers in El Salvador and in violation of the Convention and the ILO Constitution.

We wish to emphasize the clear contradiction in the documents provided by the Government, as it first recognizes that the ANEP is the most representative organization of employers and then removes its rights of consultation and representation, and in so doing ignores the provisions of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 144.

Worker member, Argentina – I am speaking to you on behalf of the three Argentinian trade union confederations. In this case, the IOE is denouncing the Government for alleged violations of Conventions Nos 87 and 144.

While this case is being examined in the light of Convention No 144, the connection with Convention No. 87 made by the IOE is fitting because there cannot be tripartite consultation mechanisms for the application of international labour standards without the organizations that represent employers and workers. In this regard, we remind the IOE that Convention No. 87 is not limited to the right to organize, but also covers the principle and exercise of freedom of association which, although it is not explicitly set out, includes the right to strike. The right to strike is essential to freedom of association, just as the right to organize is essential to tripartite consultation under Convention No. 144.

In addition, the IOE and ANEP make a series of claims denouncing the failure of the Government to implement the Convention, which do not reflect what is really happening in El Salvador, which is surely why they wish to remain anonymous.

While the IOE and ANEP report the lack of social dialogue in El Salvador, the ANEP regularly participates in five social dialogue forums, and notably presides over one of them, namely the Vocational Training Institute.

With respect to the CST, five plenary meetings and ten meetings of its executive board have been held, in accordance with section 11 of its Statute, which sets out that it must hold at least two meetings a year. ANEP participated in those meetings.

When the CST was established (2021–2023), the workers’ and employers’ representatives were elected freely and independently, in accordance with section 4 of its Statute.

The CST is operational and, in a tripartite manner, addresses issues within its competence, such as the agreement to, through tripartism, develop a strategy to generate decent work.

Nevertheless, and in the light of the workers’ claims, we request the Government to adopt without delay the road map requested by the Conference relating to the delivery of credentials. We welcome the establishment of the Trade Union Office that provides legal assistance to representatives to streamline the processes for the delivery credentials, the extension of their period of validity and the reform of the Labour Code.

Thus, the Government is making efforts with regard to the obligation under the Convention, convoking and promoting forums for consultation and dialogue, ensuring the enjoyment of freedom of association for workers’ and employers’ representatives in accordance with Conventions Nos 87 and 144.

Government member, Dominican Republic - We welcome the efforts the Government is making through the Ministry of Labour, which has shown its firm commitment to strengthening the implementation of the standards being discussed in this forum. We welcome the progress indicated by the Government, which shows that the main intention is the commitment to find solutions to any event brought to light by the social partners in this country.

In addition, it is hopeful to know that the Government is showing a keen interest in enforcing labour legislation and the ILO’s international labour standards. We invite El Salvador to continue these good practices and encourage it to enhance the work that is under way.

Employer member, Costa Rica – The employers of Costa Rica note with deep concern the case of the violation of the Convention by the Government, as it is a matter that has been under discussion for several years – concerning an ILO governance Convention.

These types of Conventions are priority, given their importance in the functioning of the international labour standards system. A society that does not permit social dialogue and that does not ensure, at the domestic level of the country, the free and independent participation of workers and employers, is not a full democracy and will not achieve equitable employment conditions, decent working conditions, occupational safety and health, and development for the benefit of all.

The purpose of the participation of various social partners on the boards, committees and other bodies in the autonomous and decentralized institutions of the State is to contribute to national development through social oversight and increased transparency, thereby enriching the discussions and proposed solutions.

Disregarding the role of ANEP and forcing its members to give up their membership by annulling routine and special authorizations which are administered in public offices, such as permits for construction, export and import, and health certificates, among others, are coercive and abusive practices that violate freedom of association.

In order for there to be social dialogue and tripartism, solid and independent workers’ and employers’ organizations must exist, with technical capacity, access to the necessary information, political will and the commitment of all the parties concerned, in compliance with the fundamental rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

We reiterate our observation from previous discussions concerning the bad precedent at the international level represented by the interference of the authorities of El Salvador in the processes for the appointment of representatives to public tripartite and joint bodies. Nor can we overlook the terrible situation that arose this year, where the Government did not communicate or authorize ANEP to appoint the employer delegate who would participate in this Conference.

We urge the Government to respect the provisions of the Convention it has ratified on the understanding that, in accordance with its own Constitution, the Convention has the status of law and, where its conflicts with other laws, it prevails over them.

It is important that the most representative organization of employers in El Salvador, the ANEP, is allowed to participate in the respective social dialogue forums to strengthen democracy and fight against authoritarianism, to the benefit of national development.

Worker member, Peru – With reference to the case being discussed, we wish to focus on the legal obstacle constituted by section 203 of the Labour Code, which makes it mandatory to renew the appointment of executive boards every year or the equivalent of every 12 months. It should be noted that employers’ organizations have a longer time period for the renewal of their executive boards, which is every two years.

This requirement, which to date has not been amended, constitutes an interference in the freedom of workers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and elect their representatives in full freedom, that is, the power to establish the term of office of their executive boards. With this rule, the Government is failing to comply with the provisions of Article 3 of ILO Convention No. 87.

Although the amendment of the Labour Code is being discussed, due to the implications of section 203, the Government’s measures must be immediate because as long as the executive boards are not active or are not renewed in time, the trade unions remain without leaders and their leaders are without trade union rights, due to the delay in the delivery of credentials. In addition to this act of interference, the Government has now introduced the payment of fees for services reportedly provided by the Ministry of Labour, including the delivery of credentials to trade union organizations. This measure represents an additional obstacle in an already very onerous process. In our view, this process should be free of charge.

Both the period of validity and the procedure for the delivery of credentials mean that the representation of workers in the CST has been made complicated, which prevents its proper functioning.

To this end, as a matter of urgency, the Government should streamline and facilitate the procedure for the appointment of workers’ representatives, and reform the provision of the Labour Code that provides for the annual renewal of trade union executive boards.

Government member, Guatemala – We appreciate the information shared by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare of El Salvador regarding the implementation of Convention. We encourage the parties to spare no effort to ensure the continued operation of the CST. Our own experience allows us to note that these spaces for privileged dialogue facilitate tripartite consensus-building, a foundational pillar of this Organization. We endorse the request by the Government to the Office for the continued provision of technical cooperation, where needed.

Employer member, Plurinational State of Bolivia – The discussion of the implementation of the Convention in El Salvador is not new because in reality, since 2017 over the previous five sessions, the Committee has been discussing precisely this case, which is directly related to a governance Convention.

Thus, we should be concerned about the fact that, despite the observations made in all of the previous sessions, the Government authorities still continue to fail to implement the essential element of tripartite consultation, and particularly that they are systematically disregarding the representation of the ANEP, as the most representative organization of employers in El Salvador.

In this regard, it should be recalled that, as has been the tradition in this house, social dialogue and the capacity to develop tripartism have always been promoted as a way of seeking comprehensive solutions to the different problems and legitimate interests of all stakeholders, both the employers’ and workers’ groups.

In this context, it is unreasonable that the participation has been disregarded of any groups, whether employers or workers, in essential decision-making regarding labour relations, such as the approval of ILO Conventions or Labour Code reforms. Direct interference by the Government in the institutional life of workers’ and employers’ organizations is also unacceptable. This represents a direct breach of the right of self-determination of these organizations, as in this context ANEP’s legitimacy as the most representative organization of employers in El Salvador cannot be disregarded. This institution is being subjected to abuse through political pressure on its members, who clearly should not be overlooked, which is an outright violation of the right to freedom of association, to which they are entitled.

Based on the foregoing, the Government authorities must be called upon, as a matter of urgency, to comply with all the observations made by this Committee and to urgently request ILO technical assistance for the full restoration of social dialogue within the framework of the Convention.

Employer member, Mexico – The employers’ delegation of Mexico expresses its deep concern at the development and conduct of the Government of El Salvador. It should be noted and emphasized that this case has been discussed on several occasions, as already mentioned, the last time in 2022. It should also be emphasized that the Committee of Experts has issued nine observations since 2013, the latest in 2022.

It should be noted that global human rights reports in 2023 indicate that the Government and its allies, the Legislative Assembly, have systematically dismantled the system of democratic checks and balances. In addition, in May this year, Reporters without Borders indicated that the Government applies a special system to limit constitutional guarantees, such as the confidentiality of private correspondence.

While the Committee noted the high-level tripartite mission accepted by the Government, which took place in May 2022, it is also true that, regrettably in El Salvador that five ILO Conventions have been ratified without consultation with the most representative employers’ organizations.

In the same vein, we note with deep concern the continuation of multiple acts of interference by the authorities in the appointment of employers’ representatives to public tripartite and joint bodies. We therefore call for the Committee’s conclusions to once again request the Government to:

- refrain from any aggression and from interfering in the establishment and activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations, in particular the ANEP;

- ensure the effective operation of the CST and other tripartite entities, respecting the full autonomy of the most representative employers’ organizations and guaranteeing through social dialogue their full functioning without any interference;

- refrain from unilaterally appointing employers’ representatives for tripartite consultations and institutions, and develop, in full consultation with the social partners, the procedures for the appointment of those representatives;

- develop a time-bound road map to implement without delay all the recommendations made by the ILO high-level tripartite mission.

In our view, the reactivation of the CST is undoubtedly one of the important objectives that should appear in the conclusions, in order that. With respect to the road map that has been requested, it is noted that to date all the decisions taken by the Government to the detriment of employers’ organizations in El Salvador have not been subject to tripartite discussion or consultation.

Observer, International Organisation of Employers (IOE) – It is to be regretted that the Government is once again being evaluated for non-compliance with the Convention. According to the indications in the report of the Committee of Experts, social dialogue has deteriorated in El Salvador. Effect has not in fact been given to any of the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2022, nor to the recommendations of the 2022 high-level tripartite mission.

Let me explain on the basis of facts. First, the CST has continued to be inactive since 5 May 2022, when the tripartite mission came to an end, and it has not met since that date to review any Conventions. In practice, 11 days later the Government ratified five Conventions without consultation and without having convened any sessions of the CST.

Second, the Government is refusing to recognize the ANEP as the most representative organization of employers in El Salvador. One illustration is the absence of consultation with the ANEP for the nomination of the Employer delegates to this Conference. Nor was the ANEP consulted on the appointment of the employer representative to the Pensions Institute.

Third, the 23 laws have not been repealed which remove the power of employers to nominate representatives for tripartite and joint public bodies, thereby denying social dialogue. As a result, the Government is continuing to make these appointments, as was the case for the Social Housing Fund, while two years have passed without nominating employer representatives to the El Salvador Social Security Institute and the Minimum Wage Council has not met since September 2022.

Fourth, interference and attacks against the ANEP have continued. However, in El Salvador, it is still possible to return to the path of tripartite social dialogue. The ANEP reiterates the proposal made last year of developing on a tripartite basis a road map with the objective not only of giving effect to the conclusions and recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies, but also of creating an environment of trust to attract more investment and generate more and better jobs.

The benefits of tripartite social dialogue must be tangible, including the greater well-being of families in El Salvador, and we therefore call on the Government to develop, on a tripartite basis and with ILO technical assistance, a road map for the benefit of the citizens of El Salvador.

Observer, Public Services International (PSI) – I am making this intervention on behalf of PSI and its four affiliates in El Salvador. This is a case in which, as indicated in the report of the Committee of Experts, cases of “interference” by the public authorities are alleged in the appointment of employers’ representatives on tripartite and joint public bodies. Without intending to minimize these allegations, we believe that it is also necessary to take into account the context and situation of labour rights as a whole.

El Salvador has ratified a significant number of ILO Conventions, including nine of the ten fundamental Conventions and all the governance Conventions. Moreover, last year, the Government deposited five new ratifications.

We are also aware that the CST, on 1 September 2022, requested the view of the social partners who are represented here on the ratification of 18 other Conventions, in accordance with article 19 of the ILO Constitution, the list of which also includes the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (No. 187). With the ratification of this Convention, El Salvador will have ratified all of the fundamental Conventions over a short period. We believe that this is positive and gives grounds for satisfaction. After all, the ILO adopts international standards which then have to be respected and applied.

It therefore appears somewhat contradictory to us and even paradoxical that this Committee has regretted, as it did last year, that five ILO Conventions have been ratified by a Member State, when it would be right to encourage and commend those that do so and which submit to the supervisory mechanisms. This is much more than what has been done by the Member State to which we have generously offered the presidency of this Conference, which has only ratified six Conventions and where, among other matters, there are not even workers’ organizations.

We have heard the word “terrible” with reference to the designation of the Employer delegate of El Salvador to the Conference, who was not designated by the most representative employers’ organization. Please allow me to differ. Terrible denotes, for example, war, violence and the persecution of innocent people because of differences of views, or the enslavement of children to make greater profits. In El Salvador, the representatives of workers and employers are not persecuted, imprisoned, deported or murdered solely because they belong to an organization that represents and protects the rights of its members.

We therefore consider that it is necessary to be more scrupulous and coherent in the selection of individual cases, of which there are only 24 each session of the Conference, so as to be able to address situations of serious non-compliance which merit the work and efforts of this Committee.

Observer, International Organisation of Employers (IOE) – It is very common in this distinguished Committee to deal with cases related to violations of the provisions of the Convention. Intimidating, threatening, bypassing and ignoring the role of the most representative organizations of both employers and workers is a common form of behaviour by Governments that do not believe in either the principles or the fundamental rights of the ILO, nor in the value of tripartism nor, much less, the value of social dialogue.

The lack of respect for and interference in the independence of representative and independent employers’ organizations, and I repeat representative and independent, and in this case the ANEP, has been a constant practice of a Government, that of El Salvador, which is known on the international scene for its attitude of confrontation, and indeed aggressivity, towards those with dissident or critical views. I wish to recall that the former President of the ANEP is currently in exile and, contrary to what was said by the previous speaker, the persecution and intimidation of representative organizations does exist. The objective is clear, namely to weaken the organization, in this case the employers’ organization, and all organizations that defend legitimate interests, but which are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the Government.

Our comments on this case are not new, as it is the sixth occasion on which we have discussed it in this Committee, but what is new is the level of intimidation and the degree of oppression experienced in the country. Freedom of association and expression have never been so endangered in El Salvador, along with the rule of law.

The affiliates of the ANEP and their enterprises are threatened if they decide to continue their membership of the organization. The ANEP is not invited to participate in tripartite bodies. Its leaders, as I have said, are the victims of direct or indirect pressure, or the Government, and this is nothing new for a Government of this type, assigns representative functions to organizations that are close to it or to individual employers. This is very standard behaviour for Governments that do not believe in social dialogue or tripartism.

The Minister who has just spoken admits on social media to not having accredited the ANEP for this Conference. I invite all the participants in this discussion to read the tweet posted by the Minister a few days before the session opened, which speaks for itself. This attitude of discrediting those who are critical is well known among the various international organizations of which the Government is critical and which it confronts in a notorious and very aggressive manner.

We agree with the representative of the Workers’ group in our concern at the lack of progress. Despite the tripartite mission that visited the country last year and the road map that was agreed upon, the Government is continuing to ignore its duties as an ILO constituent and in this case the duties deriving from the Convention.

We do not come here for the pleasure, but in hope, and we urge the Government to follow the path of respect for dialogue, in the first place, and then towards representative employers’ organizations and unions. If it does not do so, you may be sure that we, as the most representative global organization of employers, will use all the means available to us to ensure that the Government complies with its obligation to give effect in law and practice to the requirements that it has assumed voluntarily through its ratification of the Convention.

Government representative – I would like to begin by responding to certain issues raised, especially by the Employer members, who indicated that the CST started to function in 2021, paraphrasing exactly what was said, and that there are “anomalies in its functioning”, which were the actual words used by the representative of the employers.

He is reaffirming clearly and categorically that the CST is functioning. Even if there are some anomalies, irregularities or procedures that have to be improved, every process can be improved over time. But there is clear acceptance that the CST is functioning and therefore that this issue has nothing to do with the application of the Convention in our country, as we are in full development.

The other issue that was raised is the need to open tripartite involvement so that the ANEP can participate in the FONAES, the Maritime Port Authority and the International Centre for Fairs and Conventions (CIFCO). I wish to clarify and I must insist that the representative of employers at the international level has not been correctly informed: these are not tripartite bodies, they are bipartite, and only the ANEP and the Government participated in them for decades.

We understand that the transversal basis of the Convention is tripartite social dialogue, and yet these are bodies in which there is only bipartism. In our case, all the tripartite bodies that we have in the country are functioning, absolutely all of them.

The other issue concerns the documentation that we provided, and here are the documents that we are providing physically today in this meeting in which we can see the seals of the ANEP indicating that it received the documents in due time, received the information and was taken into account, but the ANEP did not reply.

We are talking about last year, as well as this year and on other occasions. We had a proposal, put forward by workers’ representatives, to ratify another five Conventions on 1 May in commemoration of International Workers’ Day. We could not proceed with the ratification of additional Conventions because the ANEP did not reply and has not replied up to now, and we have the documentation here to prove this, and for this reason we do not understand why this issue has been raised with regard to the Convention.

With regard to the issue of the two-year time period accorded to employer representatives and the one year to the trade union movement, this is the best historical illustration that there has not been due balance and even-handedness in the treatment of workers in general terms. There was no type of balance in the treatment of the two sectors. This was determined during the period when the ANEP managed the ARENA party and adopted legislation which favoured it with a two-year period, to the prejudice of the workers. But when they call on me to take immediate action to change the time limit and extend the period of validity of the credentials of trade union leaders, I cannot go ahead unless I have agreement through tripartite social dialogue. We already have a forum established in which the trade union movement is proposing the extension of the time period to two or three years, and I will respect the wishes of the trade union movement. I will respect the will of tripartite social dialogue, in accordance with the Convention, to ensure the amendment of the Labour Code in the coming days, when we will propose to the trade union movement that the period of validity of their credentials must be much longer.

Similarly, we have established a specific office so that procedures that previously lasted five, three, four or even up to eight months, now take a week. We are issuing the credentials for the trade union movement in eight days through an office which provides guidance to the trade union movement. It is one of the institutions that is most interested in strengthening the trade union movement, giving priority to tripartite social dialogue, which is our political will with all the actors and sectors of society. Now, as certain employers’ organizations have come out publicly indicating that they are no longer affiliated with the ANEP, these are internal matters that can arise and we cannot intervene in any way in this regard, either for them to go or to remain, because these are decisions that are the responsibility of each and every actor in the world of employers.

All workers today, including at the level of the trade union movement, are seeing this event, they all have links and they can see what is happening. What is most important is to ensure that the people and society are duly informed. All the unions in El Salvador are watching directly what is happening in the ILO, and this is painful, because only two social partners, and in this case two representatives, determine the make up of the preliminary and other lists, behind the backs of the genuine working class, behind the backs of the people who give them legitimacy, because a trade union leader, irrespective of whether the office held is at the national or international level, is the genuine spokesperson of the views of the working class, But, taking up a position and engaging in negotiations that are not transparent, unclear and not in line with public opinion, and doing so behind the backs of the working class, is a very complex situation for representatives at the international level, who come to an agreement, it is not known where, to determine who is included or not on the list.

We have taken upon ourselves the task of reviewing the preliminary list, and there were around six countries included in relation to fundamental Conventions, which is where the restrictions on the freedom of the trade union movement can be seen, with violations of various international fundamental, governance and technical Conventions, but which are not included on the list, or are included on the list. It is paradoxical, and history will be the judge.

And, as founders of the ILO, we urge the ILO’s leaders, because we believe sincerely in the ILO, because we trust the genuine leadership of the ILO, that they have to be more transparent and determine established criteria on how these lists are drawn up and defined. Because it is being done behind the backs of the working class. One of the fundamental aspects that has been demonstrated in this international forum is the manner in which the employers of El Salvador and their international representatives are acting.

There were two interventions by employer representatives to try and silence the genuine voice of the working class. All we have done in El Salvador is to democratize the country, opening up institutions, playing the role of the State, which is precisely to ensure balance between the social partners, but under equal conditions, which have never previously existed in the country.

The ANEP is one of the institutions that has enjoyed enormous privileges in the country, and on many occasions even took over the State apparatus, as demonstrated by the fact that the principal platform used even by presidential candidates was the employers’ organization. They have every right to be able to express their views and take political action, but party politics are one thing, while another is access to any elected position, which is the right of everyone, but not taking advantage of employers’ organizations. With the greatest of goodwill, with respect for ILO institutions, and aware of the leadership of the ILO, we have to guarantee and strengthen it every day.

We are totally willing to take on all the recommendations that are necessary and we will give effect to all recommendations.

It is a country that belongs to all the citizens of El Salvador, without distinction. We are the Government and we are bound to support and give our backing to all organizations of all types, irrespective of whether they criticize or judge us.

A Government has to be criticized, has to accept critical views. These are the basis of democracy, and we are therefore totally open. But what we consider to be wrong is to encourage lies, misrepresenting the real situation of a country at the international level, and solely to recover the privileges that were historically theirs through their use of the apparatus of the State.

President Bukele has now made it clear that the apparatus of the State is for the whole of the people of El Salvador under equal conditions. Employers will always be represented and workers will also always enjoy equal conditions. The arm of the State must ensure clear rules for everyone, with guarantees and oversight for everyone, under equality of conditions.

We have insisted to the ANEP that the bipartite bodies, which number around 20 or 30, in which only the ANEP and the Government participate, that we should open them to become tripartite, but it opposes and continues to oppose this.

In conclusion, as the people of El Salvador, as the representative of the State on behalf of President Nayib Bukele, we consider that the ILO is the instrument that guarantees the elementary rights of the whole of society throughout the planet, and we must ensure its strengthening with every day that goes by.

I believe that, as the ILO, we will have to review the procedures for inclusion on the list. Sometimes, the Worker spokesperson says things that are different from what is felt and said by workers in a country.

We believe that negotiation is valid in every part of the world, but it has to be transparent negotiation, negotiation that not only guarantees legality, because the two of them determine who is on the list, but must also benefit from legitimacy, based on the genuine views of the working class that they claim to represent.

This is my conclusion, and we will be unshakeable in our support for the principles of ILO standards. We will comply with absolutely everything and we are fully ready as a Government to continue receiving recommendations from any ILO body.

Employer members – We have listened carefully to all the interventions made during the present discussion, and particularly to the intervention by the representative of the Government of El Salvador.

We wish to indicate that, in our view, it is fully established that there are various tripartite bodies that are not functioning in El Salvador, including the CST and the Minimum Wage Council, while the tripartite mechanisms are not functioning in the National Housing Fund, where it was the Government that appointed the employer representatives, nor the Social Security Institute, where employer representatives have not been nominated.

Accordingly, in our view, it is clear that the words of the Government representative, Mr Castro, do not correspond to any intention by the Government of El Salvador to give effect to the requirements of the Convention which, as we are well aware, is intended to promote governability and the proper functioning of industrial relations at the national level.

The facts described show disregard for the appropriate application in law and practice of all the provisions of the Convention, which was ratified voluntarily by El Salvador. And all that despite the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022; despite the eight observations published by the Committee of Experts; despite the numerous urgent interventions that the ANEP and the IOE have requested from the ILO; despite ILO technical assistance and the offers made in the high-level tripartite mission which recently visited the country.

The situation of failure to comply with the Convention in El Salvador is continuous, serious and urgent for employers’ representatives. We have dealt in this Committee over the past few days with cases of Governments which have dissolved by administrative decision the most representative organizations in those States. We do not wish to be doomsayers and suggest that something similar could happen in El Salvador.

In this regard, employers’ representatives and employers, in their belief in social dialogue, in the functionality of tripartite consultation, and that it cannot be merely a face-saving exercise, we will urge the Government with our best will, and despite prolonged non-compliance, to refrain from interfering in the establishment of both workers’ and employers’ organizations and to facilitate compliance with national and international law, voluntarily ratified by El Salvador, and to ensure their due representation by issuing the corresponding credentials in an appropriate and flexible manner.

The Government of El Salvador should cease attacking and discrediting the ANEP, which is the most representative employers’ organization, and its leaders.

The Government should draw up, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules for the real and constant reactivation and full functioning of the CST.

The Government of El Salvador should reactivate without delay effective consultation in the CST, once again with clear, objective and predictable rules, as well as the functioning of the other tripartite bodies, respecting the autonomy of the most representative organizations of workers and employers through social dialogue, with a view to guaranteeing their full operation without any interference.

The Government of El Salvador must understand that the appointment by the President of the Republic of employer delegates is not in accordance with the procedures required by the ILO’s fundamental labour Conventions, which have been ratified voluntarily by El Salvador.

Moreover, in consultation with the social partners, it must take all the necessary measures without delay to amend the 23 decrees adopted on 3 June 2021 so that they are in compliance with the guarantees set out in the ILO Conventions ratified by El Salvador.

Of course, much of this may be difficult to do in isolation, and so we therefore suggest that it continues to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

It should provide the Committee of Experts with a detailed report on the application of the Convention in law and practice before its next session this year.

We call for a new direct contacts mission to ascertain the true operation of tripartism in El Salvador and, in view of its seriousness and the continued non-compliance, for the inclusion of this case in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

Worker members – El Salvador has taken certain steps in some cases to re-establish tripartite social dialogue. We have been informed that recently the trade unions, including those affiliated to IndustriALL, have proposed an action agenda to promote various matters of interest to workers, such as the reform of the Labour Code, and that it contains a proposal, in accordance with the commitment given, to increase the period of validity of trade union credentials in El Salvador. It is important that this reform guarantees and improves the right to organize freely and establishes collective bargaining as a principle of basic law.

Nevertheless, there are still certain problems for the achievement of full compliance with the Convention.

We previously noted that the CST had been re-established and was functioning. It is important for our group that the CST does not remain inactive, or that its functioning is activated.

Moreover, the Government needs to find an appropriate solution to the unreasonable obstacles and rules that exist for the delivery of credentials to trade unions.

We are therefore bound to reiterate some of the same requests that we made to the Government last year. With one reservation before we set out our three requests.

In the first place, it is necessary to respect the methods of our Committee, to which the Government above all has referred, and we consider that this is not the occasion to discuss the matter. However, we also recognize that the intensity of the discussions in this case shows the pertinence of having discussed it in this Committee. We therefore believe that it is important to listen to us and to have been able to respond, as El Salvador is on the list.

There are three measures that we consider that the Workers’ group can contribute. In the first place, the Government should ensure that the CST is fully operational and can hold plenary meetings, particularly regarding decisions that relate to both labour legislation and any public policy that has an impact on the social partners.

Second, El Salvador should draw up a road map with firm timelines, in consultation with the social partners, with a view to the application without delay of the recommendations made by the ILO high-level tripartite mission and the conclusions of our Committee.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, is the adoption without delay of the necessary measures to repeal the legal requirement, to modify the legal requirement, for the renewal of the legal status of trade unions every twelve months.

In more general terms, we call on the Government to give full effect to the recommendations of the tripartite mission.

With a view to the supervision of all these elements, we request the Government to report to the Committee of Experts at its next session, and we also suggest that it continues to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

And finally, I inform the Government that this group maintains permanent communications not only for the purposes of information, but also support and action in solidarity with compliance with the labour rights of women and men workers in our countries. We are proud to know and to feel that we represent everybody and that, accordingly, although there may be some differences, our representation is genuine.

The Committee’s conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the allegations of serious and repeated violations of the Convention by the Government.

The Committee noted with deep concern the multiple allegations of interference by the authorities in the appointment of employers’ and workers’ representatives in public tripartite and joint bodies.

Taking the discussion into account, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to:

- immediately cease all acts of violence, threats, persecution, stigmatization, intimidation or any other form of aggression against individuals or organizations in connection with both the exercise of legitimate trade union activities and the activities of employers’ organizations, and adopt measures to ensure that such acts are not repeated, in particular for the National Business Association (ANEP) and its members;

- refrain from any interference in the exercise of freedom of association of employers and workers, including in the constitution of workers’ and employers’ organizations;

- put a stop to the delays in issuing the credentials of workers’ and employers’ organizations, including for ANEP, in line with their right to representation;

- ensure that all workers’ and employers’ organizations, including ANEP, enjoy the rights and freedoms under the Convention and are fully included in tripartite consultation and social dialogue;

- reactivate, without delay, the full operation of the Higher Labour Council (CST) and other tripartite bodies as well as ensure the development and adoption, in consultation with social partners, of clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules to ensure their effective and independent functioning, without any external interference;

- take without delay all necessary measures to repeal the legal obligation on trade unions to request renewal of their legal status every 12 months;

- amend the 23 decrees adopted on 3 June 2021 to ensure that employers’ organizations are able to exercise their right to freely elect their representatives without any external interference; and

- develop a time-bound road map to implement without delay all the recommendations made by the 2022 ILO high-level tripartite mission and the Committee’s recommendations.

The Committee requests the Government to accept a direct contact mission to ensure full compliance with the Convention.

The Committee further requests the Government to submit a detailed report on the implementation of the Convention in law and practice, including information on the content and outcome of tripartite consultations, to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2023.

Government representative – On behalf of the delegation of El Salvador, I take note of the conclusions indicated by this Committee. I take advantage of the occasion to recall that El Salvador respects the supervisory bodies of this Organization.

However, we regret that the Committee has not taken into account the written and oral information that we have provided on various occasions, responding officially to the Committee of Experts. We deeply regret that, in its conclusions, the Committee has not recognized any indication of progress in El Salvador. We note with surprise that the Committee is once again calling for the repeal of the 23 decrees.

During the discussion of the case, a question was raised for the Committee in light of the provisions of Convention No. 144. What is the legal basis for this conclusion? What Articles of Convention No. 144 establish this power? What are the methods of work of this Committee that establish the obligation to repeal or require countries to change laws that are not related to international labour standards? These questions were also raised with the Committee of Experts in our communication, although no reply was received. We call for it to be acknowledged that, during and after the discussion of the case, we have not received a reply to this question. Nevertheless, the conclusions have been adopted.

We regret that our views and the information provided have been disregarded without giving reasons. The conclusions do not appear to respond to the discussion or the information provided, but are just a product of their negotiation. This is something that we think must be the subject of necessary and urgent reflection.

Nevertheless, we reaffirm our commitment to the principles and values of the ILO, which is unshakeable, and for which reason we will continue working to achieve decent work, giving priority to social dialogue with all partners and actors, for which we welcome the valuable cooperation and technical assistance of the ILO.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2022, Publication: 110th ILC session (2022)

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare – El Salvador is a founding Member of the International Labour Organization and we believe in the founding values and principles of the Organization, the essential purpose of which is to achieve peace in the world. Our Constitution establishes the obligation of compliance with ratified international Conventions. As a Government, we are therefore respectful of international labour standards and we are firmly committed to their progressive implementation.

In the previous session of the Conference, in June 2021, this Committee issued its conclusions, which were adopted by our country and all the necessary action has been taken to give them effect. Our Government diligently set up the Higher Labour Council, through a transparent process, with the support and agreement of employers and workers, who appointed their representatives freely and independently, under the supervision and with the support of the ILO.

Our Government showed clear political will and commitment to the ILO supervisory bodies by receiving the high-level tripartite mission mandated by the present Committee. Despite the fact that it is the responsibility of the State of El Salvador to receive the mission, in accordance with the established schedule and timing, we decided to do so in a tripartite manner in agreement with the Higher Labour Council. This is demonstrated by the preparation of a document, which you received. During its visit, we provided all the information requested by the mission with diligence and transparency, as reflected in the report that it published.

Moreover, it should be noted in passing, that this Minister, the Deputy Minister and the whole directorate of the Ministry attended for the whole week, leaving aside all other ministerial business in El Salvador for which we were appointed, and confining ourselves to attending directly to the high-level mission, conferring upon it the priority and interest of our Government.

The Government of El Salvador, since receiving the report of the high-level mission, has read it and noted its valuable contributions in a constructive spirit of multilateral cooperation, in accordance with social dialogue, tripartite commitments and dedication to a better future for labour and its social benefits.

However, we do not see coherence between the conclusions of the report of the high-level mission and the decision to include El Salvador in the list of cases under examination here, which gives us cause for great concern as it slashes through the credibility, not of ourselves, but of an international organization. The delegates who undertook the mission noted a constructive climate of tripartite social dialogue. They also noted that there are five tripartite bodies in El Salvador, of which four are operational, and have been in constant operation since our Government took office, with a process for the designation of the employer representatives. If a percentage weighting were to be applied, we would therefore say that we are 80 per cent in compliance with the operation of tripartite forums, and that the process is under way to make up the remaining 20 per cent. Accordingly, there will be 100 per cent compliance with the Convention, which was the reason why this Committee decided to include us on the list.

Moreover, if this proportional approach were a criterion for assessment, how many other countries would be on the shortlist? We are entirely certain that, applying this measurement parameter, there would be a large number of countries which do not come up to the same level as ours in terms of compliance with the Convention.

This shows a clear and evident contradiction, the only consequence of which is the loss of credibility of an organization, as no country will believe in a supervisory mechanism such as the high-level mission when there is a clear contradiction, as we have manifestly demonstrated. It is all the more astonishing as in certain neighbouring countries, only a few kilometres from our border, trade union leaders are being intimidated, blackmailed, subjected to extortion and murdered when they attempt to organize, and these countries are not placed on a list that vilifies the image of their country.

In the light of these two observations, as a State, we reach the following conclusion: this Committee does not follow a clearly technical or objective analysis for the inclusion of a country on the list and there is currently no clear process in which all the parties can freely and directly put forward their arguments, the verification of which results in the decision of whether or not they are on the list.

We see the manner in which countries are in violation of labour rights, repress and undermine freedom of association for the productive sectors of the country. And yet, they have experienced lobbying teams in these bodies, especially at the international level, and perhaps this is our problem and our greatest weakness as a country. El Salvador is strong in its respect for the rights of the productive sectors, but weak in the lobbying that is required at the international level in relation to the decisions concerning inclusion on lists.

This contradiction between the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission and the Committee’s decision to include us on the list is not in any way conducive to progress, and indeed runs counter to the constructive spirit of collaboration by disregarding real social dialogue forums.

In light of the above, on behalf of the Government of El Salvador, I wish to express my disagreement with this decision. We consider it outrageous that this Committee has ignored the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission, which was sent by the same supervisory body, thereby undermining the credibility of its Members and, moreover, invalidating the efforts that are being made by constituents and the good will noted by the present Committee.

We can therefore see that the inclusion in the list of our country has more of a political than a technical purpose, which would be tragic as it is unworthy of the ILO’s supervisory bodies. We urge the present Committee to distance itself as far as possible from this type of political manoeuvre, which damages the image of the ILO supervisory mechanisms, and we must revert to the true historical role of the achievement of world peace that is the transversal objective of the ILO.

We are not someone who has been found along the way, we are one of the founding Members of the ILO. We reconfirm our commitment to the Organization, which is unshakable, despite the human imperfections and political agenda that is manipulated by persons who do not come and see the situation at the national level. The proof of this is that, by decision of President Bukele, our country has recently ratified five Conventions in response to the calls of the working class, calls that had never been heeded in the country. Moreover, El Salvador has never been on lists for not ratifying Conventions. Sadly, one side of the scales is sometimes weighted more than the other. The ratification of these Conventions shows the real political will of our Government to make progress in the adoption and implementation of international labour standards in such areas as social security, maternity protection, collective bargaining, occupational safety, and the elimination of violence in the workplace, although this is only one side of the issue. More ratifications of Conventions are coming, because we have faith in the ILO, even though other bodies do things that detract from the ILO’s image.

In conclusion, I trust that this Committee will value these new elements noted by the high-level tripartite mission and the real situation in our country. We are in a new phase of tripartite social dialogue, which is sincere, highly technical and lasting, as we have indicated, with the presence of the social partners. They can also confirm whether or not this has been the approach adopted, as tripartite dialogue has to be frank, sincere, lasting, sustainable over time, and with the commitment to overcome challenges, not those that we have encountered or raised, as our Government has only been in office for three years, but the major historical challenges inherited from previous Governments in the field of labour legislation, which were never highlighted at the international level or resulted in inclusion on the list in view of the great deficiency that existed.

Worker members – We have been asked once again to examine the case of the application of the Convention by El Salvador. Since it was examined at our last session, there has been progress in various areas. As just indicated by the Government, in response to the Committee’s conclusions, the Government agreed to receive a high-level tripartite mission. This is clearly something that has to be taken into account and welcomed.

The high-level mission, which took place in May this year, made a series of interesting observations. One example is that the Higher Labour Council is operating once again. Several meetings have been held and, in particular, it has examined the ratification of various ILO Conventions. It also appears to be resolving the issues relating to the integration of the employers’ organization, the National Business Council (ANEP).

However, El Salvador is not on our list this year to highlight these areas of improvement, and there remain three problems: the representation of employers and workers on the Higher Labour Council must be on an equal footing, which means that the current vacancies must be filled as soon as possible; the required administrative process for the appointment of workers’ representatives continues to be complicated, resulting in the normal functioning of the Higher Labour Council being impeded; and, finally, there continues to be a legal obstacle which makes the process of the appointment of workers even more complicated, as unions are required by the Labour Code to renew the membership of their governing boards every year. On the one hand, we do not see the reasons for this renewal requirement and, on the other, it constitutes a form of interference in the functioning of the organizations concerned. It should be recalled that Article 3 of the Convention provides that representatives shall be freely chosen. In our view, the requirement for annual renewal is a violation of this freedom.

Finally, it should be noted that, in the case of the organizations representing employers, the period of renewal is two years. All these considerations imply that, despite the progress made, the Government is still not in compliance with the requirements of the Convention.

Employer members – I would like to start by thanking the Government for the report provided to the Committee. We emphasize our concern at the fact that this is the fifth consecutive occasion on which we have had to examine this issue in light of a situation that basically remains the same as when it was examined for the first time, and even that, according to the report of the Committee of Experts, the situation has deteriorated.

We recall with concern that in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021, the Committee adopted very specific conclusions, which included the steps that the Government had to take to give effect to the Convention, which is a governance Convention that is very relevant to this Organization.

In consideration of the short time that I have to present a case that we consider to be serious and urgent, with reiterated failings, I invite you to refer to our reports for the years that I have just indicated.

The background to the case includes expressions of deep concern, both by the Committee of Experts and the present Committee, direct contacts missions by the Office, as well as various requests for urgent interventions submitted to the Director-General by the ANEP, the most representative organization of employers in El Salvador, and by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), concerning interference by the Government in the administration and operation of the ANEP, attacks on its leaders and serious deficiencies in the working of social dialogue and tripartite consultation under very similar conditions, according to the report of the Committee of Experts and the national situation, to those experienced by legitimate workers’ organizations.

When we discussed this case in 2019, we expressed the firm hope that the Government that had recently taken office would address the serious situation, with a view to the governability of the country, the promotion of good relations between the social partners and the Government and compliance with the obligations set out in the Convention.

We recall that when the conclusions to the case were adopted in 2019, the Government representative said that they would be included in the Government’s list of priorities. These types of encouraging sentiments were also expressed to the high-level mission that recently visited the country. Nevertheless, those previous promises, much to our regret, have not been borne out by the Government’s acts. The situation has deteriorated and forms part of a growing general deterioration in democratic institutions and the lack of independence of the authorities, to the prejudice of the system of checks and balances, including the necessary independence of the most representative organization of employers in the country.

For greater clarity and the knowledge of everyone in the room, I will now provide specific information in support of the above.

First, the Government set up the Higher Labour Council in September 2019 for a brief period of several months. This occurred within the context of a presidential order not to meet the representatives of the most representative organization of employers in the country. It could therefore be said that its establishment had more to do with a government tactic of apparent compliance than any real intention to promote the operation of the Council.

The Government justified its ineffectiveness due to the pandemic crisis and the measures to suspend activities although, on the other hand, it justifies that there was social dialogue through other instances and meetings. There is a contradiction there.

Following this apparent activity, the Government once again set up the Higher Labour Council in December 2021. Nevertheless, the representatives of the most representative social partners deny the existence of effective tripartite consultations and of real social dialogue and indicate that dialogue only occurs with partners who are close to the Government, in violation of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention.

The Government therefore once again resorts to appearances to evade the supervisory bodies.

Let me explain myself. In a private celebration of Labour Day, on 1 May this year, the Government announced, without having consulted the Higher Labour Council, that it would ratify five Conventions through the Legislative Assembly, as indicated earlier by the Government. The ANEP, which willingly participated in the meetings of the Council for six months, was surprised by the announcement. It immediately wrote to the Government asking for the ratification of those Conventions to be submitted for consultation to the Higher Labour Council, in accordance with the Convention. The ANEP’s proposals were not heeded by the Government and, on 16 May, without the consultations required by Article 2 of the Convention and the commitment to work in this way including to the high-level mission, the Legislative Assembly approved the ratification of the five Conventions.

We are not questioning the sovereign will of the Legislative Assembly to approve ratification, but it is serious that the Government is disregarding the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention and social dialogue and tripartite consultation machinery, including what it described to us as a protocol containing guidance on the submission procedure, which it recently indicated had been prepared.

Second, in the middle of the session of the Conference last year, in 2021, the Government of El Salvador reformed the laws governing 23 joint and tripartite bodies through which the President of the Republic attributed to himself the power to appoint and to dismiss the representatives of employers on the boards of those bodies. On his Twitter account, the President of the country, Mr Bukele, announced that he was submitting 23 legislative initiatives to the Legislative Assembly to, and I quote word for word, “remove the ANEP from the boards of independent bodies and so be able to put them to work truly in the service of the people”. Since then, the Government has engaged in unfair practices, requiring the resignation of directors of tripartite and joint bodies, in some cases under threat, and appointing directors in accordance with the 23 new laws as amended, in clear violation of Article 4 of the Convention.

In relation to the above, the Committee of Experts urged the Government to repeal “any legal provisions in respect of the above-mentioned 23 autonomous entities that allow the Government the possibility of interfering in the appointment of employers’ representatives”.

Third, two months after the new President of the ANEP took office, in April this year, the Government has failed to activate the tripartite dialogue mechanisms that existed before the President of the Republic disowned the former President of the ANEP. Interference in the elections of representatives for tripartite consultation and failure to provide credentials to the ANEP is also a flagrant violation of the Convention. The offer made by President Bukele that everything would return to normal when a new President of the ANEP was elected has not been borne out. It was a false promise, and it was merely a clear act of interference and a flagrant violation of the independence of the ANEP.

Fourth, the employers are not yet participating fully in the Higher Labour Council because the Government has not yet permitted the inclusion of three employers’ organizations so that the three partners – the Government, workers and employers – have the same number of representatives. This shows that it is not in compliance with the Convention in law or practice. In this regard, the Committee of Experts urged the Government to ensure full recognition of the President of the ANEP and of this most representative employers’ organization in social dialogue and tripartite consultation, as well as during any revision of the Statute of the Council, which has not happened. The representatives of workers have also expressed their defencelessness in relation to the recognition of their representatives and their independence.

And finally, fifth, the Government is keeping up a permanent campaign to discredit the ANEP through radio, television, press and social networks at the highest level, the President of the Republic.

The facts described show the disregard for social dialogue and compliance with the obligations taken on by El Salvador when ratifying the Convention.

As you can see, this is one of the most serious cases of repeated non-compliance with ILO Conventions voluntarily ratified by El Salvador. We hope that the Government will provide the basis for the success of its participation, as it has announced on social networks, through compliance with the content of the Convention and in practice through tangible acts and verifiable results, and not only its word, which unfortunately has not been kept, as has been seen up to now. President, we will be very attentive to the follow-up to this discussion.

Worker member, El Salvador – I am speaking on behalf of the workers’ organizations of El Salvador, and it is an honour to address this Committee. As workers, we are convinced of the importance of tripartite social dialogue as an essential element in the building of a more just peace, with decent work, and we recognize the fundamental importance of the ILO and its standards system for the achievement of social justice and global peace.

El Salvador is a country that has suffered social injustice, repression and inequality, which gave rise to armed conflict. Despite the signature of the peace agreements, the underlying causes of the conflict have not been resolved. During the post-war period, we were governed by political elites who impoverished our country, privatized essential services, continued to repress the union movement and enriched themselves at the cost of the poverty and marginalization of the people.

While these Governments were in power, there were deaths of trade union leaders which went unpunished and social dialogue broke down. For many years, we workers did not benefit from any real participation and the economic elites took the major decisions in the country.

We have made progress and as workers’ representatives we have opened up spaces through struggles that have liberated us, and our participation in and impact on public policies has been strengthened.

We welcome the establishment of dialogue mechanisms and the reactivation of the Higher Labour Council, following many years of paralysis. The continuation and strengthening of this tripartite dialogue body, which has been called for by the trade union movement for many years, will undoubtedly enable us to achieve important agreements which will make labour relations more dynamic and enable us to achieve more rights and promote an increase in production in the country.

We welcome the fact that the Government has heeded our historical call to ratify five important international Conventions adopted by this Organization. It should be noted that their ratification was called for by the trade union movement and given effect by the Government. They are the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), the Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148), the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), the Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183), and the recently adopted Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190). With these ratifications, workers are being provided with a tool with which we can demand more and better public policies and legislative reforms in accordance with international standards, which is an unprecedented historical step in our country.

El Salvador is facing many important challenges in relation to labour rights. Years of neoliberal Governments, against the interests of the people, dismantled protective standards, severely restricted freedom of association and adopted laws in their own interests, such as the establishment of bureaucratic processes to make it difficult to register trade unions.

We have favourable expectations of the current political process. The trade union movement has put forward proposals to the Government and the Congress for the reform of the Labour Code to bring it into conformity with ILO provisions, and we are currently in a process of active dialogue, which is making progress in achieving important agreements. We hope to rapidly agree on the final wording for the approval of the new laws.

Our Labour Code and Civil Service Act go back 50 years. They are practically obsolete. It is time to move forward in bringing them up to date.

As workers’ representatives, we participated fully in the high-level tripartite mission called for by this Committee, and we recognize the openness and good will of the Government in receiving the mission and ensuring a tripartite reception. The recommendations made by the mission show the progress made and the challenges that remain in the country, but what is most important is that they show the positive prospects for social dialogue in the country.

As workers, we call on this Committee to review and take note of the conclusions of the tripartite mission, the members of which were able to note the progress made. Indeed, if the present Committee had reviewed very carefully and valued the report prepared by the mission, El Salvador would not have had to be included on this shortlist, unless there are other interests which oppose the strengthening of social dialogue.

As workers, we hope to benefit from ILO technical assistance to move forward with the proposed reforms, and we also hope that the Government will give effect to the commitments it has made publicly and that employers will participate in a collaborative manner, leaving aside the selfish accumulation of wealth and political interests. We will make every effort in a constructive manner because our hopes of building a more just country are founded on social dialogue and the strength of workers.

Employer member, El Salvador – We have noted the explanations provided today by the Government of El Salvador. We expressed our optimism three years ago in this Committee that the new Government would make a commitment to comply with international Conventions and submit to the ILO supervisory mechanisms. We were encouraged by the fact that in September 2019 the Government reactivated the Higher Labour Council, but in May 2020, the same Government prohibited all public officials from meeting the ANPE.

In that regard, it was encouraging that the Council was reactivated once again six months ago and is holding public meetings, both of plenary meetings and its board. The Council has recommended the tripartite process for the development of an employment policy, with the participation of workers and employers, and with the technical assistance of the ILO Regional Office. The Government has also consulted the Council in legislative initiatives intended to modify the provision of crèches for workers’ children. Discussions have been held and observations have been prepared and presented.

However, to be in compliance with the Convention, it is necessary to resolve at least five situations raised previously by this Committee and the Committee of Experts. With the political will of the Government, these five situations could be converted into a road map which, if given effect, would avoid the country being examined once again in 2023. We employers do not wish to continue undertaking this type of examination. What interests us is an environment that is conducive to investment and the creation of decent employment. We hope that will be possible.

The situations are as follows:

- First, with regard to the interference by the Government in the designation of employers’ representatives, the report of the Committee of Experts expresses “deep concern” because many allegations have been made over a long period of interference by the authorities in the processes for the designation of representatives on public tripartite and joint bodies, and that the latest developments demonstrate a worsening of the situation. The Committee of Experts urges the Government to repeal any legal provisions in respect of the 23 autonomous entities referred to above that allow the Government the possibility of interfering in the appointment of employers’ representatives. Just one year ago, the Government was amending 23 laws to give itself the right to elect and dismiss employer directors. At that time, in brief, in ten entities, the Government had made arbitrary appointments in violation of the Convention, and in another ten entities the appointments are still pending. In some cases, directors were required to resign early and in others there were cases in which they received threats to make them resign. This resulted in a deterioration of social dialogue in my country, not only because of the arbitrary appointments, but because social dialogue is taking place under the permanent threat of being removed at any time. Only the members of the Higher Labour Council and the National Minimum Wage Board, for which the Ministry of Labour is competent, have been appointed in accordance with the Convention. For real and effective tripartite social dialogue to exist, employers’ organizations have to elect their representatives directly, freely and independently, without interference by the Government.

This is the first point of a road map that we hope the Government will be willing to put into effect.

- Second, the legislation governing the election of members of the Council is defective in that it limits the participation of employers. The Committee of Experts urges the Government to “take the necessary measures to ensure the full autonomy of the ANEP, the recognition … of this employers’ organization as a social partner, to allow the full participation of the ANEP in social dialogue through its chosen representatives”.

The second point of the road map would be to prepare and approve clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules to achieve the full participation of employers in the Council.

- Third, we note with concern that the Government has been submitting initiatives directly to the Legislative Assembly on labour matters without consulting the Council, thereby failing to comply with the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention. Examples include a new Labour Code and Act on labour procedures. Moreover, deputies close to the Government have submitted legislative initiatives. It is not appropriate for the Government to take action on substantive matters without going through the Council.

The third point on the road map would therefore be to submit the new Labour Code and Act on labour procedures to the Council as a beginning of social dialogue on this subject, and to establish technical commissions for each legislative text.

- Fourth, with regard to the ratification of Conventions, social dialogue is demonstrated through acts, not words, and the serious acts that occurred in May last year have alerted us. Let me explain. The Government, without consulting the Council, during the course of a private celebration of Labour Day, announced the ratification of five ILO Conventions. The Conventions were submitted to the Legislative Assembly, which rapidly approved them two weeks later, without consulting the Council. We are still surprised because the country missed a good opportunity to engage in social dialogue by discussing the Conventions and sending a tripartite recommendation to the Legislative Assembly.

A fourth point on the road map would be to schedule and discuss, within the Council, the manner in which these Conventions are to be implemented, as well as the Council examining which other Conventions should be ratified in the coming months.

- Fifth, the ANEP lodged a request with the Committee on Freedom of Association two years ago because the Government failed to recognize the President of the ANEP and the ANEP itself as the most representative organization of employers in my country, and then we requested direct intervention by the Director-General on the grounds of fiscal harassment. In this regard, the report of the Committee of Experts notes with “deep concern” that the highest government authorities have refused to recognize the ANEP as the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador. Allow me to inform you that on 4 April of this year, the ANEP elected a new President, who has repeatedly come out in favour of social dialogue as an instrument for building agreement.

A fifth element in the road map would be for the ANEP to be recognized by the President, ministers and the legislative authority as the most representative employers’ organization.

The Council has been established and offers an opportunity that should be taken up by everyone, and we employers will do our utmost to ensure that this is the case.

Government member, France – I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The candidate country, Albania, and the European Free Trade Association country, Norway, Member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement. The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights, as safeguarded by the fundamental ILO Conventions and other human and labour rights instruments.

We firmly believe that compliance with ILO Conventions is essential for social and economic stability in any country and that an environment conducive to dialogue, consultation and trust between employers, workers and governments is the basis for solid and sustainable growth and inclusive societies.

The EU and its Member States stand with the people of El Salvador and we are committed to strengthening our cooperation through political and trade ties. The EU–Central America Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement (PDCA) and the provisional application of the trade pillar of the EU–Central America Association Agreement provide a framework for further developing our partnership, including through cooperation on trade, sustainable development and the effective implementation, in law and practice, of the fundamental ILO Conventions.

We take account of the recent steps taken towards compliance with the Convention and we expect social dialogue and tripartite consultation to become fully functional in the country, noting that the case has already been discussed at the last four sessions by the Committee, including as a serious case in 2017.

Last year we welcomed the inauguration, and the first session of the Higher Labour Council in September 2019, and the measures taken by the Government to initiate social dialogue and tripartite consultation and reactivate the Higher Labour Council following the Committee’s 2020 report. While noting that Higher Labour Council meetings were frozen throughout 2020 and 2021, we welcome the re-establishment of the Council in the biennium 2021–23 and the creation of a tripartite technical commission to operationalize the Council’s agenda.

We welcome the fact that, following the request of the Committee in 2021, the Government finally received the high-level tripartite mission on 2–5 May 2022.

In line with the recommendations of the high-level tripartite mission, and echoing the Committee’s calls, we underline that, to ensure the effective operation of the Higher Labour Council, its rules need to respect the autonomy of the social partners, including with regard to the appointment of their representatives. In this context, we note in particular the need to ensure full recognition of the President of the ANEP and of this organization in social dialogue and tripartite consultation, as well as during any revision of the Statute of the Higher Labour Council.

We also reiterate the Committee’s call urging the Government to fully respect the autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations, in both law and practice. This includes full respect for the selection of representatives on public tripartite and joint bodies, such as the El Salvador Social Security Institute and the Social Fund. This also includes the Government taking the necessary measures to ensure the prompt delivery of credentials for all organizations and the repeal of any legal provisions that allow any interference in the autonomy of organizations.

We echo the Committee’s urgent call for the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations, including within the Higher Labour Council, held on all issues related to international labour standards covered by the Convention, as well as the submission of international labour standards to the competent national authorities, in accordance with the ILO Constitution. We once again request the Government to comply with these reporting obligations.

We recall the importance of ILO technical assistance in facilitating compliance with all ratified ILO Conventions and the promotion of tripartism. We also emphasize that the extent and content of such assistance should be defined through social dialogue, for example within the framework of the Higher Labour Council.

We urge the Government to constructively and genuinely honour its commitments to effectively implement in law and practice all ratified ILO Conventions, including Convention No. 144 and the fundamental ILO Conventions.

The EU and its Member States remain committed to joint constructive engagement with El Salvador, including through cooperation projects, with the aim of strengthening the Government’s capacity to address the issues raised in the report of the Committee of Experts.

Employer member, Costa Rica – I would like to begin my intervention with an ILO definition according to which social dialogue includes “all types of negotiation, consultation or simply exchange of information between, or among, representatives of governments, employers and workers, on issues of common interest relating to economic and social policy. It can exist as a tripartite process, or it may consist of bipartite relations …”.

The ILO, since its creation, has promoted cooperation between employers, workers and governments, thereby permitting social justice through social dialogue. The Convention ensures the participation of employers and workers at the domestic level in each country. For this reason, the Convention is one of the most important labour standards from the viewpoint of ILO governance.

The Convention clearly provides that representative organizations of employers and workers are those that enjoy the right of freedom of association, a principle which also implies that States shall refrain from interfering in the establishment of such organizations. Employers in Costa Rica, as clearly indicated in previous discussions of this case, consider the existence of interference by the authorities in El Salvador in the processes of the appointment of both employer and worker representatives to public tripartite and joint bodies to be a very bad precedent at the international level. Article 3 of the Convention provides that the representatives of such organizations shall be freely chosen.

If the principal objective of social dialogue is “to promote consensus-building and democratic involvement among the main stakeholders in the world of work”, it is difficult to understand why the executive authorities have given themselves the power to remove directors representing employers’ organizations from the boards of entities, and moreover establishing discretionary and arbitrary reasons for their appointment through the amendment of 23 national laws. From any perspective, this is a violation of the Convention and the principle of freedom of association.

It is a matter of concern that various fundamental bodies involved in decision-making at the national level do not yet benefit from due representation. Moreover, although as indicated by the Employer representative of El Salvador, the Higher Labour Council and the National Minimum Wage Board are now meeting, it is considered a violation of social dialogue that the corresponding issues are not submitted to those bodies and that employers are not allowed to participate fully.

The correct way of developing tools of all types is through social dialogue, especially in the case of tools such as those referred to by the ANEP, that is draft legislation, such as the new Labour Code and the Act on labour procedures, which are fundamental standards for the achievement of decent work and adequate industrial relations.

We call on the Government of El Salvador to allow the Higher Labour Council to engage in dialogue and to put forward its views on the relevant issues, which are of the greatest importance for the country, so that productivity and competitiveness can be promoted, thereby generating decent work. All of that is basic in a democracy.

Worker member, Argentina – Specific issues arise in this case in which progress can be identified in relation to previous years, while there are still important areas where solutions have not been found. The positive aspects undoubtedly include the recent ratification of five international labour Conventions by the Government of El Salvador, after years of calls by the trade union movement, which is an important step forward which we emphasize and fully appreciate.

Despite this progress, in relation to international standards and guidance, the labour legislation in El Salvador is outdated, with serious problems in the administration of procedural aspects and disputes arising in the composition of tripartite social dialogue bodies. The Committee of Experts places emphasis on a key issue: the requirement for unions to seek the renewal of their legal status every 12 months in a procedure that is not completed in less than 9 months, and once granted expires almost immediately with the procedure having to be recommenced. All of us here know that delays in legal recognition give rise to difficulties in the exercise of collective trade union rights and are prejudicial to organizations in relation to their responsibility for the management of administrative, financial and institutional issues. We also know that many governments make use of the denial and/or delays in the granting of legal recognition as a means of pressure and discipline against unions which oppose their policies: “quickly for friends”, “late or never for opponents”. This matter requires attention and an urgent solution by the Government. All that is required is the political will and a computer program to resolve the issue. That is all, so there can be no more delay.

We also note the complaints of difficulties in constituting representative delegations for the Higher Labour Council, although we do so from a distant perspective of the time when the Committee of Experts prepared its report, as we have been informed of significant progress, including the regular functioning of the dialogue body, the reactivation of commissions and broader participation. Much remains to be done, but we see that the right path is being followed and that observable progress is being made.

Finally, we would like to emphasize that during this Conference the Government of El Salvador, through its Deputy Minister, has engaged in discussions with the social partners, criticisms have been smoothed over and agreement has been sought on technical assistance from other governments to overcome the difficulties. This is part of the work that is carried out in this Committee. We must not accentuate rifts or over-emphasize contradiction for contradiction’s sake. We need to take advantage of every minute in Geneva for bilateral and tripartite meetings, discussions with the Office, and to seek synthesis and consensus through good faith negotiation.

We hope that in the case of El Salvador the Government will accept the facts and in good time give effect to the commitments made to the social partners and that we will soon be able to note progress and report it to the next session of the Conference.

Government member, Chile – I am also speaking on behalf of a significant majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries. We are grateful for the information provided by the Government of the Republic of El Salvador through the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare on compliance with the Convention. We take into account the report issued by the high-level mission that visited El Salvador in May 2022, which was presided over by the delegate of Mexico representing the Government group. The mission was received by Minister Rolando Castro on behalf of the President of the Republic, Nayib Bukele, who considered it to be an opportunity and expressed openness to providing all the information that the mission might request.

The mission was undertaken in accordance with the recommendations made in the conclusions of the Committee in June 2021. The mission noted the establishment and functioning of the Higher Labour Council during the biennium 2021–23, and the creation of a tripartite technical commission to set the agenda of the Council. The report notes the significant progress that El Salvador has made in the promotion of tripartite social dialogue. All of that is in contrast with the inclusion once again of El Salvador on the list of the 22 countries called upon to provide a report to the Committee.

In light of the above, we welcome the commitment of the Government of El Salvador to give effect to the Convention and we encourage the ILO to continue providing technical cooperation to the Government.

Employer member, Democratic Republic of the Congo – On behalf of the employers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo who value the letter and spirit of international labour standards, it is completely unacceptable for the Government of El Salvador to interfere in the election of employers’ representatives, and in particular those of the ANEP, to the General Electricity and Telecommunications Supervisory Board through the Decree of November 2017. It is of little significance that the Government subsequently alleged, in its defence, that the Supreme Court of Justice had handed down a decision setting aside the election of employers’ representatives contested by the ANEP. This act is without any doubt a clear violation of Article 3(1) of the Convention, as indicated by the Committee of Experts.

The exclusion of the ANEP from social dialogue by the Government is another case of the violation of the Convention. It offers sufficient proof that there is no real dialogue.

In light of the prevailing situation, it is entirely appropriate for the Government of El Salvador to be able to benefit from ILO technical assistance with a view to promoting tripartism and social dialogue in the country. It is also to be recommended that such technical assistance focuses on the promotion of social dialogue, in particular in the Higher Labour Council, which is very dysfunctional.

Worker member, Netherlands – The report of the Committee of Experts on El Salvador refers to problems arising in the composition and conditions for the participation of unions in tripartite social dialogue bodies, such as the Higher Labour Council.

The recent ILO high-level tripartite mission to the country reports issues and makes important proposals to overcome them. One of the preconditions for the recognition of trade union organizations is the need to comply with certain requirements for the legal recognition of federations and confederations. The tripartite mission noted the legal requirement for the renewal of the trade union executive board and their credentials every 12 months, which is an excessive level of restrictive interference in trade union freedom and independence.

The Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), provides that trade union organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, organize their administration and elect their representatives in full freedom.

In addition to the legislation interfering greatly in collective autonomy, in practice there are important delays in the processing of administrative registration processes by the authorities and unjustified refusals of registration, despite all the requirements having been met in good time.

The consequent lack of leadership of trade unions prevents them from participating in the designation of their representatives for the purpose of tripartite consultations.

The refusal to issue credentials has a direct impact on the right of consultation set out in the Convention, which is covered by this observation of the Committee of Experts. This restriction requires the urgent amendment of the Labour Code in El Salvador to remove this heavy obstacle, with a view to allowing trade union independence and granting trade unions the power to freely determine the mandates of their officers through their statutory provisions.

Similarly, the ILO tripartite mission indicated in its final report that the necessary legislative measures should be considered to revise these requirements concerning elections and credentials. It adds, in a view that we share, that unions should be allowed to determine in their statutes the duration of the mandate of their executive bodies.

Finally, it does not appear to be difficult to find an urgent solution to the issue of freedom of association in El Salvador in relation to the determination of trade union representation, which is a key aspect of trade union activities and the development of decent work.

Employer member, Argentina – The employers of Argentina welcome the fact that the authorities of El Salvador have accepted ILO technical assistance and received the high-level tripartite mission, as well as the reactivation of the Higher Labour Council, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee in 2020–21. However, having read the report of the tripartite mission, issued in May this year, and having heard the information provided by the social partners of the country, we are bound to regret being once again in a session of the Committee in which it is not possible to note consolidated progress in compliance with the obligations under the Convention. Indeed, the information provided by the social partners shows that a number of social dialogue institutions in the country are still paralysed, and that there are undue acts of interference in the establishment and internal affairs of employers’ and workers’ organizations, disregard for the right of the most representative organizations to elect their own representatives and the refusal to grant them credentials for their participation in the various social dialogue forums.

We note with great concern that the Government of El Salvador has gone ahead with the ratification of a series of ILO Conventions without complying with the requirement to carry out effective prior consultations with the social partners.

The work of the present Committee shows that the recognition of social dialogue and mechanisms that include the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations are fundamental factors in the functioning of the machinery for the adoption and review of ILO standards.

The definition of strategic priorities at the national level is a function that must only be carried forward after first identifying the challenges and needs related to the implementation of an international labour standard. The effectiveness of a ratification in a specific country is ineluctably linked to the recognition of the experience and views of the constituents concerning the subject to be regulated and the development of basic agreement on the strategy for the implementation of a Convention in the country.

In the present case, we are confronted by a dual issue, in which not only are the established consultation bodies not consulted, but when they are convened, this occurs in a hostile atmosphere, in which the representative nature of organizations is disregarded or their representatives are not free to express their views.

In light of the discussion, we hope that the Government of El Salvador will adopt appropriate measures to guarantee the necessary conditions for social dialogue in the country and will undertake to establish and operate institutionalized, transparent, predictable and legally binding consultation mechanisms which ensure compliance with the Convention in law and practice, with ILO technical assistance, where necessary.

Worker member, Spain – The workers are observing with hope and expectation the efforts made by El Salvador, particularly in recent months, to promote and give effect to international labour standards, and particularly the provisions of the Convention.

In this regard, it is necessary to emphasize that the ILO high-level mission was able to note last month that the main tripartite social dialogue advisory body in the country, the Higher Labour Council, has been reactivated since 8 December 2021. And it is also important for us to emphasize that on 16 May 2022, the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador ratified five ILO Conventions thereby making progress in improving the protection of the rights of the working class.

However, without overlooking the fact that the reactivation of the Higher Labour Council represents progress in relation to tripartite social dialogue, we workers undoubtedly view with a certain amount of concern the manner in which the legislation in El Salvador maintains an excessive and inappropriate level of interference in the operational independence of trade unions, which prevents them from exercising their right to form part of advisory bodies.

The legal requirement to renew the executive bodies of trade unions every 12 months, with the consequent withdrawal of credentials if it is not carried out in time, combined with delays in the procedures for reviewing credentials, amount to a clear obstacle to the freedom of unions to organize, self-government and participation in social dialogue bodies.

For this reason, we consider that the Government of El Salvador must take further steps to promote social dialogue and must take the necessary measures to remove from the legislation any hint of interference in the election of representatives for tripartite consultations and the provision of credentials.

Government member, Colombia – I would like to refer to two aspects of the case. First, it is important to emphasize that workers’ and employers’ representatives must be freely chosen and represented on an equal footing, as provided in Convention No. 87 and Article 3 of Convention No. 144.

The Committee on Freedom of Association has indicated on many occasions that it is for workers’ and employers’ organizations to determine the conditions for the election of their leaders and that the authorities should refrain from any undue interference in the exercise of this right.

For this reason, we note with concern that the Government, on the one hand, continues not to recognize the ANEP as the most representative body of employers in El Salvador and, on the other, that it is still prohibited to meet and convene the ANEP to participate in social dialogue forums.

Second, Article 2 of the Convention refers to the requirement to ensure effective consultations and considers social dialogue to be an essential means of the development of joint proposals by workers, employers and the Government with a view to promoting growth, peace and general well-being. In this regard, to achieve genuine dialogue, and accordingly effective consultations, a climate of trust is required, as indicated by the Committee on Freedom of Association, based on respect for employers’ and workers’ organizations with a view to promoting stable and solid industrial relations.

We emphasize the importance of the reactivation of the Higher Labour Council and the holding of public meetings over the past six months. Nevertheless, we note with concern that, despite its reactivation, the Government is continuing to submit to the Legislative Assembly very important draft labour legislation, such as the new Labour Code and the Act on labour procedures, without consulting employers or workers.

In light of this, it is necessary to refer once again to the view of the Committee on Freedom of Association in its Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association that such consultations must be held prior to the submission by the Government of draft legislation to the Legislative Assembly or the adoption of labour, social or economic policy.

It is of the greatest importance for consultations to be held in a context of good faith and trust, and for employers and workers to be able to express their views, analysis and proposals in order to achieve real agreement and make progress in improving industrial relations through social dialogue.

In conclusion, we call on the Government, in addition to maintaining the regular meetings of the Higher Labour Council, to undertake to recognize the new President of the ANEP, José Agustín Martínez, with a view to creating a climate of trust, and to allow the ANEP to participate in all tripartite social dialogue forums and hold effective consultations on matters related to the ILO and on all subjects related to national labour and social policies.

Employer member, Honduras – Today we are discussing a very serious case. The violation of the right to social dialogue of the most representative organizations, as is the case of the ANEP in El Salvador, is a threat to social stability, peace and the good governance that must prevail in States. It is also a threat against employment, to which workers are entitled, and constitutes a very serious failure to give effect to one of the fundamental principles of the ILO, namely social dialogue.

We regret that for the fifth consecutive year we are examining the same case. There is no progress to welcome in El Salvador, where the same violations of the Convention are occurring, which I enumerate below:

1. The Government is continuing to appoint directors of tripartite and joint bodies arbitrarily without taking into consideration the provisions of the Convention, and it has adopted amendments to laws which undermine social dialogue, and without taking into account that those amendments have to be repealed, as requested by the Committee of Experts.

2. The Government, the President, the Vice-President and the majority of ministers in the Government still do not recognize the ANEP as the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador.

3. The participation of employers in El Salvador in the Higher Labour Council continues to be incomplete because the Government has failed to adopt clear, predictable and legally binding standards and rules for the appointment of employers’ representatives, and in so doing it is once again in violation of the Convention. To date, two months after the election of the new President of the ANEP, the Government has not granted the corresponding credentials.

4. The Government did not consult the Higher Labour Council concerning the Conventions that it is submitting for ratification and the Conventions which have actually been ratified. All of this is in violation of various provisions of the Convention and has given rise to a political climate of uncertainty in relation to development policy and social progress.

In light of the above, we call on the Committee to take effective measures to ensure respect for the independence of the ANEP as the most representative employers’ organization so that it can participate fully in the various dialogue and tripartite consultation bodies.

I remind the Committee that social dialogue is only possible when employers’ and workers’ organizations are able to act independently, in technical terms and with access to information, without fear of any type of reprisal by governments and with the certainty that the consensus and agreements reached through social dialogue will be respected and given effect in practice.

Employer member, Panama – The report of the ILO high-level tripartite mission to El Salvador notes that, as the most representative employers’ organization, the ANEP must enjoy effective participation in social dialogue, tripartite consultation and the Higher Labour Council. The members of the Higher Labour Council representing employers and workers must be designated freely by their constituency on an equal footing.

As the most representative organization of employers, the ANEP must be respected and accorded due consideration by all the national authorities, in the same way as for workers. This is nothing new and those of us who have been participating in the ILO for many years have seen how the ANEP, as the most representative employers’ organization, participates in this Organization.

El Salvador has ratified the Convention and compliance with all aspects of the Convention, not as a percentage, is an obligation for the country which transcends the mandate of the current Government. Social dialogue and tripartite consultation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, which is the ANEP, forms part of the values set out in the Convention with which the Government is required to be in compliance, and to which it is not giving effect.

Coming here, and failing to be in compliance with the Convention, but telling us that it is ratifying other Conventions, is like a child telling the teacher that the homework has not been done but giving her an apple. The apple is welcome, but the homework needs to be done. It needs to be in compliance with the Convention and recognize and respect the ANEP as the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador, and not to try to undermine in this Committee the ILO supervisory mechanisms which have shown themselves to be very effective.

Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare – I am a little shocked that there are two types of countries in relation to this issue. The first is a little like the description given by the Worker representative here, and the other consists of many persons who are not from the country expressing views without focusing on the conclusions of the high-level mission, but who have pulled out exactly the same content and rhetoric as exactly a year ago, as if there had not been progress.

I wish to make it clear that nine months for the delivery of credentials has only happened in special cases, and we are talking about 2 per cent of the trade union movement in El Salvador for which there have been delays, which have been for a maximum of seven or eight months. The others have been delivered in a month or a month and a half, and the very small numbers for which a review was carried out was because, for example, employers indicated on the basis of evidence that they were victims of extortion by those trade union leaders, for which we have the documents. This is not generally the case and is more a matter of administrative and criminal investigations that are being carried out because employers came forward and complained of extortion by such groups, which were not really trade union matters, as they were involved in other issues and were asking for money and other things. These are the only special cases that there have been.

The other matter relates to the most representative organization that we have to recognize, and I wish to indicate that when we brought an end to the Higher Labour Council before establishing the new Council, at that time the Employer Vice-President was engineer Agustín Martínez, who was then Vice-President of the ANEP. The ANEP subsequently organized an election and the current President of the ANEP is the Vice-President of the Council. So, with regard to non-recognition, I do not know what has to be done to recognize him. The forums exist, and there was an eminently democratic election, as a result of which, in accordance with the established procedure, as I indicated, the current President of the ANEP is the Vice-President of the Council. So I do not see the problem. Perhaps in terms of representativity, the ANEP has some regrets. The occasion on which the ANEP was the most representative was when its President was Elías Antonio Saca, who was catapulted by the ANEP to be the President of the Republic. That was a type of eminently political activism and he ended up as President. Obviously, I believe that was the time that the ANEP was best represented. It might be added that he is a former President of the Republic who has been prosecuted for criminal acts and is currently serving a prison sentence. However, under our Government, the election procedures were fully registered with the appropriate documentation, as demonstrated by the fact that the current President of the ANEP is the current employer Vice-President of the Council.

This is the situation in practice that we can report. I do not understand what more is required for recognition. We have followed the rules that we have, and the Council legally has to hold two meetings a year, and in three months we have already held five meetings of the new Council, and there have been many more bilateral meetings, as we have carried out bilateral meetings and consultations. I do not know what else a State can do. They are in all the forums that are established.

I do not know whether bilateral action comes within the scope of the Convention because the ANEP negotiated the establishment of 20 or 21 bilateral forums with Governments which held office a long time ago, which excluded and historically left out workers’ representatives so that they were not represented in the direct negotiations with the Government. We are therefore talking of the creation of 20 bipartite forums in which only the Government and the ANEP came to agreement, but workers’ representatives were excluded from them. We are making an effort and we have told the Vice-Presidents representing both workers and employers that they have to be made into tripartite bodies in order to give full effect to the Convention. This is what we are doing, and this is close to what the Employer spokesperson was saying about the new openness in this regard; it is operational but is not tripartite because historically the workers have always been excluded.

The case is of great concern because the ANEP, in conjunction with the employers of Central America, took a public position of not being in favour of Convention No. 190; the Employer spokesperson took part in these decisions. We were not in agreement with this position and now with the intervention of the Employer member of El Salvador, a representative of the ANEP, in May we took the serious historical step of undertaking the ratification. It is very clear to us that the ratification of ILO Conventions is a serious step for these representatives.

We are on the path towards the construction of a new model in El Salvador in which there is justice and equality for all sectors. The pension reform many years ago was not subject to tripartite discussion or examined in councils. It was discussed by deputies, who were corporate deputies who answered to the powers that be and came to bilateral agreements. Today, the Government of the Republic places emphasis on tripartite social dialogue involving all the partners.

We will continue to make every possible effort to build a Republic of El Salvador based on justice, with equality for all the partners. The only difference with the new Government is that at that time, and I can repeat it, when the ANEP occupied the presidency of the Republic through Elías Antonio Saca, the position that I occupy today was held by employer leaders who came here as Ministers of Labour. Moreover, before and afterwards, they have continued being advisers to powerful groups, which they defended. Today we have not come to shift the balance or to exclude anyone. The only one that is still here is the weight of our productive sector of employers, but they are here under equal conditions counterbalanced by the workers’ representatives, and this is the reason why there are so many difficulties.

When they refer to and talk about tweets, I wish to say to them that we have not yet amended the law. The legal system of the country operates on the basis of legislative decrees and executive decrees, not tweets. A tweet is not a legislative or executive decree, and I profoundly regret that they have focused totally on a subject that is a year old, and I do not accept that they are right, not even slightly right, nor do I give them weight in view of the little importance accorded to the subject in the conclusions of the mission that visited El Salvador, to which we gave absolutely all the assistance that was requested.

It is lamentable that there are neighbouring countries in which trade union leaders are being murdered, and those who are appointed to administrative boards engage at night in issuing threats, and even murdering neighbours, and they sometimes become the spokespersons of employers there and at the international level, but who object to collective contracts and do not sign collective contracts. When El Salvador ratified Conventions Nos 87 and 98, they spread the rumour that the international community, and particularly the EU, had exerted pressure through the tariff system.

Now we have ratified five Conventions in response to the explicit requests and the needs of the working class and the productive sector in this country.

We will continue making efforts and working hard. Workers’ and employers’ representative are welcome and we will continue working.

Worker members – We thank the Government for the clarification. Before setting out our final conclusions, I would like to make a preliminary comment. On behalf of the Workers’ group, we would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Workers’ group notes that a large proportion of the comments made by Employer members during this sitting on the application of the Convention in El Salvador have been outside the scope and content of the Convention that is under examination, and we therefore ask that they are not reflected in the conclusions of the sitting.

In our view, this is not a case of deterioration, and we see certain positive steps that are going in the right direction. The fact that the Government accepted the high-level tripartite mission, and the positive development of certain legislative texts, as well as the approval of the five ILO Conventions, as noted, are in themselves proof of the effectiveness of our Committee’s work and its credibility. Nevertheless, we insist that the Government must take the necessary measures to give full effect to the Convention. This involves three measures: first, guarantee the full membership of the Higher Labour Council as soon as possible; second, simplify and facilitate the procedure for the designation of workers’ representatives; and third, the provision of the Labour Code which requires the annual renewal of the executive boards of unions would have to be amended.

In general, we call on the Government to give full effect to the recommendations of the tripartite mission.

Employer members – We have listened carefully to all the interventions, and very particularly to that of the Minister. We thank the representative of the EU who clarified the concepts contained in the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission.

When other speakers referred to it, it appeared to me to be a document with which I was not familiar. It is surprising to us that some consider the ratification of a Convention to be positive even when, however positive it may be, it has been carried out in violation of Convention No. 144, which is the instrument that we are examining here today. The end does not justify the means. With the clear admission, on the Twitter account of President Bukele, of his systematic intention to exclude the ANEP, which was conveniently not referred to by those who see progress in other statements made by the Government, it is clear that what has been said by the Minister is not in conformity with compliance with the provisions of Convention No. 144.

The facts show the lack of the effective will to apply the law appropriately in practice, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, despite the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021, despite the seven observations published by the Committee of Experts, despite the many urgent interventions requested from the Director-General of the ILO, and the statements made to the high-level tripartite mission that recently visited the country.

The situation of non-compliance with the Convention by El Salvador is continuous, serious and urgent. In this respect, we urge the Government to: refrain from interfering in the establishment of workers’ and employers’ organizations and to facilitate, in accordance with the national and international legislation, the due representation of legitimate organizations of employers by issuing the corresponding credentials; refrain from attacking and discrediting the ANEP, the most representative employers’ organization, and its leaders; draw up in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules for the reactivation and full operation of the Higher Labour Council; reactivate without delay effective consultation in the Council and the operation of other tripartite bodies, respecting the independence of the most representative organizations of workers and employers, and through social dialogue, in order to ensure its full operation without any interference; in consultation with the social partners, adopt without delay all the necessary measures to amend the 23 decrees adopted on 3 June 2021 so that they are in compliance with the guarantees set out in the ILO Conventions ratified by El Salvador; continue having recourse to ILO technical assistance; and submit a detailed report on the application of the Convention in law and practice to the Committee of Experts before its next session this year.

In view of the seriousness of the situation described, we call for this case to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed on issues concerning compliance with the Convention. The Committee noted that the Government did not provide any written information to the Committee.

The Committee also took note of the recent ILO high-level tripartite mission that took place in May 2022. The Committee regretted that five ILO Conventions were ratified without consulting the most representative employers’ organization.

The Committee noted with deep concern the multiple allegations of interference by the authorities in the appointment of employers’ and workers’ representatives in public tripartite and joint bodies.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee urges the Government to:

- refrain from any aggression and from interfering in the establishment and the activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations, in particular the National Business Association (ANEP);

- ensure the effective operation of the Higher Labour Council (CST) and other tripartite entities, respecting the full autonomy of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and through social dialogue in order to guarantee their full functioning without any interference;

- refrain from unilaterally appointing workers’ and employers’ representatives for tripartite consultations and institutions, and to develop, in full consultation with the social partners, the appointment procedures of those representatives;

- repeal the legal obligation on trade unions to request renewal of their legal status every 12 months and the 23 decrees adopted on 3 June 2021; and

- develop a time-bound road map to implement without delay all the recommendations made by the ILO high-level tripartite mission.

The Committee requests the Government to present a detailed report on the application of the Convention in law and practice to the Committee of Experts before 1 September 2022 in consultation with the social partners.

The Committee encourages the Government to continue to avail itself of technical assistance from the Office to ensure full compliance with its obligations under the Convention.

Another Government representative – On behalf of the delegation of El Salvador, I take note of the conclusions read out in the Committee.

I take this occasion to recall that El Salvador is respectful of the supervisory bodies of the International Labour Organization. However, we regret that the Committee has not examined the written communication that we sent on various occasions as an official reply to the Committee of Experts. We deeply regret that in its conclusions the Committee does not recognize any indication of progress, and that it has not taken note of the report of the high-level tripartite mission that this very Committee sent to El Salvador.

We regret that the Committee has ignored the intervention by the Worker representative of El Salvador. There are five tripartite social dialogue bodies in the country which are operating effectively furthering social dialogue and tripartite consultation in accordance with the Convention.

We regret that the conclusions are drafted in injurious and condemnatory language, far from the elegance and diplomacy that are characteristic of this Committee, and contrary to the ILO’s spirit of cooperation.

With regard to the conclusions, with great respect, we express our concern. Is it within the competence of this Committee to tell a State to amend or repeal its internal legislation? That would appear to be beyond its competence.

The Minister of Labour, in his speech to the ILO, stated clearly and categorically that our commitment to the ILO is unshakable, but he also referred to the dignity and sovereignty of States.

We reaffirm our commitment in El Salvador to continue giving priority to social dialogue with all partners and sectors without privileging any specific power group.

Finally, we undertake to analyse the Committee’s conclusions.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2021, Publication: 109th ILC session (2021)

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare – I wish to place emphasis on the commitment of the Government of El Salvador, under the leadership of President Bukele, to tripartite social dialogue and the deepening of democracy as an essential tool for building agreements for the development of the country. We know that only united, as employers, workers and the Government, can we move forward.

As a founding Member of the ILO, we are committed to the promotion of the constituent standards and vision of the Organization. For that purpose, at the International Labour Conference in 2019, where I made the commitment to reactivate the Higher Labour Council upon my return to the country, we took the necessary measures for its restoration without delay. This was a turning point that brought an end to six years of breakdown in tripartite social dialogue in El Salvador and constituted a starting point for building major agreements for the development of the country and the well-being of the population of El Salvador. The Council commenced its meetings and concluded important agreements, such as the development of a decent work strategy, with ILO cooperation, and the commencement of the implementation of a basic and participatory road map.

Similarly, the National Minimum Wages Council was established as a tripartite forum, for which the electoral procedure was free and transparent to the total satisfaction of workers and employers. Nevertheless, with the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected everyone, we had to readjust. In El Salvador, we saw how other countries with higher levels of development and stronger systems of protection were encountering serious difficulties in managing the pandemic. For that reason, the Government took the decision to protect the life and health of our population, which implied focusing all efforts on the management of the pandemic. This involved, in the beginning, the establishment of an epidemiological cordon, a strict quarantine and action to educate and raise the awareness of the population. We strengthened our health system, built a specialized modern hospital designed in a programme for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19 and, more recently, we have been implementing a successful vaccination programme. For all that, our country has been recognized by the World Health Organization as one of the most successful countries in the management of the pandemic.

As Minister of Labour, we were constantly involved in processes of dialogue with branches and employers’ and workers’ representatives. In the same way as everyone else, the pandemic resulted in a contraction of the economy. Nevertheless, the measures and policies adopted by the Government as a whole backed up by broad processes of dialogue with the partners helped to minimize the economic and social impact of the crisis. For example, the Government, together with employers’ and workers’ representatives, developed the Employment Protection Act, which contains a broad and historic economic programme of support for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and the informal sector so as to provide the financial support required at that time.

One of the major objectives was also to protect economic activities and workers who were performing their work, for which purpose we developed together with the employers and workers a general biosecurity protocol and we jointly drew up 2,636 protocols adapted to the specific conditions of the various economic and entrepreneurial fields with a view to protecting the health and life of both workers and employers.

We also inform the honourable Committee that we have initiated processes that have strengthened tripartite social dialogue, such as the participatory development of the Strategic Institutional Plan of the Ministry of Labour for the period 2020–24, which was for the first time subject to dialogue with both employers and workers, and which sets out the transversal aim of strengthening tripartite social dialogue.

Similarly, I can indicate that we designed and validated with employers and workers the system of labour market information, which will provide valuable information as a basis for decision-making and public policies on labour matters. This system benefited from ILO technical cooperation and is a tool that will strengthen informed social dialogue in El Salvador.

During the second half of 2020, with a view to economic recovery, a dialogue forum was established with employers in which a plan for orderly and sure economic recovery was drawn up that is of vital importance, to which associations, enterprises and workers made a very strong contribution in general.

Moreover, in my capacity as Minister, I spend 70 per cent of my time in social dialogue between workers and employers seeking solutions to the problems that arise. All these elements lead me to say loud and clearly that our management of social dialogue in the country has never slackened and, indeed, on the contrary, has been strengthened.

Since our arrival in Government, we have been transparent and have shown that we are a Government with clear rules, committed to providing legal certainty and creating a conducive environment for private investment with a view to generating more and better jobs. And we have also said that the only thing that is not negotiable in this Government is the genuine rights of workers.

We understand that, as humans, we may make some mistakes, but our spirit of dialogue is clear and strong. We work hand in hand with employers because, very clearly, they are important actors in the development of the country. Furthermore, we believe that the great majority of employers in our country are law-abiding, although there exist a small minority who are in violation of labour laws, including the fiscal laws of the country. We need to show strength in the enforcement of the law with these enterprises.

I have also called for further information on cases of anti-union violence in the country. As a Government, we are committed to demanding justice for acts of anti-union violence, as they cannot go unpunished. We will not return to the dark and painful times of the past for the trade union movement in our country. Since our arrival, we have been open to the claims of the trade union movement, which we regard as an important and key actor for national development.

The Government of El Salvador respects freedom of expression. During the two years of its existence, there have been 37 anti-government demonstrations for various reasons. And I can tell you with pride that our forces of order have not used a single rubber bullet nor a single canister of teargas to repress our people, as was done by previous governments.

On 1 May last, International Workers’ Day was a historic day in our country. The trade union movement traditionally expresses itself through demonstrations in the streets and the forces of order traditionally erect barriers three blocks away from the President’s residence so that the demonstrators do not have access to it. On the most recent first of May, for the first time, yours truly and other government authorities, on the instructions of President Nayib Bukele, went out to receive the trade union movement and the same units of the forces of order which in the past had been used to repress the people, now opened the barricades so that the representatives of the workers could pass through and were received at the President’s residence and their claims heard. This is how we are now working in El Salvador.

With reference to cases of trade union violence, I will refer first to Abel Vega, who was murdered in 2010. We have recently received the report of the former Public Prosecutor of the Republic, who shelved the case of the murder of this trade union leader as it had not been possible to identify those responsible. In this regard, I wish to inform you, Madam Chair, that in my capacity as Minister, I have requested the new Public Prosecutor to reopen the case, as we consider that under the previous administrations the Office of the Public Prosecutor did not investigate these crimes diligently. It is of essential importance for us to deliver justice and to ensure that these acts do not go unpunished.

In the case of the vile murder of the trade union leader Weder Arturo Meléndez of the trade union of the municipal authorities of San Salvador, ASTRAM (the Association of Municipal Workers), committed in August 2020, our response has been strong and we have publicly condemned this unworthy act and we have put together a full file of charges, interviews and relevant information to clarify the situation, which we have handed to the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Republic.

Our voice has been strong and clear and we immediately called an extraordinary meeting of the Council of Ministers of Central America and the Dominican Republic to denounce this cowardly act, which was condemned by the Council. We believe that this act must lead to greater awareness by all governments in the region to seek justice and ensure that such cases do not happen again.

The file has also been sent to the Freedom of Association Branch of the ILO with the request to ensure follow-up. We will be providing information on the progress made in the application of justice in these cases.

Our mission is to overcome the stigma affecting the trade union movement, which unfortunately in our country and the region, instead of being seen as defenders of human rights, has been badly viewed and denigrated. For this reason, we have recently launched the Trade Union Training Institute to strengthen their technical capacities. Their influence on the development of public policies is necessary to proceed from protest to proposals, and we believe that this will be a historical achievement for the trade union movement in our country and in our administration.

I wish to inform you that tripartite social dialogue is not broken in our country. Quite the contrary, as we have taken action for its re-establishment and we are committed to continuing to seek consensus through dialogue.

I would also like to add that our invitation to Employer and Worker representatives has always been open, because we recognize that there is no other way to go forward than by uniting the strength of the tripartite partners. We reiterate our readiness to receive the direct contacts mission, which is now more relevant than ever, and can visit the country whenever it considers it appropriate. We also reiterate our request for ILO technical cooperation to support us in going forward with the strengthening of tripartite social dialogue in our country.

Finally, we reiterate our attachment to and respect for international standards in the field of human rights, and particularly labour rights. We are proud to promote the principles and standards espoused by this Organization for the benefit of all the social partners. We share with the international community the aspiration of the construction of a more just and inclusive society with decent employment for all, in which social dialogue, in our view, is the cornerstone guiding these processes for the well-being of our population.

Employer members – I would like to start by thanking the Government for its report provided to the Committee, while emphasizing our concern at its implications, as this is the fourth consecutive occasion on which it has been necessary to examine this same issue, in view of a situation that basically remains practically the same as when it was examined for the first time. We recall with concern that in 2017, 2018 and 2019, the ILO Centenary, this Committee discussed and adopted very concrete conclusions, which set out the measures that the Government would have to take, in both law and practice, for the application of the Convention, which is a very relevant ILO governance Convention, and which is still not given effect despite what the Government representative said.

In view of the short time available to me to make my presentation on such a serious and urgent case, with reiterated violations, I invite the members of the Committee to look back at the reports of the Committee in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

The previous examinations of the case include the term “deep concern”, used by both the Committee of Experts and the present Committee; direct contacts missions by the Office; as well as various requests for urgent action made to the Director-General of the ILO, Guy Ryder, by the National Business Association (ANEP), which is the most representative organization, and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), concerning government interference in the administration and operation of this organization which, as I said, is the most representative.

These include attacks on its leaders, serious deficiencies in the operation of social dialogue and tripartite consultation, under conditions very similar to those described in the report of the Committee of Experts, and the national situation experienced by workers’ organizations. When we discussed the case in 2019, we expressed the sincere hope that the new Government of President Bukele, which had taken office a few days earlier, would take this major opportunity to reverse this serious situation with a view to the governability of the country, the promotion of good relations between the social partners and the Government, and compliance with the obligations deriving from the Convention, among other reasons.

In this regard, it is worth recalling that, when the conclusions of the case were adopted in 2019, the Government representative took the floor and expressed agreement. I could have referred to certain phrases and paragraphs that he mentioned, but it seems to me that the same Government representative recognized and accepted the conclusions, and undertook to give them effect, as well as to receive the direct contacts mission and ILO assistance, as he repeated today. It therefore seems to me to be of great importance to note this acceptance and to take the corresponding action.

The Government of President Bukele has failed to give effect to what was said in 2019. It has not only failed to improve the situation in the country, and the operation of tripartite consultation and social dialogue in all its forms, but the national situation has deteriorated in an extremely worrying manner. And this has occurred within the context of a period of increased concern in general, institutional and democratic terms, and in relation to the rule of law, with the independence of the authorities being undermined, and counterweights and supervisory bodies being diminished, including the necessary autonomy of the most representative employers’ organization, the ANEP.

For greater clarity and for the information of the Committee, I will now provide specific information to describe the situation. The Higher Labour Council, the national body created for social dialogue and tripartite consultation, has been inactive since 2013 up to now. In accordance with the report of the Committee of Experts, and contrary to what was said by the Government representative, the Council was reactivated in September 2019, and effect was given to this undertaking. Three plenary sessions were held, tripartite agreement was reached on the process for the preparation of an employment policy, ILO technical assistance was requested, work began, etc. What is certain is that since 12 May 2020, all activity by the Council has been suspended. This is the real situation, not the one described by the Government representative, under the pretext of the pandemic. The world has not been paralysed, the ILO has not stopped working, and we cannot leave tripartism to one side under the pretext that there is a health situation that might impede the work of the Council.

Do not think that this was because of the pandemic, as I have said. No, during this period, the Government of El Salvador issued invitations for information meetings to employers’ organizations affiliated to the ANEP, from economic sectors with a high level of state regulation, which depend on authorizations and are subject to sanctions. This makes them especially vulnerable in terms of agreeing to participate and calling for dialogue to be carried out through the ANEP, the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador, and through the Council, as indicated above.

Perhaps these are the meetings, to which the ANEP was certainly not invited as I have said, to which the Government representative is referring. I emphasize that the ANEP was not invited to these meetings, and it is the most representative organization in the country that we are talking about.

In line with this attitude of non-compliance, the Government has refused to swear in directors selected and appointed by employers for tripartite bodies. On 12 May 2020, the President of the Republic, acting in violation of the independence and autonomy of workers’ and employers’ organizations, disregarded the President of the ANEP as a counterpart representing employers’ organizations, even though only 13 days earlier he had been elected unanimously by 48 affiliated organizations from the various productive sectors of the country. The Government indicated that everything would return to normal when a new President was elected, which is clearly an act of interference and a flagrant violation of the independence of the ANEP.

And there have been a series of events of this type, even right in the middle of the 109th Session of the Conference, on Monday, 7 June, when the Government of El Salvador announced a supposed new employers’ association established by microenterprises, which it is intending to convert into a partner for the Government. In this way, the practice is continuing of setting up false organizations to avoid social dialogue with the ANEP, as the most representative employers’ body in El Salvador. The deceit is unacceptable. It is destroying and undermining the essence of the ILO.

The events described show the extreme contempt for social dialogue and the failure to comply with the obligations assumed by the Government of El Salvador when ratifying the Convention. Tripartite consultation and effective social dialogue undertaken in good faith are only possible in a climate in which the rule of law is guaranteed and which is free from any aggression, interference or abuse. As can be seen, this is one of the most serious cases of continued failure to comply with the Conventions voluntarily ratified by El Salvador. We hope that the Government understands that the success of such participation, as it announced over its social media before coming, is based on compliance with the requirements of the Convention and in practice on specific acts and verifiable outcomes, and not only on its word, which regrettably has not been kept up to now. We will follow the development of this discussion very carefully.

Worker members – This is the fourth consecutive time that the Committee has been called upon to examine the application of the Convention by the Government of El Salvador. After so many appearances before our Committee, we would have hoped to see some improvements in giving full effect to the Convention. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In fact, we must deplore that the situation has severely deteriorated since our last discussion. The Worker members would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the following issues.

First, the Committee of Experts’ report indicates that, following six years of inactivity, the Higher Labour Council had finally been reactivated in 2019. However, hopes for the re-establishment of tripartite dialogue in the country were quickly dashed as the Council held only three meetings. After November 2019, the Council simply never reconvened again. This clearly sends a very bad signal as to the commitment of the Government to respect and to ensure tripartite consultations.

On the basis of the comments of the Committee of Experts, we note that, during the last session that was held two years ago, the Higher Labour Council discussed the methodological proposal and road map to be followed for the development of the national strategy for the generation of decent employment. However, the Government provided no further information as to the outcome of the discussions, nor the follow-up given to any recommendations made.

We recall that, in ratifying the Convention, the Government of El Salvador undertook to operate procedures which ensure effective consultations with respect to the matters concerning the activities of the International Labour Organization pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and that consultations shall be undertaken at least once a year.

We add that, pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention, for the purpose of tripartite consultations, the representatives of workers shall be freely chosen by their representative organizations. The Government does not respect that provision as it does not respect the free choices of workers’ representatives and proceeds unilaterally to the appointment of workers’ representatives.

In addition to this, we wish to emphasize that trade union registration procedures in El Salvador are long, drawn out and arbitrary as they grant full discretion to the authorities to delay trade union registration. We recall that under El Salvador law, unions must request the renewal of their legal personality with the authorities every 12 months. Without this registration, unions lose their legal personality, which prevents them from operating as unions, legally holding property and bank accounts, and conducting any trade union activities, including engaging in collective bargaining.

Against this background, the Workers’ group informs the Committee that, in January 2021, the Government decided unilaterally to withdraw the credentials of all democratic unions. This kind of practice does not provide the necessary framework conditions for tripartite consultations.

Finally, we must recall that, as mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention, there is a close link between this Convention and freedom of association. In that regard, we regret the acts of intimidation and threats, targeting members and leaders of independent unions in the country. There have been concerning reports of union leaders receiving threats and being followed by unknown individuals on motorcycles while their phones and communications are being tapped. We recall that attacks, intimidation, threats and harassment are not compatible with the Convention.

Worker member, El Salvador – Taking into account the ILO definition of social dialogue, which is essential for compliance with the Convention, and respect for the full exercise of freedom of association, we demand that the ANEP respects the human right of freedom of association, the establishment of unions, free from any restriction or coercion, collective bargaining and strike action in all sectors. And we call on the Government to be the guarantor of compliance with these rights.

We condemn the doublespeak of the ANEP, which claims that the Government is not in compliance with the Convention, when it is the organization that maintains exclusivity of representation of employers on all joint and tripartite bodies.

We reject all types of interference by the ANEP in relation to trade union representation, in seeking to favour allies and organizations close to it, by endeavouring to delegitimize lawful and representative organizations. We demand that the ANEP respects the autonomy and independence that we guarantee for trade unions under the terms of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), for the election of our representatives.

We support the recent reforms to the various official independent institutions with the objective of democratizing participation by employer representatives with the objective of ensuring that their governance is in accordance with the terms of the Convention. Bodies that have traditionally been controlled by the ANEP should operate on the basis of social interests and should not favour the economic interests of large enterprises.

We therefore demand that, in the same way as for trade unions, the representatives of employers are also elected and appointed freely and in a context of the equality of members. It is in our interest for small and medium-sized enterprises to participate and be well represented in these bodies, and that the ANEP does not impose itself as the sole representative of this sector.

The Convention establishes procedures for tripartite consultation and the re-examination at appropriate intervals of unratified Conventions. In this regard, we wish to recognize the readiness and political will of this Government, through the Ministry of Labour, which has initiated the administrative process for the ratification of important ILO Conventions, including: the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), and the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190).

We recognize that, despite the situation experienced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government has made efforts to promote conditions for tripartite social dialogue. For that purpose, meetings have been held virtually, and sometimes face-to-face, in the five tripartite bodies, which include the Higher Labour Council, in accordance with biosecurity protocols, so as to give priority to the safety and life of workers.

We reiterate, in our capacity as representatives of workers and ILO constituents, our support for the action that the Government of El Salvador has been taking, and we do not agree with the continued inclusion of our country on the short list. What we really need is ILO technical support and a visit by a direct contacts mission to verify the situation that we have described.

Equitable terms of employment, decent working conditions, occupational safety and health, and development for the benefit of all, cannot be achieved without the active participation of workers, employers and the Government through social dialogue. We hope that the conclusions of this case will set out clear and specific elements and a precise time frame as a basis for the urgent adoption of a plan to resolve the issues identified during this discussion, thereby guaranteeing full compliance with the Convention.

Employer member, El Salvador – We have listened carefully to the explanations provided by the Government of El Salvador on the failure to comply with the Convention, which are far from what is happening in my country.

Two years ago, in this Committee, we expressed our optimism at the commitment made by the new Government to comply with international Conventions and submit to the ILO supervisory mechanisms. Nevertheless, what we have today in El Salvador is systematic harassment at the highest level of the State, through the person of the President of the Republic, against the President of the ANEP and against the ANEP itself.

The objective is to exert pressure until the President of the ANEP resigns from office. The seriousness of the situation has led to us, with the support of the IOE, requesting the urgent intervention of the Director-General of the ILO. Employers must continue to be free to elect their representatives.

On 1 May, the first day of the new legislature with the majority of the President of the Republic, the deputies dismissed the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Public Prosecutor. Now the President of the Republic has total control over the three state authorities and has eliminated any body that provides checks and balances. And the Government is going for even more. Now it wants total control of production, as it announced publicly on 1 June 2021 on the occasion of the second anniversary of it taking office.

The President announced in his speech: “The fifth step is freeing ourselves from the ideological apparatus.” Two days later, through his personal Twitter and Facebook accounts, he said: “Today, I have sent 23 legislative initiatives to the Legislative Assembly to remove the ANEP from the boards of autonomous bodies and accordingly to make them truly work in the service of the people. The fifth step in our struggle is beginning, now the real employers will be represented on autonomous bodies and will ensure the real interests of private enterprise as a whole.” The leaders have been in the minority on the governing boards of tripartite and joint bodies and have offered their professional and entrepreneurial experience to improve the performance of these bodies.

Those reforms were approved on the same day. Through them, the President of the Republic gave himself the power to nominate leaders who allegedly represent employers, and to dismiss them.

All of this is very serious, not only because it is in violation of the Convention, but also because it clearly shows the authoritarian nature of the Government. The so-called “fifth step” eliminates the independence of employers’ organizations to choose their representatives freely and independently. It therefore seems to us to be essential to urge the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to amend the 23 decrees approved on 2 June 2021 so that they are in compliance with the guarantees set out in the Convention. Similar conclusions were adopted by the Committee in 2016.

I now need to provide a brief summary of the conclusions adopted by the Committee in 2019, to which the Government has not only failed to give effect, but which it has even gone against. The Government has continued to interfere in the establishment of employers’ organizations by putting forward cooperatives and microenterprises as employers’ representatives. It has not consulted the most representative organizations on the establishment of clear rules for the reactivation and functioning of the Higher Labour Council.

The Government only reactivated the Higher Labour Council temporarily for six months, and it is now once again inactive. A mere four weeks ago, and only in writing, the Government initiated the process of the submission of three ILO Conventions and six Recommendations, without any consultation of the inactive Higher Labour Council. The Government has still not sworn in the directors nominated by the ANEP in the El Salvador Social Security Institute, the Maritime Port Authority and the International Centre for Fairs and Conventions. The Government did not respect the independence of the most representative organizations of employers when amending the 23 laws referred to previously. There was no direct contacts mission before the 109th International Labour Conference.

Over the past 12 years, we employers’ organizations have suffered from violence, harassment and exclusion by the Government through every possible means, which is contrary to the ILO’s fundamental Conventions. For this reason, the announcement by the Government of the so-called “fifth step” gives rise to the greatest concern, as it may mean an intensification of such acts. We all need social dialogue as an instrument to seek solutions with a view to promoting development, attracting investment and generating decent employment in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic, the national legislation and international Conventions.

It is for that reason that we have had recourse to the ILO. And that is why we are requesting the Committee to adopt the conclusions proposed by the Employer spokesperson.

Government member, Portugal – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The Candidate Countries, Montenegro and Albania, the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, as well as the Republic of Moldova, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights, as safeguarded by the fundamental ILO Conventions and other human rights instruments.

We firmly believe that compliance with ILO Conventions is essential for social and economic stability in any country and that an environment conducive to dialogue and trust between employers, workers and governments is the basis for solid and sustainable growth, and inclusive societies.

The EU and its Member States stand with the people of El Salvador and we are committed to strengthening our cooperation through political and trade ties.

The EU–Central America Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement, which entered into force in 2014, and the provisional application of the trade pillar of the EU–Central America Association Agreement since 2013, provide a framework for developing our partnership, including cooperation on trade and sustainable development, in particular on the effective implementation, in law and in practice, of the fundamental ILO Conventions.

We note with deep regret that no progress has been made in complying with the Convention and that social dialogue continues to be dysfunctional in the country, even though the case was already discussed in the last three sessions of the Committee, including as a serious case in 2017.

We welcome the inauguration and first session of the Higher Labour Council (Consejo Superior de Trabajo (CST)) in September 2019 and the measures taken by the Government to initiate social dialogue and reactivate the CST following the Committee’s 2020 report. We welcome the finalization of the National Decent Work Policy with ILO technical assistance. We note, however, observations of the ANEP alleging acts of intimidation against its newly elected President. We ask the Government to provide further information with regard to these allegations, as well as detailed and updated information on the measures adopted to ensure the effective operation of the CST and on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held within the framework of the CST.

Regrettably, we note the Committee’s observations that the Government has not provided information on the tripartite consultations held on the draft protocol on the submission procedure, nor on the progress made with its adoption.

The EU and its Member States join the Committee’s repeated call to share updated information on this issue without further delay.

The Government has equally failed to provide information in its report on the tripartite consultations held on matters relating to international labour standards covered by the Convention. We request the Government once again to rectify these reporting obligations.

We also ask the Government to continue providing detailed and updated information on the measures adopted or envisaged to promote tripartism and social dialogue in the country within the context of ILO technical assistance and on their outcome. We urge the Government to honour constructively and genuinely its commitment to effectively implement in law and in practice all ratified ILO Conventions, including the fundamental Conventions and the Convention on tripartite consultation.

The EU and its Member States remain committed to joint constructive engagement with El Salvador, including through cooperation projects, which aim to strengthen the Government’s capacity to address the issues raised in the Committee’s report.

Government member, Barbados – I am delivering this statement on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC). We appreciate the information provided by the Government of the Republic of El Salvador, through the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare regarding compliance with the Convention.

GRULAC takes into account that in the 2019–20 report of the Committee of Experts, it includes, among other issues, the following quotation:

On 16 September 2019, once the Government, Worker and Employer representatives had been appointed, the CST was inaugurated and held its first session. The Government provideed in its report a list of the Government, Employer and Worker representatives selected. During the session, the members of the CST unanimously approved a communication informing the national and international communities of the reactivation of the CST and requested the ILO to continue providing technical assistance.

On 14 October 2019, the second session of the CST was held, during which unanimous approval was expressed for the preparation of a National Decent Work Policy with ILO technical assistance. The third session was held on 6 November 2019, in which the discussions, among other subjects, covered the methodological proposal and road map to be followed for the development of the National Strategy for the Generation of Decent Employment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected us all. We have faced an unprecedented crisis and continue to face new challenges every day. As stated by the distinguished representative of El Salvador, in his country, each sector, both business and labour, had its own challenges generated by the pandemic, which is why they needed support adapted to their specific needs. Faced with this extraordinary situation, the CST stopped meeting, but this did not mean a breakdown of tripartite social dialogue in El Salvador, which continued to function resulting in the development of general and specific biosafety protocols for each sector of the economy, the discussion of economic measures to minimize the impacts of COVID-19, as well as a gradual and orderly reopening of the economy. Both groups of employers and workers participated actively in these processes.

Similarly, in 2019, after the conclusion of the Conference Committee, the Government of El Salvador was urged to accept a direct contacts mission, which was accepted by Minister Castro, on behalf of the Government of El Salvador. Due to the pandemic, it has not yet been carried out. However, during his working visit to Geneva in May 2021, Minister Castro reaffirmed to the Director of the ILO International Labour Standards Department the will of his Government to receive said mission as soon as possible.

In light of the foregoing, we encourage the commitment of the Government of El Salvador to the application of the Convention in law and practice and we also encourage the ILO to continue providing technical cooperation to the Government.

Employer member, Guatemala – It is an honour to address the Committee. I represent the employers of Guatemala, but on this occasion, I will comment on the complaint against the Government filed with the Committee on Freedom of Association by the employers’ representatives of El Salvador.

As we are all aware, the Convention is key to furthering social dialogue, and enables governments, together with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, to reach tripartite agreements that benefit national development. Nevertheless, the Government of El Salvador has continued to violate the Convention by keeping the Higher Labour Council, a tripartite body of crucial importance and that must be consulted, inactive since 2013, only temporarily reactivating it between September 2019 and March 2020.

The current President of the ANEP was unanimously elected by its 48 member organizations on 29 April 2020. He was also appointed employer vice-chairperson of the Higher Labour Council. Thirteen days later, without any justification whatsoever, the Government, through a tweet from the President of the Republic, decided to withdraw his recognition, instructing its officials not to meet the ANEP. Since then, the Government of El Salvador has not convened a single session of the Higher Labour Council. Since then, the President of the Republic has been waging a continuous high-profile campaign to discredit, intimidate and harass the ANEP President, pressurizing affiliated employers’ organizations to remove him from office, thereby clearly interfering in the autonomy and independence of employers’ organizations to elect their representatives freely. This is a clear violation of Convention No. 87.

The Employers call on the Government of El Salvador to reactivate without delay the Higher Labour Council, with the participation of the ANEP, as the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador; to immediately cease exerting pressure on the ANEP affiliate employers’ organizations to seek the removal of its President; and to accept an ILO direct contacts mission before the end of this year.

Worker member, Argentina – The Committee of Experts has reiterated a series of comments to the Government of El Salvador, urging it “to establish without delay, in prior consultation with the social partners, clear and transparent rules for the nomination of workers’ representatives to the Higher Labour Council that comply with the criterion of representativity”.

Given that these basic criteria have been disregarded for some time, the Government has been called upon once again by this Committee to establish a constructive dialogue and to collaborate in finding a solution to the problems raised, so that the right to freedom of association can be fully exercised in the country, by facilitating the participation of all representative workers’ organizations in the country’s tripartite bodies.

The rule of tripartism, and accordingly recognition of the genuine representation of employers’ and workers’ organizations in national bodies, is a basic principle of the ILO. It is also a useful means of enabling trade union organizations to express their views and to establish productive social dialogue on industrial relations matters, thus improving the quality of industrial relations and working conditions.

As an essential value for the ILO, tripartism is based on the requirement of respect for the autonomy and independence of trade union organizations, which naturally implies that they are recognized as legitimate partners representing workers, without any interference by the labour authorities. Tripartism that does not recognize all organizations that are representative of workers’ interests is not in compliance with the Convention and does not ensure the “effective operation” of the Higher Labour Council, as called for by the Committee of Experts.

We take note of the Government of El Salvador’s request for technical assistance.

Employer member, Dominican Republic – Thank you for giving us the floor to refer to the case of El Salvador, which involves the recurrent violation by the Government of El Salvador of the Convention which, as we are all aware, is a fundamental instrument for promoting social dialogue and tripartite consultation. We emphasize that the body created under the Convention, the Higher Labour Council, has not met since 2013, and was temporarily reactivated for six months, until March 2020.

It is of concern that the progress noted by the Committee of Experts in its 2020 report no longer exists, resulting in the clear deterioration of any measures seeking and fostering social dialogue. This situation has made it impossible to address matters of major national interest, such as the national employment policy, or to conduct tripartite consultations on the submission of the Conventions and Recommendations adopted by this Organization. In unstable conditions such as these, the processes of social dialogue and consultation do not produce the contributions that are expected, thereby weakening governance at a critical moment, due to a highly adverse political, health and socio-economic situation.

We also emphasize that the lack of a genuine dialogue process derives from the intention of the Government of El Salvador to invite to information meetings representatives of economic sectors that are subject to significant state regulation through permits, authorizations and sanctions, making it particularly difficult for them to refuse to participate and to require social dialogue to be conducted through the ANEP, the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador, and through the Higher Labour Council.

In view of this misguided and ill-intentioned approach by the Government of El Salvador, we urge the Committee to act with determination to prevent the principles of social dialogue, as established in the Convention, from being continually flouted year after year. We call upon the Employer and Worker spokespersons to agree on conclusions that can resolve this situation.

Worker member, Italy – I am speaking on behalf of the Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL), the Italian Confederation of Workers’ Trade Unions (CISL) and the Italian Labour Union (UIL). The Convention ratified by El Salvador on 15 June 1995, on account of which it has once again been called before this Committee, is a basic instrument for the establishment of democratic practices. It is also key to addressing matters relating to international standards, which require greater attention and constitute the fundamental instrument for the full observance of human rights in the area of labour. In accordance with Article 2(1) of the Convention, tripartite consultation bodies must be strengthened. However, certain recent events show that El Salvador, and particularly the Government of President Nayib Bukele, has shown little interest in giving effect to this requirement.

The most specific fact relating to the Higher Labour Council is the complaint lodged by workers’ representatives that this body ceased operating between 2013 and 2019. This led to the opening of Case No. 3054 in 2013, which is still pending. While the Council was reactivated in October 2019, it has been inactive since March 2020, as it has not been convened by the Ministry of Labour. Without disregarding the impact of the pandemic, it is clear that social dialogue in the main institutional body for reaching national agreements is locked in stalemate.

In addition, in recent statements, President Bukele himself has stated that he ordered the removal of members of the ANEP, the most representative employers’ organization, from a number of autonomous institutions, arguing that they should be placed at the service of the people, and replacing them with what he calls “representatives of real private enterprise”. The ANEP reported to the Committee of Experts that the Government has been thwarting dialogue between itself and public officials, and publicly vilifying the organization and encouraging public rejection of its representatives. Such practices are clearly in violation of Article 3(1) of the Convention, which provides that the representatives of employers and workers shall be freely chosen by their existing representative organizations.

Employer member, Mexico – As previously stated, in June 2019, this Committee once again urged the Government of El Salvador to refrain from interfering in the establishment of workers’ and employers’ organizations and to facilitate, in accordance with national legislation, the proper representation of legitimate employers’ organizations. It is of concern to the employers’ representatives, according to the information received, that through its actions the Government of El Salvador is continuing to violate the Convention, and that it is acting outside the Higher Labour Council of El Salvador, despite having expressed its willingness to comply with this Committee’s conclusions.

As mentioned by the Worker spokesperson, social dialogue is unquestionably an instrument that can serve El Salvador to strengthen enterprises and boost investment, thereby creating more and better jobs.

We align ourselves with the views expressed by the Employer spokesperson. We therefore invite the Government of El Salvador to undertake before this Committee to accept an ILO direct contacts mission before the end of this year; to promote social dialogue and to encourage, with the participation of the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, the adoption of clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules that will allow the Higher Labour Council to be promptly reactivated; and to respect the independence of the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, and to refrain from actions that would amount to interference.

Employer member, Argentina – We regret that all the work and efforts of the Committee have not borne fruit, and its recommendations continue to be disregarded by the Government of El Salvador. All the more so, given that, during the 2019 session, we heard the Government’s statements concerning its willingness to reactivate the Higher Labour Council, and again today to receive ILO technical assistance to promote and strengthen tripartism and social dialogue in the country – objectives that are far from being realized.

We regret that the reactivation of the Higher Labour Council was limited to the period between September 2019 and May 2020 and was not accompanied in practice by clear and transparent mechanisms for the appointment of representatives of the social partners.

The Convention clearly provides that it is the social partners who must freely elect their representatives through their most representative organizations. We recall the information provided by the employers of El Salvador, specifically concerning the Government’s disregard for the President of the ANEP, elected in May 2020, as well as the intimidation of private sector representatives and government interference in the internal affairs of employers’ organizations.

We are dealing with a case of the persistent violation of the requirements of this Convention. There is compelling evidence and we have heard testimonies from the social partners that the country’s tripartite bodies are not functioning properly, and are not legitimately constituted in a tripartite manner. We hope that, in light of this debate, this situation will change swiftly and that the opportunity will be seized to work on creating the necessary conditions to guarantee compliance with the Convention and to ensure that the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations are duly represented in social dialogue mechanisms.

Employer member, Honduras – We share the ANEP’s serious concern regarding the repeated violation by the Government of El Salvador, not only of Convention No. 87 and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), but also of the ILO Constitution and Article I(d) of the Declaration of Philadelphia. In view of the continued violation of the Convention by the Government of El Salvador, we ask the Committee to set out the following requirements for the Government: (1) the Higher Labour Council must be upheld as a neutral and objective body, without interference in its functioning, that promotes social dialogue, ensuring the autonomy of the social partners, with a view to the conclusion of agreements that foster well-being and development for El Salvador in a tripartite manner; (2) social dialogue in the Higher Labour Council must take place in accordance with Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, putting into practice procedures that ensure effective consultation between the social partners and the Government; and (3) we invite this Committee to constitute an ILO direct contacts mission before the end of 2021, to advise and accompany legitimate employers’ representatives, through the ANEP, workers and the Government in the development of a regulatory and operational framework that ensures the reactivation and continued operation of the Higher Labour Council.

We regret that the Government of El Salvador is unable to recognize the ANEP, which is the employers’ organization that is most representative of El Salvador’s productive and economic strength, bringing together 50 organizations from 55 economic sub-sectors and more than 15,000 companies. With this broad representativeness, which meets the requirements of Article 1 of the Convention, we are convinced that the ANEP, as a business organization, helps to strengthen the free enterprise and active participation in social dialogue that is necessary for the strengthening of democracy. The Government cannot and must not interfere in the decisions of private sector bodies.

Employer member, Costa Rica – Ever since the ILO was created, it has promoted cooperation between employers, workers and governments, thereby enabling social justice through social dialogue. The Convention makes it possible to ensure the participation of employers and workers within each country. For this reason, the Convention is one of the most important ILO labour standards in terms of governance. Article 1 of the Convention clearly establishes that the most representative organizations of employers and workers are those that enjoy the right of freedom of association, a principle that also means that States must refrain from interfering in the establishment of these organizations.

The employers of Costa Rica therefore consider that it sets a bad international precedent to allow the removal of an organization such as the ANEP, which until now has been the representative of the formal productive sector in El Salvador, from the boards of public bodies.

In addition, Article 3 of the Convention provides that the representatives of employers and workers shall be freely chosen by their representative organizations. In light of the above, it is difficult to understand how the executive can assume the power to dismiss board members who represent employers’ organizations, while also establishing discretionary and arbitrary grounds for doing so. Clearly this is a violation of the Convention and of the principle of freedom of association.

We request the Government of El Salvador to reactivate the Higher Labour Council, which was created as a consultative body to the executive authorities, with the aim of the institutionalization of social dialogue and the promotion of economic and social cooperation between the public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organizations, together with the other social dialogue bodies. We also ask the Government to refrain from interfering in the establishment of employers’ organizations and to facilitate the due representation of these organizations. This is a fundamental element in a democracy.

Employer member, Colombia – I would like to refer to two aspects of the case. First, Article 2 of the Convention refers to the commitment to hold effective consultations and is based on social dialogue as an essential tool for the formulation of joint proposals between workers, employers and the Government, to promote growth, peace and general well-being.

In this regard, in order to achieve true dialogue and therefore the holding of effective consultations, what is required, as the Committee on Freedom of Association has indicated, is a climate of confidence based on respect for employers’ organizations and trade unions in order to promote stable and sound industrial relations. Regrettably, the main social dialogue forum in El Salvador has remained inactive and, although the Government reported the resumption of its activities to the Committee of Experts, these only went ahead for a short period, up to March 2020. Since then, there has been no forum for tripartite consultation.

Second, it should be emphasized that the representatives of workers and employers must be freely chosen and represented on an equal footing, as provided for by Conventions Nos 87 and 144. The Committee on Freedom of Association has indicated that it is for workers’ and employers’ organizations to determine the conditions for the election of their leaders and that the authorities should refrain from any undue interference in the exercise of this right.

We note with concern, on the one hand, that the Government has decided not to recognize the ANEP President as the employers’ representative, the ANEP being the most representative employers’ organization in the country, and, on the other, that the Government has been making attacks and accusations through the media and social networks against the ANEP leader.

In conclusion, we request the Government to reactivate tripartite social dialogue forums, take immediate action to create a climate of confidence and respect for employers’ organizations and carry out effective consultations on ILO-related matters and all topics related to labour and social policies in the country.

Observer, International Organisation of Employers (IOE) – The facts stubbornly indicate how serious and repeated the violations are by the Government of the Convention, freedom of association and freedom of expression. The situation is worsening further, with ever-greater restrictions being placed on these freedoms.

I recently had a polite conversation with the Minister, present here today, in which he clearly indicated to us his strong commitment to making progress in this case. We were therefore surprised when, just a few days after that meeting, the Government decided to explicitly exclude the ANEP representatives from tripartite bodies, a decision that was communicated to the public in a bragging and derisive manner through the social media channels used so frequently by the President. The President’s exact words were as follows: “I have sent 23 initiatives to the @AsambleaSV to remove the ANEP from the boards of the autonomous institutions and put them truly at the service of the people. ANDA, ISSS, SIGET, FOVIAL, FISDL, FONAVIPO, FSV, CORSATUR, BANDESAL, etc. No more barriers to the development of our country.” Facts speak louder than words, Minister. The ANEP does not represent a small minority of employers, as you have claimed.

The failure to convene the Higher Labour Council, the convening of employers’ organizations and the creation of parallel organizations are also facts that speak for themselves. Public, intimidatory accusations in volleys of tweets, the President’s usual form of communication, denigrating and expressing contempt for the ANEP, is aggressive behaviour that has been brought to the attention of the ILO.

You have obligations deriving from the Conventions that you have ratified. We reserve our legitimate right to activate other mechanisms of the standards supervisory system if you do not respect them in law and in practice.

Observer, Democratic Union Alternative for the Americas – I am speaking on behalf of the Democratic Union Alternative for the Americas (ADS) and our affiliate organization, the National Confederation of Salvadorean Workers (CNTS), which has its own delegate on the Higher Labour Council and confirms that it has been inactive since February 2020.

One matter that remains pending is the reform of the Civil Service Act through the proposed Public Service Bill, which was deemed by the CNTS to be in violation of the ILO’s fundamental Conventions and Salvadoran labour law.

There is an urgent need to conclude the investigation into the murder of our colleague, Victoriano Abel Vega, who was a member of the Federation of Municipal Workers Trade Unions (FESITRAMES). The Government, in this case, must require the Public Prosecutor’s Office to ensure a rapid procedure and response to bring charges against those responsible for this vile act.

The CNTS has submitted to the Minister of Labour, who is present at this meeting, proposed reforms to the Constitution, the Labour Code and the Civil Service Act, all based on the ILO’s recommendations, and has called for the rapid delivery of trade union accreditation, as indicated by colleagues speaking before me. The response has been mass dismissals, anti-union persecution and a refusal to recognize the need for dialogue and consultation with the social partners.

Observer, Confederation of University Workers of the Americas (CONTUA) – As in 2019, we are taking the floor in the case of El Salvador on behalf of Public Services International (PSI) and CONTUA, in support of the workers of El Salvador who are suffering the constant violation of their trade union rights.

At the 2019 session, there had been a recent change in government. As in so many other cases, we heard the incoming Government blame the outgoing administration for failures of compliance and ask the ILO to trust it to meet the demands, promising to give effect to international labour standards and to respect policies agreed through dialogue. But unfortunately, as on so many other occasions, that is not what happened.

Social dialogue must be a policy and an ongoing productive practice. There must be room at the table for employers and for all representative trade unions, without exception. It is not for the Government to select representatives of the labour movement according to its preferences. It is for the workers to establish their own organizations freely, and the Government must not interfere or favour one organization over another.

In El Salvador, there are persistent political, legal and administrative obstacles to the genuine, regular and ongoing functioning of the Higher Labour Council. We continue to lack clear rules that respect freedom of association and the right of the social partners to organize independently and in good faith, so that they can participate in dialogue bodies, establish programmes of work, undertake negotiations and reach sustainable agreements.

There also continue to be unjustifiable delays in the granting of trade union status, and we are referring here to the legal personality of trade unions, and in the certification of trade union officers by the Ministry of Labour, which in some cases takes more than six months. We must note here the discretionary action of the enforcement authority, which acts with urgency for organizations that enjoy good relations with the Government, and with punitive delays for independent trade unions.

We urge the Government to cease its preferential practices and to act in accordance with its role of respect for freedom of association, without interference. The ILO could cooperate with the new Government and the social partners by providing technical assistance to create political trust, legal solidity and the necessary climate of respect and trust.

Government representative – Firstly, all observations on essentially peripheral matters that are unrelated to the country itself, but rather to the international community, reflect an El Salvador that is different to what is described here and the situation we are experiencing in El Salvador.

Tripartite social dialogue, and particularly the Convention as a cross-cutting objective of the ILO, is not only an international legal requirement that we must fulfil, but also, as I said a moment ago, the most vital and fundamental pillar of a strong and solid democracy. And we think that is it not only an option for the Government, but a crucial requirement to move our country forward.

Article 37 of the Constitution of El Salvador provides that: “work is a social function, enjoys the protection of the State and shall not be considered a commodity”. That is the problem that is arising in El Salvador today. Previously, not only did the ANEP promote employers, but the Minister who used to sit here was proposed by the ANEP, and the labour representatives there at that time were also promoted by the ANEP. During the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) Governments, as you can check in the ILO, there were never complaints by the ANEP, because tripartite social dialogue was focused on a single segment of the population, namely the ANEP. What we have done is to diversify tripartite action by democratizing institutions. The ANEP participates in 27 bipartite forums, that is those that involve only the ANEP and the Government, and the opening up of those 27 bipartite forums to tripartitism was never considered. That contradicts what is being said today, and is in even greater contradiction with the Convention.

All those who have spoken, and particularly the international community, have suggested that the Committee must travel to El Salvador. That is what I said in my opening statement, when I urged it to come, because when the Committee does come to El Salvador, it will see first-hand, and not through third parties, what is happening in our country.

The only thing that we are against is the politicization of institutions. The ANEP has been used as an institution to elect ARENA presidents. That was true for the former ANEP President, Elías Antonio Saka, the former President of El Salvador, who is now in one of the country’s prisons serving a sentence for corruption involving more than US$350 million. That is what we cannot continue to allow in El Salvador. I have here the charges and even the submissions that were sent to the ANEP. In other words, it is not us acting against the ANEP, but a separate tax and fiscal issue. Because in this country, absolutely everyone must pay tax on an equal footing.

Through the amendment made to the law, what we are seeking is for everyone to participate, because previously the ANEP alone had absolute control over everything. Today, we want elections to be democratic, totally in line with the calls made by the different actors. The Government must not say who represents the employers. Nor can the Government influence who represents the workers. Representation must not only be legal, but also legitimate, which is related to the level of representativeness. As I have just said here, in this international forum, the most dangerous thing that could happen at the national and international levels is for such a prestigious institution as the ILO to be used to defend someone who is being investigated for evading US$5 million in tax in El Salvador. This has nothing to do with the ANEP or any employers’ association. We are complying with all the procedures requested of us by the tripartite body. They even sent their pandemic specialists to meetings with us to decide on biosafety protocols. The specialists came from all the employers’ associations, they came to represent their associations, and we have been working on biosafety protocols at the framework level, as I said, and we have worked on more than 2,000 protocols jointly with all the social partners and actors.

What we are doing – and I insist – is a process of democratization, of opening up. Everything that has been requested by all partners and actors at the international level, and the facilitation of tripartite social dialogue, we are also seeking, and that is why I said in my intervention today that it is more than ever necessary for the Committee to travel to El Salvador. I am not only saying it here, I have travelled myself. I have just returned from a visit to Geneva, where I met the Committee to share absolutely everything. Because there are two different countries and two different worlds here; what has been suggested in the interventions by the various speakers, and what is actually happening in El Salvador. In El Salvador, this Minister, and the decision of the President, is to adopt a totally democratic spirit. To bring normality to what was not normal before, and what they tried to tell us was normal. Now we must democratize absolutely everything, and all actors and partners in society must have access to representation. So we are totally open. I went directly to Geneva to give a report personally and in person. That was to show that someone who goes to represent their country does so because they are doing things correctly, in our view. I repeat, we may make some mistakes in our government action, as in any imperfect human endeavour, but it is certain that, today more than ever, tripartite social dialogue is being favoured.

What we are developing here in the Ministry are clear rules, and as I said in my intervention, everything is as we have discussed, analysed and worked on together. The only things that are not negotiable are the genuine rights of the working class. That has also caused us some discomfort, because there are employers that fail to comply with national or international labour regulations in certain ways, and that has led us to be quite forceful, to create a Ministry of Labour that had been missing for many decades, for a long time, in terms of regulation and harmonization between employers and workers. We continue to be open. For the fourth time in this intervention, I am saying that it is necessary to request assistance and for the Committee to come here. I am requesting this on behalf of the State of El Salvador, because we are totally convinced that, today more than ever in this country’s history, El Salvador is democratizing and endeavouring to favour tripartite social dialogue, for two reasons: because we consider it to be a conviction and commitment to democracy, and also because we are founding Members of the ILO and we have ratified the Convention, we are totally cognizant of that, and for that reason we favour tripartite social dialogue.

Employer members – We have listened carefully to all the interventions made during the discussion and we regret that the Government has not provided a specific reply to the questions raised by this Committee and the Committee of Experts.

What is worrying is that the Government is not acting with sincerity. If you look at the Twitter account of President Bukele, the systematic exclusion directed by the latter towards the ANEP can be seen. That is compounded by the creation of unrepresentative workers’ and employers’ organizations that serve to try and present a situation that does not represent reality in El Salvador.

The facts described show the extreme contempt in which the Government holds social dialogue and compliance with the obligations assumed when the Government of El Salvador ratified the Convention, which promotes tripartite consultation. I wish to make it clear to the Government representative that for tripartite consultation to be effective it has to be carried out with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, and not whomsoever the Government chooses. On this, there is full clarity in the Organization and there can be no doubt.

It appears to me that during the process of consultation with the ILO this will become very clear.

This contempt is shown notwithstanding the content of the conclusions adopted by the Committee in 2017, 2018 and 2019, despite the seven observations made by the Committee of Experts, despite the numerous urgent interventions requested from the ILO Director-General, Mr Ryder, by the ANEP and the IOE, and despite the Government’s claims to describe a situation that does not exist. The situation of non-compliance with the Convention is continuous, serious and urgent.

We accordingly call for the Government to be required to: refrain from attacking and disparaging the ANEP, the most representative employers’ organization and its leaders, as has been attempted in this very sitting; refrain from interfering in the establishment of workers’ and employers’ organizations, tripartite and joint bodies, and ensure, in conformity with the national legislation, the proper representation of legitimate employers’ organizations by issuing the necessary credentials and accreditation; develop, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules for the reactivation and full operation of the Higher Labour Council with the inclusion of the most representative organizations of workers and employers, not those which they democratically wish to add, but those which are accredited with the greatest representation; reactivate without delay the work of the other tripartite and joint bodies in respect of the autonomy and participation of the organizations – and I insist – that are most representative of workers and employers through social dialogue in order to guarantee their full operation without any interference.

The Government should be required, in consultation with the social partners, to take without delay all the necessary measures for the amendment of the 23 decrees adopted on 3 June 2021 so that they are in compliance with the guarantees set out in the ILO Conventions ratified by El Salvador. It should have recourse without delay to ILO technical assistance, which must include the Convention. It should provide a detailed report on the application of the Convention in law and in practice to the Committee of Experts before its next session in 2021. Without delay and without any further excuses, a high-level mission should be established and should visit El Salvador before the next International Labour Conference.

We request, and we ask for this to be duly noted, the inclusion of the present case in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report in 2021.

Worker members – We would like to thank the Government of El Salvador for their comments. We also thank all the other speakers for their interventions.

The Worker members note that, since our last examination of the case in 2019, the situation regarding the application of the Convention in El Salvador has severely deteriorated. We emphasize once more the importance of guaranteeing the necessary framework conditions for tripartite consultations in line with the Convention, including respect for the principle of free choice of workers’ representatives for the purpose of tripartite consultations, and a regular and genuine tripartite dialogue in the framework of the Higher Labour Council.

Therefore, we call on the Government of El Salvador to take the necessary measures to give full effect to the Convention, including in so far as they contribute to the respect and promotion of freedom of association in the country. We call on the Government to send information on the measures taken to the Committee of Experts.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral statements provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

In this regard, the Committee urges the Government of El Salvador to:

• refrain from interfering in the constitution and activities of independent workers’ and employers’ organizations, in particular the National Business Association (ANEP); and
• reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council (CST) and other tripartite entities, respecting the autonomy of the social partners and through social dialogue in order to guarantee their full functioning without any interference.

The Committee requests that the Government continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Committee requests that the Government submit a detailed report on the application of the Convention in law and in practice to the Committee of Experts before its next meeting in 2021, in consultation with the social partners.

The Committee requests that the Government accept a high-level tripartite mission to be carried out before the next International Labour Conference.

The Committee decides to include the case in a special paragraph of its 2021 report.

Another Government representative – We note all the conclusions of the honourable Committee. In this regard, in my capacity as Permanent Representative, I will immediately transmit the respective conclusions to my Government for its due attention and response.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2019, Publication: 108th ILC session (2019)



Discussion by the Committee

Government representative – We are present here in view of a decision made on 11 June by the social partners which included us on the list of countries required to report before this Committee.

In my intervention before the Assembly Plenary, and at the inauguration of the Government of President Nayib Bukele, of which I am a part since 1 June, I spoke out strongly about the importance of implementing an inclusive labour policy with the support of all the actors concerned, in line with the spirit of tripartism, and where the workers and the employers operate under equal conditions.

Our administration, which is in charge of the Ministry of Labour, is aware of the challenges, difficulties and solutions involved in creating and developing a labour policy based on a strong sense of equality for all social sectors, while taking into account the situation of the country, its laws and the legislative framework of the International Labour Organization (ILO) which sets out the same commitments for all.

Our country’s record has resulted in our inclusion on the list of countries called to report before the Committee. I wish to make clear that our Government is deeply concerned by the cases that remain outstanding. The cases require our immediate attention, as instructed by President Nayib Bukele, in line with the vision of the Ministry.

In this way and as a result of our will to change, we have already initiated a constructive dialogue with employers and workers with the objective of ensuring full compliance with the ILO Conventions ratified by our country. In light of this new vision, we have implemented new actions aiming to fill the gaps that currently persist, particularly by reactivating the Higher Labour Council (CST), as a legally established national tripartite body, and by creating other spaces for social dialogue. Therefore, with clear and strong support from our Government, as approved by the ILO, we are certain of achieving the positive results desired.

Similarly, we are very much concerned by the case of trade union leader, Mr Abel Vega, which first arose in 2010. The case involves a crime that cannot be left unpunished. Our Government must set a precedent in our country to no longer attack the trade union movement.

In order to do so, we have begun discussions with the Prosecutor General’s Office with the aim of speeding up the investigation and punishing those responsible for this crime on the grounds established by the Committee, while maintaining due respect for the separation of constitutional powers in our country. Our commitment is so strong that, upon my return, one of the first decisions I will take will be to visit the Prosecutor’s Office, in my capacity as Minister. And our Government will not only stop at that. We will take additional measures because we cannot allow such things to happen in El Salvador.

In my first week in the administration, I spoke with the labour and business sectors, seeking consensus over the need to reactivate the CST as quickly as possible, for the benefit of all social partners and with a commitment to ensure equality for all. I can now confirm that this consensus has been reached.

As a result, we believe that the best way of setting in motion the new vision that we are seeking to implement in our country would be to immediately sign a tripartite agreement.

Before concluding this session, I would like to express my satisfaction over the efforts made by the ILO over these 100 years to improve relations between workers and employers at the international level. The role of the State is significant in that regard, and we, as the Government, cannot evade our responsibilities within the ILO. We are a founding member of the Organization, and to remain consistent, we must comply with its standards.

I believe that social harmony and harmony in the workplace lead to development and trust among compatriots. Let us not lose the opportunity to keep improving every day, especially the opportunity to improve working conditions and to build the trust of the business sector.

Our President has sent a clear message by appointing me as Minister as I used to be a trade union leader, a trade union leader who understands the need for both the productive sector and the workers sector, as well as for clear rules defined on an equal basis.

Employer members – We thank the Government of El Salvador for the information provided. The present case is being reviewed for a third time in a row. Prior to this, the Committee examined El Salvador’s compliance with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), during the International Labour Conference of 2015 and 2016.

Throughout the history of the case, concerns have been raised both by experts and by this Committee. The secretariat has also sent a direct contacts mission. The Director-General of the National Association of Private Enterprise (ANEP) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) submitted a request for urgent intervention as a result of government interference in the election of representatives at the Superintendency for the Electricity and Telecommunications Sectors (SIGET). The Government also interfered in the elections of other tripartite bodies, such as the National Minimum Wage Council (CNSM) and the Salvadoran Institute of Professional Education (INSAFORP).

The complaint filed by SIGET brings to light some very serious events. For example, the Government has been creating fake organizations to push its own agenda in the social dialogue committees, passing themselves off as employers’ organizations. These events were revealed by the Prosecutor General’s Office with a view to punishing those responsible for these crimes, including for the falsification of documents to establish the fake employer’s organizations, while also obliging them to attend the Supreme Court of Justice.

Last year, this Committee expressed its concern that the Government of El Salvador was not complying with Convention No. 144, and that social dialogue was deficient in the country.

Let us recall some of the conclusions that were made last year. The Government was requested to stop interfering in the constitution of employers’ organizations and to ensure that legitimate workers’ and employers’ organizations were properly represented. It was asked to immediately reactivate the CST as well as to develop, in consultation with the social partners, rules that enable its proper functioning. The Government was also asked to appoint the employers’ representatives to the CST.

It is now time to analyse whether the country fulfilled the recommendations made by the Committee last year. More than one year has passed and the CST has still not resumed its activities since the Government did not convene or set it up. We remember the failed attempt to convene the body in 2017, during a visit of the direct contacts mission. However, this attempt was illegal because the Government did not follow CST rules of procedure.

In relation to the non-interference of the Government in the constitution of employers’ organizations, we see the following: in July and August 2018, the Government invited fake organizations to vote in the election of the employers’ representative to the Committee on Pension System Risks, disregarding the many appeals that it had received urging it not to do so.

We are also highly concerned that the Government has been upholding a generalized practice of delaying the delivery of credentials to the employers’ organizations in different social dialogue fora.

In relation to the request to develop clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules, in consultation with the social partners, for the reactivation and full functioning of the CST, the Government made use of technical assistance from the secretariat, which we welcome. Nevertheless, the proposals of the Government in this process were aimed at limiting the participation of the employers or interfering in the internal processes of employers’ organizations. We all know well that this goes against freedom of association, as outlined in the fundamental Conventions of the ILO. For example, the following measures were suggested:

- authorizing the Government to regulate the process of electing employer representatives;

- permitting the Government to appoint committees to vet the process of electing employer representatives;

- giving the Government the power to establish participation quotas by size of company or by any other criteria, at its own discretion.

On the same topic, ANEP has informed us that it has agreed a draft law, in bipartite negotiations with workers’ organizations, which would integrate the provisions and rules on the election and appointment of the social partners at the CST into the Labour Code. The proposal was submitted in September 2018, at the invitation of the Labour Committee of the Legislative Assembly.

We welcome this development as it shows that the social partners in El Salvador trust in and practice social dialogue. This proposal is also important because it would allow the workers’ and employers’ organizations to appoint their own representatives freely and independently.

Lastly, with regard to ensuring respect for the employers, their organizations and facilities as well as safeguarding their security, we are concerned that violent protests are still occurring at the ANEP offices. The protests are being carried out by activists and groups associated with the Government or tolerated by it, of course, with the aim of intimidating company directors.

We are aware that there has been a change in Government in El Salvador. We are also clear that the State is bound by the obligations outlined in the Convention. The new administration cannot but implement the previous recommendations in good faith following the departure of the previous administration, which did not do so. Indeed, the new administration has an opportunity in the sense that, by ensuring the full implementation of free-flowing social dialogue and taking a legitimate interest in the opinions, concerns and needs of the social partners, it will be able to design and implement policies that benefit all Salvadorans.

The facts presented here indicate that there is a disregard for social dialogue and for ensuring compliance with the obligations assumed by the Government of El Salvador when it ratified the Convention. The Convention promotes tripartite consultation, which as we know well, is one of its fundamental pillars and which helps to promote governance and good labour relations within countries. The biased actions of the Government meant that it lost the trust of the social partners.

Of course, the new Government has the opportunity to reverse the serious situation described above. This Committee should demand that of them in order to improve governance in the country and promote good relations between the social partners and the Government. Of course, this will result in the adoption and implementation of more and better social policies.

Therefore, we must urge the Government of El Salvador to immediately reactivate the CST in order to guarantee that employers’ and workers’ organizations have the freedom and autonomy to appoint representatives to social dialogue fora as well as to guarantee the security of company directors and their facilities.

Worker members – It is now the fifth consecutive year that the case of El Salvador is being examined by our Committee. During the previous sessions, we were already able to address the situation in the country which is extremely tense. Violence is all-pervading. Weapons, especially illegal one, are spreading quickly with one weapon for every 13 people.

Close to 30 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line, according to the World Bank.

Everybody remembers the murder of trade union activist, Victoriano Abel Vega on 15 January 2010. We continue to strongly insist that the Salvadoran authorities shed light on this murder.

This year is the third time that we are examining failures in relation to the Convention.

In 1919, the members of the Commission on International Labour Legislation at the Paris Peace Conference developed an institutional structure which was, at the time and still today, considered as one of the most original and most successful structures on the world stage. I am referring to tripartism, which is a key characteristic of our Organization. The fact that such a complex system of tripartite consultations was developed at the international level should inspire governments to implement and guarantee these tripartite consultations also at the national level. In addition to the procedure set out in the ILO Constitution, the ILO adopted Convention No. 144 which aims to encourage tripartite consultations at the national level on different ILO-related questions.

In its analysis, our Committee will touch upon three issues set out in the Convention. First, implementing effective tripartite consultations. Second, ensuring that the social partners can freely choose their representatives. Third, holding tripartite consultations with a view to presenting the Convention and any related recommendations to the competent authorities.

Problems persist with regard to the establishment of structures used for effective tripartite consultation on matters related to ILO activities, as required under Article 2 of the Convention. When it comes to respecting this obligation, what is important is that the social partners can voice their opinion before any final government decision is adopted. Consultations should therefore take place prior to adopting any final decision. The member States should have some flexibility to decide the nature and form of the procedure for tripartite consultations.

The Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), states that the member States are free to set up written consultations, if those involved in the consultative procedures are agreed that such consultations are appropriate and sufficient. The Higher Labour Council (CST) is a body competent to deal with questions related to ILO activities. The report of the Committee of Experts describes various comments made by the employers’ organizations concerning the CST, whose functioning continues to pose a problem. We also understand that the Government has not taken any measures to reactivate this body. The body has not held a meeting since 2017.

Article 3(1) of the Convention sets out that the representatives of the workers and the employers should be chosen freely by the organizations representing them. The Government reported to the experts that the CST was convened but the organizations representing the employers refused to participate. Yet, according to information provided by those organizations, it seems that the sitting was convened illegally. Furthermore, these organizations also reported that it was clear that members of the CST were being elected unilaterally and on the basis of criteria determined by the Government. I remind you at this point that, when this case was examined in the session before last, the trade unions had also voiced their objections to the way that the body operates.

The methods imposed by the Government of El Salvador reduce to zero each representative organization’s freedom to choose. In order to ensure that the activities of the CST are resumed in a sustainable way, it is necessary to preapprove some clear and objective criteria as well as to agree an electoral process that is clear and permanent in nature and which guarantees that the organizations are represented as effectively as possible. In the event of an objection, the organizations should also be able to rely on an independent body to settle disputes and thus gain the trust of the parties. The events and activities described here are not in line with the Convention.

With regard to tripartite consultations, Article 5(1)(b) of the Convention stipulates that the consultations should be held in connection with the submission of Conventions and Recommendations to the competent authorities. It is through Article 2 of this same Convention that El Salvador has committed to this consultation procedure. According to some observations outlined in report of the Committee of Experts, it seems that El Salvador is not implementing a consultation procedure that is in line with the Convention.

It is true that the Government has received technical assistance from the ILO in order to implement a procedure for submitting reports within the framework of article 23 of the ILO Constitution. This process has led to the development of a Protocol containing guidelines on this issue. According to the Government, the Protocol will be subject to tripartite consultations as soon as it is finalized.

However, according to the employers’ organization, it seems that consultations have not been held to align the above procedure with reports developed on the basis of article 23.

We take particular note of this information but emphasize that it is now more than high time to implement this procedure effectively in the near future.

It is essential that the representative organizations can submit their observations regarding actions that their Government wishes to take in relation to the ILO standard-setting initiatives, before the Government makes its proposal to the competent authority. No such prior consultations have been held for many years in El Salvador. The need to establish a consultation procedure to follow is directly connected with the proper functioning of the CST. It is not possible for this procedure to be established if the representatives of the representative organizations have not been appointed. Therefore, once again, we call upon El Salvador to find a lasting solution that ensures the proper functioning of the CST.

Our observations are limited to the application of the Convention in question. It is a situation where we cannot see the forest for the trees. Indeed, these observations overshadow the many other difficulties that we could address in the case of El Salvador. We remain convinced that improving social dialogue could ease a good number of tensions in the country.

Employer member, El Salvador – It seems to us that there is goodwill and we are optimistic that it will be possible to correct and resolve the arbitrary acts committed by the State in the recent past. We note with special interest the commitment of the new Government, which took office only two weeks ago, to refer itself to the ILO supervisory bodies and strictly comply with international Conventions.

Therefore, we hope that the CST is convened in a way that respects the autonomy of the organizations most representative of the workers and employers, allowing them to freely elect their representatives, as established in Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 144.

We are here for the fifth year in a row not only because the Government of El Salvador violated Convention No. 87, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and Convention No. 144, but also because it disregarded the resolutions of this Committee, the reports of the Committee of Experts and the conclusions of the direct contacts mission.

In 2018, the Committee expressed concern over the lack of compliance with Convention No. 144 and over the fact that social dialogue is deficient in the country.

As a result, the Committee made various recommendations to the Government of El Salvador. Mr President, members of the Committee, let me explain briefly what has happened since June 2018. First, I will refer to the conclusion in which the Government was instructed to immediately reactivate the CST with the participation of the organizations most representative of the workers and employers and through social dialogue, as well as to guarantee the proper functioning of this body.

Firstly, we regret that one year later, the CST is still not operational. The Government neither convened nor set it up.

Secondly, I will refer to the conclusion in which the Government was instructed to refrain from interfering in the establishment of employers’ organizations and to facilitate representation by issuing the necessary credentials. In that regard, we would like to emphasize two unlawful acts committed by the Government in the last few months. First, it continued to use the fake organizations that it had itself created in 2017, of which there were 60, to influence the election of the SIGET board of directors.

In July 2008, the Government invited these fake associations to vote in the election of the employers’ representative to the Committee on Pension System Risks, an entity that determines how pension savings are invested. All actions to prevent this from happening were not needed as, in the end, the organizations declined to participate, and the election went ahead as normal.

Second, the Government has continued its generalized practice of withholding credentials from the employers’ organizations to prevent them from participating in the different election processes. One example is that of ANEP itself, whose credentials were withheld for 18 months. In November 2018, it finally received its credentials, but they were only valid for six months and have now expired.

Thirdly, I will refer to the conclusion which instructed the Government to develop clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules, in consultation with the social partners, for the reactivation and full functioning of the CST. In that regard, the Government requested technical assistance from the ILO Regional Office in Costa Rica.

However, the Government, through its Ministry of Labour and in coordination with some 30 legal managers from ministries and autonomous public entities with whom it held frequent meetings, developed rules clearly aiming to impede the participation of ANEP, not only in the CST but also in other joint, tripartite entities.

The reforms developed to amend the rules violate international Conventions. The Government is using them to assign itself powers, such as altering and manipulating the list of business organizations with voting rights, approving rules for the internal election of employer representatives, appointing a committee to vet the process for electing employer representatives, and establishing a participation quota by size of company and by other criteria at the Government’s discretion.

This topic is extremely sensitive because the power to approve and reform rules is exclusive to the President of the Republic who can do so unilaterally and without tripartite consensus. Last year, to prevent this from happening, at the invitation of the Labour Committee of the Legislative Assembly, we submitted a proposal to integrate the regulatory provisions related to the election and appointment of social partners at the CST into the Labour Code. At the same time, we urged the delegates to invite the workers’ organizations to be part of the CST, which is then what happened.

The proposals were developed in conjunction with workers and employers, within the framework of social dialogue, where we were able to discuss and develop various proposals concerning the workplace. The absence of tripartite dialogue can interrupt the labour agenda.

In this case, it is important to guarantee that we, the Workers and Employers, can elect our own representatives freely and independently, regardless of the government in power. We can resume this discussion once the CST is reactivated.

Fourth, the employers believe that the following conclusion is key: “appoint without delay representatives of the most representative employers’ organizations in the CST where such appointments are still pending”.

As the members of the Committee know, the case of El Salvador came before this Organization for these reasons when, in 2012, the Government expressly approved reforms to the rules of 19 autonomous public entities with a view to expelling from their boards the directors that had been elected and appointed by the employers. The case became known to the Committee on Freedom of Association, which concluded that, before carrying out this type of reform, the Government must consult the CST. It is precisely for that reason that the Government decided to block the CST, which has not convened since 2013.

ANEP turned to the Supreme Court of Justice which ruled in favour of the appeals and challenges alleging unconstitutionality and ordered that the employers be given back their power to freely appoint directors in the autonomous entities.

The Government, through its different mechanisms, has refused to comply with the decision of the Court. Not only has there been government interference within the CST but also in other joint tripartite entities. There are at least three cases pending in relation to the right of employers to freely appoint their representatives: INSAFORP, CNSM and SIGET.

In those three cases, the Supreme Court ordered precautionary measures. Over the last ten years, the Government has on three occasions introduced legislative reforms that changed the way in which the INSAFORP board of directors is put together.

Similarly, the CNSM election was carried out following an order that was issued illegally by the Ministry of Labour on the same day of the election.

The third case is, without doubt, the most scandalous, it refers to the process through which the employers elected the board of directors for SIGET, an entity responsible for regulating the electricity and telecommunications sectors. In this case, ANEP together with the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), called on the Director-General to intervene directly.

As this Committee will remember, while some public officials tended to the 2017 direct contacts mission at this time, others were planning to take the legitimate place of the employers in elections.

In record time, a total of 60 fake organizations were established. The organizations were registered in the country’s poor municipalities, far away from the main cities, where there are no taxes or formal jobs nor is there a minimum wage. They used the public employer protocols of state-owned companies regulated by SIGET. The 60 organizations participated and won the election.

Not only did the Government refuse to speak with the legitimate representatives of the employers, not only did it withhold credentials from the employers’ organizations, not only did it exclude business organizations from the list of voters, not only did it empower informal citizens’ organizations that were not entrepreneurial in nature, but it also created fake ghost organizations to take the place of the legitimate social partners.

Lastly, we deplore the fact that, during the last year, violent protests have taken place repeatedly at the offices of ANEP, as well as at the offices of the Sugar Association and Chamber of Farming and Agroindustry, both of which are members of ANEP. The protests were carried out by activists and “shock groups” set up and sponsored by the Government.

At that time, the activists and shock groups took part in violent protests in which they even threw faeces, rubbish, contaminated water and burning tyres into the offices of ANEP. Through these acts of violence and abuse, they sought to intimidate the spokespeople for the employers, and make them responsible for the lack of solutions to problems in the country, which in turn sparked more protests.

Furthermore, we are concerned by a report issued last year by the Office for the Protection of Human Rights, which ordered the closure of a complaint filed by ANEP regarding the violence on its premises.

We are concerned that the institutions in El Salvador do not function properly and that we are left vulnerable and without protection in the face of violence by activists and shock groups. However, the report did recognize the passive attitude of the police and urged them to intervene in the event of something similar.

In the last ten years, the employers’ organizations have experienced violence, abuse and exclusion at the hands of the Government and through all possible means.

We hope that this is now a matter of the past. We trust in the new Government and have faith that it will convene the CST, while respecting the autonomy of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations so that they can freely elect their representatives. It is in all of our interests to establish social dialogue as a tool to find solutions, boost development, bring in investments and create jobs, while also respecting the Constitution, the legal framework and international Conventions. We trust that El Salvador can make the most of this new historical opportunity.

Worker member, El Salvador – The last ten years have seen El Salvador frankly go backwards on tripartism, social dialogue, freedom of association and collective bargaining. Proof of that is the fact that the case of El Salvador remains before the Committee for the fifth consecutive year.

After examining the case of El Salvador last year, the Committee made a series of recommendations to our Government, but those recommendations were not implemented.

In addition, after nine years, the people physically and intellectually responsible for the murder of Mr Victoriano Abel Vega have still not been brought to justice because the State of El Salvador has not conducted an effective investigation.

In the private, public, and municipal sectors, there are persistent violations of the human and labour rights enshrined in our Constitution, in national labour laws and in the ILO Conventions ratified by our country. I will describe some of the most recent cases which exemplify the situation:

On 10 July 2018, the Union for the Cement Industry and Allied Workers (SICCA) was established. The business sector responded by dismissing all trade union leaders.

Similarly, young workers are also experiencing serious violations of their human rights, such as the rise of temporary jobs and the absence of a law on education that truly protects their rights.

In addition, employment requirements continue to discriminate on grounds of membership of the LGBTI community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersex), disability, gender and age.

A public service law is being pushed through the Legislative Assembly without having duly consulted the workers’ organizations. The law is damaging to the process of freedom of association and collective bargaining. For instance, it excludes such topics as salary review from collective bargaining and links it directly to working conditions. It allows for contracts to be declared as void if they go against the economic policy of the Government. It makes arbitration compulsory and uses an extensive but restrictive definition of essential services.

Social dialogue continues to be a formality that is carried out half-heartedly and is therefore a pending matter. The failure to set up the CST means that it cannot issue an opinion on the draft reforms of labour and social security legislation, nor can it make recommendations to the Government regarding the ratification of ILO Conventions that it considers appropriate.

For example, the Legislative Assembly passed a legislative reform on the pensions saving system, without holding consultations with the workers’ organizations, which did not resolve pension-related problems, but instead focused entirely on fiscal and financial issues, with a view to boosting state finances. This goes against the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), and the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202) of the ILO.

We were also not consulted when developing the public policy on technical education, professional training and production systems. As a result, representatives of workers’ organizations do not participate in sectoral committees, committee boards or coordination councils, which is clearly an anti-trade union strategy that violates various ILO Conventions ratified by our country.

In the current situation where there is a government that has only recently assumed the presidency of our country, it is of primary importance to reactivate the Higher Labour Council (CST) as a space for the discussion of macro policies to ensure social justice for Salvadoran families and promote democracy and governance in the country. It is through the CST, a mechanism for tripartite social dialogue, that it will be possible to reach a broad national consensus on topics such as: health reform, education for living, the future of work, the pensions system, wage policy, fiscal agreements, the creation of decent work, austerity policies, adaptation and resilience to climate change, citizenship and social control. Therefore, we would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the position expressed by the new Government and its Ministry of Labour in meetings held with trade unions, particularly with regard to its willingness to strengthen social dialogue, its commitment to respecting labour standards and withdrawing from discussions on draft laws such as the public service law so that they can be reviewed in the relevant tripartite bodies, and its commitment to establishing a committee to study pension systems.

The Higher Labour Council should be reactivated with broad participation from all trade unions, private companies and government officials, and with technical assistance from the ILO. Indeed, we believe that the solution to our historical and structural problems requires that effective social dialogue is re-established among the sectors as quickly as possible.

Worker representation is currently without a leader. The officials of the previous Ministry of Labour finished their term without holding even one meeting in two years. As a result, it is urgent that the workers’ organizations appoint their representatives in line with Article 50 and in line with the rules of the Higher Labour Council, thereby complying with Convention No. 144.

We call on the ILO to ensure that worker representatives can freely determine their own robust, internal election procedures on the basis of specific, objective, pre-established criteria that ensure representativeness, while preventing arbitration and interference from both the Government and the employers. The ILO should also allow the workers to appoint their own representatives, with the need to take into account the function that they will perform but not necessarily their status. Once the Council is set up, it should carry out a comprehensive reform of Article 50 as well as of its own rules so as to ensure they cover all sectors. Furthermore, the case should be reviewed at the next session of the Executive Board and reported to the International Labour Conference in 2020.

As we can see, government authorities have for many years disregarded the recommendations of the supervisory bodies and the direct contacts mission. The actions of the Government of El Salvador through its Ministry of Labour pose a serious risk to freedom of association, demonstrate a lack of political will for social dialogue and show an absence of a democratic labour policy. As a result, it is necessary to issue recommendations that resolve the serious situation facing the workers, which has arisen because the previous Government of El Salvador and its administration made it government policy to violate freedom of association. We trust that the new Government of Mr Nayib Bukele will correct these mistakes and ensure full compliance with national and international standards so that we can create a climate of peace in the workplace and foster an effective and open social dialogue in the interests of all Salvadorans.

Government member, Brazil – Speaking on behalf of the significant majority of countries in Latin American and the Caribbean, I thank the Government of El Salvador for the information provided. We have listened carefully to the comments made in relation to ensuring tripartite consultations as outlined in international labour standards and within the framework of the Constitution and national legislation. National legislation designates the Higher Labour Council (CST) as the body responsible for holding tripartite consultations on international labour standards, as indicated by the distinguished delegation of El Salvador. We are aware that the Government of El Salvador has taken it upon itself to find tripartite solutions to pending issues, including on the reactivation of the Higher Labour Council as a legally established body. This will deliver definitive solutions that work well for all social sectors in the country. We support the commitment of the Government of El Salvador to implementing the Convention as well as the initiatives that it will take to fulfil the obligations outlined in that Convention.

Government member, Romania – I am speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The candidate countries, the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, as well as the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement. The European Union and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection and respect of human and labour rights, as safeguarded by the fundamental ILO Conventions and other human rights instruments. We support the indispensable role played by the ILO in developing, promoting and supervising the application of international labour standards and of fundamental Conventions in particular.

We firmly believe that the compliance with ILO Conventions is essential for social and economic stability in any country and that an environment conductive to dialogue and trust between employers, workers and governments contributes to the creation of a basis for solid and sustainable growth and inclusive societies.

Convention No. 144 is intrinsically linked with two fundamental Conventions: No. 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise and No. 98 on the right to organize and collective bargaining, as well as with at least five Sustainable Development Goals. Tripartite consultations and meaningful and effective social dialogue are essential elements of the application of fundamental principles and rights at work.

The European Union and its Member States are committed to the people of El Salvador through strong cooperation, political, and trade ties. The EU – Central America Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement, which entered into force in 2014, and the provisional application of the trade pillar of the EU – Central America Association Agreement since 2013, provide a framework for developing our partnership.

We wish to recall the commitment undertaken by El Salvador under the trade and sustainable development chapter (Title VIII) of the EU Central America Association Agreement, to effectively implement in law and practice the fundamental ILO Conventions.

We note with deep regret that this case was already discussed in the last two years in the Committee on the Application of Standards, including as a serious case in 2017. The Committee noted with concern the dysfunctional operation of social dialogue in the country and the non-compliance with ILO Convention No. 144. It has also provided clear recommendations related to the importance of non-interference with the constitution of employers’ organizations and the need to ensure proper representation of legitimate employers’ organizations.

The Committee demanded also the reactivation the Higher Labour Council (CST) by ensuring its full functioning with proper social partners’ representation. The Council can only fulfil its role when it effectively puts into practice tripartism and genuine social dialogue. We observe with concern that the Council is still not operational.

We welcome the Government’s recent calls for dialogue towards the prompt reconstitution of the Council following a cross-sector dialogue as required by the international standards. We nevertheless urge the new Government to take appropriate measures to reactivate the Higher Labour Council, by developing, in consultation with social partners, the rules of its functioning, in particular clear and transparent rules for the nomination of workers’ representatives that comply with the criterion of representatively, as well as the process of its reactivation.

We also call on the Government to ensure full autonomy of the social partners and their participation in consultations related to employment and labour policies and legislation, in a transparent and inclusive manner and before a decision is taken. We encourage the Government to provide information on the outcome of the tripartite consultations held in relation to the Protocol on the submission procedure, as well as to provide updated information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all the matters relating to international labour standards covered by Article 5(1)(a)–(e) of the Convention.

We also strongly encourage El Salvador to inform about the measures undertaken or in preparation in the framework of the ILO’s technical assistance.

The European Union and its Member States remain committed to constructive engagement with El Salvador, including through cooperation projects, which aim to strengthen the Government’s capacity to address all issues raised in the Committee’s report.

Government member, Burkina Faso – As you know, the importance of Convention No. 144 is well established. Holding regular tripartite consultations such as those promoted in this Convention are a way to guarantee lasting social peace. Indeed, by institutionalizing and practising tripartism effectively, the world of work will be able to cultivate tolerance and constructive criticism, which are both necessary for development.

Tripartism, need I remind you, is the cornerstone of social dialogue, a concept that our Organization holds dear. It is also through tripartism, which is unique to the ILO, that governments and social partners come to agreements that can ensure better living and working conditions for the working population of our countries. The report of the Committee of Experts called on the Government of El Salvador to take appropriate measures to give full effect to the Convention that it ratified in 1995. With regard to the importance of tripartite consultation in the promotion and practice of social dialogue, the delegation of my country urges El Salvador to continue implementing the important provisions of the Convention and, if necessary, to request assistance from the secretariat.

Employer member, Spain – The Government has been unable to establish real social dialogue, hold tripartite consultations, adopt measures to reactivate the Higher Labour Council (CST), or guarantee the free and autonomous election of the legitimate representatives of the social partners within the CST.

This disregards the conclusions adopted by the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference, which urged the Government of El Salvador to refrain from interfering in the constitution of employers’ organizations and to facilitate, in accordance with national law, the proper representation of legitimate employers’ organizations by issuing appropriate credentials; develop, in consultation with the social partners, clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules for the reactivation and full functioning of the Higher Labour Council (CST); reactivate, without delay, the CST, through the most representative organizations of workers and employers and through social dialogue in order to ensure its full functioning; appoint without delay representatives of the most representative employers’ organizations in the CST where such appointments are still pending; and avail itself of ILO technical assistance. It also recommended that the Government submit a detailed report for examination at the next session of the Committee of Experts.

These conclusions are simply a repetition of those adopted by the Committee on the Application of Standards in 2016 and 2017, also pursuant to Convention No. 144, as well as of the recommendations of the ILO direct contacts mission carried out between 3 and 7 June 2017. The lack of compliance with these conclusions demonstrates the lack of will by the Government of El Salvador to put procedures into practice that ensure effective consultations between representatives of the Government, the employers and the workers on issues related to the activities of the International Labour Organization. It also shows a lack of will to stop interfering in the autonomy of the worker and employer representatives who should be freely elected by their organizations.

We hope that the spirit of dialogue demonstrated by the current Government of El Salvador translates into compliance with the conclusions, the conclusion adopted successively by the Committee on the Application of Standards at the International Labour Conference, with a view to overcoming an anomalous situation that has persisted for ten years.

Worker member, Honduras – We regret that in recent years El Salvador has been accused by the employers of non-compliance with the Convention, whose primary objective is to ensure effective tripartite consultations. The Convention also recognizes, through the procedures laid out therein, that the Employer and Worker representatives should be freely elected by the representative organizations. Therefore, we condemn the interference within the employers’ sector. It is important to recognize the Employers as one legitimate group, and one group alone, in the labour sector.

We call on the employers to be coherent in their request to the Government regarding the immediate establishment of the Higher Labour Council. The Council should be certified, and it should participate actively and effectively without bias, while respecting the autonomy of the labour sector. We call on the Government to reactivate the Higher Labour Council as quickly as possible and to be respectful of the autonomy and independence of the labour sector in electing and appointing representatives to the tripartite bodies, as outlined in the rules of the Higher Labour Council.

In the same way, we call on the Government of Nayib Bukele to respect the Convention within the framework of tripartite social dialogue and to put an end to the situation in which public sector workers are dismissed without due process.

To conclude, we call on workers to continue promoting tripartite social dialogue and to do their utmost to ensure the proper functioning of the Higher Labour Council.

Government member, Colombia – Colombia thanks the Government of El Salvador for the information provided. The Ministry of Labour has a fundamental role to play in building bridges between employers and workers. There is a need for us to work together, to have open and honest dialogues, to recognize our successes, the agreements made, but also to respect our differences. For that reason, we value the efforts made by the Government of El Salvador to advance on social dialogue and thereby reactivate the Higher Labour Council.

Our Government trusts that, with the commitment of the Government of El Salvador, the will of all parties and technical assistance from the ILO, the institutions of social dialogue will reap benefits, and it will be possible to continue progressing towards compliance with international labour standards.

Employer member, Costa Rica – The employers of Coast Rica wish to support and echo the words of the employer representative of El Salvador. Convention No. 144 is one of the most important Conventions from the point of view of governance since tripartite consultations are part of the essence of the ILO.

The Higher Labour Council is, if not the most important, one of the most important tripartite bodies among the many others that the State can make use of. Article 1 of the rules of the Higher Labour Council states that the aim of this body is to institutionalize social dialogue and promote economic and social consensus among the public authorities and the employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Therefore, it is of vital importance to allow the CST to reconvene, while allowing the most representative organizations to choose their representatives freely. As set out in Article 2 of the Convention in question, “Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to operate procedures which ensure effective consultations … between representatives of the Government, of employers and of workers …”.

As a result, it should be remembered that, among the actions recommended by the Committee at the 2018 Conference, was the need for the Government of El Salvador to “develop, in consultation with the social partners, clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules for the reactivation and full functioning of the Higher Labour Council (CST)”. However, the initiatives promoted by the Government of El Salvador violate Convention No. 87, Convention No. 98 and Convention No. 144. These include appointing government committees to take part in the process for electing representatives and imposing restrictive criteria.

As ANEP is the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador, we cannot and should not allow any impediment to the election of its representatives, not only within the CST but also in the other joint tripartite entities. In order to ensure legal security, which should be respected at all times, the organizations have the right to elect their representatives legitimately and without any intervention from the State. Otherwise, there is a clear violation of the above-mentioned Conventions.

As a result, it is extremely important that, when developing clear standards to ensure the reactivation and full functioning of the Council, this Committee must make sure that the rules are not reformed in such a way that they could constitute a violation of the autonomy and legitimate rights of the representative organizations.

It must be guaranteed that the organizations can elect their representatives freely, regardless of the government in power, and that the very important body that is the Higher Labour Council is swiftly reactivated.

Observer, Public Services International (PSI) – We take the floor to discuss the case of El Salvador on behalf of Public Services International and CONTUA in support of Salvadoran workers who have endured long-standing violations to their trade union rights. The case brought before the Committee of Experts addresses the country’s lack of compliance with Convention No. 144. No real solution to the problem has been found given the fact that the Higher Labour Council has been suspended. It is important to immediately and urgently remove all obstacles to the functioning of the Higher Labour Council. There is a need to establish clear rules that are respectful of freedom of association, and respectful of the right of the social partners to organize autonomously and in good faith, so they can hold discussions and reach lasting agreements.

We emphasize the need for goodwill when promoting dialogue because even the most perfect legal standards will not be helpful if governments and social partners delay the appointment of representatives, fail to agree the topics for discussion or block the quorum or the decision-making processes.

There is a new Government in El Salvador. The trade union movement urges the President and his cabinet to prioritize the guidance of the experts, engage in dialogue with the social partners, and rapidly find a working dynamic that will enable the tasks of the Higher Labour Council to be resumed.

But we would also like to highlight that the ILO and its various supervisory bodies are processing dozens of complaints related to violations of the fundamental labour Conventions in El Salvador. Therefore, we also call on the new Government to respond urgently and to turn around any labour policies that violate trade union rights.

In particular, we would like to describe the situation of the public sector and give the example of trade unions from the electricity industry that are affiliated with Public Services International. The unions have been reporting anti-trade union practices since 2014, including disaffiliation campaigns initiated by government and company representatives who have been threatening unionized workers with dismissal and dismantling collective bargaining. This has led to the abolition of collective bargaining agreements and bullying of trade unions in the form of systematic court procedures as a means of resolving social conflicts.

The situation is so serious that the Secretary-General of a trade union from the electricity industry, our colleague Roxana Maribel Deras Acosta, has been subjected to an advanced dismissal process on the basis of falsehoods told by the management and with the only objective of discrediting her and her trade union.

We urge the Government to address this case or we will make an example of it. We will appear before this Committee once again next year in connection with the Convention No. 87. We will appear before the United Nations and before the human rights bodies of the Organization of American States, demanding justice and condemning those responsible.

As has already been mentioned, a new Government took office in El Salvador just a few days ago. The new administration has the opportunity to get things done, reverse the situation and administer labour relations in a way that respects freedom of association and tripartite dialogue. We hope to see it making decisions and showing signs of doing just that.

The ILO can collaborate with the new Government and with the social partners by providing them with technical assistance. The trade union movement is ready to sit at the table of tripartism if the assaults stop and a climate of respect and trust is established.

Employer member, Chile – The case of El Salvador is of interest given it refers to an issue that is fundamental for this Organization. Indeed, it relates to using tripartite consultations to promote the application of international labour standards, as outlined in Convention No. 144. In line with the objectives of this international instrument, simply by belonging to the ILO, Member States are making a commitment to carrying out consultations with the social partners on matters of interest, and in this way promoting the adoption of effective measures on a national level.

The issues we are addressing today were already discussed in previous years before the same Committee in light of the previous Government’s failure to comply. The previous Government was ordered to take a series of measures, as requested by the employers’ organization in this country as well as by the International Organisation of Employers.

The allegation that has been made repeatedly refers to the absence of real social dialogue and consultations, especially with regard to the Higher Labour Council which has never been established legally and has not convened since 2013. The current Government must reactivate the CST, while respecting the autonomy of the most representative organizations, which should have the right to elect officials freely without interference from the Government.

The little action taken by the previous Government lacked the necessary transparency to foster trust among the social partners. What is more, it had the appearance of legality, as was the case with the unsuccessful attempt to influence the process for electing an employer representative in the Committee on Pension System Risks through the creation of non-existent entities.

It seems that the present Government cannot repeat this mistaken policy. In doing so, it would be showing a clear lack of regard for social dialogue, which would, again, undermine trust between the social partners.

In these circumstances, the ILO and this Committee cannot remain indifferent or they will contribute to a loss of confidence in the supervisory bodies. It would be a kind of discrimination by neglect, which could, in the future, negatively affect the social partners of other ILO member States.

In view of the above, we respectfully ask the Government of El Salvador to implement, without delay, the recommendation to guarantee the freedom and autonomy of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in the appointment of officials to social dialogue fora, refraining from carrying out any acts of interference in that regard.

Worker member, Dominican Republic – We support the statement made by the Worker of El Salvador regarding the complaints made repeatedly over many years regarding violations of trade union and labour rights in this country. In this specific case, the State has been violating the Convention in question. Nevertheless, we would like to urge the Government of El Salvador to allow Salvadoran trade unions to decide for themselves who they wish to appoint as their representatives to the tripartite bodies as well as to establish the Higher Labour Council.

We trust that this new Government will put an end to the arbitrary acts committed by the previous Government at the expense of Salvadoran trade unions and will respect their autonomy, thereby paving the way for effective and productive social dialogue.

Lastly, we remind the Government of El Salvador that social dialogue has a crucial role to play in achieving the objectives of the ILO, including the objective to promote equality of opportunities between men and women and to secure productive, decent work in conditions of freedom, security and dignity.

Employer member, Panama – Tripartism is the foundation of this Organization. Disregarding it at the national and international levels is to disregard the essence of the International Labour Organization. For good reason, the Organization requires that the relevant stakeholders report on and implement the international Conventions in a way that takes into account the opinion and participation of both the workers and the employers.

When a country ratifies a Convention, it does so not to appear on a list or to receive applause. By contrast, ratification obliges a country to comply fully with the Convention and, if necessary, amend its legislation to ensure compliance. El Salvador ratified Convention No. 144. Therefore, each and every one of the parties, I repeat, each and every one of the parties, should be able to elect their tripartite representatives in a free, independent way. If one of the parties does not appoint a representative, or if one of the parties appoints a representative in the name of another party, the consultations are not tripartite consultations, but rather a dialogue with one’s self. This violates the foundation of this Organization and the spirit of the Convention.

The story of El Salvador’s non-compliance with the Convention has been repeated by many different speakers this afternoon and I do not want to repeat the same violations again. I would like to echo the intention set out by the representative of El Salvador who expressed the Government’s commitment to abiding by the law and complying with the Convention.

A country that wishes to develop, a country that wishes to grow, cannot rule out social dialogue or exclude some of the social partners from social dialogue, as this sets it up for discontent, criticism and protests. We most sincerely hope that the country complies with the Convention, amends the necessary laws with a view to ensuring the equal participation of the three sectors in social dialogue, and establishes the remaining mechanisms needed for tripartite consultations, including the National Minimum Wage Council. In the same way, we ask this supervisory body to fix a final deadline for the Government to fully comply with the Convention, which is a fundamental Convention for this Organization.

Government member, Argentina – My country supports the readiness of this Government to strengthen social dialogue as well as the initiatives that it will undertake within the context of the obligations outlined in this Convention. In particular, and in line with the statement made by GRULAC, we welcome the fact that the Government of El Salvador has assumed responsibility for finding tripartite solutions to pending issues. The statement by the Minister is proof of El Salvador’s commitment to the ILO supervisory system. We are certain that the actions undertaken by the new authorities, with the help of the International Labour Organization, will be beneficial for all social sectors in the country.

Employer member, Honduras – For yet another year and for the third year in a row, the case of El Salvador is again appearing before this Committee for violating Convention No. 144. The Government of El Salvador has made very little effort to ensure compliance with the recommendations and conclusions of the ILO supervisory bodies.

We hope that the new Government of El Salvador reviews the different observations, recommendations and conclusions issued by the supervisory bodies, recalling the importance of the Convention, a Convention about governance, which aims to achieve social justice, promote decent work and ensure sustainable growth for companies through social dialogue and tripartism among governments and representative organizations of the workers and employers. This is today even more important for strengthening social cohesion and rule of law.

It is important to remind the Government of El Salvador that effective tripartite consultation is more than just a mere exchange of information. It should consider the opinions of the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations in decision-making processes. It should be an instrument seeking to develop public policies, while preserving the right of the Workers and Employers to accept or reject the final decisions or positions adopted by the Government and to pass on their opinions and comments directly to the ILO.

The actions of the Government of El Salvador are a serious violation of Convention No. 144. The disregard that the Government has shown for the National Association of Private Enterprise (ANEP), as the most representative organization, is particularly concerning as it violates Article 3 of the Convention by different means, including through the establishment of fake business organizations which are in no way independent. This is clear evidence of the absence of real social dialogue in El Salvador and of non-compliance with the Convention.

It is for the above reasons that we are gathered here for another year at the request of the employer representatives to discuss the case of El Salvador. It is the duty of the Committee on the Application of Standards to emphasize very clearly in its conclusions the vital need for the new Government of El Salvador to act in compliance with international labour standards and recognize ANEP as the most representative employers’ organization in El Salvador. It must also take the necessary measures to eliminate all violence against the employers of El Salvador.

Employer member, Argentina – We have listened carefully to the statement made by the Government of El Salvador in which it expressed its readiness to set up the Higher Labour Council of El Salvador as quickly as possible and we are hopeful in that regard.

The region has had many good experiences which shows how positive it has been for countries in similar situations to receive technical assistance from the ILO secretariat and its respective regional and country offices, as well as to work together alongside ILO teams with the aim of strengthening the capacities of the social partners. Such measures help to ensure compliance with the rules of social dialogue– which should not be followed under any form of duress – as well as to guarantee full respect for freedom of association and for the autonomy of workers and employers.

We hope that this opportunity is taken to work towards establishing the necessary conditions to guarantee compliance with Convention No. 144 and ensure that the legitimate employers’ organizations are duly represented in the different social dialogue bodies.

Employer member, Mexico – We regret that the Government has not recognized its lack of compliance with the Convention thus far. It is not possible to rectify a problem if it is not identified and accepted. We are not talking about something small, but about the violation of obligations that lie at the heart of this Organization, namely social dialogue and tripartite consultation. These obligations require the recognition of the social partners, that is, the most representative organizations of the employers and workers, and the rejection of any organization that is illegitimate or unrepresentative in which it is not possible to create real balance, reach the objectives of the Convention or hold effective consultations.

With those objectives in mind, the Government is asked to create an environment of trust, free of all interference in the internal affairs of the organizations, showing full respect for the rule of law. The Government, in its remarks, expressed its commitment to complying with its obligations, as a member State of this Organization. The Government should know that what we expect in this Committee and in this Organization is action, concrete facts which show that this well-intentioned commitment is becoming a reality. It could begin by setting up the tripartite bodies mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts.

There is evidence of non-compliance by the Government, testimonies from the social sectors and proof that the tripartite bodies are not functioning properly or legitimately within the framework of tripartism. I draw attention to the fact that the Government did not manifest the intentions that it says it had. Thus far, it has not been unable to report convincingly to this Committee, let alone design a road map with deadlines and objectives that are clearly defined, measurable and verifiable. Using all the tools at the disposal of the Committee, it is important to make a forceful request to the Government, obliging it to rectify this unacceptable situation.

Government representative – Despite being in power for only a few days, we, the Government, recognize that the problem caused by previous governments is significant not only for the country but also for the world and the international community. The population of El Salvador demonstrated the greatest recognition of the problem when they voted for a change of government.

Today, we are making a firm, absolute and resounding commitment to reactivate the Higher Labour Council and allow El Salvador to hold free elections without interference from any other entity over another. These are historical legacies left by all sides.

We also make it categorically clear that all consultations will take place in a tripartite manner. Together with the cabinet and through the Ministry, I have decided that one of my first courses of action, as I have highlighted in many interviews, will be to remove from within the Legislative Assembly all legislative initiatives, including draft laws, which do not have tripartite consensus, until they have been discussed in a tripartite manner with all the parties concerned. This is a concrete decision that we are already executing as, just last week, we already discussed the matter in ongoing meetings with the National Association of Private Enterprise (ANEP) as well as with the workers and the trade unions.

I stress, I repeat, and I reaffirm that the commitment of the Government is in line with the needs of our country and addresses our country’s historical debt. Personally, in my capacity as Minister, my commitment is strong and consistent with what I have previously done. The ILO has taken a personal approach and an inherently trade union-based approach, and today, now that we have a new cabinet, we cannot act otherwise as it would not be coherent with our own trajectory.

Today, we would like to make it clear before each and every one of you, just as we did when we made this commitment and in my conversation with the Director-General of the ILO, Mr Guy Ryder, that technical assistance and cooperation from the ILO is both necessary and timely because, in addition to providing legal and technical support, it serves as a guardian in our efforts to meet our obligations.

In order to meet the objectives related to the true implementation of ILO standards, I strongly believe that it is important and essential for this Organization to monitor progress, as a means of ensuring fulfilment of the commitments that we are now making. It is a strong message from our Government that, despite being in a state of transition, we have set things aside to be present here, with me in my capacity as the appointed representative of El Salvador.

We would like to make it categorically clear today before this very prestigious Organization of a legal and international character that we will settle our historical debt not only for legal reasons but also because those who love a country must join together united arm in arm: employers, workers and the State. The State must assume the real role that it is here to play. It must not interfere in any of the sectors or in the affairs of any of the parties, but rather facilitate national consensus in order to push the country forward.

Worker members – I thank all those who have enriched our discussions with their observations and remarks. We also take note of the information presented by the Government. We call on the Government to ensure full compliance with the Convention. It is a high priority Convention which embodies the principle of tripartism, a principle fundamental to our Organization.

On behalf of the Worker’s group, I wish to emphasize two points in particular. First, the CST must be composed of members who are chosen freely by the organizations representing the workers and the employers. It is not the role of the Government to interfere in this process as doing so is a serious violation Convention No. 144. Second, we invite the Government to put in place an effective consultation process which allows all the organizations to express their point of view.

We note that a new president has assumed office in the country. We sincerely hope that a new dynamic will be set in motion. The challenges and the stakes are significant, and it is high time to tackle them. In order to help the Government in its work, we suggest that it accepts a contacts mission from the International Labour Organization.

Employer members – We welcome this discussion and thank the Government, the Workers and my Employer colleagues for their interventions. We take good note of the proactive attitude of the Government. We sincerely hope that the Minister and other officials from the Government of El Salvador take decisive action to turn the encouraging words that we have heard this afternoon into reality. We reiterate that the Government has a historical opportunity to change the course of events in El Salvador through the enhancement of social dialogue, which is not only the way to achieve good governance and lasting agreements, but also an end in itself, since it is one of the pillars of any democratic system.

We also trust that the representatives of the Government of El Salvador are now clear about the legitimate concerns raised by the Employers, which are very similar to those of the Workers. The concerns pertain to government interference in the election of representatives to the National Minimum Wage Council, the Salvadoran Institute of Professional Education, the Superintendency of the Electricity and Telecommunications Sectors and other tripartite bodies, as well as the failure of the Government to set up the Higher Labour Council. To change this situation, the Government had the opportunity to make legislative changes to the rules of the Higher Labour Council, but this did not happen. In addition, we are particularly concerned about the acts of intimidation and violence that have occurred against company directors and their organizations.

With that in mind, we hope that this Committee will once again request the Government of El Salvador to, urgently, and in consultation with the social partners, develop rules that ensure the proper functioning of the Higher Labour Council (CST) and to reactivate the CST through the appointment of its members, and to do the same in the country’s other tripartite bodies. Similarly, the Government should guarantee the physical integrity of the leaders of business organizations and the security of their facilities. We remind the Government that it could benefit from technical assistance from the secretariat. We also request that it reports to the Committee of Experts on the implementation of the above-mentioned conclusions before its 2019 meeting.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion, the Committee calls upon the Government to:

- refrain from interfering with the constitution of workers’ and employers’ organizations and to facilitate, in accordance with national law, the proper representation of legitimate employers’ and workers’ organizations by issuing appropriate credentials;

- develop, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules for the reactivation and full functioning of the Higher Labour Council;

- reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council and other tripartite entities, respecting the autonomy of the most representative organizations of workers and employers and through social dialogue in order to ensure its full functioning without any interference; and

- continue to avail itself without delay of ILO technical assistance.

The Committee requests the Government to elaborate in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and submit a detailed report to the Committee of Experts before its next session in November 2019 on the application of the Convention in law and practice.

The Committee urges the Government to accept a direct contacts mission of the ILO before the 109th session of the International Labour Conference.

Government representative – I give thanks to the Chairperson of the Committee on the Application of Standards, our friends from GRULAC and the European Union for the full support offered to our country, and particularly for the message of faith and confidence in the new Government, as all these denunciations and reports correspond to a previous Government, and not to ours as from 1 June.

We have taken the decision with the President of the Republic, in my capacity as Minister, that all today’s conclusions form part of a list of priorities for our Government. In the presence here of Workers and Employers, this further commitment, from the limited viewpoint of our country, is a commitment that we are assuming before the world and each and every one of you at this time. This is in accordance with the spirit and the conclusions of our bilateral meetings, for which we give direct thanks to the Director-General, Guy Ryder, who received us. We also met Dr Kalula and various ILO bodies, in which we indicated and maintained our first intervention in plenary, indicating our willingness as a Government to fully resolve all the conclusions.

We feel totally satisfied with the conclusions reached by the Committee on the Application of Standards, as this means that they not only correspond to a new vision by our Government, but also that the technical assistance and direct contacts mission guarantee us not only collaboration and technical support, but also the guarantee of the supervision and verification of compliance with all the conclusions, which we totally welcome as the Government.

Finally, we wish to indicate, in the presence of the whole world, that we are not and will not dwell on assessments of past practices, but will adopt a positive approach, from now on, to build more democratic pillars and the cement that is required by a country such as ours.

We are fully convinced that the tripartite approach is the one that will ensure that we take in hand and lead our country forward. Moreover, Chairperson, we undertake to build all the institutions that are required at any particular time for tripartite consensus, including with other actors, in order to take forward the national agenda and also ensure the minimization of bureaucratic obstacles, as indicated in the present forum, so that we can address clearly many of our problems in full collaboration in El Salvador.

We reiterate our gratitude to GRULAC, the European Union and the countries which individually expressed total support for us and confidence. We wish to tell them that we will not fail.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)



A Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, acknowledged the professionalism and objectivity with which the Director of the International Labour Standards Department had chaired the direct contacts mission that had taken place in July 2017. In its report, the Committee of Experts recognized El Salvador as a case of progress regarding observance of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), as a result of the actions taken to activate the Higher Labour Council (CST) and move forward in terms of effective compliance with the Convention. The Government had therefore been surprised to see itself included once again in the shortlist of individual cases of the Committee on the Application of Standards, since the Government had not only expressed its commitment to find solutions to activate the CST and promote dialogue, but had also taken the corresponding actions. With the same determination and on the basis of the principles of democratic orientation and transparency which directed the workings of the Government, it had accepted the direct contacts mission, which had thus been given the opportunity to observe in situ the actions and commitments of the government bodies directly connected with ensuring observance of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and Convention No. 144. With regard to the recommendation of the direct contacts mission relating to the inactivity of the CST and taking up again the suggestions of the mission, a request had been made to the ILO in October 2017 for technical cooperation, which had been accepted. ILO assistance had been requested with three processes to be launched with the workers and employers in relation to: (i) the reform of the CST regulations; (ii) the formulation of proposals for legislative reforms to expand the right to freedom of association; and (iii) action to be taken in the area of training and the promotion of social dialogue. Despite delays in the coordination of the cooperation, a first round of consultations had been held with the workers to initiate a proposal for reform of the Labour Code. It was regrettable that representatives of the federations which were the complainants in Case No. 3054 before the Committee on Freedom of Association did not attend that first meeting, even though they had been invited to do so. In that regard, and with the expectation of effective coordination with the technical cooperation of the ILO, the actions taken as part of the follow-up to the conclusions of the direct contacts mission would continue in the coming months.

With regard to the reports to be presented under article 22 of the ILO Constitution and the consultations regarding these, despite the fact that the reports were sent each year to the employers’ and workers’ organizations for consultation, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (Ministry of Labour) had not received inputs or evaluations from those organizations. Moreover, the reports contained public information so they were available to anyone requesting them through the relevant channels. Furthermore, and irrespective of the constant complaints from the National Business Association (ANEP) and its affiliated federations and confederations, the Government, in line with its commitment to the workers, was taking steps to ensure decent living conditions and access to decent work. In this regard, progress had been achieved and decisions had been taken in tripartite forums that maintained an active work agenda and in which ANEP was constantly represented. The progress achieved included the approval of the increase in the minimum wage by the National Minimum Wage Council (CNSM), as a result of which over 240,000 workers, of which 45 per cent were women, had enjoyed an increase in income and an improvement in the standard of living of their families. Furthermore, the Salvadoran Social Security Institute (ISSS) had approved two new special social security schemes for informal economy workers and migrants and their families. Furthermore, as a result of action taken by the Government and the conditions generated by productive investment, there had been an increase in the number of jobs. In particular, between 2009 and 2018, a total of 138,293 formal jobs had been created, 79 per cent of them in the private sector. According to the 2017 Multi-Purpose Household Survey (EHPM), there had been an 11 per cent reduction in the poverty rate, with a drop in the number of households concerned from 40 to 29 per cent in 2017. Measures were being adopted through the Housing Social Fund (FSV), such as the opening of credit lines, to ensure entitlement to decent housing for workers and their families. Furthermore, the Salvadoran Vocational Training Institute (INSAFORP) was innovating training processes to enable the workforce to gradually adapt to the needs of the labour market. Lastly, the Government representative supplied statistical information highlighting the progress achieved in labour matters in the previous four years, such as: the placement of 70,170 persons in jobs (33,369 women and 36,801 men); the realization of 119,316 inspections and re-inspections at 9,367 workplaces which had been fined for non-observance or violation of the labour legislation; and cooperation with over 20,000 private companies to promote employment through the National Employment System (SisNE). All of the above bore witness to the fact that the Government had been constantly engaging in dialogue and coordinating and driving joint initiatives with workers and employers and all stakeholders committed to the development of the country. However, social dialogue through the CST, and in view of its competencies for ensuring observance of international labour standards, required political will on the part of ANEP, its member associations and its affiliated federations and confederations. El Salvador had the openness, the conviction and the historic perspective to realize that social dialogue was the cornerstone of democracy and peace. However, tripartism required the participation of three parties, and if one of the parties had neither the political will nor the democratic orientation to engage in it, it was impossible for tripartism to be implemented and consolidated. Consequently, the Government representative appealed to the employers’ organizations to join the CST, taking account of the fact that they were entitled to do so under the regulations in force and they did not need to be elected. Their participation in the CST was crucial, considering the desire and the duty that they had as ILO constituents to ensure that international labour standards were applied in El Salvador. She thanked the Office once again for the support given with technical cooperation in the context of compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 144, and the promotion of the Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183), and the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). Lastly, she reiterated the Government’s commitment to social dialogue aimed at achieving the progress and development of the country and ensuring that the workers had access to a decent life.

The Worker members recalled that this was the fourth consecutive year that the case was being examined by the Committee. In 2017, the Committee had urged the Government to: (i) reactivate, without delay, the CST; (ii) ensure concrete positive developments with regard to the freedom and autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations to appoint their representatives in compliance with the Convention, without intimidation; (iii) ensure adequate protection for the premises of the representative workers’ and employers’ organizations from violence and destruction; and (iv) report in detail on the application of the Convention in law and practice to the Committee of Experts. They welcomed that the Government had in the meantime accepted a direct contacts mission, which had taken place in July 2017. The mission had suggested that the Government avail itself of ILO technical assistance to implement the Committee’s recommendations. It was to be welcomed that the Government had now requested technical assistance and was collaborating with the ILO to give full effect to the Convention. The current comments of the Committee of Experts focused on two elements: effective tripartite consultations and adequate procedures for the election of representatives of the social partners to the CST. It was regrettable that, despite repeated discussions in the Committee, the Government had failed to hold tripartite consultations with respect to the matters concerning the activities of the ILO. The ratification of ILO Conventions was no compensation for the absence of consultations, which had to start without any further delay. While other tripartite bodies, such as the ISSS, the FSV and the CNS were fully functional and effective, the challenges with respect to the CST had not entirely been resolved. They understood that the main obstacles for the operationalization of the CST concerned the difficulties with respect to the procedures in relation to the procedures for electing representatives of the social partners.

While there were no complaints with respect to the election of employer representatives to the CST, there were still questions with respect to the election of worker representatives. They understood from the Government’s submission before the Conference Committee that the Government had requested the trade unions to present their nominations for the worker representatives to the CST, that three relevant nomination proposals had been received in May 2017, and that the Government had subsequently determined the members of the CST based on criteria such as membership and number of collective bargaining agreements. Subsequently, by applying the representation criteria, the first list had been allocated with five titular representatives, the second list with two titular representatives and the third with one titular member. The worker members had been sworn in. The employer side had decided not to attend the first meeting of the CST due to its concern over the non-conformity of the workers’ representation mechanism. While the concerns from the employer side were understandable, that issue was really for the trade unions to decide. Appreciative of the attempts undertaken by the Government to resolve the impasse, it was important that the criteria for representativeness were transparent and objective. The procedure and the criteria chosen had to be based on the consensus of the workers and had to enjoy their trust. The Government had to take a proactive role in facilitating consensus seeking instead of unilaterally imposing criteria, which as presented did not in themselves seem particularly objectionable. In their view, the actions so far taken by the Government had been delayed and lacked the transparency needed for building trust with the social partners. The implementation of the recommendations of the 2017 direct contacts mission was crucial to achieve real progress. In particular, the mission had recommended that a working group might be set up with all the federations and confederations concerned, including those that were not represented by recently elected members, to determine procedures and representativeness criteria. As had been the case with the other tripartite structures functioning in El Salvador, they remained convinced that improving social dialogue would ease many disputes in the country.

The Employer members said that the Committee was examining the application of the Convention for a second consecutive year, and it had previously been examined in 2015 and 2016 under Convention No. 87. At the previous session of the Conference Committee, the Government had explained how it was applying the Convention; a number of recommendations had been made, and it had been decided to send a direct contacts mission. The task was now to assess how the recommendations made by the Committee the previous year and by the direct contacts mission were being followed. As a starting point, the Government had been urged to reactive the CST without delay, a recommendation that had been further stressed by the direct contacts mission, with the comment that it should be done through social dialogue in order to ensure the full functioning of the CST. To date, the CST was still not in operation. However, the Government reported that it had appointed members. It was important to note that the Convention in question concerned social dialogue, which was part of the essence of the Organization. The fact of belonging to the ILO already constituted a commitment by States to hold consultations with the social partners in areas of interest. Such consultations should be held with legitimate representatives of workers and employers; that was an obligation assumed by States and a right enjoyed by the social partners. In the present case, the Government had appointed workers without revealing what criteria it had used to gauge representativeness, assuming it had any – so much so that the three majority groups of workers had told the direct contacts mission that they did not know what criteria the Government had used, and one group had contested the appointments. The workers held the Government responsible for paralysing the CST. Doubts had been raised by the employers, for whom consultations under such conditions would be problematic. At the root of the problem lay the fact that the appointment criteria, if they existed, had not been explained. Several months previously, the direct contacts mission had insisted that clear, transparent, lawful rules should be established for the reactivation and full operation of the CST. It had been reported to officials at the ILO Office in San José that a review would begin shortly. That gave rise to legitimate doubts about the Government’s will to make progress in applying the recommendations of the supervisory bodies. Similarly, the Government had said that, as well as the CST, there were five other tripartite entities and 17 independent tripartite bodies that were fully operational. The information in the employers’ possession seemed to contradict the Government’s claim. In March 2018, ANEP and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) had presented the ILO Director-General with a request for urgent action, specifically in relation to Government interference in elections for representatives to the CNSM, the Institute for Access to Public Information, the board of governors of the Independent Executive Committee for Ports and the board of governors of the Electricity and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (SIGET). In that regard, attention should be drawn to the previous year’s conclusions and to the comments of the direct contacts mission to the effect that the Government should guarantee freedom and independence in the election of workers’ and employers’ representatives. In all those institutions, delegates for the employer sector had been appointed not by the most representative organization (ANEP), but by the President of the Republic, on the basis of legislative decrees issued separately for each of the institutions with the aim of allowing the presidential appointments to pass without consultation. All the decrees displayed constitutional irregularities, as had been pointed out by the Constitutional Court. Regrettably, according to the Court’s ruling, it was necessary to wait until the expiry of the term of office of the current directors – who were not representative of the employers – to appoint legitimate representatives in accordance with the original legislation. That had not happened either, because, once that term had expired in five of the organizations concerned, the Government had taken different steps that clearly constituted interference, in flagrant breach of the recommendation of the direct contacts mission and the ruling of the Constitutional Court, with the aim of avoiding participation by the employers’ sector. In some cases, the Government had simply not appointed anyone, while in others it had gone to extremes that should be brought to the Committee’s attention so as to dispel any doubt regarding the lack of governmental will to meet the obligations arising from membership of the ILO and ratification of its Conventions. With regard to the case of SIGET, the law stipulated that its board of directors should include one director and one substitute elected by private sector trade union associations legally established in the country. The Government, knowing that ANEP was the most representative organization of employers – a fact recognized and undisputed by all previous governments and by every other employers’ organization in the country – had facilitated the swift and irregular creation of a series of so-called associations that had stood in the election for employer representatives, ensuring a majority that would succeed in returning delegates loyal to the Government. The events had been brought to the attention of the prosecution authorities so that those responsible for offences committed in the preparation of fake minutes and the falsification of documents needed for creating the so-called employers’ organizations could be punished. At the same time, the issuing of credentials to associations belonging to ANEP had been blocked, thereby preventing them from participating in the vote, which went against the requirements of the direct contacts mission. The facts presented demonstrated the Government’s obvious disregard for social dialogue and disinclination to meet the obligations arising from ratification of the Convention, which promoted tripartite consultation as one of its fundamental pillars and was aimed at improving governance and ensuring the smooth functioning of labour relations at national level. Biased actions such as those in the present case undermined trust between the social partners and the Government and furthered the Government’s autocratic mode of action. The ILO could not remain indifferent to such a reality, which was clearly harmful to social dialogue and the legitimate right to organize of the country’s employers. No matter what the occupational organization involved and whether it represented employers or workers, the ILO should act with the same rigour; not to do so would be to undermine the credibility of the system. Lastly, the Employer members urged the Government to implement without delay the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, particularly with regard to reactivating the CST; to guarantee the freedom and independence of employers’ and workers’ organizations in appointing representatives to social dialogue forums; and to refrain from any kind of interference in that process.

The Worker member of El Salvador recalled that the country had suffered a civil war whose origins lay in the marginalization, extreme poverty and exploitation suffered by the majority of the population and the total breakdown of democratic procedures and social expression. The peace agreements had come at the cost of over 80,000 deaths, as well as disappearances and summary executions. During the 1980s and 1990s, in accordance with the recommendations of the international financial institutions, economic restructuring had been undertaken consisting of the approval and implementation of neo-liberal policies. Under those policies, many sectors had been privatized, including the financial sector, telecommunications, energy and the pensions system. The dollar had also been promoted as the official currency and free trade agreements had been adopted. The result had been the mass dismissal of men and women workers, the deterioration of living conditions, an increase in migration and a loss of social security entitlements which had been acquired through union action. In that context, tripartite mechanisms had been used by the Government and employers’ organizations to serve their own interests, and the only workers’ organizations to participate in such mechanisms had been those close to the Government and employers, with the most representative workers’ organizations being sidelined. Nevertheless, since 2009, the most representative workers’ organizations in the public sector had succeeded in participating in the adoption of policies that were contributing to an improvement in the quality of life of workers. One example was the approval of the access to social security of workers in the informal economy and migrants under special schemes and the adoption in 2017 of an increase in the minimum wage, which had benefited over 250,000 workers. That wage increase, obtained as a result of the participation of the unions and their commitment to social justice, was a coherent and just response to the requirements of the Constitution and the real economic situation of the country. In view of such progress, ANEP was opposed to the operation of tripartite mechanisms with the active and pluralist participation of unions and partners who were not close to the employers. Biased practices for the election of the representatives of workers’ organizations to tripartite mechanisms had also been eliminated and an effective process of pluralist participation involving the various union movements had commenced. However, the employers were endeavouring to remove the most representative workers’ organizations from decision-making in tripartite bodies. Employers’ organizations were therefore refusing to participate in the CST and the CNSM, thereby failing to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. He emphasized the low number of unions in the private sector and referred to various cases in which employers’ organizations had harassed, dismissed and called for the detention of trade union leaders. In one of the cases, the enterprise had refused to reinstate all of the dismissed members of the executive committee of the enterprise union, despite an order issued by the Supreme Court of Justice. With regard to the functioning of tripartite mechanisms in El Salvador, such as the ISSS, he indicated that they were all operating correctly with the exception of the CST, due to the refusal of employers’ organizations to participate in the latter. Employers’ organizations, and particularly ANEP, must not interfere in any way in the decisions of workers concerning the election of their representatives. In contrast with the previous procedures for the election of representatives to tripartite bodies, the current procedure was participatory and democratic and based on universal criteria of representativeness. Moreover, with a view to ensuring that the country followed on the path of being governable and of sustainable development, it was necessary to strengthen social dialogue, bargaining and consensus, as well as compliance with the national legislation and ILO instruments. He therefore called on the Government to continue giving effect to the requests made by the Committee of Experts to: (i) promote the participation of employers and workers in decision-making; and (ii) activate procedures for interaction in tripartite mechanisms as soon as possible, despite the refusal of private enterprises to participate in them. He also called on the Government, through the Ministry of Labour, to which a higher budget should be allocated, to give greater emphasis to the effective enforcement of labour legislation in the public and private sectors and to ensure a higher number of enterprise inspections. Lastly, private enterprise, as an important pillar of the economy, needed to make efforts to reach agreement in tripartite bodies, while respecting the independence of workers’ organizations, pluralism, democracy and diversity of opinion. The basic values of humanism, solidarity and mutual respect required workers, employers and governments to act in conformity with the Constitution, which reaffirmed that labour was not a commodity, and to combat precarious work, the deterioration of the environment and the exploitation of children.

The Employer member of El Salvador recalled that the Committee had been examining the repeated violations of various Conventions by the Government for four consecutive years. The previous year, it had been examined as a double-footnoted case and the Committee had urged the Government to accept a direct contacts mission, which showed the gravity of the reiterated violations of the Convention. The present Convention, which concerned social dialogue and tripartite consultation, was given effect in El Salvador through a tripartite body entitled the CST. The CST had not been functioning since 2013 as a result of a unilateral decision by the Government to require unanimity among workers’ organizations for the election and designation of their representatives. However, the real reason was that the Government did not want to engage in social dialogue or tripartite consultation. The previous year, after noting the absence of effective consultations with representative and independent organizations of workers and employers, the Committee had urged the Government to: (i) reactivate without delay the CST; and (ii) ensure concrete positive developments with regard to the freedom and autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations to appoint their representatives, without intimidation. The Committee had also once again requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to the country. In July 2017, the direct contacts mission had been carried out and certain tripartite meetings had been held. In one of the meetings, the workers’ representatives designated by the Government as members of the CST had acknowledged that they were not aware of the criteria that had been adopted by the Government for their appointment. That interference by the Government was recorded in the final report of the mission. In its final report, the mission had also recommended that the Government: (i) reactivate the CST; and (ii) ensure in law and practice the freedom and independence of employers’ and workers’ organizations in the election of their representatives. One year after the Committee had adopted its conclusions, the Government had not only failed to give effect to any of the recommendations, with the exception of the direct contacts mission, but had acted in a manner that was contrary to the recommendations. For example, it had prepared a Decent Employment Policy, which had been launched in public in September 2017 without prior consultation of the social partners. One week before the launching of the policy, without having had any occasion to participate in its preparation and not being aware of its contents, ANEP had received a note from the Government requesting it to comment on the document with a view to securing its support for the public launch of the employment policy. In that regard, he emphasized that the Government could not develop an employment policy without consulting the most representative organizations of employers and workers with a view to taking fully into account their experience and views, and securing their full collaboration in the preparation of the policy and the necessary support for its implementation. Another example had been in May 2018, when ANEP had been invited, with less than two hours’ notice, to participate in the review of a document entitled the National Employment Pact, which would be submitted in public the day following its review. The lack of notice was a clear indication not only of the lack of respect for the social partners, but also for social dialogue, tripartite consultation and the Government’s obligations as a Member of the ILO. Moreover, at the same time that the direct contacts mission was being carried out, the Government had adopted a series of measures intended to prevent the employers from designating, in accordance with the law, a titular and a substitute director of SIGET, the regulatory body for electricity and telecommunications in the country. Over a short period, 60 associations had been created, composed of young persons between 18 and 20 years of age living in 17 municipal areas characterized by poverty and a high rate of informality. The associations were created on the basis of a model document prepared by lawyers who were also public employees of the state enterprises regulated by SIGET. The 60 associations had participated in the elections and had won. The Government was therefore not only refusing to engage in dialogue with the legitimate representatives of the employers, but was also creating fake associations to replace the legitimate partners. In light of those events, the employers’ organizations had appealed to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, which had ordered precautionary measures, and to the Office of the Public Prosecutor to undertake the corresponding criminal investigations. In January 2018, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, ANEP had designated a director of the Road Conservation Fund (FOVIAL) and proposed a shortlist for the El Salvador Tourism Corporation (CORSATUR). Five months later, the Government had not made appointments to those positions or convened meetings. With reference to the election of representatives to the Institute for Access to Public Information and the CNSM, the employers’ organizations were pursuing appeals under the Constitution. With regard to the Autonomous Port Executive Commission, the situation was more complex. The Government was refusing to give effect to the ruling by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court which had found unconstitutional the Decrees of 2012, as a result of which employers’ organizations had recovered the capacity to designate and appoint directors of autonomous public bodies freely and independently. In brief, there was a long list of violations of the Convention by the Government, including the fact that ANEP had been waiting for a year to receive its official credentials.

The Government member of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, recalled the commitment undertaken by the Government under the trade pillar of the EU–Central America Association Agreement to effectively implement the fundamental ILO Conventions. It was regrettable that the case had already been discussed at the Committee in 2017, at which time the Committee had urged the Government to reactivate the CST and ensure positive developments on the right of the social partners to appoint their representatives. However, it had to be welcomed that a direct contacts mission had taken place in July 2017, and that the Government had attempted to reactivate the CST during an inaugural meeting in June 2017, in which the employers had, however, not participated, alleging non-conformity of the workers’ representation mechanism. The social partners had the right to freely appoint the representatives of their choice in joint and tripartite bodies without interference from the Government. As an essential measure to build trust among the different stakeholders, she urged the Government to take measures to include all social partners in consultations related to employment and labour policies, in a transparent manner, before a decision was taken. The Government should reconstitute the CST as a matter of urgency. To this end, it should promptly establish, in consultation with the social partners, clear and transparent rules for nomination of their representatives to the CST, based on the criteria of representativeness of organizations and in compliance with the Convention. Furthermore, the Government should explore all possible ways to promote social dialogue, and all social partners should engage in tripartite dialogue in a constructive manner. She strongly encouraged the Government to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, and emphasized the commitment of constructive engagement with the country, including through EU and Member States cooperation projects, which were aimed to strengthen the Government’s capacity to address all issues raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Paraguay, speaking on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), welcomed the information provided by the Government regarding compliance with the Convention. Furthermore, she referred to the report of the Committee of Experts with regard to: (i) the inclusion of El Salvador as a case of progress, in which the Committee had expressed satisfaction at some of the positive measures adopted by the Government in reply to its comments; (ii) the holding of a direct contacts mission in June 2017, in response to the Conference Committee’s conclusions from the previous year; (iii) the Government’s demonstration, during the direct contacts mission, of its willingness to carry out the actions indicated and agreed upon in the context of the mission, in order to continue to promote social dialogue and the agreements between the sectors, thus contributing to the activation of the CST; and (iv) the Government’s request for technical assistance in October 2017, which was already being provided by the San José Office. She was confident that the Government would continue to comply with the Convention.

The Government member of Panama supported the statement made by GRULAC, and said that he had listened closely to the information provided by the Government and the points raised by the Employer members and the Worker members, from which diverging opinions could be observed. In the current conditions, the establishment of dialogue was difficult. However, the Government had made efforts to reactivate the CST, which was the mechanism created in order to put tripartism into practice. It was hoped that such a mechanism would be able to function, respecting the will of the Salvadorean people and without interference by outside parties. He congratulated the ILO for the backing given on the ground, and reiterated his support for the Government in its efforts to create social justice and comply with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker member of Guatemala expressed concern at developments in labour relations in El Salvador, in particular when social partners questioned the representativeness of others. In El Salvador, as in Guatemala, there had been too many years of war, deaths and victims, and immense value was therefore attached to peace and the need to change ways of relating within a context of democracy and respect. For there to be freedom of association and representativeness of employers’ and workers’ organizations, it was first necessary to consolidate a legal and social framework to enable the organizations to exist, develop and perform their activities without them or their members being persecuted. Organizing a workers’ trade union, especially in the private sector, still implied a major risk, since the reaction from the enterprise was likely to be dismissals or reprisals, as had been communicated time and again to the national authorities and the ILO. In some cases, trade union activities implied a risk to life, as had been demonstrated by the murders of trade unionists from El Salvador and Guatemala, whose cases remained open for years without the authorities shedding light on the perpetrators and instigators of their deaths. He supported the recommendations made by the direct contacts mission in 2017, in which the competent authorities had been encouraged to ensure that the necessary measures were taken, in consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, to ensure full respect for the autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations to appoint their representatives. Furthermore, social dialogue was too important to be paralysed by procedural aspects. Where one or more of the sectors participating in or invited to consultation forums had internal difficulties in being considered representative, that issue should be resolved among the sectoral organizations themselves, in what was considered an appropriate manner and time. Lastly, he called on all parties to overcome difficulties and resume the social dialogue processes that had been promoted, since that was the only possible way to carry out the fundamental task of improving the living and working conditions of millions of Salvadoreans who were currently enduring difficult personal situations, far removed from the decent work recommended by the ILO.

The Government member of Honduras reaffirmed the support shown for the Government in the GRULAC statement regarding the application of the Convention. The Government had taken action in response to the Committee’s requests from the previous year and the recommendations of the direct contacts mission of July 2017. For example, it had held institutional consultations and validated labour procedures, and had also invited representatives of the three sectors to attend the inaugural meeting of the CST. He expressed regret that the meeting had not taken place and urged the Government to continue its efforts to promote tripartite dialogue so that the CST could soon be restored and fully operationalized. It would also be an opportunity to implement good practices that enabled consultation with social partners, thereby ensuring full tripartite participation. In a spirit of constructiveness, the mandatory nature of tripartite consultations continued to result in effective procedures for promoting the application of international labour standards. Hence, any decisions taken regarding the due observance of fundamental, governance and technical Conventions not only required a clear willingness on the part of the Government to carry out the steps specified and agreed, but also commitment on the part of the tripartite constituents and technical assistance from the ILO. Lastly, the Government should continue its efforts to implement the necessary measures and establishing dialogue mechanisms which contributed to consultation with the social partners leading to tripartite solutions.

An observer representing the World Organization of Workers (WOW), speaking on behalf of the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the Democratic Union Alternative for the Americas (ADS) regional confederation and several Salvadorean trade unions, said that in the previous nine years, El Salvador had experienced a clear regression in terms of tripartism, social dialogue, freedom of association and the conclusion of collective agreements. In July 2017, the direct contacts mission had made a series of recommendations, which had not been implemented by the Government, given that the CST had still not met a year after it had been established. No consultations had been held with trade union federations or confederations to determine procedures for electing CST representatives, until 17 May 2018, when the Ministry of Labour had invited the trade union representatives to a meeting with an advisor to discuss the reform of the regulations, maintaining that it was thereby complying with the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, which showed that it only aimed to deceive the Committee, given that no actions had been carried out in that regard since the previous session of the Conference. The situation in the country had deteriorated. For example, the procedure to legally register various organizations had been made more complicated, imposing requirements not laid down in the legislation. Various comments had been made on the records of union assemblies of organizations which were considered by public officials to be unsound. There had been delays of 60 to 90 days in issuing the respective credentials, thereby hampering trade union representation because the organizations did not have the necessary accreditation. Additional requirements placed only on trade unions identified as not being compliant constituted discriminatory treatment. Public sector agreements were not implemented and tactics had been employed to prevent collective bargaining, such as in the cases of the Health Solidarity Fund (FOSALUD). Lastly, there was constant interference in trade union autonomy by the Ministry of the Interior and Territorial Development and the Ministry of Labour, which affected the independence and free exercise of trade union rights. The Government had not taken any steps to ensure the full application of the Conventions in law and practice, and had not initiated the process for the submission of the Conventions for ratification by the relevant bodies. Social dialogue was notably absent, as exemplified in the adoption of a national employment agreement and policy, without consultation with all the workers’ organizations. In addition, there were plans to adopt an Act on the public service, which essentially did away with trade unions, denied them the right to collective bargaining, eliminated public servants’ employment stability and was a flagrant breach of the ILO Conventions. The Government should reform national legislation with a view to removing obstacles to freedom of association. For example, it should take action to reduce the number of members required to establish a trade union, as municipal and central government workers employed in institutions with fewer than 35 employees, who were also unable to establish unions at enterprise level, were prevented from exercising their right to organize. Moreover, it was necessary to remove the requirement that trade union leaders must be Salvadorean by birth, because this excluded migrant workers from other countries who worked in construction and agriculture. It was also necessary to remove the rule that allowed workers to join only one trade union, even if they worked in two different economic sectors, and remove the obligation to elect the executive committees of trade union federations and confederations on an annual basis.

The Government member of the Dominican Republic endorsed the statement by GRULAC, and expressed her support for the information provided by the Government regarding the application of the Convention. She acknowledged the positive measures adopted by the Government, which clearly demonstrated its determination to encourage and strengthen social dialogue and consensus between the sectors, thus facilitating the activation of the CST. She also thanked the ILO for its contribution to strengthening the capacity of governments through technical cooperation, which was currently being provided to the Government.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated that the determination of the Government and the workers to promote social dialogue through the CST was noticeable. Dialogue should be honest, sincere and responsible, but it was being used as a tool to undermine the rights that workers had fought to obtain. In this case and others, the desire of the employers to destroy social dialogue could be observed, at a time when some governments were finally engaging in it and complying with the ILO Conventions. When they suffered defeat, the employers denied that they had been consulted and avoided dialogue, accusing governments of interfering. In cases of murders of trade unionists, students, teachers, environmentalists and journalists, the same forcefulness was not seen. It was necessary to protect trade unionists, activists and environmentalists and to impose severe penalties on those who violated, for example, the human rights to decent work, life, education, health and housing. It was also necessary to acknowledge that governments, along with their workers and honest employers, were surpassing and improving the ILO Conventions.

The Government member of Cuba expressed support for the statement made by GRULAC and welcomed the information provided by the Government. The points made in the report by the Committee of Experts, which examined the implementation by El Salvador of the Conference Committee’s 2017 conclusions, must be taken into consideration. The report included the country on the list of cases in relation to which the Committee of Experts had expressed satisfaction at the measures adopted and the processes implemented by the Government relating to tripartism and social dialogue. The Government had expressed its willingness to comply with the Convention. ILO technical assistance and cooperation could contribute to such a process.

The Worker member of Paraguay, speaking on behalf of the National Confederation of Workers (CNT) and the ADS, expressed concern at the Government’s lack of willingness to adopt the measures needed to promote and guarantee effective consultations and social dialogue with the workers’ and employers’ organizations, and its failure to observe the rules used as a basis for the development of mature dialogue, thus violating the right to freedom of association. The situation in the country was alarming, as the Government did not comply with the Convention and transgressed and violated the spirit and principles of social dialogue and effective consultation, which were pillars of the ILO and the work of the Committee. The Government had not supported the processes of social dialogue and tripartite participation which had been carried out, which had thereby had an adverse impact on the workers’ and employers’ organizations, and on the international community. It was important to have national and international bodies within which governments could ensure inclusive and effective consultations and collaboration for the proper development of common interests. Such bodies should be free from discriminatory practices and guarantee the respect of freedom of association and tripartism in order to make improvements at national level that would transform labour relations in a successful and positive manner. Social dialogue played a crucial role in the promotion of dignified and decent work with the necessary guarantees, freedom, security and dignity. The Government must transform its willingness into a powerful driving force.

The Employer member of Honduras recalled that the case had been examined last year as a double-footnoted case and the Committee had once again urged the Government to accept a direct contacts mission before the end of 2017. This was an indication of the seriousness of the Government’s repeated violations, both of the Convention and of the principles of the ILO. Furthermore, the Committee, having noted a lack of genuine consultation with representative and independent workers’ and employers’ organizations, had urged the Government to: (i) immediately reactivate the CST; and (ii) ensure that tangible progress was made with regard to the freedom and independence of the employers’ and workers’ organizations to appoint their representatives, without being subject to intimidation. The final report of the direct contacts mission recommended that the CST should be reactivated and the freedom and independence of the elections of representatives of workers and employers should be guaranteed. It also called on the Government to guarantee, in law and in practice, full respect for the independence of employers’ and workers’ organizations in appointing their representatives. It was a source of concern that the Government had not adopted any of the recommendations of the Committee or the direct contacts mission, and that it was ignoring the shortcomings of its own constitutional oversight bodies, thus violating labour standards and destroying the trust that should prevail in social dialogue. The Committee had a duty to promote compliance with international labour standards through the relevant mechanisms. In view of the Government’s repeated omissions, the speaker asked that: (i) a firm demand should be made for compliance with the recommendations of the Conference Committee and the direct contacts mission; (ii) the Government should bring together the legitimate representative social actors; and (iii) reports detailing compliance with the Committee of Experts’ recommendations should be presented within two months.

The Worker member of Brazil voiced his solidarity with the workers of El Salvador and expressed the hope that the Government would ensure the application of the Convention, establishing and guaranteeing all the conditions for doing so in a pluralistic, transparent and democratic manner. The participation of trade unions had been fundamental in the country when it came to improving minimum wages and access to social security for informal and migrant workers. It was therefore necessary to strengthen the presence of trade unions in the private sector. Employers must not support tripartism only when they derive a benefit from this, and should allow more representative workers’ organizations to be incorporated into all tripartite bodies. It was necessary for those bodies to operate with the active and pluralistic participation of trade unions, governments and employers in pursuit of social dialogue and in a spirit of tripartism, with the goal of good governance, social justice, sustainable development and continued progress.

The Government representative said that she had listened carefully to the statements made concerning the case and emphasized that various initiatives had been introduced and would continue to be pursued until a solution was reached to reactivate the CST. The Government would continue to request technical cooperation and mediation from the Office, principally because the employers’ unions only responded to invitations to discuss the topics raised when invited by the Office to talk to the Ministry of Labour. The arguments made concerning an election process in the complaint submitted by ANEP and in the statement of the Employer member regarding SIGET were baseless and reflected a divergence of sectoral interests. In El Salvador, it was not a crime to establish organizations or unions, as it had been for a decade under military rule, resulting in armed conflict. The Government stood guarantor for freedom of association, freedom of expression and civil and political rights, which were constitutional rights because they were part of the results of the dialogue and negotiation enshrined in the Peace Accords. The Supreme Court had even issued a protection order halting the election, not on account of the organizations created but because there was a conflict of interest between one of the individuals elected and the functions of SIGET. The Supreme Court had ordered the Legislative Assembly to issue an interim provision amending the act on the creation of SIGET to reappoint the directors whose term had expired in December 2017. SIGET was acting accordingly pending a ruling in the constitutional protection (amparo) proceedings brought before the Supreme Court. It was therefore necessary for all parties to respect due process. Irregularity in the participation of organizations not sympathetic to the employer sector did not mean that those organizations must be illegal or that they had failed to observe the precepts of the Convention. Moreover, electricity and telecommunications were not the sole preserve of the employers’ sector but matters of national interest, as they were not only an economic resource but also a resource for the development and well-being of the population. As such, various sectors had a legitimate interest in participating, expressing their views and being listened to in the decision-making process. With regard to the Employer members’ comments on government interference in election processes, it was important to note that the criteria considered in appointing representatives of the workers’ sector had been taken from international custom and were intended to ensure the objective application of the conclusions of the ILO concerning: (i) the reactivation of the CST without delay; and (ii) the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court stating that the Ministry of Labour was obliged to establish and maintain processes of social dialogue and tripartite participation to tackle the circumstances that were stopping the CST from functioning. In the same ruling it was stated that forums should be provided for dialogue among the trade union organizations involved, which should be given the necessary means to agree on and apply clear and permanent procedures for electing their representatives, so as to ensure that workers’ representatives were appointed and participated in the aforementioned consultative body. In that respect, criteria such as the number of union members, number of member unions and number of collective agreements for each of the lists submitted were what had guided the appointments. The criteria had been assessed on the basis of data registered with the Ministry of Labour and the information supplied by the registered trade unions. The Government must guarantee that the measures ordered by the Legislative Assembly through legislation and by the Supreme Court were implemented. It followed that there had been no modification of the CST regulations of the CST, but the procedural gaps concerning the workers’ delegation had persisted since 1994, resulting in the CST becoming inactive. Furthermore, the Government had given the employers an absolute guarantee of participation. The Government had respected the law and had not introduced any election procedures whatsoever that served specific interests.

The Employer members welcomed once again the agreement reached in the Conference Committee on the importance of social dialogue and respect for the independence of workers’ and employers’ organizations. However, it was a source of concern to hear the accounts of self-employed workers who claimed to have been subject to acts of discrimination, such as those pointed out by the Employers, which was a reminder of the gravity of this case. The Committee had underscored the importance of social dialogue, which was an essential building block of the Organization. For social dialogue to be fruitful, it was necessary for the legitimate representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations to participate in good faith, and for the Government to acknowledge the need to facilitate such dialogue and attempt to reach consensus. Ultimately, a great deal depended on the Government’s having a true democratic orientation, with a view to meeting, in good faith, its obligations arising from its international commitments and, more importantly, with the intention of enriching the vision on issues of national interest and achieving governance. It was not a case of complying with a mere formality, let alone claiming to do so by convening bodies which were not at all representative or, even worse, which had been arbitrarily established for the purpose, suggesting a commitment to dialogue that it did not have. The statements made by the Government minutes earlier were a matter of concern, as they clearly recognized such bodies as representative employers’ organizations. The Employer members reiterated that the Government could not shirk its obligations solely because negotiations with one or both of the social partners might become uncomfortable if they defended their legitimate interests. The Conference Committee could not overlook a situation such as the one referred to in the strongest terms in the case, as it would contribute to the destruction of social dialogue and a loss of trust in the supervisory mechanisms. On this occasion, the employers of El Salvador were being discriminated against, on another occasion it could be workers or employers in any other part of the world. Since the discussion of the case in 2017 and the direct contacts mission had issued its recommendations, there had been no sign of the Government’s willingness to comply fully and in good faith with its obligations emanating from the Convention. It was the Committee’s duty to remind the Government in no uncertain terms of the need to modify its attitude and act in accordance with the law. In light of the above, the Employer members requested that: the seriousness of the social dialogue situation in the country should be highlighted in the conclusions of this case; the Government should be urged to immediately reactivate the CST, through social dialogue with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, in order to ensure its full operation; and the Government should be urged to develop, in consultation with the social partners, clear and stable rules in conformity with the law for the reactivation and full operation of the CST. The Government must also be urged: (i) to refrain from interfering in the composition of the employers’ organizations and to facilitate, in accordance with the law, the proper representation of legitimate employers’ organizations, emitting the required credentials; (ii) to immediately appoint representatives of legitimate employers’ organizations to the social dialogue forums for which such appointments were pending; and (iii) to accept the technical assistance of the Office. Lastly, given the seriousness of the case, the Employer members asked for the conclusions to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

The Worker members recognized the efforts made by the Government to comply with the Convention. In previous years, the technical assistance provided by the ILO and a direct contacts mission had indeed contributed to build trust and strengthen tripartite social dialogue in El Salvador. However, there were still significant shortcomings that needed to be overcome without delay. Unfortunately, social partners in the country had been deprived for too long of the opportunity to have their views heard in relation to the instruments adopted by the ILO. They therefore urged the Government to immediately create the conditions to allow such consultations to take place. Despite some positive engagement from the Government, there were still real doubts with respect to the criteria and procedures for the election of the worker representatives in the CST. The direct contacts mission that had visited the country in July 2017 had produced recommendations to the Government that were fully supported by the Workers’ group. The mission had indicated the need for effective consultation with the confederations and federations concerned for the determination of stable election procedures with precise, objective, and pre-established representativeness criteria. In addition, the mission had recommended the establishment of a working group open to all registered confederations and federations, to agree jointly clear and permanent criteria and procedures for the appointment of their representatives. ILO technical assistance was currently being provided in order to set up consultations with the social partners for the reform of the CST’s regulations to implement those recommendations. Both the employers and government authorities should respect this process and the choices made by the workers to allow the CST to finally start functioning. In this regard, all necessary steps should be undertaken, as recommended by the Committee of Experts, to investigate and resolve all the allegations of interference in the CST. The Employers’ group had highlighted the challenges they were experiencing with regard to various bodies at national level and the allegations of interference by the Government. They expressed the hope that the Government would engage with the employers swiftly in order to find a satisfactory resolution. However, it had to be pointed out that those bodies did not deal with the matters listed under Article 5 of the Convention and should therefore not distract from the other very important issues discussed. They once again urged the Government to work with the ILO through technical assistance in order to establish long overdue progress on that matter.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with concern the dysfunctional operation of social dialogue and the current non-compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion, the Committee called upon the Government to:

- refrain from interfering with the constitution of employers’ organizations and to facilitate, in accordance with national law, the proper representation of legitimate employers’ organizations by issuing appropriate credentials;

- develop, in consultation with the social partners, clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules for the reactivation and full functioning of the Higher Labour Council (CST);

- reactivate, without delay, the CST, through the most representative organizations of workers and employers and through social dialogue in order to ensure its full functioning;

- appoint without delay representatives of the most representative employers’ organizations in the CST where such appointments are still pending; and

- avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Committee recommends that the Government submit a detailed report to the Committee of Experts before its next session in November 2018.

A Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, noted the conclusions and reiterated that the Government was firmly committed to due compliance with the Convention. The Government had fostered tripartite social dialogue as part of the national agenda in order to achieve social and labour justice and would continue with technical cooperation to ensure that the social partners had the technical tools to engage in it. In El Salvador, there was freedom of association; nobody was denied that right; and the unions representing the employers’ sector enjoyed active and guaranteed participation in all tripartite forums and in almost all bipartite forums. In the case of the Higher Labour Council (CST), the regulations provided for the participation of the ANEP unions (the Chamber of the Construction Industry (CASALCO), the Chamber of Agriculture (CAMAGRO), the Chamber of Commerce and the Salvadoran Industry Association (ASI)) and ANEP itself, which, despite not having attended the inaugural meeting, had already sent their representatives to participate in the CST. Unlike for the workers’ sector, which did not have an election procedure, there were no obstacles for the employers’ delegation. She welcomed the existence of the supervisory bodies, which supported countries in achieving compliance with the Conventions. Moreover, those bodies should not be used as forums for addressing disagreements which, precisely, could be resolved through active and effective participation in the bodies that had been set up for that purpose. She thanked the speakers who had acknowledged the action taken by the Government to make progress regarding compliance with the Convention and also expressed gratitude for the technical cooperation received from the Office.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2017, Publication: 106th ILC session (2017)



A Government representative emphasized her commitment to compliance with ratified international conventions. She said that, further to the observations of the Committee of Experts and the recommendations of the mediation process on the functioning of the Higher Labour Council on 1 May 2017, the Government has called on the legally registered trade union federations and confederations to make their proposals for Worker representatives to the Council. She noted that, between 12 and 17 May 2017, the Government had received three proposals. The first consisted of eight titular members and their substitutes, which had been made by eight federations and a confederation composed of 39 trade unions with a total of 19,107 members. The second was composed of eight titular members and their substitutes, submitted by 18 federations and two confederations with a total of 108,779 members. Finally, the third consisted of a titular member and substitute, presented by a confederation and 15 unions with a membership of 4,130. She referred to the 2017 decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in amparo appeal No. 951-2013. Worker representatives to the Higher Labour Council consisted of eight titular members and their substitutes, five of whom came from the first proposal, two from the second, and one from the third. The Worker representatives, who had taken their oaths on 29 May 2017, represented 251 of the 445 active unions (approximately 56 per cent), with 131,926 of the 253,139 registered members (approximately 51 per cent). She observed that none of the complainant organizations in Case No. 3054 had made proposals for the Higher Labour Council. She added that the employers’ organizations had requested an extension of 30 days, as from 17 May 2017, to consult their members. The President of the Republic had already appointed the eight members representing the Government. The first meeting of the Higher Labour Council would be convened soon. With regard to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the promotion of tripartism and social dialogue, she indicated that the five tripartite bodies and the 17 autonomous institutions were operational. In particular, she referred to the mandate of the Social Security Institute of El Salvador (ISSS), the Social Housing Fund of El Salvador (FSV) and the Vocational Training Institute of El Salvador (INSAFORP). She also provided information on the process for the nomination of representatives to the National Minimum Wage Board (CNSM). She regretted that the employers represented by the National Business Council (ANEP) did not participate in the CNSM as a result of their disagreement with the outcome of the elections for Worker representatives, despite the fact that the representatives had been elected legally and democratically. In conclusion, she reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to social dialogue, compliance with international Conventions and social justice, based on the conviction that the social transformations that were desired, and which were being worked towards, could only be achieved with the active participation of all the social partners.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information provided and recalled that the Committee had not previously examined the application by El Salvador of the Convention, in contrast with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which had been discussed in 2015 and 2016. They recalled that various matters had been examined during those discussions, which had been raised by the Committee of Experts in its observations in 2007, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. They emphasized that the case was of great significance for the Employer members. With reference to the conclusions of the Committee in 2016, they emphasized that the Government had been requested to reactivate the Higher Labour Council and to ensure the full independence of employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee had also called for a direct contacts mission. However, that mission had not taken place. Despite the technical assistance provided, the Higher Labour Council had not been reactivated. The Government indicated that the Council would soon be operational again. Nevertheless, the Employer members still entertained doubts concerning the nomination of its members and non-interference by the Government. They recalled that, to be effective, consultations needed to be held before decisions were taken, with all the necessary information being supplied sufficiently in advance so that views could be formed. The situation in the country was still a matter of concern in relation to the application of the Convention, as effect had still not been given to the Committee’s conclusions. There were situations that affected the freedom of association of employers, which were contrary to the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 144. They referred to the acts of interference in relation to the election of the members of the CNSM, and noted that on the very day of the elections a directive had been issued, notified and modified. In the view of the ANEP, all of that had been unlawful. They noted that, in the view of the ANEP, the representatives on the CNSM, in the same way as those of the Institute for Access to Public Information (IAIP), were cooperatives, which lacked the necessary legitimacy. The result in both cases was that the members elected were persons or bodies linked to the Government. The most serious issue was the interference in the elections of the Coffee Growers Association of El Salvador (FECAGRO). The Ministry of the Interior was still holding up the necessary credentials for the legal recognition of the change in executive boards for over 50 of the affiliates of the ANEP. During the second half of 2016, there had been a total of 17 marches in front of the headquarters of the ANEP. The situation was of great concern. They added that, in view of the extreme gravity of all the matters raised, the Committee’s conclusions should be placed in a special paragraph of its report. A direct contacts mission was still necessary.

The Worker members emphasized their particular concern at the situation in the country, including the levels of violence and poverty. The direct contacts mission called for by the Committee during its examination in 2016 of Convention No. 87 had still not taken place. It was to be hoped that the Government would give effect to the conclusions adopted in 2016. The authorities needed in particular to shed full light on the murder of the trade unionist, Victoriano Abel Vega in 2010. The failings examined this year would certainly have the same origins as those relating to the application of Convention No. 87. While hoping that the increase in the minimum wage in January 2017 would improve the situation of the poorest categories of the population, it was to be regretted that it had been followed by reactions that had stoked social tensions in the country, namely mass dismissals in certain enterprises and attempts to radically undermine the principle of the eight-hour day. Reference should be made to the constitutional obligations related to the submission to the competent authorities of the instruments adopted by the Conference. The aim of Convention No. 144 is to encourage tripartite consultations at the national level on matters relating to ILO activities. Since 2013, El Salvador had been seriously failing in its compliance with the requirements concerning the submission of instruments. The Government appeared to have failed to establish effective tripartite structures for consultation on matters relating to ILO activities, as required by the Convention. What was important in relation to that obligation was that the social partners were able to express their views before the Government made a final decision. Consultations therefore needed to be held prior to the adoption of the final decision. For that purpose, the Government needed to ensure that the necessary information was communicated sufficiently in advance to the representatives of workers and employers. In that regard, member States had a margin of manoeuvre in determining the nature and form of the tripartite consultation procedures. Under the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), member States were free to carry out consultations through written communications, although those involved in the consultative procedures needed to agree that such communications were appropriate and sufficient. The Higher Labour Council was the competent body in El Salvador for issues relating to ILO activities. The latest information available appeared to report a solution to the blockage that had affected the operation of this body, due to the disagreement that existed between certain trade union organizations. It was to be hoped that employers’ organizations would also nominate their representatives in order to enable the Council to take up its work again as soon as possible. It was essential for the Government to ensure that the solution that was found guaranteed the sustainable operation of the institution in future. With reference to the freedom of representative organizations to select Employer and Worker representatives, as set out in the Convention, the difficulty in the country concerned in particular the nomination of Worker representatives to the Higher Labour Council. It appeared that the dispute that was dividing the various trade union organizations had its origins in the requirement by the Government that trade union federations and confederations should reach consensus on the nomination of their respective representatives to the Council. That totally undermined the freedom of choice of each representative organization in its own right. The solution adopted needed to ensure the nomination of trade union representatives to the Council on the basis of criteria of representativity. It was to be hoped that this solution would be adopted for the long term and would not just be an isolated measure intended to respond to the demands of the ILO. With a view to ensuring the long-term reactivation of the Council, it would be necessary to have pre-established objective and precise criteria and an agreed, clear and permanent electoral process which guaranteed the greatest possible representativity of the organizations. In the event of any challenge, the organizations should also be able to rely on an independent body which enjoyed the confidence of all the parties to decide on the dispute. With regard to tripartite consultations on the submission of instruments to the competent authorities, as envisaged by the Convention, it would appear that the consultation procedure had not yet been established in the country. Such a procedure needed to be implemented in the near future. It was essential for the representative organizations to be able to communicate their views on the action proposed by the Government on ILO standards. The need to determine the consultation procedure to be followed was intimately tied up with the proper functioning of the Higher Labour Council. It would not appear possible to establish this procedure unless all the representatives of the representative organizations had been nominated. A lasting solution therefore needed to be found to ensure the proper functioning of the Higher Labour Council. The improvement of social dialogue would have a calming effect on many of the tensions in the country.

The Employer member of El Salvador said that, despite the Committee’s conclusions, the Government was still failing to comply with the Convention. First, he recalled that the Committee had requested the Government to reactivate the Higher Labour Council immediately. On 11 May 2017, after four years of inactivity of the Council, the employers had been requested to designate their representatives to the Council in only four days. An extension of one month had been requested. The nominations were ready and would be communicated to the offices of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare that afternoon. Worker representatives had been elected to the Council. The media in his country had published statements by the Worker representatives elected, who had denied knowledge of the rules on which the election had been based. Such actions ran counter to the Convention, as well as the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the conclusions of the Conference Committee, in which it had urged the Government to ensure the full autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations. He called on the ILO to investigate this matter. Second, he referred to the conclusions of the Committee in 2016 concerning the need to ensure the full independence of employers’ and workers’ organizations. In that regard, he complained that the Government had withheld the credentials of 25 out of 50 employers’ organizations, without which they could not participate in the tripartite consultations, as they needed to be registered with the Ministry of the Interior after electing a new executive board. He noted, for example, that in the recent convocation for the Higher Labour Council, the Government had requested proof that the organizations were duly registered with the Ministry of the Interior. He also complained that, in the short-lists for election as IAIP commissioners, the Government had only issued credentials to cooperative associations, which meant that many employers’ organizations had been unable to participate. Moreover, some credentials had been issued illegally to a group of people with government ties, so that one of them could assume the presidency of the Association of Coffee Owners of FECAGRO. That person, with support from the national police, had illegally entered the FECAGRO offices. Finally, he complained that there had been acts of intimidation against members of the ANEP by groups linked to the Government and attacks on the ANEP premises. He expressed regret that the Government had still not accepted the direct contacts mission recommended by the Committee in 2016.

The Worker member of El Salvador indicated that in recent years the trade unions had developed proposals in tripartite bodies with a view to promoting structural changes, the equal distribution of wealth and respect for human rights, and fundamental rights and principles at work, despite corporate interference. The Worker representatives had been elected to the Higher Labour Council, which had not been operational since 2013. Once that blockage had been overcome, it would be important for the Council’s rules of procedure to be reformed to establish the procedures and criteria determine the representativeness of Worker representatives. The democratic and transparent composition of trade union and Employer representatives needed to be guaranteed. ANEP should refrain from interfering in trade union representation, and from seeking to promote representatives affiliated to it and attempting to undermine workers’ organizations, a situation which had been brought to the knowledge of the Director-General of the ILO. She urged the Government to develop mechanisms for social action and citizens’ participation to ensure that collective action was carried out democratically and to prevent interference from economic oligopolies. The full exercise of freedom of association was essential for compliance with the Convention. Employers should respect the right to freedom of association and allow the establishment of trade unions without restriction or repression of any kind throughout the production chain. In this respect, she emphasized that responsibility for human rights violations lay not only with enterprises at the lowest levels of the production chain but also, and especially, with large enterprises which benefited most from the profits generated in the value chain. She referred to a case before the Committee on Freedom of Association relating to the repression and criminalization of trade unions by employers in the country. In that case, the workers had been dismissed and had been involved in court cases since 2010 to assert their right to strike and to conclude collective agreements. The Government should intervene as a matter of urgency to prevent the imprisonment of the trade unionists concerned. She hoped that the Government would adopt measures to strengthen labour and social protection, without falling back on false arguments about the flexibility of work, as in other Latin American countries. She trusted that the conclusions in this case would specify clear elements and precise deadlines to allow for the urgent adoption of a plan to address the problems identified and guarantee full compliance with the Convention.

The Government member of Malta, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Norway and Serbia, stated that the Convention was intrinsically linked with two fundamental Conventions, the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). In this regard, he wished to recall the commitment undertaken by the Government of El Salvador under the trade pillar of the EU–Central America Association Agreement, to effectively implement the fundamental ILO Conventions. The case of El Salvador had already been before the Committee in 2016 in relation to the application of Convention No. 87, and a discussion had taken place on the need to foster tripartite dialogue and freedom of association in the country, urging the Government to reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council and ensure full autonomy for employers’ and workers’ organizations. He expressed concerns that, according to the Committee of Experts, there had not been any progress on these two matters. Considering that effective, inclusive and transparent tripartite consultations were essential to ensure social dialogue in a country, he urged the Government to take measures to include all social partners in consultations related to employment and labour policies, in a transparent manner and before a decision was taken, so as to build trust. Expressing concerns that the High Labour Council had not been able to operate for over three years and recalling the importance of ensuring the full autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations to determine their representatives to joint and tripartite bodies, he requested the Government and the social partners to reconstitute the Council as a matter of urgency based on the criteria of the representativeness of organizations. All possible ways to promote social dialogue should be explored. To this end, he reiterated the call for an ILO direct contacts mission in the near future, which could provide significant support in ensuring the conformity of national law with ILO Conventions. A similar call had been issued by the Committee in 2016, but to no avail. At the same time, he reaffirmed the ongoing commitment to constructive engagement with El Salvador, including through EU and Member States cooperation projects aiming to strengthen the Government’s capacity to address all issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Brazil, speaking on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), expressed appreciation for the information supplied by the Government regarding compliance with the Convention. He referred to the report of the Committee of Experts, which noted the dialogue process initiated by the Government following a mediation process carried out in February 2016 with ILO technical assistance. He also noted, the decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in amparo appeal No. 951-2013 had been noted. He observed the comments made by the Government representative in relation to the election by trade union federations and confederations of Worker representatives to the Higher Labour Council, thereby overcoming the main obstacle to its operation. He further noted the appointment of Employer representatives to the Council by the President of the Republic, and that the Council was therefore ready to begin functioning. He reiterated their commitment to the application of the Convention and expressed confidence that the Government would maintain its efforts to comply with that Convention.

The Employer member of Colombia indicated that he was speaking not only as the member representing the Employers of Colombia, but also as the Vice-Chairperson of Latin American Employers. He indicated that, over the past three years, the Committee had examined the situation in El Salvador in relation to various Conventions. There was a lack of tripartite consultation in many aspects of decision-making and he emphasized that consultation needed to take place in advance and to include the reports that were to be submitted. He noted that the direct contacts mission had not taken place and called for it to be carried out. He also requested the Government to provide detailed reports for analysis by the Committee of Experts at its next meeting. He emphasized that Worker and Employer representatives must be freely elected and be represented on an equal footing, as established by Conventions Nos 87 and 144.

The Worker member of Brazil acknowledged the importance of setting up the Higher Labour Council and making it operational. She welcomed the Government’s willingness to implement the recommendations of ILO technical assistance. She also welcomed the initiative to adjust the minimum wage that had been adopted and the round table set up between the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and workers’ organizations. The Government had demonstrated openness to dialogue, which should now be intensified.

The Government member of Cuba endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. She noted that the report of the Committee of Experts confirmed that, following the conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee in June 2015, El Salvador had accepted ILO technical assistance in the form of a mediation process carried out in February 2016. In accordance with the recommendations of the independent mediator, the Government had continued the process of dialogue. Representatives had been nominated by trade union confederations and federations to make the Higher Labour Council operational.

The Worker member of Colombia said that no action had been taken to comply with the conclusions adopted by the Committee in 2016. He considered that the criteria imposed by the Government for nominations to the Higher Labour Council were groundless, as they were not laid down in the Council’s rules of procedure. The sole objective was to hinder the submission of nominations. The workers’ organizations had approved neither the procedure nor the criteria for this process, which had been led and carried out exclusively by the Ministry of Labour. The criteria used in the election process ran counter to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. The determination of the most representative organizations must be based on criteria pre-established by the workers, and not by the Government. The process amounted to serious interference by the Government in the election of Worker representatives. She also alleged that various trade unions and federations controlled by the Government had been created in recent months with the aim of gaining a majority in the Higher Labour Council and other tripartite bodies. She hoped that the Government would initiate a frank and sincere dialogue to resolve these problems.

An observer representing the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) reiterated his great concern at the situation of harassment experienced by employers, which was affecting their freedom of association. The situation had been under examination for three years and, far from improving, had worsened. He emphasized that in 2016 the Committee had called for a direct contacts mission and the Committee of Experts had attached a double footnote to the case. He noted that the Government had nominated the representatives of employers to tripartite bodies responsible for labour matters, including minimum wage fixing. Major increases in minimum wages had been imposed unilaterally, above the level agreed with the workers. He denounced the fact that the Government had ignored the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice in relation to the functions of the ANEP and observed with great concern the results of the violence incited against the ANEP and the demonstrations against the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice which were not considered favourable to the Government’s positions. He called for a change in attitude to guarantee the sound operation of social dialogue and for measures to be adopted to guarantee compliance with the Conventions ratified by El Salvador.

The Worker member of Nicaragua expressed disagreement with the inclusion of the present case on the list. The Government of El Salvador was in compliance with the Convention, and it was not therefore clear why this matter had been included in the list of cases to be discussed by the Committee. He added that last January, the CNSM had decided on an adjustment to the minimum wage, which had resulted in dissatisfaction amongst employers. He added that the call by employers’ organizations to review the trade union representation on tripartite bodies was a clear case of interference in the internal affairs of workers’ organizations. While welcoming the activation of the Higher Labour Council, it was still necessary for employers to nominate their representatives so that the Council could become operational.

The Government member of Panama endorsed the statement by GRULAC and considered that the information provided by the Government contained important elements for the consolidation of the principles underlying the tripartite consultations envisaged by the Convention. He supported the information provided by the Government representative, which showed the clear intention of giving effect to all of the Committee’s recommendations.

The Worker member of the Dominican Republic said that the workers, although they had noted the difficulties in the operation of the Higher Labour Council, had finally reached agreement on the nomination of their representatives to the Council. It was difficult to understand the concerns expressed by employers in relation to the election of the Worker members of the Council, and he called for employers not to interfere in those elections. Workers’ organizations were suffering from greater persecution, in the form of dismissals and murders, and it could not therefore be claimed that only employers suffered from violence. He called for technical support for the operation of the Council so that it could fulfil its functions as a tripartite consultation body.

The Government member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia expressed support for the statement by GRULAC and noted that the Government had taken positive, clear and concrete measures to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. This had been clearly demonstrated by the acceptance of technical assistance from the ILO to carry out a mediation process, which had been launched in February 2016. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had also found that the right to freedom of association had not been violated by the Ministry of Labour by requiring trade union federations and confederations to put forward a single list of representatives. In this regard, she noted with appreciation that the Worker representatives had already been designated by trade union federations and confederations, that employers’ organizations had stated that they would designate representatives, and that Government representatives had already been appointed. She therefore considered that, as the Higher Labour Council would soon be made operational, there were no reasons to support the complaint of failure to comply with the Convention.

The Employer member of Guatemala explained that he had taken the floor concerning the statements made by the Government, whose claims raised many doubts concerning the intentions behind the constitution of the Higher Labour Council, and the treatment of the ANEP. According to the Government, the call to convene the body had been made as late as 1 May 2017. It seemed that such action had been taken in order to present results to the Committee. He denounced the interference in the appointment of Employer representatives to social dialogue forums, and the acts of violence against the ANEP by groups aligned with the Government. He hoped that the Committee would make every effort to use the tools at its disposal in order to ensure that the Government fully respected social dialogue mechanisms and the full autonomy of the ANEP.

The Government member of Honduras observed that the national Constitution and law identified the Higher Labour Council as the body responsible for carrying out tripartite consultations in relation to international labour standards. He emphasized that the Council was ready to begin operation, as the Worker representatives had been appointed, thereby resolving the main obstacle to its activation. The Employer representatives had been convened, but had indicated that an additional month would be required, and the Government representatives had been appointed. He urged the Government to strengthen its national tripartite dialogue body in order to continue to be in compliance with the Convention.

The Employer member of Turkey expressed the belief that the proper functioning of social dialogue was key for sound and effective industrial relations. Political willingness and commitment to engage in social dialogue must be shown by all parties in an enabling legal and institutional framework. As indicated by the Committee of Experts, interference by the Government in the election of members for joint and tripartite executive boards was a clear violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Notwithstanding some improvements reiterated by the Government, there were obvious shortcomings with regard to the operation of the Higher Labour Council. First of all, it had not been functioning for years which meant that the social partners lacked their most important platform to contribute to the decision-making process. Moreover, the social partners were not afforded the necessary timeframe or opportunities to express themselves before the adoption of social and economic regulations. The social partners needed to have the forthcoming rules of procedure before them sufficiently in advance to form their respective opinions. Noting that no concrete steps had been taken to establish an enabling environment for social dialogue, he called on the Government to give priority to measures to promote and reinforce effective social dialogue.

The Employer member of Mexico referred to the information provided by the Government representative, who considered that the country was productive and safe. The latter concept included legal certainty, of which tripartite consultation was one component. Compliance would not be achieved through the provision of explanations, particularly since, in the best of cases, explanations were mere wishes or justifications for what was not happening. The Committee needed to assume its responsibilities and take firm and expeditious measures to ensure that the Government gave effect in practice to tripartite consultation.

The Government representative recalled that the case concerned the application of Convention No. 144, not other Conventions. She emphasized the goodwill and openness of all workers in the process under discussion. The call for the nomination of Worker representatives had been in accordance with the spirit of the decision by the Supreme Court of Justice and the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies. She explained that, in view of the absence of national and international legal texts respecting the determination of the level of representativeness of organizations, account was taken of the number of affiliated unions, workers represented and collective agreements concluded. Her Government agreed with the views expressed by the workers concerning the objective of ensuring that tripartite consultation was a permanent exercise for the promotion of labour rights, as well as with regard to the technical assistance required by the Higher Labour Council, for example for the drafting of new rules concerning the arrangements, competence and procedures to guarantee the representative nature of Employer and Worker representatives on an equal footing. She emphasized the economic growth, the reduction in the cost of a basic basket of goods, the reactivation of the agricultural sector and the creation of 6,000 new jobs. That progress would not have been possible without social dialogue, or without the active participation of employers in economic policy and decision-making bodies. In view of the complaints made by the ANEP and the IOE to the Committee, she observed that no denunciations had been made to the national police or prosecution services. She considered that the ANEP should have gone to the competent national bodies earlier. She recalled that cooperatives were also enterprises, for which reason they enjoyed the same rights to participate in any election process. In conclusion, she noted that the progress made would be significant for full compliance with ratified Conventions.

The Worker members recalled that Convention No. 144 extended the tripartism that characterized the ILO at the national level. The Government must urgently implement, in accordance with the Convention, procedures for tripartite consultations that would enable representative organizations to have their views heard regarding the follow-up to be given to ILO standards-related action. These consultation procedures would only be effective if the Higher Labour Council responsible for following such matters operated smoothly. An impasse had recently been overcome following an agreement between trade union organizations. The Worker members hoped that representatives of employers’ organizations would soon be designated so that the Council could resume its work. In order to guarantee the lasting operation of the Council and avoid another impasse in the future, it was essential for the Government to refrain from imposing consensus on the representative organizations regarding the appointment of their respective representatives. Each representative organization must be given the freedom to designate its own representatives without the need for consent from other representative organizations in order to guarantee its freedom to choose its own representatives. The Worker members invited the Government to define objective and precise criteria and a clear and permanent procedure for elections in order to guarantee that organizations were as representative as possible. An independent appeals body should also be established. Once the Government had put all these elements in place, it would need to ensure the launching of effective tripartite consultations. In order to do so, it must ensure that the social partners had the opportunity to make their opinions heard before the Government took a final decision, and that representative organizations had before them, sufficiently in advance, all the elements necessary to form an opinion. Resolving these different issues should ensure that the Higher Labour Council ran smoothly in the long term. In order to implement these recommendations, the Government was requested to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Employer members reiterated that the present case was a cause of concern and emphasized that, while thanking the Government representative for the explanations provided, the information was not entirely satisfactory. There was failure to comply with Article 1 of the Convention in view of the doubts concerning the “most representative” nature of the organizations, both for employers and workers. Similarly, there were problems in the application of Article 2 in view of the absence of effective consultations on matters relating to the ILO and of an objective and pre-determined procedure known to all the partners; as well as Article 3 in relation to the freedom to elect representatives. The Employer members emphasized once again their great concern at the acts of violence against the headquarters of the ANEP, and the many cases of harassment of their leaders. They therefore urged the Government to: ensure that firm progress was achieved in the freedom and independence of workers’ and employers’ organizations to nominate their representatives to decision-making bodies, and joint and tripartite bodies, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention; reactivate without delay the Higher Labour Council, which was the principal body for social dialogue and tripartite consultation; receive without delay and during the course of the year the mission requested by the Committee; and guarantee the protection of the headquarters of the ANEP. They also called for the case to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with concern the lack of genuine tripartite consultations to date with independent and representative employers’ organizations and urged the Government to take all necessary measures without delay to implement Convention No. 144 in law and in practice. At the same time the Committee noted the Government’s invitation three weeks before the opening of the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference to nominate employers’ and workers’ representatives to the Higher Labour Council.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urged the Government of El Salvador to:

- reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council (CST);

- ensure concrete positive developments with regard to the freedom and autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations to appoint their representatives in compliance with Convention No. 144, without intimidation;

- ensure adequate protection for the premises of the representative workers’ and employers’ organizations from violence and destruction;

- report in detail on the application of the Convention in law and practice to the next session of the Committee of Experts.

Confronted with the Government’s failure to take action to apply the provisions of Convention No. 144 in law and practice, the Committee requested once again that a direct contacts mission be sent to El Salvador before the end of 2017.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers of El Salvador (CSTS), received on 17 May 2023. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September and 16 November 2023. Both observations provided information on matters dealt with in this comment, which are examined below. The Government is requested to provide its comments in this regard.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (111th Session of the International Labour Conference, June 2023)

The Committee takes note of the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (hereafter the Conference Committee) in June 2023 with regard to the application of the Convention. In its conclusions, the Conference Committee notes the allegations concerning serious and repeated violations of the Convention by El Salvador. Likewise, the Conference Committee also noted with deep concern the multiple allegations of interference by the authorities in the appointment of employers’ and workers’ representatives in public tripartite and joint bodies.

Taking the discussion into account, the Conference Committee urged the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to: (i) immediately cease all acts of violence, threats, persecution, stigmatization, intimidation or any other form of aggression against individuals or organizations in connection with both the exercise of legitimate trade union activities and the activities of employers’ organizations, and adopt measures to ensure that such acts are not repeated, in particular in relation to the National Business Association (ANEP) and its members; (ii) refrain from any interference in the exercise of freedom of association of employers and workers, including in the constitution of workers’ and employers’ organizations; (iii) put a stop to the delays in issuing the credentials of workers’ and employers’ organizations, including for ANEP, in line with their right to representation; (iv) ensure that all workers’ and employers’ organizations, including ANEP, enjoy the rights and freedoms under the Convention and are fully included in tripartite consultation and social dialogue; (v) reactivate, without delay, the full operation of the Higher Labour Council (CST) and other tripartite bodies, as well as ensure the development and adoption, in consultation with social partners, of clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules to ensure their effective and independent functioning, without any external interference; (vi) take without delay all necessary measures to repeal the legal obligation on trade unions to request renewal of their legal status every 12 months; (vii) amend the 23 decrees adopted on 3 June 2021 to ensure that employers’ organizations are able to exercise their right to freely elect their representatives without any external interference; and (viii) develop a time-bound road map to implement without delay all the recommendations made by the 2022 ILO high-level tripartite mission and the Conference Committee’s recommendations.

The Conference Committee requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to ensure full compliance with the Convention. It further requested the Government to submit a detailed report on the implementation of the Convention in law and practice, including information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations, to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2023.

Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Convention. Adequate procedures. Reactivation of the Higher Labour Council (CST). Allegations of Government interference. The Committee notes that the Government’s report – which the Conference Committee requested for June 2023 – was received late, on 29 November 2023, after its session had already started. The Government indicates that the CST has been functioning since its reactivation in 2019, in compliance with the provisions of its Statute regarding the number of sessions required. In this regard, the Government indicates that, in accordance with section 11 of the Statute, at least two meetings per year must be held. The Government reiterates once again that as of December 2021 the CST was established for 2021–23 and that the representatives of workers and employers were freely and independently elected. The Government also states that it is inappropriate to point out the inactivity of the CST on the basis of the meetings of its plenary session. By way of example, the Government refers to the creation by the plenary of the CST of a technical working group consisting of a tripartite commission for the discussion of the Early Childhood Act with a view to subsequently submitting the elements deemed necessary to the CST Board of Directors and ultimately to its plenary. However, the Government indicates that this process could not be completed due to the lack of agreement from some sectors to complement the first steps agreed upon in a tripartite manner. In relation to the repeal of the 23 decrees related to official autonomous institutions, the Government indicates that this is an internal decision that only concerns El Salvador as a free and sovereign State and, therefore, for the time being, no response can be given to such request. The Government indicates that the necessary studies will be conducted to examine the extent to which the said decrees affect ANEP and adds that they refer to bipartite or parity institutions and therefore do not relate to the scope of this Convention. The Government further states that it is inappropriate to state that such decrees affect the productive sector of the country since various employers’ organizations are allowed to participate in bipartite or tripartite forums and ANEP continues to be recognized as a representative organization and its members continue to participate in various forums for dialogue. Lastly, the Government indicates that tripartite institutions, such as the Salvadoran Social Security Institute (ISSS) and the Social Housing Fund (FSV), have a “transparency portal” on their website where they publish their reports, while the minutes and reports of the CST are delivered to all its members and are publicly accessible.

The Committee notes that, in its observations, the IOE reiterates the comments made by the Employer members during the discussion on the implementation of the Convention held in the Conference Committee in June 2023. The Committee also notes the IOE’s allegations denouncing the Government for not accrediting the representatives designated by ANEP to participate in the 111th Session of the Conference, despite it being the most representative employers’ organization of El Salvador. The IOE emphasizes the gravity of such acts and maintains that they are contrary to the present Convention as well as to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). In this connection, the Committee notes that the IOE also denounces the Government for putting pressure on certain employer delegates to quit ANEP leadership. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern that, at the 111th Session of the Conference, the Credentials Committee of the Conference, in its examination of this question, concluded that it had no evidence that the Government had effectively consulted the most representative employers’ organization and, therefore, that the employers’ delegation of El Salvador to this session of the Conference was nominated in accordance with article 3(5) of the ILO Constitution. In this regard, the Credentials Committee trusted that the Government will in future resort to a consultation procedure that will ensure full and effective consultation with the most representative employers’ organization, in accordance with the requirements of the ILO Constitution (see the Second report of the Credentials Committee, 16 June 2023, paragraphs 69–74).

The Committee also notes that the IOE, in its observations, refers to the draft Act to establish the National Capacity-building and Training Institute (INCAF), stressing that the aim of the draft is to dissolve the El Salvador Vocational Training Institute (INSAFORP), together with its Governing Body, which has been holding tripartite meetings for 30 years with representatives of government, workers and employers. The Committee notes that the above draft was adopted by the El Salvador Legislative Assembly on 15 November 2023. The Committee notes that the IOE expresses its hope that progress will be made in the application of the Convention, in accordance with the conclusions of the Conference Committee, and in close collaboration with the most representative organization of employers of El Salvador.

The Committee also notes that the CSTS expresses its willingness to collaborate with and support all efforts by the Government to strengthen all spaces for tripartite social dialogue, such as the CST, the National Minimum Wage Council, and other national instances of bipartite or tripartite dialogue. The CSTS also highlights the importance of tripartite social dialogue and points out that it constitutes a fundamental component for the construction of a democratic country, to generate governance and improve living conditions, especially for the working class.

In light of the information provided by the Government in its report, the Committee emphasizes that, while it is for the national legal framework to establish the modus operandi of the meetings of the bodies in which the tripartite consultations required by the Convention take place, the CST has not held the minimum of two plenary sessions per year required by national legislation. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 5(2) of the Convention, such consultations should be held at least once a year. While noting the Government’s indication concerning the holding of tripartite consultations in the framework of subcommittees or other tripartite technical bodies of the CST, the Committee observes that the Government does not provide information that would make it possible to establish that consultations were held on issues relating to international labour standards as required by Article 5(1) of the Convention. The Committee further notes that the Government also fails to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged with a view to giving effect to the conclusions of the Conference Committee. Accordingly, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective and immediate operation of the CST, respecting the independence of the social partners, including with regard to the appointment of their representatives. It reiterates its request to the Government to report on any developments in this respect, as well as on the content and outcome of tripartite consultations held within the framework of this tripartite body.

Likewise, the Committee once again urges the Government to: (i) take the necessary measures to ensure without delay the repeal of the 23 decrees which transfer the function of electing employers’ representatives from the employers to the President of the Republic, thus depriving the employers’ organizations of the exercise of their right to freely elect their representatives in conformity with the instruments ratified by the country; and (ii) make every effort to ensure the formulation and adoption without delay of the road map requested by the ILO high-level tripartite mission in 2022, as well as by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2022 and June 2023. In light of the IOE’s observations regarding the Act Establishing the National Capacity-building and Training Institute (INCAF), the Committee requests the Government to provide information on its impact on the implementation of the Convention.

Article 2. Ensure effective tripartite consultations. Issuance of Credentials. The Committee recalls that in its previous comment it noted the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which highlighted that the requirement under the Labour Code that workers’ organizations renew their executive boards every 12 months was unfounded and constituted a form of interference in the functioning of the organizations in question. In this regard, the Committee noted that the Government had initiated a study process to prepare reforms to the Labour Code with a view to facilitating and speeding up the procedure for the issuance of credentials and that a Trade Union Service Office had been set up in the Directorate General for Labour to provide legal assistance to union representatives. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is still working with the social partners on the proposed reforms of the Labour Code, which, once finalized, will be sent to the CST for analysis, review and discussion. The Government indicates that the proposals include the amendments of section 221 of the Labour Code and section 87 of the Civil Service Act, which provide for a one-year term for the boards of directors of trade unions in the private and public sectors, respectively. The Government indicates that, on 26 July 2023, the establishment of a technical roundtable was announced for the purpose of discussing and analysing possible reforms to the Labour Code. The Committee also notes that the Government reports that, between August 2022 and August 2023, the Trade Union Service Office, created to reduce the period for issuing credentials to trade unions to less than 30 days, delivered 875 accreditations and provided 969 advisory services. The Government indicates that the deliveries were made in an average of 15 days. While noting the measures taken by the Government to expedite the issuance of credentials, the Committee considers that the requirement to renew annually the composition of the boards of directors of trade unions and their legal status is a disproportionate measure that impedes the proper functioning of the tripartite bodies responsible for giving effect to the Convention. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to adopt without delay the necessary measures to repeal the legal obligation on trade unions to renew the composition of their boards of directors and their legal status every 12 months and requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information in its next report on all progress achieved in this respect.

Article 5. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the copies of the letters dated 19 May 2022 (DM/DRIT/No.28/2022) and 1 September 2022 (DE/DRIT/No.38/2022), sent by the Government to the employer and worker vice-chairpersons of the CST with a view to their dissemination with the organizations grouped in their sectors. The Government indicates that it has not received any reply from the social partners in this respect. The Committee also notes of the copies of letters dated 13 March 2023 (DM/DRIT No.78/2023 and DM/DRIT No.79/2023), presented by the Government after the discussion in the Conference Committee in June 2023, by which the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare conveyed copies of the reports on the implementation of Conventions ratified by El Salvador to the employer and worker vice-chairpersons of the CST for their comments. The Committee notes that some of these reports were sent to the office in 2022 and others in March 2023. In this regard, the Committee recalls that “in order to be effective, consultations must take place before final decisions are taken, irrespective of the nature or form of the procedures adopted. … The effectiveness of consultations thus presupposes in practice that employers’ and workers’ representatives have all the necessary information far enough in advance to formulate their own opinions.” (General Survey on tripartite consultation, 2000, paragraph 31). In consequence, the Committee once again reiterates that it hopes to see progress in full and sustained compliance with the Convention in the country as soon as possible, including the regular holding of effective tripartite consultations within the CST on the subjects provided in Article 5(1) of the Convention, as well as the promotion of stable and continuous social dialogue in the other tripartite entities in the country. In this regard, the Committee once again recalls that ILO technical assistance remains at the disposal of the tripartite constituents to support the efforts made by all the tripartite actors to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2021. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Organization of Employers (IOE), received on 10 November 2022, which contain allegations of serious and repeated violations by the Government of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as of the present Convention. Both observations provide information on matters dealt with in this comment, which is examined below.The Government is requested to provide its comments in this respect.

Follow up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (110th Session of the International Labour Conference, May–June 2022)

The Committee notes the discussion on the application of the Convention held in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2022. In its conclusions, the Conference Committee took note of the high-level tripartite mission, accepted by the Government, that took place in May 2022. However, the Committee regretted that five ILO Conventions were ratified without consulting the most representative employers’ organizations. The Committee also noted with deep concern the multiple allegations of interference by the authorities in the appointment of employers’ and workers’ representatives in public tripartite and joint bodies.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee urged the Government to: (i) refrain from any aggression and from interfering in the establishment and the activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations, in particular the National Business Association (ANEP); (ii) ensure the effective operation of the Higher Labour Council (CST) and other tripartite entities, respecting the full autonomy of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and through social dialogue, in order to guarantee their full functioning without any interference; (iii) refrain from unilaterally appointing workers’ and employers’ representatives for tripartite consultations and institutions, and to develop, in full consultation with the social partners, the appointment procedures of those representatives; (iv) repeal the legal obligation on trade unions to request renewal of their legal status every 12 months and the 23 decrees adopted on 3 June 2021; and (v) develop a time-bound road map to implement without delay all the recommendations made by the ILO high-level tripartite mission.

The Conference Committee requested the Government to present a detailed report on the application of the Convention in law and practice to the Committee of Experts before 1 September 2022, in consultation with the social partners. The Committee also encouraged the Government to continue to avail itself of technical assistance from the Office to ensure full compliance with its obligations under the Convention.

Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Convention. Adequate procedures. Reactivation of the Higher Labour Council. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide detailed and updated information on measures adopted to ensure the effective operation of the Higher Labour Council (CST), as well as on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held within this tripartite body.

Reactivation and operation of the CST. The Committee notes that the Government reports that the CST is operating effectively. In this regard, the Government reiterates that the CST 2021-2023 was set up in December 2021, and that the workers’ and employers’ representatives were freely and independently elected, in conformity with section 4 of the CST Statute. The Government states that Mr José Agustín Martínez, Vice-President of the ANEP, was elected as CST Vice-President for the employers’ sector, after being elected by the employer organizations; and Mr Jaime Ernesto Ávalos was elected as CST Vice-President for the workers’ sector; while the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, Mr Oscar Rolando Castro, was elected President of the CST. The Government adds that since its instauration, the CST has held five plenary meetings, and ten meetings of its board of officers, in accordance with section 11 of its Statute, which provides that the CST shall meet at least twice yearly. The Government indicates that one of the CST objectives was the tripartite construction of a strategy to generate decent work, for which the CST requested ILO technical assistance. In this connection, the Government indicates that it has held several meetings with representatives of the ILO Regional Office with a view to agreeing on a road map for the elaboration of such a strategy. The Government also reports that, on the basis of its Statute, the CST agreed to establish a Tripartite Technical Commission, the mandate of which would include following up and ensuring the functioning of the CST agenda. The Government indicates that the three groups have formed their delegations on the Tripartite Technical Commission, which is functioning regularly, and has followed up on the abovementioned strategy, with the assistance of the employment specialist of the ILO Regional Office and has also carried out a review of the Act for the protection of children and adolescents.

The Committee takes note, however, of the ITUC’s observations relating to the ILO tripartite mission which took place in the first week of May 2022. The ITUC indicates that the tripartite mission observed that the CST was back in operation, and that several meetings had been held, at which the ratification of several ILO Conventions was discussed. Nevertheless, the ITUC highlights the following persistent problems regarding the application of the Convention: (i) steps must be taken, by filling the empty seats on the body as soon as possible, to ensure representation of employers and workers on an equal footing within the CST; (ii) the administrative process for the designation of workers’ representatives continues to be complex, and hampers the operation of the CST; and (iii) trade unions are obliged to renew the composition of their boards each year, making a legal obstacle and complicating the process of appointing workers still further.

The Committee also notes the IOE’s observations to the effect that the CST has only been active for ten and a half months since 1 June 2019, that is, for only 25 per cent of the current presidential term, and only during brief periods of time: from September 2019 to March 2020, for a duration of 5.6 months, and between December 2021 and May 2022, for a period of 4.9 months. Moreover, at the end of the High-Level Tripartite Mission on 5 May 2022, the CST became inactive again. According to the IOE’s observations, neither the officers, the plenary, nor the different CST commissions have met. On 5 September 2022, the Government convened a meeting of the officers of the CST, at which the Employer Vice-President and his alternate were present, but neither the President nor his alternate attended the meeting. Consequently, the meeting could not be held, for lack of a quorum. The IOE also indicates that although a plenary session had been agreed with Ministry of Labour officials for 4 October 2022, it was never convened. In this way, the IOE stresses, CST inactivity is disrupting the process of reforming the labour legislation. In this connection, the IOE refers to the approval process of the Act for the Overall Protection of Early Childhood, Childhood and Adolescence, and the adoption by the Legislative Assembly of various reforms to the Labour Code on 4 October 2022, where neither the CST nor the social partners were consulted.

The IOE indicates that the Government has, to date, submitted no document or correspondence to the ANEP on the reports it was due to send before 1 September 2022. The IOE claims that the presentation of the five ILO Conventions before the National Assembly on 1 May 2022, and their adoption two weeks afterwards, without conducting prior consultations with the ANEP as the most representative employers’ organization in the country, showed clear disregard for social dialogue and tripartite consultation, and thus constituted a violation of the Convention by the Government. The IOE adds that, six months after ratification of the five Conventions, neither the ANEP, nor its constituent organizations, have received information on how they are to be implemented. At the request of the ANEP, in July 2022, the ILO Regional Office gave a tripartite course on the content of the five ratified Conventions. The IOE highlights that although government representatives were present, the higher government authorities were not, and neither was it possible to conduct social dialogue regarding the proper implementation of the Conventions.

With regard to the road map requested by the Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2022, the IOE indicates that the CST has neither sat, nor been consulted in respect of elaborating, in a tripartite manner, a road map to implement, without delay, the recommendations formulated by the ILO High-level tripartite mission. In this regard, the IOE stresses that the free and independent Salvadoran employers grouped within the ANEP, the most representative employers’ organization, were still fully disposed and willing to strengthen social dialogue and tripartite consultation.

The Committee observes that the Government does not indicate whether the CST sat during the months after the June International Labour Conference, nor whether it has adopted measures to resolve the difficulties in issuing credentials. The Committee also notes that the Government provides no information on the 23 decrees in question, or the road map requested by the Conference Committee.

Allegations of Government interference. The Committee notes that, in response to the allegations of Government interference in the elections of the representatives for tripartite consultation, the Government reiterates that it recognizes the ANEP as one of the most representative employers’ organizations in the country and points to the nomination of the President of the ANEP as Vice-President for the employer sector of the CST. The Government states that it has committed no acts of harassment and interference against the ANEP and adds that, within the framework of the CST, it has been working with the employers and workers in a harmonious, professional and technical manner. The Government also refers to the ANEP’s participation in the five spaces for social dialogue in the country: the CST; the Social Housing Fund (FSV); the Salvadoran Vocational Training Institute (INFASORP); the Salvadoran Social Security Institute (ISSS) and the National Minimum Wage Board (CNSM). It indicates that the process to appoint the employer representatives on the Board of the ISSS is underway. The Government also refers to 20 autonomous, tripartite and joint bodies, in which the Government, trade unions and other actors participate. It also points to 23 autonomous, tripartite and joint institutions (including the CST and the CNSM) in which the ANEP is represented, with the exception of the ISSS.

The Committee notes however, that the IOE, in its observations, maintains that Government interference is ongoing, and highlights the following examples: in May 2022, the Government convened the election of the employer representatives of the INFASORP, which was suspended on 3 June, without a reason being given, during the discussion of the case of El Salvador at the International Labour Conference. On 23 June 2022, the Government reconvened the election, but altered the rules in a discretionary manner, to include individual enterprises among the electors, a move intended to distort the role of employers’ organizations, and to disrupt their unity. The IOE maintains that the Government also contacted various enterprises with a view to coercing them into presenting a series of Government-preferred candidates. At the same time, the Government warned that any candidate put forward by professional associations belonging to the ANEP would be rejected. The IOE states that the INSAFORP case provides a clear indication of Government interference in the election process for employer representatives, which undermines social dialogue and tripartite consultation by marginalizing the representatives, and because of the potential lack of legitimacy of the supposed representatives. The IOE indicates that: (i) Despite several employer’s organizations belonging to the ANEP registering as electors and putting forward candidates, to date the final ballot has not been counted and there has been no election; (ii) for a number of tripartite and bipartite bodies, the Government has not conducted elections for persons to replace directors appointed by the employers’ organizations whose mandate has expired. The IOE indicates that this is the case with the employer directors in the ISSS, whose mandates came to an end in December 2020. The IOE indicates that to date, elections have not been held to replace employer directors whose mandates have expired in the following institutions: the Maritime Port Authority (AMP); the International Centre for Fairs and Conventions (CIFCO); the Independent Executive Committee for Ports (CEPA); the Salvadoran Tourism Corporation (CORSATUR); the Salvadoran Environmental Fund (FONAES); and the National Fund for Public Housing (FONAVIPO). The IOE also indicates that, between April and July 2022, the Government held elections for the employer representatives on the CNSM, for which ANEP affiliated organizations submitted candidates. However, four months after the elections, the persons elected have still not been sworn in. The IOE states that the most serious interference has been in the reforms to the 23 laws, which have prevented employers from being able to elect their representatives to the boards of the 23 tripartite and joint bodies governed by the laws. That faculty has been transferred to the President of the Republic, who not only choses the employer representatives on the 23 public bodies, but is also empowered to dismiss them, in a discretionary and arbitrary manner. The IOE states that these reforms are still in force, despite the Committee of Experts’ conclusions of February 2022, and the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards of June 2022, which both state that these reforms should be repealed as they are contrary to obligations under international ILO Conventions.

The IOE also indicates that, after the President of the Republic’ statement of 15 September 2022 announcing his intention to present his candidature for the Presidency in the upcoming elections, the ANEP issued a statement on 19 September, declaring that immediately consecutive presidential re-election is expressly prohibited in the Constitution of the Republic. The IOE claims that the Government representatives subsequently made use of social networks to attack and disqualify the ANEP. Furthermore, the same representatives approached the presidents of ANEP affiliated employers’ organizations, and applied pressure on them to give public support to the presidential re-election, and to resign their ANEP membership. Finally, the IOE alleges that the Government has cancelled jointly scheduled and organized meetings and events.

The Committee expresses its deep concernregarding the new allegations of acts of interference, harassment and marginalization against the ANEP as from September 2022. In consequence, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective and immediate operation of the CST, respecting the independence of the social partners, including with regard to the appointment of their representatives. The Committee refers to its previous recommendations and requests the Government to report on any developments in this respect, as well as on the content and outcome of tripartite consultations held within the framework of this tripartite body. The Committee also urges the Government to take necessary measures to ensure without delay the repeal of the 23 decrees which transfer the function of electing employers’ representatives from the employers to the President of the Republic, thus depriving the employers’ organizations of the exercise of their right to freely elect their representatives, in conformity with the instruments ratified by the country. The Committee also urges the Government to take the necessary measures to put a stop to the delays in issuing the credentials of workers’ organizations, and to make every effort to ensure the formulation and adoption of the road map requested by the International Labour Conference, without delay.

Article 2. Ensure effective tripartite consultations. Issuance of credentials. The Committee notes that the Government recognizes that the legislation in force requires updating with a view to ensuring issuance of credentials to workers’ organizations. In this regard, the Government reports that a study process has begun to propose amendments to the Labour Code in order to fluidify and accelerate the issuance of credentials. The Government adds that, having committed to providing immediate responses, the MTPS has set up a Trade Union Service Office in the Directorate General for Labour, to provide legal assistance to union representatives.

In its observations, the ITUC identifies the requirement under the Labour Code that workers’ organizations renew their executive boards every 12 months as a major obstacle to its participation in the CST and other tripartite organizations in the country. The ITUC indicates that the law requiring this renewal is unfounded and considers that it constitutes a form of interference in the functioning of the organizations in question. The ITUC recalls that Article 3 of the Convention establishes that representatives shall be freely chosen, and that the legal requirement of annual renewal is thus a violation of that freedom. Finally, it indicates that the employers’ organizations are subject to a two-year renewal period. The ITUC stresses that while progress has been made, all these considerations imply that the Government is still not fulfilling the requirements of the Convention. The Organization insists that the Government take the necessary measures to conform fully with the Convention: (i) ensure without delay the full composition of the CST; (ii) simplify and fluidify the process for designating workers’ representatives and (iii) amend the provision of the Labour Code that provides for annual renewal of trade union executive boards. In this regard, the ITUC requests the Government to implement fully the recommendations of the tripartite mission, as well as the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee urges the Government to adopt without delay the necessary measures to repeal the legal obligation on trade unions to request renewal of their legal status every 12 months and requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information in its next report on all progress achieved in this respect.

Article 5(1)(b). Effective tripartite consultations. Submission. The Committee notesthe information provided by the Government regarding the ten instruments submitted for examination by the CST on 19 May 2022, before transfer to the Legislative Assembly in order to comply with the obligation of submission provided for in article 19(5) of the Constitution of the ILO. While the Committee welcomes the transmission of these instruments to the CST, it recalls that, to be effective, they must be submitted to the legislative body which, in the case of El Salvador, is the Legislative Assembly. The Committee trusts that the Government will report as soon as possible on the submission of the abovementioned instruments to the legislative body, following their discussion within the CST. The Committee again reiterates that it hopes to see progress in full and sustained compliance with the Convention as soon as possible, including the regular holding of effective tripartite consultations within the CST, on the subjects provided in Article 5 of the Convention, as well as the promotion of stable and continuous social dialogue in the other tripartite entities in the country. In this regard, the Committee recalls that ILO technical assistance remains at the disposal of the tripartite constituents to support the efforts made by all the tripartite actors to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the National Business Association (ANEP), endorsed by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 13 October 2020 and 25 October 2021, providing information on issues addressed in this comment. The Committee observes with deep concern that the observations of the ANEP from October 2020 state, as an element contrary to compliance with the Convention, that since the current President of the ANEP took office in April 2020, the Government has refused to deliver his credentials, and the highest government authorities, including the President of the Republic and the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare – who chairs the Higher Labour Council (Consejo Superior de Trabajo) (CST) – refuse to recognize the unanimous election of Mr Javier Ernesto Simán Dada as President of the ANEP and representative of the employers, as well as denigrating him and launching slanderous attacks against him personally, against his family and his enterprises, and also against the ANEP.

The Committee also takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2021, and of the Single Confederation of Salvadoran Workers (CUTS), endorsed by the National Trade Union Federation of Salvadoran Workers (FENASTRAS) and the Single Federation of Rural Workers of El Salvador (FUOCA) received on 14 October 2021, both of which concern issues addressed in this comment.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (109th Session of the International Labour Conference, June 2021)

The Committee notes the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, in June 2021, on the application of the Convention. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee urged the Government to: (i) refrain from interfering in the constitution and activities of independent workers’ and employers’ organizations, in particular the National Business Association (ANEP); and (ii) reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council (CST) and other tripartite entities, respecting the autonomy of the social partners and through social dialogue in order to guarantee their full functioning without any interference. The Conference Committee decided to include the case in a special paragraph of its report and requested the Government to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, to submit a detailed report on the application of the Convention in law and in practice to this Committee, in consultation with the social partners, and to accept a high-level tripartite mission to be carried out before the 110th International Labour Conference. The Committee notes that, through a communication received on 3 December 2021, the Government has informed the Office that it agrees to receive the high-level tripartite mission.

Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Convention. Adequate procedures. Reactivation of the Higher Labour Council. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue providing detailed and updated information on the measures adopted to ensure the effective operation of the CST, and on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held within the framework of that tripartite body. The Committee observes that the Government:

• (i) indicates that during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, it engaged in dialogue with the employers and workers, including holding meetings between the leadership of the ANEP and the President of the Republic, and emphasizes that the drafting of 39 health and safety protocols for different types of enterprises or workplaces, developed following a broad discussion and consultation process with the participation of trade unions from each sector, bears witness to this social dialogue with the enterprise sector. The Government also underlines that for the first time in the country’s history, employers’ associations collaborated in establishing the “Institutional Strategic Plan 2020-2024” of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, which includes social dialogue among its main objectives; and refers to the approval of the Act on protecting Salvadoran employment and the Act on teleworking;
• (ii) adds that the Minister of Labour sought to maintain tripartite communication to ensure due compliance with the labour standard, to maintain respect for workers’ labour rights, and to support the enterprise sector to counter the negative effect the COVID-19 pandemic on enterprise, highlighting meetings regarding the health sector in particular. The Government also reports that, on 29 April 2021, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare inaugurated the first Trade Union Training Institute (IFS), to strengthen social dialogue and benefit more than 150,000 workers grouped in various unions; and
• (iii) reiterates that the CST was activated on 16 September 2019 – and indicates that in November 2019, the National Minimum Wage Council was also established, with the social partners freely electing their representatives. With regard to the activity of the CST, the Government recalls that the CST, at its meeting held in November 2019, approved ILO participation in the elaboration of a National Strategy for the Generation of Decent Employment. The Government specifies, however, that both the Higher Labour Council and the National Minimum Wage Council have been unable to meet in the normal manner due to the health crisis, and the measures adopted to suspend activities in order to contain it. To address the situation, the Ministry of Labour held meetings with representatives of the workers’ organizations, establishing an Intersectoral Trade Union Roundtable on 22 April 2020, with a view to providing a space for legitimate, permanent dialogue that would be recognized by workers in the health sector.

With regard to the observations by the social partners, the Committee notes that the ANEP: (i) while recognizing that the CST was reactivated in 2019, specifies that it was not possible to induct all the employer representatives without an amendment to the rules to that end, since the rules listed explicitly the employers’ organizations entitled to appoint representatives, and three of the eight organizations listed were inactive; (ii) reports that, after its inaugural meeting, the CST only met on three occasions, the last of which was in March 2020 (to address issues related to childcare facilities), and that no meetings were held during the four months prior to the pandemic emergency; (iii) reports that no meeting of the Officers or of a plenary meeting of the CST has been called since then; (iv) claims that the Government only reactivated the CST for a few months as a publicized tactical move to give the impression of compliance with the conclusions of this Committee and of the Conference Committee; and adds that the CST has not been convened due to the fact that the President of the Republic does not recognize the President of the ANEP, and to the President of the Republic’s order, made clear on television and backed up by the Minister of Labour, to prohibit public servants from meeting with the ANEP; (v) emphasizes that the Government’s justification for not holding CST meetings as a consequence of the pandemic is not credible (the Government’s agenda includes many meetings held during the period that it decided not to convene the CST); since July 2020 the activity in the country has gradually returned to near normality with the corresponding preventive measures in place; the size of the CST is such that a plenary sitting could be accommodated in a large, well-ventilated space – not to mention its three Officers alone; and in any case, the CST would have been able to meet in a virtual session through online platforms; and (vi) rejects the claims that consultations were held with the participation of employers’ representatives and affirms that in practice the Government had chosen its interlocutors at its own discretion and that when other employers’ representatives are invited, the aim is purely for publicity and there is no true tripartite or bipartite dialogue.

The Committee also notes the observations of the ITUC, emphasizing that by freezing the CST, the Government is failing to comply with the obligation to consult provided under the Convention; and denouncing the Government for its unilateral appointment of workers’ representatives for the tripartite consultations.

The Committee also takes note of the observation of the CUTS, indicating that: (i) since its last session on 2 March 2020, neither the plenary nor the Officers of the CST have been convened; (ii) the term of office of the CST expired on 16 September 2021, and there is no indication of what the mechanism for electing representatives might be, given that no clear rules have been established, in consultation with the social partners, for designating the worker representatives on the CST, as the Committee has been requesting; (iii) tripartite consultation is thus absent in the country; and (iv) trade union organizations that are not among the group of unions close to the Government are not invited to meetings convened by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, such as the consultations for the Ministry’s Institutional Strategic Plan 2020-2024 or the general health safety protocol for the pandemic.

The Committee notes that the Government claims to have been able to hold a wide variety of meetings and gatherings for social dialogue during the pandemic, including in virtual format, and to take concrete measures. It nevertheless notes with concern the allegations made by the social partners that the Government, in a contrary and deliberate manner, has not taken a single measure to enable the CST to continue meeting, regardless of the repeated requests from the ILO’s supervisory machinery – most recently from the Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2021. The social partners allege that this has enabled the Government to dialogue only with like-minded interlocutors, thus failing to comply with the requirements for tripartite consultation under the Convention. In this regard, the Committee regrets to observe that despite having requested up-to-date, detailed information on the measures adopted to ensure the effective operation of the CST, the Government simply attributes its inactivity to the pandemic without providing a fuller explanation, when the CST was supposed to play a key role in tripartite consultations on measures to address the pandemic, and the Government itself claims that despite the challenges posed by the pandemic it successfully managed the operation of many other dialogue mechanisms, even creating new, differently constituted fora, instead of promoting tripartite consultation within the CST.

The Committee further notes that, in its communication received on 3 December 2021, the Government indicates that a new CST is in the process of being set up for the period 2021–23. The Government affirms in this respect that the preliminary steps required by the regulations have been taken in order for the worker and employer sectors to designate their representatives and that, these designations having been completed, the first session of the new CST is scheduled to take place on 8 December 2021.

The Committee urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure the effective operation of the CST, respecting the autonomy of the social partners, including with regard to the appointment of their representatives – urging it in particular to ensure full recognition of the President of the ANEP and of this most representative employers’ organization in social dialogue and tripartite consultation, as well as during any revision of the Statute of the CST. The Committee refers to its previous recommendations in this regard, and requests the Government to provide information on any developments, as well as on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held within this tripartite body. The Committee also urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full autonomy of the ANEP, the recognition of the results of its April 2020 elections and, in particular, of its President, Mr Simán Dada, and of this employers’ organization as a social partner, to allow the full participation of the ANEP in social dialogue through its chosen representatives.

Interference in the election of representatives for tripartite consultation and in delivery of credentials. With regard to the allegations formulated by the ANEP in respect of government interference in the election of representatives at the Superintendency for the Electricity and Telecommunications Sectors (SIGET), the Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) definitively setting aside the election of the 2017 employer representatives on the SIGET that is challenged by the ANEP, and further requested the Government to provide information on the forms of elections of the representatives of employers and the date on which the elections were held.

The Committee notes that the Government, while reiterating its respect for the free election of representatives of tripartite and joint bodies: (i) recalls that in its judgment of 17 January 2018, the CSJ ordered precautionary measures with immediate provisional effect that suspended the appointments challenged by the ANEP; (ii) specifies that although a definitive ruling was requested, the CSJ stated that the ruling was still pending, with the result that the private sector representatives remained the same persons appointed by the ANEP, and (iii) indicates that, given that procedures for the election of private sector representatives on the SIGET board of directors have not been initiated since the issuance of precautionary measures in January 2018, and because of the pending CSJ decision, for the moment, no election mechanism has been implemented.

The Committee notes that the ANEP, in its observations: (i) states that it is awaiting the results of its appeal regarding the election of the employers’ representatives on the SIGET, recalling that in this case the Government had constituted 60 supposed employers’ organizations that had participated and won the election illegally; (ii) indicates that the ANEP proposed a reform to the Labour Code which would allow employers’ organizations to follow clear, objective, predictable and binding rules for appointing the social partners; (iii) alleges however that the current Government is continuing the same delaying tactics, withholding delivery of credentials to employers organizations with the intent of hindering their participation in the appointment of the directors of various autonomous tripartite or joint public entities; (iv) states in this regard that in September 2020 the Government refused the ANEP’s participation in the election of the Board of Governors and Executive Board of the Development Bank of El Salvador – BANDESAL (the refusal was on the grounds of the absence of the ANEP’s credentials, which were withheld by the Government itself); and refers to other examples where the appointment of employer representatives was obstructed, in the Salvadoran Social Security Institute, the Maritime Port Authority, and the Independent Executive Committee for Ports; and (v) denounces the submission to the Legislative Assembly by the President of the Republic on 29 May 2021 of reforms, which were then approved by Legislative Assembly, to the manner in which directors are appointed by employers’ organizations in 23 autonomous public entities. These reforms grant the President power to appoint the directors who represent the employers’ organizations, as well as to arbitrarily remove them from their posts.

The Committee also takes note of the observations of the ITUC, denouncing the Government for imposing a legal obligation on trade unions to request renewal of their legal status every 12 months, thereby deciding unilaterally to withdraw the unions’ credentials, preventing them from carrying out their trade union activities, and denying them the conditions for carrying out tripartite consultations.

The Committee also notes that the CUTS alleges that: (i) the Government has been excluding organizations that are not close to it from participating in the elections of tripartite bodies; (ii) as well as the problems regarding worker representation on the CST, the majority of federations and confederations were not convened for the election of representatives in the Salvadoran Vocational Training Institute (INSAFORP), an election that was held without respect for the applicable rules and which resulted in the appointment of persons close to the Government; and (iii) the fact that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare delayed delivery of credentials for up to nine months, while other organizations were issued credentials promptly to allow them to participate in the INSAFORP elections, is germane to this issue.

In light of the above and observing with deep concern that multiple allegations of interference by the authorities in the appointment of employers’ and workers’ representatives in public tripartite and joint bodies have been made for a long time, and that recent developments indicate a worsening of the situation, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to ensure respect for the autonomy of the employers’ and workers’ organizations in this regard, both in law and in practice, including measures to ensure the prompt delivery of credentials for all organizations, as well as the repeal of any legal provisions in respect of the abovementioned 23 autonomous entities that allow the Government the possibility of interfering in the appointment of employers’ representatives.

Article 5(1). Effective tripartite consultations. In its previous observation, the Committee reiterated its request to the Government to provide updated information on the outcome of the tripartite consultations held concerning the Protocol on the submission procedure that the Government indicated was drawn up with ILO assistance, and to provide a copy of the Protocol when it has been adopted. It also reiterated its request to the Government to send detailed and updated information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all the matters relating to international labour standards covered by Article 5(1)(a)–(e) of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government: (i) indicates that an analysis has been conducted, and there is no previous example of a submission process in the country, as no official procedure for undertaking one existed; (ii) asserts that first steps have been taken in defining the procedure for the submission of Conventions, and an inter-institutional round table between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Foreign Relations has been established for that purpose; and (iii) requests ILO assistance to take account of best practices at international level to establish and strengthen the submission process. The Committee further notes in this regard that the ANEP and the CUTS both assert that the tripartite consultations that the Committee requested the Government to undertake in respect of the Protocol on the submission procedure did not take place, and that they concur with the ITUC in denouncing the absence of tripartite consultations in matters related to international labour standards.

The Committee notes with concern that the Government, in reply to the Committee’s previous observation, has not provided the information requested on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all matters related to international labour standards covered by the Convention, nor on the Protocol on the submission procedure, which the Committee was told had been elaborated; and principally affirms that there is no precedent in the country, nor any procedure in place for submitting international labour standards to the competent authorities exists.

While referring to the Memorandum concerning the obligation to submit Conventions and Recommendations to the competent authorities, adopted by the Governing Body of the ILO, the Committee strongly hopes that, in conformity with the Constitution of the International Labour Organization, the submission of international labour standards to the Legislative Assembly can resume as soon as possible, and urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures, in particular with regard to the CST, to comply with the obligation of tripartite consultation provided in the Convention. Once again, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the content and outcome of tripartite consultations held on all issues related to international labour standards covered by Article 5(1)(a)–(e) of the Convention, including the submission of international labour standards and the preparation of its next report in consultation with the social partners.

Technical assistance. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue providing detailed and updated information on the measures adopted or envisaged to promote tripartism and social dialogue in the country within the context of ILO technical assistance, and on their outcome. The Committee duly notes that the Government is grateful for the support and follow-up provided through ILO assistance and cites various areas of cooperation in this regard, including social protection, occupational safety and health or the labour market information system. With regard to social dialogue, the Government reiterates that it had support from the ILO to reactivate the CST in 2019 and that the ILO also provided accompaniment in regional coordination spaces.

In the hope that it will shortly see progress in tripartite consultation, and compliance with the Convention in the country, the Committee recalls that ILO technical assistance remains at the disposal of the tripartite constituents, while emphasizing the importance that such assistance be defined through social dialogue, for example within the framework of the CST.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the National Business Association (ANEP), endorsed by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 7 September 2019. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 108th Session, June 2019)

The Committee notes the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, in June 2019, on the application of the Convention, in which it noted with concern that no progress had been made in compliance with the Convention and that social dialogue continued to be dysfunctional in the country. The Conference Committee therefore once again called upon the Government to: (i) refrain from interfering with establishment of workers’ and employers’ organizations and to facilitate, in accordance with national law, the proper representation of legitimate employers’ and workers’ organizations by issuing appropriate credentials; (ii) develop, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules for the reactivation and full functioning of the Higher Labour Council (CST); (iii) reactivate, without delay, the CST and other tripartite entities, respecting the autonomy of the most representative organizations of workers and employers and through social dialogue in order to ensure its full functioning without any interference; and (iv) continue to avail itself without delay of ILO technical assistance. It also requested the Government to elaborate in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and submit a detailed report to the Committee of Experts before its next session. Finally, the Committee urged the Government to accept a direct contacts mission of the ILO before the 109th Session of the International Labour Conference. In her intervention in the Conference, the Government representative welcomed the conclusions and indicated that her country was prepared to accept a direct contacts mission. In his intervention before the Conference Committee, the Government representative expressed his satisfaction with the conclusions of the Committee, and his willingness to accept a direct contacts mission.

Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Convention. Adequate procedures. Election of the representatives of the social partners to the CST. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to promote and reinforce tripartism and genuine social dialogue with a view to ensuring the operation of the CST. In this context, the Committee once again urged the Government to establish without delay, in prior consultation with the social partners, clear and transparent rules for the nomination of workers’ representatives to the CST that comply with the criterion of representativity. The Committee notes with interest the reactivation of the CST, following six years of inactivity. In this respect, ANEP indicates that the change in government offers a possible solution to the inactivity of the CST, as long as the decisions and recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO are respected and a genuine and free designation of the representatives of the sectors is permitted. The Government indicates that, after the new government took office on 1 June 2019, it made a commitment to the importance of implementing an inclusive labour policy that has the support of employers and workers under equal conditions. The Government adds that, in accordance with the national legislation and the desire for change of the new Government, measures have been taken with a view to initiating constructive social dialogue and reactivating the CST. The Government reports that the active workers’ and employers’ organizations in the country were convened to put forward their proposals for representatives on the CST (eight titular members and eight substitute members for each of the partners), in accordance with the provisions of section 4(b) and (c) of the Rules of the CST. The Government indicates that both workers and employers made their proposals in due time and form. The President of the Republic issued the decision appointing the government representatives, in accordance with section 4 of the Rules of the CST. The Government adds that on 16 September 2019, once the government, worker and employer representatives had been appointed, the CST was inaugurated and held its first session. The Government provides in its report a list of the government, employer and worker representatives selected. The Government indicates that the first plenary session of the CST was also attended by numerous partners, including the Deputy Director of the ILO Subregional Office for Central America, Haiti and the Dominican Republic and various representatives of national institutions. During the session, the members of the CST unanimously approved a communication informing the national and international communities of the reactivation of the CST and requested the ILO to continue providing technical assistance. In the communication, the government, worker and employer representatives expressed their good will to reach agreements through social dialogue and to seek compromises and understandings with a view to contributing to the stability of the country. On 14 October 2019, the second session of the CST was held, during which unanimous approval was expressed for the preparation of a National Decent Work Policy with ILO technical assistance. The third session was held on 6 November 2019, in which the discussions, among other subjects, covered the methodological proposal and road map to be followed for the development of the National Strategy for the Generation of Decent Employment. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed and updated information on the measures adopted to ensure the effective operation of the Higher Labour Council (CST). It also requests the Government to continue providing detailed information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held within the framework of the CST.

With regard to the allegations made by the National Business Association (ANEP) concerning Government interference in the selection of employer representatives on the General Electricity and Telecommunications Supervisory Body (SIGET), the Government refers to section 6(b) of the Act to establish the SIGET, which provides that the Board of Directors shall be composed, among others, of a director elected by private sector employer associations. The Government indicates that, under the terms of this provision, Economic Branch Executive Decision No. 1541, of 23 November 2017, was adopted appointing the titular and substitute directors of the Board of Directors of the SIGET representing private sector employer associations. The Government indicates that the Supreme Court of Justice has handed down a ruling setting aside the election of the employer representatives challenged by the ANEP. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice definitively setting aside the election of the 2017 employer representatives on the SIGET. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the forms of elections of the representatives of employers and the date on which the elections were held.

Article 5(1). Effective tripartite consultations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the preparation of a draft “Protocol on the submission procedure”, with the support of the cooperation provided by the ILO within the framework of the project of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) of the European Union. The Government indicated that the draft Protocol had been communicated to the competent bodies for consultation, which had required legal consultations with a view to identifying the commitments and implications of the submission process. The Government added that once the final draft of the Protocol had been adopted, it would be forwarded to the social partners for consultation. In this regard, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the tripartite consultations held and to provide a copy of the Protocol once it had been adopted. The Committee also requested the Government to provide updated information on the tripartite consultations held on all the matters relating to international labour standards covered by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in June 2019, prior to the 108th Session of the International Labour Conference, the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare met representatives of the unions and employers’ organizations with a view to developing the necessary commitment and adopting the relevant political decisions to give effect to the ILO Conventions ratified by the country. However, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on the tripartite consultations held on the draft Protocol on the submission procedure, nor on the progress made with its adoption. Nor has the Government provided information in its report on the tripartite consultations held on the matters relating to international labour standards covered by the Convention. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Convention, effective tripartite consultations shall be held on: (a) government replies to questionnaires concerning items on the agenda of the International Labour Conference; (b) the proposals to be made to the competent authority or authorities in connection with the submission of Conventions and Recommendations; (c) the re-examination at appropriate intervals of unratified Conventions and of Recommendations to which effect has not yet been given, to consider what measures might be taken to promote their implementation and ratification, as appropriate; (d) questions arising out of reports to be made to the International Labour Office under article 22 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization; and (e) proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide updated information on the outcome of the tripartite consultations held concerning the Protocol on the submission procedure, and to provide a copy of the Protocol when it has been adopted. It also once again requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all the matters relating to international labour standards covered by Article 5(1)(a) to (e) of the Convention.

Technical assistance. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue providing detailed information on the measures adopted within the framework of ILO technical assistance, and on their outcome. The Government has requested the continuation of technical assistance in such areas as technical support for the Technical Secretariat of the CST for the development of a social dialogue agenda and the respective work plan, and support for its implementation. Moreover, in accordance with the agreement reached during the session of the CST held on 14 October 2019, the Government requested ILO technical assistance for the tripartite preparation of the National Strategy for the Generation of Decent Employment, in accordance with the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed and updated information on the measures adopted or envisaged to promote tripartism and social dialogue in the country within the context of ILO technical assistance, and on their outcome.

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

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 107th Session, May–June 2018)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2018 concerning the application of the Convention, in which the Conference Committee noted with concern the dysfunctional operation of social dialogue in the country and the non-compliance with the Convention. The Conference Committee therefore called upon the Government to: (i) refrain from interfering with the constitution of employers’ organizations and to facilitate, in accordance with national law, the proper representation of legitimate employers’ organizations by issuing appropriate credentials; (ii) develop, in consultation with the social partners, clear, objective, predictable and legally binding rules for the reactivation and full functioning of the Higher Labour Council (CST); (iii) reactivate, without delay, the CST, through the most representative organizations of workers and employers and through social dialogue in order to ensure its full functioning; (iv) appoint without delay representatives of the most representative employers’ organizations in the CST where such appointments are still pending; and (v) avail itself of ILO technical assistance. It also recommended that the Government submit a detailed report for examination at the next session of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee also notes the observations of the National Business Association (ANEP) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 11 September 2018, alleging non-compliance with the Convention by the Government.

Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Convention. Adequate procedures. Election of the representatives of the social partners to the CST. In reply to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government’s report refers to the intervention of a Government representative at the 107th Session of the Conference Committee in June 2018. The Government representative expressed her view that the case had been recognized by the Committee of Experts as a case of progress as a result of the actions taken by the Government to reactivate the CST. With regard to the allegations of Government interference in the appointment of workers’ representatives to the CST and the National Minimum Wage Council, made by the ANEP, the Government representative denied them and referred to acts of interference by the ANEP, stating that the ANEP should not interfere in the appointment of worker members. The Government representative added that other tripartite bodies in which the ANEP participated on a permanent basis and without interference operated normally. In this regard, the Government representative referred to various measures adopted on a tripartite basis in the National Minimum Wage Council, the Housing Social Fund (SFV) and the Salvadoran Vocational Training Institute (INSAFORP).

The Committee also notes the observations of the IOE and the ANEP indicating that the Government is continuing to fail to engage in genuine dialogue and is not holding tripartite consultations, thereby failing to comply with the recommendations and resolutions issued by the ILO’s supervisory bodies. They maintain that, since the failed attempt to convene the CST in July 2015, the Government has not taken any measures for the reactivation of the CST, nor have legitimate representatives of the social partners on the CST been elected freely and independently and without Government interference. With reference to the Government’s indications that the ANEP refused to participate in the session of the CST held on 6 July 2017, the employers’ organizations allege that the convening of the meeting was unlawful and that, in contrast with the provisions of section 3 of the Rules of the CST, the President of the CST (the Minister of Labour) convened the session unilaterally, without the agreement of the Vice- President nominated by the workers or the Vice-President nominated by the employers. With reference to the Government’s claim that the process of appointing workers’ representatives in the CST was undertaken publicly with the representatives of workers and employers, the employers’ organizations indicate that the election was undertaken directly by the Government based on election criteria that even the workers’ organizations indicated that they were not aware of during the direct contacts mission which visited the country in July 2017. The Committee also notes the allegation by the employers’ organizations that no sessions of the CST were held between December 2016 and July 2017, but that it was in practice the Higher National Minimum Wage Council which held its sessions during that period. In that regard, they emphasize that the election of the representatives to the Higher National Minimum Wage Council was carried out based on rules issued by the Minister of Labour who, under the terms of the legislation in El Salvador, is not empowered to issue such instructions. The employers’ organizations indicate that they have appealed against those rules to the Supreme Court of Justice calling for them to be set aside. They also refer to the Government’s claim that the various tripartite bodies in the country are fully operational. In this regard, they affirm that they are in full operation, but only due to the fact that it was the Government itself, on the basis of the legal reforms adopted in 19 of the bodies in August 2012, which appointed the employers’ representatives to the Executive Boards of the bodies. These reforms were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Justice in November 2016. In particular, they refer to interference by the Government in, among other bodies, the General Electricity and Telecommunications Supervisory Body (SIGET), the regulatory body for electricity and telecommunications in the country. They allege that the Government interfered in the nomination by employers’ organizations of a titular director and a substitute director in the SIGET through the creation over a short period of time of 60 fictitious employers’ associations which participated in the elections. They indicate that these facts have been denounced to the Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which has ordered precautionary measures, and the Prosecutor-General of the Republic for the corresponding criminal investigations. The Committee further notes the indication by the employers’ organizations of other cases which illustrate the Government’s lack of commitment to promoting social dialogue, such as the development between July and August 2017 of a decent work policy without the participation of the social partners, and the presentation in May 2018 of the National Employment Pact, for the revision of which the ANEP was only allowed two working hours. The Committee also notes that the employers’ organizations denounce attacks against the premises of the ANEP on 30 August 2018. The Committee firmly trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to promote and reinforce tripartism and genuine social dialogue with a view to ensuring the operation of the Higher Labour Council. The Committee once again urges the Government to establish without delay, in prior consultation with the social partners, clear and transparent rules for the nomination of workers’ representatives to the CST that comply with the criterion of representativity. The committee requests the Government to provide its comments and information in response to the ANEP’s allegations of interference and attacks against ANEP offices. In addition, the Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to investigate and resolve this matter. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

Article 5(1). Effective tripartite consultations. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the tripartite consultations held on the proposals to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly with regard to the submission of 58 instruments adopted by the Conference between 1976 and 2015. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, with the support of the cooperation provided by the ILO within the framework of the project of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) of the European Union, a draft was adopted of a “Protocol on the submission procedure”. The Government indicates that on 2 May 2018 the draft Protocol was communicated to the competent bodies for consultation. The bodies required legal consultations with a view to identifying the commitments and implications of the submission process. The Government adds that, once the final proposed Protocol has been adopted, it will also be sent to the social partners for consultation. The Committee also notes that the ANEP maintains that it has not received the reports on ratified Conventions that are to be sent by the Government under article 23 of the Constitution. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the tripartite consultations held in relation to the Protocol on the submission procedure, and to provide a copy of the Protocol when it has been adopted. The Committee also requests the Government to provide updated information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all the matters relating to international labour standards covered by Article 5(1)(a)–(e) of the Convention.

Technical assistance. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that, in the context of ILO technical assistance, in June and July 2018 various workshops were held separately with representatives of the Government, workers’ organizations and employers’ organizations with a view to identifying points of agreement relating to the reform or proposal of new rules of the CST as a means of bringing to an end the inactivity of this tripartite body. The Government adds that, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report of the direct contacts mission carried out in July 2017, support was also requested for the consultations to be held with workers and employers for purposes of formulating legislative reforms proposing to extend freedom of association rights and to develop and promote social dialogue. In this respect, the Government indicates that a first round of consultations has been undertaken with workers with a view to developing a proposed reform of the Labour Code. Finally, the Government indicates that the planned activities will be continued in the months to come in the context of the follow up to the recommendations of the direct contacts mission. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed information on the measures adopted in the framework of ILO technical assistance, and on their outcome.

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

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 106th Session, June 2017)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2017 concerning the application of the Convention. In this regard, the Conference Committee urged the Government to: (i) reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council (CST); (ii) ensure concrete positive developments with regard to the freedom and autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations to appoint their representatives in compliance with the Convention, without intimidation; (iii) ensure adequate protection for the premises of the representative workers’ and employers’ organizations from violence and destruction; and (iv) report in detail on the application of the Convention in law and practice to the next session of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee also notes the direct contacts mission undertaken in El Salvador from 3 to 7 July 2017, in which consultations were held with the tripartite constituents and recommendations were made, according to which: (i) the Government is encouraged to ensure that additional measures are adopted through social dialogue to ensure the reactivation and full operation of the CST; (ii) the competent authorities are encouraged to ensure that the necessary measures are taken, in consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, to ensure full respect for the autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations to appoint their representatives; (iii) the Government is invited to consider, in consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations, uniform procedures for the accreditation of such organizations; (iv) the public authorities are encouraged to take all relevant measures to ensure the protection of the premises of the National Business Association (ANEP) and the safety of representatives of the employers’ and workers’ organizations; (v) with regard to the murder of the trade unionist Mr Abel Vega, the Committee hopes to observe tangible progress with regard to clarification of the facts, identification of the perpetrators and imposition of adequate penalties; (vi) the willingness of the government authorities to engage in social dialogue to address the issues raised by the mission is welcomed and it is recommended that measures are taken to promote a culture of social dialogue, in particular by strengthening the capacities of the social partners to participate constructively in tripartite discussions and ensuring compliance with the ground rules needed to conduct a mature dialogue; and (vii) it is suggested that technical assistance be sought from the ILO in order to follow up these recommendations.

The Committee also notes the observations of the ANEP and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 30 and 31 August 2017, respectively, alleging non-observance of the Convention by the Government.

Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Convention. Adequate procedures. Election of representatives of the social partners to the CST. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that in its decision of 17 March 2017 the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the Government’s request for a definitive list of representatives does not impose an arbitrary requirement or condition that violates the right to freedom of association of the organizations concerned. However, the Court concluded that this does not release the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (Ministry of Labour) from its obligation to implement and support processes of social dialogue and tripartite participation. The Court observed that dialogue forums should be promoted between the trade unions so that they can agree on and apply clear and permanent procedures for the election of their representatives, in order to ensure the appointment of representatives of the workers to the CST and their participation therein.

Furthermore, as regards the functioning of the CST, the Government indicates that as follow-up to the Conference Committee’s conclusions, a request was made on 1 May 2017 to the legally registered trade union federations and confederations to present their proposals for representatives to the CST. The Committee notes that between 12 and 17 May 2017 three nomination proposals were received from the workers, which made it possible to compose the list of representatives and their respective substitute members in the CST. In this regard, the Government indicates that the unions which submitted their proposals all feature in the register of the National Department of Labour Organizations at the Ministry of Labour, accounting for 56 per cent of active unions, 51 per cent of trade union members, and 82 per cent of registered collective agreements. The Government also indicates that the employers’ established in the relevant regulations submitted their list of representatives between 6 June and 4 July, and that by Executive Decision No. 288 of 29 May 2017, the Government members were nominated. The Government adds that on 29 June 2017 the representatives of the three sectors were invited to attend the inaugural meeting of the CST. However, the employers did not attend either the preparatory meeting or the inaugural meeting of the CST, as a result of which it was agreed to convene a new inaugural meeting, which coincided with the meeting with the direct contacts mission. The employers once again declined to participate in the meeting of the CST, alleging non-conformity of the workers’ representation mechanism. The Government reiterates in its observations its willingness to implement the procedures indicated and agreed upon in the context of the direct contacts mission to continue promoting social dialogue and agreements between the sectors, thereby contributing to the activation of the CST. The Government emphasizes that the process for the nomination of workers’ and employers’ representatives was undertaken publicly, with the participation of the previous workers’ and employers’ representatives, the Secretariat for Civic Participation, Transparency and Anti-Corruption, the Government Ethics Tribunal and the media. However, the Government indicates that the employers represented by the ANEP, despite having been democratically elected, refused to participate in the ordinary and extraordinary meetings held between December 2016 and July 2017. Lastly, the Government indicates that, in addition to the CST, the State has five tripartite entities and 17 tripartite autonomous institutions, which are fully operational and include, among others, the Salvadorian Social Security Institute, the Housing Social Fund, the Salvadorian Vocational Training Institute and the National Minimum Wage Council.

The Committee also notes the observations made by the ANEP to the effect that the Ministry of Labour distanced herself from the Committee’s recommendations regarding the reactivation of the CST. In this respect, the ANEP indicates that, in abolishing the function of the electoral body, the Ministry assumed the power to issue instructions for the election of workers’ representatives and appropriated the competence for determining criteria for the nomination of workers’ representatives to the CST, thereby committing acts of interference. The Committee also notes that the observations made by various worker groups in the context of the direct contacts mission, according to which two groups of workers’ organizations attributed the standstill in the CST to interference by the Government, since the latter reportedly called for a single list adopted by consensus. Moreover, the Committee notes that one of the two abovementioned groups of workers decided not to accept the composition of the CST, while the other group, despite expressing criticism and reservations regarding the nomination process, opted to participate in the CST. The Committee notes that a group bloc of workers’ organizations emphasized that one group of workers has been unlawfully monopolizing worker representation in the tripartite institutions for years and criticized the stance of the employers in not attending the inauguration of the CST. Lastly, the Committee notes that in the context of the direct contacts mission all groups of workers’ organizations indicated that they did not accept the representativeness criteria applied by the Government.

The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government expresses its willingness to take the necessary steps to promote social dialogue and reactivate the Higher Labour Council (CST). The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to promote and strengthen tripartism and social dialogue in such a way as to ensure the functioning of the CST. The Committee urges the Government to establish without delay, in consultation with the social partners, clear and transparent rules for the nomination of workers’ representatives to the CST that comply with representativeness criteria. With regard to the allegations of interference, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary steps to investigate and resolve them. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

Article 5(1). Effective tripartite consultations. The Government indicates that it has still not held tripartite consultations in relation to the documents adopted during the International Labour Conference between 1976 and 2015. The Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that the results of the consultations will be brought to the Committee’s attention as soon as the consultations have been held, and that at present, since no defined basis exists for assessing the implications of the submission of labour Conventions and there are conflicting opinions on the repercussions of failure to meet international commitments, the Government is holding consultations and validating procedures with the heads of government authorities and their respective legal departments. The Committee also notes the indication in the observations of the ANEP that, despite the fact that it completed the relevant procedures with the Directorate for International Relations at the Ministry of Labour, it has been unable to obtain copies of the reports to be sent to the ILO. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the tripartite consultations held on the proposals to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly with regard to the submission of the 58 instruments adopted by the International Labour Conference between 1976 and 2015.

Technical assistance. The Committee notes that in October 2017 the Government requested technical assistance from the Office. The Committee hopes that the requested technical assistance will be provided soon and requests the Government to provide information on any activity undertaken in this context.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the observations of the National Business Association (ANEP), received on 4 September 2016 and endorsed by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).

Article 2 of the Convention. Adequate procedures. Effective tripartite consultations. The Government reiterates the information provided in its 2015 report on the measures taken to ensure that the tripartite consultations required by the Convention are actually conducted. Documents are sent to all the confederations and federations that are active at the time of the consultation, the representatives of employers’ organizations who are members of the Higher Labour Council, and the government representatives concerned by the subject under consultation. The Committee recalls that in order to be “effective”, consultations must be conducted before a decision is taken, irrespective of the nature or form of the procedures followed; moreover, the representatives of employers and workers must have before them sufficiently in advance all the elements necessary to form an opinion. The Committee further recalls that consultation through written communications should be undertaken only “where those involved in the consultative procedures are agreed that such communications are appropriate and sufficient” (see 2000 General Survey on tripartite consultations, paragraph 71). The Committee hopes that the circumstances which have been hindering the operation of the Higher Labour Council for three years will be resolved rapidly. The Committee requests the Government to describe in detail the measures taken, while awaiting the reactivation of the Higher Labour Council, to ensure that the consultations held are effective.

Article 3(1). Election of representatives of the social partners to the Higher Labour Council. ANEP expresses its concern at the lack of will on the part of the Government to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations. It indicates that the Higher Labour Council has not met for over three years, and that there is no sign of any action being taken by the Government for its reactivation. The Government indicates that, as part of its efforts to overcome the impasse resulting from the failure to designate workers’ representatives on the Higher Labour Council, and further to the conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2015 on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it accepted ILO technical assistance. The assistance provided included a mediation process carried out from 1 to 3 February 2016 by an external consultant. In accordance with the mediator’s recommendations, in early April the Government initiated a dialogue process, as suggested. As there is no mechanism for determining the representative nature of trade unions, the Government asked the organizations concerned to form a transitional committee to review the rules of procedure of the Higher Labour Council relating to the designation of members from workers’ organizations. Some trade unions rejected the proposed solution, indicating that the rules of procedure could only be reviewed in the Higher Labour Council. The Government informed the employers’ organizations represented on the Higher Labour Council of the outcome of its efforts. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the 2016 decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in amparo appeal No. 951-2013. In that case, the Court set aside the appeal, concluding that the Minister’s actions in exhorting the trade unions to put forward a single list of representatives to the Council did not violate the right to freedom of association, and was therefore not unconstitutional. The Court observed that the Ministry of Labour was nevertheless under the statutory obligation to implement and support social partnership and tripartite participation in dealing with situations that posed an obstacle to the functioning of the Higher Labour Council. The Committee refers to its comment on Convention No. 87 and reiterates its call for the Government and employers’ and workers’ organizations to endeavour to promote and reinforce tripartism and social dialogue so as to ensure the operation of the Higher Labour Council. The Committee requests the Government to report any developments in this regard.

Article 5(1)(b). Tripartite consultations on the submission to the Legislative Assembly of the instruments adopted by the International Labour Conference. In response to the Committee’s request for information regarding the tripartite consultations held on the submission of instruments, the Government refers to a meeting held on 7 July 2016 and a workshop on 31 October 2016, in which the scope of the obligation concerned, and the list of instruments pending submission to the Legislative Assembly, were discussed. The Government adds that it plans to: validate the procedure with representatives of the competent institutions in order to examine the possibility of regulating the process; prioritize the instruments to be submitted as soon as possible; continue awareness-raising activities; and submit a report to the ILO describing the progress achieved. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report on the results of the tripartite consultations held on the proposals to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly with regard to the submission of the 58 instruments adopted by the Conference between 1976 and 2015.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 106th Session and to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the observations made by the National Business Association (ANEP), received on 1 September 2015.

Article 2 of the Convention. Adequate procedures. Effective tripartite consultations. In reply to the observations of ANEP and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in September 2014 on the work of the Higher Labour Council, the Government indicates in its report that the establishment of the Presidential Commission on Labour Matters is one of the actions intended to bring the executive authorities closer to the working class by creating a space for discussion, without it replacing the established tripartite mechanisms. The Government adds that the tripartite consultation procedure has been changed and that the documents are sent to all the confederations and federations that are active at the time of the consultation, with the mechanism remaining for consultation between employers and the executive. The Government also refers to the consultations held through this procedure in 2014 and 2015 in relation to the activities of the ILO, the items on the agenda of the International Labour Conference and reports on the application of ratified Conventions. In its new observations, ANEP indicates that, as a result of the fact that the Higher Labour Council is not functioning, interaction between the Government and the social partners is no longer effective, with the result that the exchange of information has run up against serious obstacles or, at least, has become irrelevant. With respect to the consultation procedures described by the Government, the Committee notes that the Higher Labour Council has not been operating for over two years and regrets that the central social dialogue body in the country has not met during that period. The Committee trusts that the obstacles that exist in this respect will be resolved rapidly so that tripartite consultations can be held in practice on matters relating to international labour standards.

Article 3(1). Election of representatives of the social partners to the Higher Labour Council. The Government indicates that, in the context of the efforts made to designate worker representatives for the Higher Labour Council, more than 16 meetings have been held since June 2014. It adds that the various trade union federations and confederations called for analysis of the proposed agreement and that they would inform the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare of their decision. As of June 2015, no communication had been received on this subject. The Government explains that it is examining the possibility of establishing a procedure for the election of trade unions so that the participation criteria allow an organized election process in accordance with the legislation and the Convention. ANEP expresses the view that the Government has not made efforts to reactivate the Higher Labour Council and adds that reports on ratified Conventions are not sent out before their transmission to the Office. The Committee refers to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 3054 (324th Report, June 2015), and the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (104th Session, June 2015) on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) by El Salvador. The Committee also refers to its observation on Convention No. 87 and recalls that in Case No. 3054 in June 2015 the Committee on Freedom of Association emphasized the need for the Higher Labour Council to be constituted as a matter of urgency based on the criterion of representativeness of organizations so that its functions may resume (324th Report, June 2015, para. 329). The Committee once again requests the Government and the representatives of employers and workers to promote and reinforce tripartism and social dialogue so as to facilitate the operation of procedures which ensure the holding of effective tripartite consultations. The Committee hopes that it will be able to note progress in the operation of the Higher Labour Council and in other procedures through which the tripartite consultations required by the Convention are held.

Article 5(1)(b). Tripartite consultations on the submission to the Congress of the Republic of the instruments adopted by the International Labour Conference. The Committee notes the undertaking by the Government to pursue the process of the submission of the pending instruments adopted by the Conference and the establishment of a high-level commission composed of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the tripartite consultations held on the proposals to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly with regard to the submission of the 54 instruments adopted by the Conference between 1976 and 2012.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2016.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the observations made by the National Business Association (ANEP) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in September 2014 concerning the work of the Higher Labour Council. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in respect to the observations of the ANEP and the IOE.

Article 2 of the Convention. Adequate procedures. Effective tripartite consultations. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the detailed information received in August 2013 and the report received in June 2014. The Committee notes the consultations held in 2012 and 2013 within the framework of the Higher Labour Council relating to the activities of the Organization, items on the agenda of the International Labour Conference and reports to be made on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(a) and (d)). In the report received in June 2014, the Government indicates that the latest report on Convention No. 144 was not sent for consultation to workers as their representatives are not present on the Higher Labour Council. The Committee notes that six employers’ organizations were consulted on the preparation of the report. The Committee recalls that Article 2(1) of the Convention requires governments to operate procedures which ensure effective consultations between the social partners on matters concerning the activities of the Organization. Paragraph 2(3) of the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), enumerates the possibilities available to member States for the consultations required by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government and the social partners to address the possibility of the consultations required by the Convention also being undertaken “through written communications” where the social partners consider that such communications are appropriate and sufficient (Paragraph 2(3)(d) of Recommendation No. 152). The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to provide updated information on the tripartite consultations held on matters relating to international labour standards covered by the Convention.

Article 3(1). Election of the representatives of the social partners on the Higher Labour Council. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government in August 2013 on the efforts made to appoint workers’ representatives to the Higher Labour Council. In the meetings held in June 2013, agreement was not reached on the designation of their representatives on the Higher Labour Council by the representatives of 37 trade union federations and confederations. The Committee observes that in July 2013 the Government urged workers’ representatives to reach agreement and to put forward a single list of their representatives to the Higher Labour Council. The Committee once again requests the Government and representatives of employers and workers to promote and reinforce tripartism and social dialogue so as to facilitate the operation of procedures which ensure the holding of effective tripartite consultations. The Committee hopes that it will be able to note progress in the operation of the Higher Labour Council and in other procedures through which the tripartite consultations required by the Convention are held.

Article 5(1)(b). Tripartite consultations on the submission to the Congress of the Republic of the instruments adopted by the Conference. The Committee has for many years noted a serious failure of submission to the Congress of the Republic of 54 instruments adopted by the Conference. The Committee requests the Government to renew its efforts to hold the required tripartite consultations and to submit to the Congress of the Republic the 54 instruments adopted by the Conference between 1976 and 2012.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes that it has not received the report due in 2013. The Committee observes that 54 instruments adopted by the Conference are awaiting submission to the Congress of the Republic. The Committee invites the Government to intensify its efforts to hold the tripartite consultations required for the submission to the Congress of the Republic of the instruments adopted by the Conference. The Committee invites the Government to provide a report containing updated information on the tripartite consultations held on matters relating to international labour standards (Article 5(1) of the Convention).

Article 3(1). Election of representatives of the social partners to the Higher Labour Council. In its 2012 direct request, the Committee noted the concern expressed by the National Business Association (ANEP) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) as a result of the presentation, without having consulted the Higher Labour Council, of 19 legislative reforms designed to amend the employers’ participation in the management structures in certain tripartite institutions. In the communication received in August 2013, the ANEP again expressed concern at the fact that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, in a resolution dated 2 July 2013, stated that it was not authorized to influence the selection process of workers’ representatives on the Higher Labour Council. The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has urged legally registered union federations and confederations to reach an agreement as soon as possible and to present a single list of the persons designated as workers’ representatives on the Higher Labour Council. The Committee notes that, in Case No. 2980, the Committee on Freedom of Association (368th Report, June 2013) requested the Government to, inter alia, ensure that representatives of workers’ and employers’ organizations in tripartite bodies are designated freely by these organizations and that full consultations are held urgently with workers’ and employers’ organizations within the framework of the Higher Labour Council. The Committee recalls the importance of the free choice of representatives of workers and employers, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Convention, as “only by allowing the organizations themselves to choose their representatives freely is it possible to guarantee that the participants in the consultation procedures are truly representative” (see 2000 General Survey on tripartite consultation, paragraph 42). The Committee invites the Government and the social partners to promote and strengthen tripartism and social dialogue so as to facilitate the operation of the procedures which ensure effective tripartite consultations (Article 2(1) of the Convention). It also invites the Government to provide a report enabling the Committee to examine progress in the operation of the Higher Labour Council in relation to the tripartite consultations required by the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2014.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Communication from the National Association of Employers. The Committee notes the comments of the National Association of Employers (ANEP) sent to the Government in September 2012. The International Organisation of Employers (IOE) expressed support for ANEP’s observations. ANEP indicates that, without any consultation, the President of the Republic tabled bills setting out 19 reforms to as many laws, with a view to changing the employers’ role in the management of institutions such as the Salvadoran Social Security Institute, the Salvadoran Vocational Training Institute and the Social Fund for Housing. ANEP emphasizes the lack of any tripartite consultation or social dialogue, pointing out that the reforms were presented to the Congress of the Republic without consulting the Higher Labour Council in its capacity as a tripartite body. The Committee requests the Government to include in the report due in 2013 any comments it deems appropriate in response to ANEP’s observations.

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

Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes the information sent in the report for the period ending in June 2011. It notes that the consultations required by Article 5(1)(a) and (d) of the Convention have been held. The Government indicates that there have been no tripartite consultations on the proposals to be submitted to the Congress of the Republic or on other matters related to the Convention. The Committee observes that 54 instruments adopted by the Conference are awaiting submission to the Congress of the Republic. The Committee invites the Government to step up its efforts to conduct the tripartite consultations required for the submission to the Congress of the Republic of instruments adopted by the Conference. It hopes that in its next report the Government will also include up-to-date information on the tripartite consultations held on the subjects covered by Article 5 of the Convention.

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

Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes the list of subjects which have been covered by tripartite consultations as indicated in the report received in November 2009. The Committee invites the Government to provide specific information in its next report on the content and outcome of tripartite consultations held in relation to each of the items covered by Article 5(1) of the Convention.

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

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Strengthening social dialogue. Preparation of reports. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the detailed information contained in the report received in August 2007. The Government provided information on the consultations required by the Convention, in which the Higher Labour Council intervened. Furthermore, the Government took into account the indications provided by the Committee by seeking the views of the representative organizations of employers and workers before finalizing a report on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention). The Government indicates in its report that it is proposing to take the following steps for the preparation of reports: as a first step, prepare the report respecting the deadline for the submission of reports and the comments made by the Committee of Experts, and seek the necessary information from the national agencies involved in the application and enforcement of the ratified Convention; as a second step, once the requested information has been obtained, prepare a first draft of the report; as a third step, forward the draft report to employers and workers so that they can make their observations and provide inputs to be included in the draft report; and, as a fourth step, once the observations have been made by employers and workers, prepare the report by including the observations and inputs proposed by the employers’ and workers’ organizations with a view to submitting a final report to the ILO. The Committee notes this approach with satisfaction and trusts that the Government will continue to provide detailed information in future reports on the progress achieved by the Government and the social partners in continuing to hold effective tripartite consultations on all the matters covered by the Convention.

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

1. Strengthening social dialogue. The Committee notes the reports on the meetings of the Higher Labour Council held in 2004, which were attached to the Government’s report received in September 2005. The Committee once again welcomes the full and detailed information provided by the Government on the work of the Higher Labour Council relating to the general activities of the ILO.

2. The Committee hopes that, in its next report, the Government will be able to indicate the manner in which the Higher Labour Council has participated in the tripartite consultations on international labour standards required by Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

3. Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. Transmission of draft reports. The Government indicates that, in accordance with the provisions of article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the ILO, the report would be communicated to all organizations of employers and workers in the country. The comments made by the organizations, whether they are of a general or specific nature relating to the report on the application of the Convention, will then be forwarded to the Office. The Committee recalls that the obligation to consult representative organizations with regard to the reports to be made on the application of ratified Conventions, under the terms of Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, must be distinguished from the obligation to communicate reports under article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. The tripartite consultations required by the Convention have to be held during the process of preparing reports. Where consultations are held in writing, the Government should transmit a draft report to the representative organizations in order to gather their opinions before preparing its definitive report (paragraph 92 of the General Survey of 2000). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information in its next report on the consultations held on each of the items enumerated in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention, with particular reference to the manner in which its practice has developed with regard to tripartite consultation on draft reports on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5, paragraph 1(d)).

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

With regard to its previous direct request, the Committee notes with interest the reports of the Higher Labour Council which the Government attached to its report received in May 2003. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to provide information on the activities of the Higher Labour Council and on the consultations held on each of the issues covered by Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

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

Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the detailed information sent by the Government in its report, particularly regarding the matters examined by the Central Labour Council. It would be grateful if, with its next report, the Government would send copies of the reports of the abovementioned Council, including a summary of any recommendations made as a result of the consultations.

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

The Committee has noted with interest the Government's first report. Noting the information to the effect that the Higher Labour Council will produce an annual activity report starting from next year, the Committee requests the Government to send a copy of it, when produced, to the ILO. In addition, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide, in its next report, additional information on the effect given to the provisions of the following Articles of the Convention:

Article 2 of the Convention. Please describe the way in which the procedures implemented ensure effective consultations on the matters provided for in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Article 4, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether arrangements have been made or are envisaged for the financing of all the training necessary for people participating in consultative procedures.