Allegations: Marginalization and exclusion of employers’ associations in
decision-making, thereby precluding social dialogue, tripartism and consultation in general
(particularly in respect of highly important legislation directly affecting employers) and
failing to comply with recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association; acts of
violence, discrimination and intimidation against employers’ leaders and their
organizations; legislation that conflicts with civil liberties and with the rights of
employers’ organizations and their members; violent assault on FEDECAMARAS headquarters
resulting in damage to property and threats against employers; and bomb attack on
FEDECAMARAS headquarters
- 874. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2014 meeting, when
it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 372nd Report, paras 652–761,
approved by the Governing Body at its 321st Session (June 2014)].
- 875. The International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Venezuelan
Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS)
subsequently sent joint communications dated 27 November 2014 and 3 March 2015. The
Government sent additional information in communications dated 17 October 2014,
25 February and 10 and 12 March 2015.
- 876. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has ratified 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).
A. Previous examination of the case
A. Previous examination of the case- 877. In its previous examination of the case at its June 2014 meeting,
the Committee made the following recommendations on the matters still pending [see 372nd
Report, para. 761]:
- (a) While expressing its deep concern at
the various and serious forms of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian
authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member
organizations, their leaders and affiliated companies, including threats of
imprisonment, statements of incitement to hatred, accusations of carrying out an
economic war, the occupation and looting of stores, the seizure of FEDECAMARAS
headquarters, etc., the Committee wishes to point out to the Government the
importance of strong measures to avoid such actions and statements against
individuals and organizations that are legitimately defending their interests under
Conventions Nos 87 and 98, ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The
Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fundamental principle
that the rights of workers and employers can develop only in a climate free from
violence, intimidation and fear, as such insecure situations are incompatible with
the requirements of Convention No. 87. The Committee requests the Government to
ensure respect for this principle.
- (b) The Committee
regrets that the criminal proceedings relating to the bombing of the headquarters of
FEDECAMARAS on 26 February 2008 and the kidnapping and maltreatment in 2010 of the
leaders of that organization, Noel Alvarez, Luis Villegas, Ernesto Villamil and Ms
Albis Muñoz (the latter was wounded by three bullets) have not yet been completed,
expresses the firm hope that they will be concluded in the very near future and
requests the Government to keep it informed. The Committee reiterates the importance
of ensuring that the perpetrators of those crimes are sentenced in a manner
commensurate with the severity of the crimes, so that such crimes are not repeated,
and that FEDECAMARAS and the leaders concerned are compensated for the damage caused
by these illegal acts.
- (c) As regards the allegations of
the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the
detriment of employers’ leaders or former leaders, the Committee reiterates
recommendations (e) and (f) of its previous examination of the case, requesting that
those leaders or former leaders of FEDECAMARAS be compensated in a just manner. At
the same time, the Committee refers to the decision of the Governing Body in March
2014, in which it “urged the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to
develop and implement the Plan of Action as recommended by the high-level tripartite
mission, in consultation with national social partners”, which involved, as
mentioned by the mission, “the establishment of a round table between the Government
and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, to deal with all pending matters
relating to recovery of estates and the expropriation of enterprises (including the
new information communicated to the mission) and other related problems arising or
that may arise in the future” and regrets that in its last communication the
Government stated that a dialogue round table on questions of recovery of estates is
not viable. The Committee urges the Government to implement this request and to
report thereon. Furthermore, the Committee, as did the mission, notes with concern
the information provided about new acts of recovery, occupation and expropriation of
the property of an employers’ leader of FEDECAMARAS. Finally, like the high-level
tripartite mission, the Committee emphasizes “the importance of taking every measure
to avoid any kind of discretion or discrimination in the legal mechanisms governing
the expropriation or recovery of land or other mechanisms that affect the right to
own property”.
- (d) In relation to the structured bodies
for bipartite and tripartite social dialogue which need to be established in the
country, and the plan of action in consultation with the social partners, together
with the elaboration of specific steps and concrete time frames for its
implementation, and counting upon the technical assistance of the ILO recommended by
the Governing Body, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that it has
initiated a process of consultation with different sectors. It requests the
Government to ensure that FEDECAMARAS is included in all these processes. The
Committee recalls that the mission in its conclusions referred to a round table
between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, and a
tripartite dialogue round table with the participation of the ILO and an independent
chairperson. Noting with regret that the Government has not yet provided a plan of
action, the Committee urges the Government to implement without delay the
conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission endorsed by the Governing Body and
expresses the firm hope that it will take, in the very near future, all steps
necessary to do so and will report thereon.
- (e) Finally,
the Committee, guided by the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission,
stresses the importance of immediate action being taken to create a climate of trust
based on the respect of business and labour organizations, so as to promote stable
and solid industrial relations. The Committee requests the Government to inform it
of any measures in this regard. The Committee requests the Government as a first
step in the right direction to enable a representative of FEDECAMARAS to be
appointed to the Higher Labour Council.
- (f) The Committee
draws the special attention of the Governing Body to the extreme seriousness and
urgent nature of the matters dealt with in this case.
B. New allegations by the complainants
B. New allegations by the complainants- 878. In their communication of 27 November 2014, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS
state that the Government is still ignoring the recommendations made by the high-level
tripartite mission. They also report new violations of Conventions Nos 87 and 98,
particularly: (i) the detention of Mr Eduardo Garmendia, president of CONINDUSTRIA, for
12 hours; (ii) the shadowing and harassment of Mr Jorge Roig, president of FEDECAMARAS;
(iii) an escalation of the verbal attacks on FEDECAMARAS by high-level state officials
in the media; and (iv) the adoption by the President of the Republic, in November 2014,
of 50 decree laws on important economic and production-related matters without
consultation of FEDECAMARAS.
- 879. In a communication dated 3 March 2015, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS
denounce, among other allegations, the detention, in February 2015, without due process
and in violation of the right of defence, of 15 entrepreneurs from various sectors
including the Chairperson of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals, Dr
Carlos Rosales Briceno, and the Chairperson of the National Association of Supermarkets
and Self-Services, Mr Luis Rodriguez.
C. The Government’s reply
C. The Government’s reply- 880. In its communication dated 17 October 2014, the Government
reiterated its previous statements. Concerning recommendation (a), made during the
previous examination of the case, the Government states that, with regard to what the
Committee considers to be various and serious forms of stigmatization by the authorities
directed against FEDECAMARAS, there is a long tradition of complaints of this type;
FEDECAMARAS members have expressed public, and even insulting, opinions to
representatives of the Government.
- 881. The Government maintains that, in drawing attention to any
“stigmatizing statements” by members of the Government, the Committee on Freedom of
Association should bear in mind that: (1) it is common knowledge that FEDECAMARAS openly
participated as an organization in the planning and implementation of a coup d’état; (2)
it is common knowledge that FEDECAMARAS financed and collaborated in the occupation of a
square for over two months by active military personnel, who declared that they were in
an armed revolt against the legitimately formed Government; (3) FEDECAMARAS participated
in, financed and implemented an illegal stoppage and sabotage of the oil industry with
the announced intention of forcing the constitutional President of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela to resign; and (4) FEDECAMARAS publicly supported landowners’ call
for the defence of their land, including through armed attacks by paramilitary groups
that caused the deaths of hundreds of rural leaders. These are merely the events that
are common knowledge and there is no doubt that FEDECAMARAS participated directly in
them as an organization.
- 882. As the Committee has stated, the rights of workers’ and employers’
organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence,
intimidation and fear. However, the Government maintains that, to its knowledge,
FEDECAMARAS has never been called upon to halt its activities, which, owing to the
climate that they have generated, have led to some statements that might be considered
“stigmatizing” in so far as it was accused of acts that were characteristic of its past
behaviour. It is not the statements by members of the Government but the actions of
FEDECAMARAS that have caused the people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to hate
this organization. Although threats of imprisonment and persecution are mentioned in its
allegations, none of the FEDECAMARAS members responsible for the aforementioned acts,
which led to the deaths of hundreds of people and to the unlawful detention of the
constitutional President and caused serious harm to the nation, have been arrested,
thereby creating a situation of impunity that hinders the creation of a climate of
trust. The Government requests the Committee to advise FEDECAMARAS to make the necessary
public apology for the aforementioned acts and others that it has committed as an act of
contrition which is a prerequisite for a climate of trust that will ease tensions in the
wake of the statements made by both parties.
- 883. With respect to recommendation (b) (alleged acts of violence,
threats against FEDECAMARAS and its member employers and, specifically, the abduction
and mistreatment of FEDECAMARAS leaders Mr Noel Alvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto
Villasmil and Ms Albis Muñoz), the Government states that it has already reported that
the perpetrators have been arrested and are in custody; that this was an instance of
common crime having nothing to do with the victims’ status as employers’ leaders or
members of FEDECAMARAS; and that the victim (Ms Muñoz) has already stated, in a written
communication, that she does not plan to participate in the proceedings conducted by the
Public Prosecutor’s Office, which she considers to be acting appropriately. The
Government therefore requests the Committee on Freedom of Association not to pursue its
examination of this case since it obviously has nothing to do with matters relating to
freedom of association and it has been repeatedly reported that the perpetrators are in
custody.
- 884. With regard to the alleged attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters in
February 2008, the Government states that it reported several times that the perpetrator
had been identified and found guilty and has since died; it therefore requests the
Committee not to pursue its examination of this matter.
- 885. Concerning recommendation (c) (allegations of the seizure of farms,
land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former
employers’ leaders), the Government states, with respect to the alleged seizure of farms
belonging to employers’ leaders Mr Eduardo Gómez Sígala, Mr Egildo Luján, Mr Vicente
Brito, Mr Rafael Marcial Garmendia and Mr Manuel Cipriano Heredia, that the Ministry of
Agriculture and Land and the National Land Institute (INTI) have reported that, in the
case of Mr Eduardo Gómez Sígala and Mr Manuel Cipriano Heredia, the legal procedure for
land recovery was followed since they failed to demonstrate their ownership of the land;
thus, this does not constitute expropriation.
- 886. In the case of Mr Rafael Marcial Garmendia, according to these
institutions, the land that he occupied has been recovered. He demonstrated his
ownership of part of that land, of which he is still in possession, and the remainder,
the ownership of which he was unable to demonstrate, has been recovered. Thus, he still
owns the portion of the land of which he demonstrated his ownership.
- 887. With respect to the other two cases, concerning Mr Egildo Luján and
Mr Vicente Brito, INTI has reported that its archives contain no information on any
recoveries or expropriations under their names.
- 888. The Government maintains that it has been demonstrated that the
application of the Land and Agrarian Development Act and the implementation of
procedures by the state agencies in the matter did not give rise to acts of anti-union
discrimination or harassment, and that the State did not act on a discretionary basis in
the application of its land policy; procedures and mechanisms for the recovery and
expropriation of land are determined by national law and implemented by the competent
bodies.
- 889. Therefore, since land and agrarian development policies are not
matters for examination by the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Government
requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of these cases since they do not
entail violations of freedom of association, let alone acts of anti-union
persecution.
- 890. With regard to recommendation (d) (bipartite and tripartite social
dialogue), the Government confirms that, as it has informed the Committee on Freedom of
Association and other ILO supervisory bodies on numerous occasions, the country has
broad and inclusive participatory dialogue, which is ongoing, and consultation of the
people is a daily occurrence during the legislative drafting process. The Government has
repeatedly called on FEDECAMARAS to participate in the national dialogue on various
issues, but its invitations have been ignored. However, other employers’ organizations
in various sectors have responded to this call for dialogue on, among other things,
economic and labour-related matters.
- 891. The Government notes with satisfaction the statement contained in
paragraph 52 of the report of the high-level tripartite mission, whereby the mission
took into consideration the inclusive dialogue highlighted by the Government and taking
place in the country within the framework of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela. The Government also reaffirms that the application of, and compliance
with, the ILO Conventions on freedom of association, collective bargaining and social
dialogue in the country are not in question.
- 892. The Government reports that it is still holding consultations with
the trade unions, chambers and professional associations, land committees, rural
committees, municipal councils and other peoples’ organizations concerning the
preparation and content of the plan of action, which provides for the establishment of
forums for dialogue, all in accordance with the constitutional and legal framework of
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. However, the Government stresses, as it indicated
to the FEDECAMARAS president, that the issues that the various organizations have
proposed for discussion are quite different from those recommended by the ILO mission,
which were not of interest or were based on false information that did not warrant the
establishment of a round table to discuss them. The Government states that it is
important for the Committee to ask the complainant organization whether it is really
willing to establish a round table to discuss, for example, the attack on and abduction
of the employers’ leader Ms Albis Muñoz, an issue that, to date, none of the
organizations consulted, not even the FEDECAMARAS members, have shown any interest in.
As stated above, the Government maintains that it will inform the ILO once the
consultations with the various organizations concerned are concluded. Despite these
consultations, as it replied in its communication of 24 March 2014 during the
corresponding session of the ILO Governing Body, the Government reaffirms the following
with respect to the recommendations contained in the mission report:
- (a) Concerning a dialogue round table that will address “other
existing problems that may arise in the future in this area” (recovery of estates),
the Government informed that this proposal is not viable to the extent that, first,
it is not possible to establish a dialogue round table to address issues that could
possibly arise in an uncertain future, and second, article 82 of the Law on Land and
Agrarian Development establishes a clear procedure which cannot be negotiated
between two parties.
- (b) A tripartite dialogue round table
cannot be mandated to conduct consultations on laws. It could at most be one of the
bodies consulted. The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is very
clear about the competencies related to the consultation, the adoption or the
exemption of laws.
- (c) Discussions on laws and bills are
within the competence of the National Assembly. Likewise, the socio-economic policy
of the country lies within under the jurisdiction of the National Executive power,
in coordination with the other authorities of the State, this without limiting
mechanisms for dialogue and consultation that already exist in the country and are
put in place with the various sectors concerned. Consultations may be held, among
other bodies, under a tripartite round table which cannot be erected as a
supra-constitutional body.
- (d) There is no national law
that violates the rights contained in the ILO Conventions mentioned as it would be
unconstitutional. In this respect, there is no legal action against any law of the
country for which the Constitutional Courts have granted remedy. It is unclear to
what the ILO tripartite mission refers when it indicates as an objective for the
tripartite dialogue round table to achieve “compliance of national legislation with
ratified Conventions”. The Government recommends that the Committee on Freedom of
Association and the other supervisory bodies analyse articles 86 to 97 of the
Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which is the source of all the
labour laws of the country, in order to determine whether some of the provisions are
contrary to ratified Conventions.
- 893. The Government adds that the judicial or administrative procedures
in force must be concluded and carried out by the competent institutions in accordance
with the national legislation.
- 894. In conclusion, the Government states that, in order for the
organizations consulted to develop a real plan for dialogue, the Committee must take a
decision on these matters since, to date, there has been no reply to the Government’s
comments on the mission report and, specifically, on the recommendations that clearly
contravene the legal framework and the national Constitution.
- 895. In its communication dated 25 February 2015, the Government refers
to the recommendations contained in the report of the high-level tripartite mission
conducted in the country in January 2014 and reiterates that the implementation of many
of those measures is not viable. The Government points out that the issues that were
specifically addressed during 82 per cent of the activity time during the visit of the
tripartite mission in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela have been omitted from the
mission report.
- 896. In the mission report, the activities of the tripartite mission
during its visit to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela are found to be unfinished and
therefore not useful. Accordingly, it is necessary for the Committee on Freedom of
Association to urgently decide upon the relevance or connection of the denounced facts
with Conventions Nos 87 or 98 contained in Case No. 2254, such as:
- – The supposed
aggression towards the citizen Albis Muñoz, leader of the civil association
FEDECAMARAS, an IOE affiliate; notwithstanding the fact that during the visit of the
mission it was demonstrated and not refuted that it had been a fortuitous act
perpetrated by a group of offenders with a lengthy police record in the early
morning hours, while exiting a restaurant, and was in no way related to trade union
activity.
- – The alleged land expropriation from the leaders of the civil
association FEDECAMARAS, an IOE affiliate; notwithstanding the fact that during the
visit of the mission it was demonstrated and not refuted that it was a policy for
the recovery of illegally occupied agricultural land and that the reported cases
represented only 0.74 per cent of the total reclaimed land, it was therefore not a
case of trade union reprisal, and at no point in time was the legality of the
occupation of this land proven before any competent body by the interested
parties.
- – The alleged harassment of employers, illustrated by the
expropriation of the SIDETUR and Owens–Illinois companies; notwithstanding the fact
that during the visit of the mission it was demonstrated and not refuted that the
said cases concerned actions contemplated under the Venezuelan legal system, the
owners of the enterprises had resorted to establishing legal mechanisms guaranteeing
their right to defence, and it was not a trade union case.
- – The alleged
exclusion of the civil association FEDECAMARAS from the process of developing the
Basic Act on Labour and Workers (LOTTT); notwithstanding the fact that during the
visit of the mission it was demonstrated and not refuted that the National Assembly
held consultations on the legal text during 12 years, consultations in which
FEDECAMARAS participated directly or indirectly, through the presentation of
documents.
- 897. The Government adds that the text of the report is dedicated
primarily to the tripartite mechanisms implemented in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, a topic that was not discussed during the meetings held with bodies of the
Venezuelan State; and the conclusions were made at the last moment and outside of the
report. The Government therefore also asks the Committee on Freedom of Association to
reach a decision on the viability of the implementation of several recommendations
contained in the report of the ILO high-level tripartite mission, some of the latter
being illegal or unconstitutional. More specifically, the Government of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela has not obtained a reply with respect to the following
recommendations:
- – With regard to the fact that the dialogue round table will
address “other existing problems that may arise in the future in this area”
(recovery of estates), the proposal is not viable since addressing a topic that
could possibly arise in an uncertain future cannot be subordinated to the
establishment of a dialogue round table. Furthermore, section 82 of the Land and
Agrarian Development Act clearly provides the legal procedures for the recovery of
land; the latter could not be altered through bipartite negotiation. Moreover, the
consultations held with trade union organizations of rural workers, as recommended
in the conclusions of the mission report, demonstrated a total lack of interest in
participating in a round table on a past topic considered as closed, under which all
legal guarantees were already granted to the persons concerned.
- – The
Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is very clear regarding the
competences for consultation, adoption or abrogation of laws. It is not up to a
tripartite round table to hold consultations on legislation, as it is not the
competent body, let alone to take a decision concerning any legislative text, as
these actions would be unconstitutional in the country.
- – The discussion of
laws and bills falls within the competences of the National Assembly. In addition,
the socio-economic policy of the country falls within the competences of the
executive branch, in coordination with the other branches of the Venezuelan State,
without however limiting the consultation and dialogue mechanisms existing in the
country and implemented with the various sectors involved. Consequently, a
tripartite or bipartite round table cannot be a supra-constitutional body in the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
- – There is no national law violating the
rights contained in the Conventions being reviewed by the Committee on Freedom of
Association, as such a law would be unconstitutional. The Government is not aware of
any legal action in which a constitutional court of the Republic would have declared
the unconstitutionality of a national law based on those grounds. It is therefore
difficult to know what is being referred to in the report of the tripartite mission
where it is specified that the objective of the tripartite round table would consist
of “bringing domestic legislation into conformity with the Conventions”.
- –
The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela provides for a referendum
repealing legislation when the population believes that a particular law is contrary
to the public interest. It is a fact that the complainants have not even tried to
activate this legal mechanism against a law that they deem detrimental to the
national interest.
- – In the context of the consultation with the Bolivarian
Socialist Workers’ Confederation of Venezuela (CBST), a majority trade union and the
most representative of Venezuelan workers, an opinion was issued that was contrary
to the establishment of the committees recommended in the mission report. The CBST
refuses to participate at the round table with FEDECAMARAS, as the latter chose, as
part of previous round tables, to participate in illegal actions, such as committing
a coup, plotting an oil sabotage, using paid assassins against campesino leaders and
taking part in the economic sabotage of the population. The CBST reiterates that,
only if the civil association FEDECAMARAS publicly recognizes the illegal actions
committed in the past and condemns present actions by followers of this
organization, it will then be possible to establish a dialogue with it. Meanwhile,
the CBST prefers to keep the large ongoing national dialogue open, from which
FEDECAMARAS has excluded itself.
- 898. The Government once again reiterates the recommendation and request
made to the Committee on Freedom of Association and other ILO supervisory bodies with
respect to the study of the content of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela and the LOTTT, from which the labour laws are derived, in order to ascertain
whether the legislation is in compliance with ratified Conventions.
- 899. In order for the organizations and the Government to formulate a
real plan whose execution is possible, it is necessary for the Committee to decide on
these issues, because until now the Government has not obtained a reply to the
considerations made regarding the recommendations contained in the mission report that
openly violate the legal corpus and the Constitution.
- 900. Finally, the Government indicates that the President of FEDECAMARAS
has recently shown that he saw as positive the initiative and decision taken by the
President of the Republic to reconvene all sectors in a national dialogue in order to
make proposals. The first meeting was held in February 2015 at the headquarters of
FEDECAMARAS between the President and the representatives of this organization and
representatives of the Presidential Commission of Economic Affairs.
- 901. The President of FEDECAMARAS expressed that the meeting had been
very productive and considered that the President of the industrial organization
FEDEINDUSTRIA, Miguel Pérez Adad, was the right person to coordinate these meetings and
discussions with various sectors of the country. In addition, the representative of
FEDECAMARAS expressed his conviction that a new opportunity would arise to search for a
new constructive and cooperative stage with the national Government that will result in
substantial agreements. In this regard, on 12 February 2015, FEDECAMARAS convened all
private and public enterprises, workers, entrepreneurs and social organizations, through
a press release, to participate in this important national debate.
- 902. The Government attaches press clippings in which the President of
FEDECAMARAS dissociates himself from past mistakes (2002) and indicates that the past
President misunderstood his role; FEDECAMARAS is an institution that may influence
political power but may not exercise it.
- 903. In its communications dated 10 and 12 March 2015, the Government
sent observations and information from the Prosecutors’ Office on the new allegations of
the complainants. The Government denies attacks on business and states that there are no
criminal proceedings against the two employer leaders mentioned by the complainants and
reports the prosecution of eight enterprise managers for offences of an economic nature.
The Government also reports that, in relation to the eight enterprise managers, the
judicial authority has taken measures for their preventive detention or alternative
precautionary measures.
D. The Committee’s conclusions
D. The Committee’s conclusions- 904. Firstly, the Committee would like to recall that for years it has
considered the present case (No. 2254) extremely serious and urgent and that the
Governing Body decided to request the Director-General to send a high-level tripartite
mission to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in order to look into all the issues
that were still pending with regard to Case No. 2254 and all matters relating to
technical cooperation. This high-level tripartite mission was composed of the
Chairperson, Employer Vice-Chairperson and Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Governing Body
and was conducted from 27 to 31 January 2014. The Committee on Freedom of Association
took the report on this mission fully into account during its previous examination of
the case (June 2014) and, in formulating its conclusions, noted that “[t]he mission
considers that it is necessary for the Government to devise a plan of action that
includes stages and specific time frames” for the pending issues. With regard to
technical cooperation, the mission reminded the Government that it could avail itself of
the technical assistance of the International Labour Office, not only in matters
concerning social dialogue and structured bodies, but also in the adoption of criteria
and procedures to measure the representativeness of workers’ and employers’
organizations. The mission noted that the Government had made a general statement to the
effect that it did not rule out the possibility of availing itself of technical
cooperation programmes, if necessary. The mission considered that the Government needed
to convey its willingness to do so in more specific terms.
- 905. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not yet
developed a plan of action that sets stages and specific time frames relating to the
pending issues (the Government states, in its first response, that the consultations on
tripartite mechanisms for social dialogue are ongoing and, in its second response, it
adds that the CBST is opposed to tripartite committees), nor has it conveyed in more
specific terms its willingness to avail itself of the technical assistance of the
International Labour Office. The Committee regrets that the Government has instead
elected once again to disparage the complainant organization, FEDECAMARAS, recalling the
past (although the Government itself indicates that the President of FEDECAMARAS
acknowledged his organization’s past mistakes) and requesting closure of the examination
of various allegations, while delaying the adoption of the measures requested and asking
for a decision to be reached on the compliance of the Constitution and the LOTTT with
the ratified Conventions. The Committee requests the Government to be more constructive
and to duly recognize that the present case concerns serious acts of physical violence
and threats against employers’ organizations and leaders and against enterprises,
expropriation of land belonging to union leaders and an absence of dialogue with the
employers’ association, FEDECAMARAS, whose full enjoyment of the rights arising from
Conventions Nos 87 and 98 the Government is obliged to ensure. In this regard, the
request that judgments be rendered without undue delay is fully justified.
Recommendations (a) and (b) of the previous examination of the case
- 906. The Committee notes the Government’s statements concerning the
pending allegations of various forms of stigmatization and intimidation by the
Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its
member organizations, their leaders and affiliated companies, including threats of
imprisonment, statements of incitement to hatred, accusations of conducting economic
warfare, the occupation and looting of shops, the seizure of FEDECAMARAS headquarters,
etc. The Committee notes with regret that, in reply to its request that the Government
take strong measures to prevent such actions and statements against individuals, the
Government merely states that it is the actions of FEDECAMARAS that have caused the
hatred of the Venezuelan people, recalling events that date from 2001–02 and demanding a
public apology from FEDECAMARAS as a prerequisite for a climate of trust. The Committee
observes with concern that the new allegations by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS have resulted
in an escalation of the authorities’ verbal attacks on FEDECAMARAS and in the harassment
of employers’ leaders.
- 907. The Committee would like to emphasize that the Government is
responsible for ensuring the safety of employers’ organizations and their leaders and
that, as is clear from the evidence provided to the high-level tripartite mission, the
state authorities are the source of many of the threats and much of the stigmatization
targeting employers’ organizations and their leaders, which have been a repeated
occurrence in recent years. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has
failed to provide information on the strong measures that it had been requested to take
in order to avoid such actions. Under these circumstances, the Committee is bound to
express its regret and concern at the alleged events and reiterate the conclusions and
recommendations made during its previous examination of the case.
- 908. In that regard, the Committee once again expresses its deep concern
at the various and serious forms of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian
authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS as an institution,
its member organizations, their leaders and affiliated companies, which are described in
detail in the mission report, and include threats of imprisonment, the placement of
posters inciting hatred, accusations of conducting economic warfare, the seizure of
FEDECAMARAS headquarters, the occupation of shops, incitement to vandalism and looting,
etc. The Committee recalls that for the contribution of trade unions and employers’
organizations to be properly useful and credible, they must be able to carry out their
activities in a climate of freedom and security. This implies that, in so far as they
may consider that they do not have the basic freedom to fulfil their mission directly,
trade unions and employers’ organizations would be justified in demanding that these
freedoms and the right to exercise them be recognized and that these demands be
considered as coming within the scope of legitimate trade union activities [see Digest
of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised)
edition, 2006, para. 36]. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that freedom of association
can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental rights, and in particular those
relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed [see
Digest, op. cit., para. 43], and that a climate of violence, in which attacks are made
against trade union premises and property, constitutes serious interference with the
exercise of trade union rights; such situations call for severe measures to be taken by
the authorities, and in particular the arraignment of those presumed to be responsible
before an independent judicial authority [see Digest, op. cit., para. 191]. The
Committee draws the Government’s attention to the importance of taking strong measures
to stop such threats and prevent statements of incitement to hatred and the looting of
property, all of which are harmful to individuals and organizations that are
legitimately defending their interests under Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which have been
ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; in the specific case of FEDECAMARAS,
this refers to its leaders, member organizations and affiliated companies. The Committee
once again draws the Government’s attention to, and requests it to ensure compliance
with, the fundamental principle that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations
can only be exercised in a climate free from violence, intimidation and fear, as such
situations of insecurity are incompatible with the requirements of Convention No. 87
[see 372nd Report, para. 733].
- 909. Regarding the alleged abduction and mistreatment in 2010 of
FEDECAMARAS officials Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms
Albis Muñoz (the latter sustained bullet wounds), the Committee observes that the
Government reiterates its previous statements (to the effect that the perpetrators are
in custody, that this is an instance of common crime having nothing to do with the
victims’ status as employers’ leaders, and that, for this reason, the examination of
this case should not be pursued) and that the complainant organizations have disputed
the Government’s position. The Committee had expressed the firm hope that the criminal
proceedings would be concluded without further delay and once again notes with regret
that the proceedings concerning the abduction and mistreatment of the four employers’
leaders have not yet been completed. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous
recommendations.
- 910. As regards the 2008 bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters, in
relation to which the Government has reported the death of the perpetrator, the
Committee also observes that FEDECAMARAS indicated to the high-level tripartite mission
that: (1) the person who planted the bomb (a police inspector, Mr Héctor Serrano) died
as a result of the explosion; (2) on 26 February 2008, a complaint was filed with the
Public Prosecutor’s Office; (3) on 26 August 2009, the Public Prosecutor’s Office issued
a ruling ordering the case to be closed for lack of sufficient evidence to establish a
guilty party, which was appealed by FEDECAMARAS; (4) on 6 May 2010, the Forensic, Penal
and Criminal Investigations Unit (CICPC) announced the detention of a public official,
police officer, Mr Crisóstomo Montoya, for an act of terrorism in planting the explosive
device (it is reported that he has been released) and that Ms Ivonne Márquez was also
implicated;(5) the 28th Court of First Instance scheduled the public hearing of the oral
trial for 4 November 2011, which was deferred to 30 October 2013; and (6) to date no one
has been found guilty of the attack. The Committee requests the Government to send its
observations on the matter.
- 911. Generally speaking, with regard to the allegations of physical and
verbal violence against employers’ leaders and their organizations, the Committee once
more stresses that the absence of judgments against the guilty parties creates, in
practice, a situation of impunity, which reinforces the climate of violence and
insecurity, and which is extremely damaging to the exercise of trade union rights [see
Digest, op. cit., para. 52], and that justice delayed is justice denied [see Digest, op.
cit., para. 105]. The Committee reiterates the importance of ensuring that the
perpetrators receive sentences that are in proportion to the seriousness of their
crimes, with a view to preventing any recurrence of the latter, and of compensating
FEDECAMARAS and the leaders concerned for the damage caused by those illegal acts [see
372nd Report, para. 734].
Recommendation (c) of the previous examination of the case
- 912. As regards the allegations of the seizure of farms, land recoveries,
occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders,
the Committee previously requested that Mr Eduardo Gómez Sígala, Mr Egildo Luján, Mr
Vicente Brito, Mr Rafael Marcial Garmendia and Mr Manuel Cipriano Heredia be compensated
in a just manner. At the same time, the Committee referred to the Governing Body’s
decision of March 2014, in which it “urged the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to develop and implement the Plan of Action as recommended by the high-level
tripartite mission, in consultation with national social partners”, which involved, as
mentioned by the mission, “the establishment of a round table between the Government and
FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, to deal with all pending matters relating to
the recovery of estates and the expropriation of enterprises (including the new
information communicated to the mission) and other related problems arising or that may
arise in the future”. The Committee urged the Government to implement this request and
to report thereon. Furthermore, the Committee, as did the mission, noted with concern
the information provided about new acts of recovery, occupation and expropriation of the
property of an employers’ leader of FEDECAMARAS (Mr Vicente Brito). Finally, like the
high-level tripartite mission, the Committee emphasized “the importance of taking every
measure to avoid any kind of discretion or discrimination in the legal mechanisms
governing the expropriation or recovery of land or other mechanisms that affect the
right to own property”.
- 913. The Committee notes the Government’s statement, with regard to the
alleged seizure of farms belonging to employers’ leaders Mr Eduardo Gómez Sígala and Mr
Manuel Cipriano Heredia, that the Ministry of Agriculture and Land and INTI have
reported that, in the case of those leaders, the legal procedure for land recovery was
followed since they failed to demonstrate their ownership of the land and that this did
not therefore constitute expropriation; and that, in the case of Mr Rafael Marcial
Garmendia, the land that he occupied has been recovered. He demonstrated his ownership
of part of that land, of which he is still in possession, and the remainder, the
ownership of which he was unable to demonstrate, has been recovered. In the other two
cases, concerning Mr Egildo Luján and Mr Vicente Brito, INTI has reported that its
archives contain no information on any recoveries or expropriations under their names.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it has been demonstrated that the
application of the Land and Agrarian Development Act and the implementation of
procedures by the state agencies in the matter did not give rise to acts of anti-union
discrimination or harassment and that the application of land policy was not based on
discretionary action by the State; the procedures and mechanisms for the recovery and
expropriation of land are determined by national law and implemented by the competent
bodies. The Committee notes that the Government considers that a country’s land and
agrarian development policies are not matters for examination by the Committee on
Freedom of Association and that it requests the Committee not to pursue its examination
of these cases since they do not entail violations of freedom of association, let alone
acts of anti-union persecution.
- 914. The Committee observed during previous examinations of the case that
the complainant organizations maintained that the expropriations and recoveries were
linked to the status of the employers’ leaders in question and that they were
discriminatory.
- 915. The Committee notes with regret that, with regard to the allegations
that land belonging to employers’ leaders was expropriated, the Government gives legal
reasons for not allowing FEDECAMARAS to participate in a round table on land recovery
owing to a procedure established in the Land and Agrarian Development Act. In
particular, the Committee notes the Government’s statement, concerning a dialogue round
table that will address “other existing problems that may arise in the future in this
area” (recovery of estates), that this proposal is not viable since it is not possible
to establish a dialogue round table to address issues that could possibly arise in an
uncertain future and that section 82 of the Land and Agrarian Development Act
establishes a clear procedure which cannot be negotiated between two parties. The
Government indicates that the trade union organizations of rural workers (whose names
are not specified) showed a total lack of interest in participating in a round table and
adds that it is not up to a tripartite round table to hold consultations on legislation.
The Committee recalls that its examination of cases of expropriation or recovery of land
belonging to employers’ leaders has been conducted solely from the point of view of
potential discrimination owing to their status as leaders. The Committee stresses that
the purpose of the round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS would be for the
two parties to examine and evaluate the functioning of the existing system and the
usefulness of potential legislative amendments and to examine the application of
procedures in respect of these leaders. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous
recommendations, including those concerning fair compensation for the current or former
leaders of FEDECAMERAS in question.
Recommendations (d) and (e) of the previous examination of the case
- 916. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee noted with
regret from the report of the high-level tripartite mission that the Tripartite
Commission on minimum wages, which had existed under the previous labour legislation,
had been abolished under the new legislation (the Basic Act on Labour and Workers
(LOTTT)). It also took note of the allegations made by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS, in which
they stated that the Government, again ignoring the Committee’s recommendations, had
continued to issue regulations with a significant impact on both private Venezuelan
companies and their workers without proper tripartite consultation and social dialogue,
in particular without including FEDECAMARAS as the most representative employers’
organization in the country. The Committee further noted that there had been no
consultation on People’s Ministry of Labour and Social Security Decision No. 8248 of 12
April 2013, which regulates the National Register of Workers’ Organizations but also
applies to employers’ organizations; the partial regulation on working time relating to
the Decree with the rank, power and force of the Basic Act on Labour and Workers,
published on 30 April 2013; and the previous failure to consult FEDECAMARAS with regard
to the aforementioned Basic Act and many other pieces of legislation.
- 917. The Committee notes the Government’s statements reiterating that the
country has broad and inclusive participatory dialogue during the drafting of
legislation and that consultation of the people is a daily occurrence. The Committee
also notes the Government’s statement that FEDECAMARAS has repeatedly been called on to
participate in the national dialogue on various issues but has ignored those
invitations; however, other employers’ organizations in various sectors have responded
to the call for dialogue on, among other things, economic and labour-related matters.
The Committee observes that FEDECAMARAS has been denying for years that it has refused
to participate in the dialogue. The Committee notes that the Government provides a new
example of its call for dialogue (through a first meeting that was held in February 2015
between the representatives of FEDECAMARAS and representatives of the Presidential
Commission of Economic Affairs). The Committee expresses its appreciation for this
initiative and encourages the Government to promote social dialogue. The Committee notes
the Government’s statements concerning the consultations held with FEDECAMARAS regarding
the LOTTT and wishes nonetheless to recall that, while consultations were held on
preliminary draft bills between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, the 2012 final version
of the draft bill was not a subject of consultations between FEDECAMARA and the
executive branch.
- 918. The Government states that it is still holding consultations with
the trade unions, chambers and professional associations, land committees, rural
committees, municipal councils and other peoples’ organizations concerning the
preparation and content of the plan of action for the establishment of forums for
dialogue, all in accordance with the constitutional and legal framework of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. However, according to the Government, the issues that
the various organizations have proposed for discussion are quite different from those
recommended by the ILO mission; it will inform the ILO once the consultations with the
various organizations concerned are concluded. The Committee notes the Government’s
reiteration that discussions on laws and bills are within the competence of the National
Assembly. Likewise, the socio-economic policy of the country lies within the
jurisdiction of the National Executive, in coordination with the other authorities of
the State, this without limiting the existing mechanisms for dialogue and consultation
with the various sectors concerned. Consultations may be held under, among other bodies,
a tripartite round table which cannot, however, be erected as a supra-constitutional
body. The Constitution is very clear about the competencies related to consultations on
the adoption and repeal of laws, and a tripartite dialogue round table cannot be
mandated to conduct consultations on laws. It could at most be one of the bodies
consulted. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, there is no national
law that would violate the rights contained in ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98 since this
would be unconstitutional. To the Government’s knowledge, there is no legal action
against any law of the country for which the Constitutional Courts would have granted
remedy and it is unclear to what the ILO tripartite mission refers when it indicates as
an objective for the tripartite dialogue round table to achieve “compliance of national
legislation with ratified Conventions”. In order for the organizations consulted to
develop a real plan for dialogue, the Committee must take a decision on these matters
since, to date, there has been no reply to the Government’s comments on the mission
report and, specifically, on the recommendations that, according to the Government,
clearly contravene the legal framework and the national Constitution.
- 919. The Committee would like to recall that, during previous
examinations of the case, it has drawn attention to various legal provisions to which
the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has
objected and which had not been submitted to tripartite consultation. The provisions in
question should be submitted to such consultation and brought into conformity with
Conventions Nos 87 and 98 [see 368th Report, Case No. 2917, paras 1018 and 1023].
- 920. The Committee wishes to reproduce again some of the conclusions of
the high-level tripartite mission [see the mission report and 372nd Report of the
Committee, paras 755–756]:
- The mission notes that FEDECAMARAS
continues to state that there are serious deficiencies in terms of social dialogue
and that it is not consulted except on rare occasions and in relation to minimum
wage fixing … . The mission also notes that FEDECAMARAS and the Government concur
that some associations that are members of FEDECAMARAS are consulted on
occasion.
- … the mission recalls the importance of creating
the conditions necessary for initiating tripartite social dialogue with the most
representative employers’ and workers’ organizations on matters relating to
industrial relations, which requires a constructive spirit, good faith, mutual
respect and respect for the freedom of association and independence of the parties,
in-depth discussions over a reasonable period, and efforts to find, as far as
possible, shared solutions that will, to a certain extent, attenuate the
polarization afflicting Venezuelan society. The mission highlights that the
inclusive dialogue recommended by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela is fully compatible with the existence of tripartite social dialogue
bodies and that any negative experience of tripartism in the past should not
compromise the application of ILO Conventions concerning freedom of association,
collective bargaining and social dialogue, or undermine the contribution made by
tripartism in all ILO member States.
- In keeping with the
conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the mission reminded the
Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the International
Labour Office, not only in matters concerning social dialogue and structured bodies,
but also in the adoption of criteria and procedures to measure the
representativeness of workers’ and employers’ organizations. The mission noted that
the Government made a general statement to the effect that it does not rule out the
possibility of availing itself of technical cooperation programmes, if necessary.
The mission considers that the Government needs to convey its willingness to do so
in more specific terms. In keeping with the concern expressed above, the mission
strongly invites the Government to consider the following
recommendations.
Technical cooperation
- Recalling, in keeping with the views expressed by the Committee on
Freedom of Association, the need for and the importance of establishing structured
bodies for tripartite social dialogue in the country and noting that no tangible
progress has been made in that regard, the mission considers it essential for
immediate action to be taken to build a climate of trust based on respect for
employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable
industrial relations. The mission considers that it is necessary for the Government
to devise a plan of action that includes stages and specific time frames for its
implementation, and which provides for:
- (1) the
establishment of a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the
presence of the ILO, to deal with all pending matters relating to the recovery
of estates and the expropriation of enterprises (including the new information
communicated to the mission) and other related problems arising or that may
arise in the future;
- (2) the establishment of a
tripartite dialogue round table, with the participation of the ILO, that is
presided over by an independent chairperson who has the trust of all the
sectors, that duly respects the representativeness of employers’ and workers’
organizations in its composition, that meets periodically to deal with all
matters relating to industrial relations decided upon by the parties, and that
includes the holding of consultations on new legislation to be adopted
concerning labour, social or economic matters (including within the framework of
the Enabling Act) among its main objectives. The criteria used to determine the
representativeness of workers’ and employers’ organizations must be based on
objective procedures that fully respect the principles set out by the ILO.
Therefore, the mission believes that it is important for the Government to be
able to avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO to that end;
- (3) the discussion of laws, bills, other regulations and
socio-economic policy at the tripartite dialogue round table, with a view to
bringing domestic legislation into conformity with the Conventions concerning
freedom of association and collective bargaining … ;
- (4) the identification of the causes of the problems related to administrative
and judicial proceedings that affect workers’ and employers’ organizations and
their representatives, with a view to finding solutions that will settle all
matters pending in Case No. 2254.
- 921. The Committee notes with concern that, in its two communications,
the Government reiterates the information that it had previously communicated concerning
the invitation to all the stakeholders in the country to take part in a national
conference on peace and in round tables on economic matters, in which FEDECAMARAS would
participate, without explaining the progress made on the new requested measures with
regard to genuine social dialogue.
- 922. The Committee recalls that, at its March 2014 meeting, taking note
of the report of the high-level tripartite mission, the Governing Body urged the
Government to develop and implement the Plan of Action as recommended by the high-level
tripartite mission, in consultation with national social partners; and requested the
Director-General to provide the required technical assistance to that end.
- 923. The Committee reiterates the conclusions and recommendations that it
made during the previous examination of the case and urges the Government to immediately
adopt tangible measures with regard to social dialogue and bipartite and tripartite
round tables as requested by the high-level tripartite mission.
- 924. The Committee notes with great concern that there has not been rapid
compliance with the decisions of the Governing Body and that the Government has not yet
provided any plan of action, in consultation with the social partners, that establishes
stages and specific time frames for its implementation, with the recommended technical
assistance from the ILO.
- 925. The Committee recalls that the conclusions of the mission also refer
to a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO,
and a tripartite dialogue round table, with the participation of the ILO and an
independent chairperson. The Committee urges the Government to immediately implement
tripartite consultations and indicates that, although some trade union organizations may
not wish to take part in tripartite round tables, the Government has a duty to promote
tripartite consultations and social dialogue without excluding representative
organizations, such as FEDECAMARAS.
- 926. The Committee urges the Government to implement without delay the
conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission, which were endorsed by the Governing
Body, and requests it to report thereon. The Committee, in line with the conclusions of
the high-level tripartite mission, urges as well the Government to take immediate action
to create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union
organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations. The
Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this
regard.
- 927. The Committee again requests the Government, as a first step in the
right direction that should not pose any problem, to enable a representative of
FEDECAMARAS to be appointed to the Higher Labour Council.
- 928. The Committee notes that, in their communication of 27 November
2014, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS state that the Government is still ignoring the
recommendations made by the high-level tripartite mission. They also report new
violations of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, particularly: (i) the detention of Mr Eduardo
Garmendia, president of CONINDUSTRIA, for 12 hours; (ii) the shadowing and harassment of
Mr Jorge Roig, president of FEDECAMARAS; (iii) an escalation of the verbal attacks on
FEDECAMARAS by high-level state officials in the media; and (iv) the adoption by the
President of the Republic, in November 2014, of 50 decree laws on important economic and
production-related matters without consultation of FEDECAMARAS. The Committee notes
these allegations with concern and requests the Government to send complete observations
on the matter.
- 929. The Committee notes with concern the allegation contained in the
recent joint communication from the IOE and FEDECAMARAS, that 15 entrepreneurs from
various sectors, including the Chairperson of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and
Hospitals and the Chairperson of the National Association of Supermarkets and
Self-Services, Mr Luis Rodriquez, were detained without due process and in violation of
the right of defence, as well as other allegations. The Committee notes the Government’s
communications of 10 and 12 March 2015 denying attacks on business and stating that
there are no criminal proceedings against the two employer leaders mentioned by the
complainants, reporting the prosecution of eight enterprise managers for offences of an
economic nature, and reporting also that, as regards the eight enterprise managers, the
judicial authority has taken measures for their preventive detention or alternative
precautionary measures. The Committee requests the Government to complete its response
and intends to review the issues raised therein in a detailed manner at its next meeting
in May 2015.
The Committee’s recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations- 930. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee
invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) While
expressing its deep concern at the various and serious forms of stigmatization and
intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed
against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, their leaders and affiliated
companies, including threats of imprisonment, statements of incitement to hatred,
accusations of conducting economic warfare, the occupation and looting of shops, the
seizure of FEDECAMARAS headquarters, etc., the Committee draws the Government’s
attention to the importance of taking strong measures to prevent such actions and
statements against individuals and organizations that are legitimately defending
their interests under Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which have been ratified by the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
- (b) The Committee notes with regret that
the criminal proceedings relating to the bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters on
26 February 2008 and the abduction and mistreatment in 2010 of the leaders of that
organization, Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis
Muñoz (the latter sustained three bullet wounds) have not yet been completed
(FEDECAMARAS appealed against the ruling ordering the closure of the case concerning
the bomb attack on its headquarters), again expresses the firm hope that they will
be concluded without further delay, and requests the Government to keep it informed.
The Committee reiterates the importance of ensuring that the perpetrators receive
sentences that are in proportion to the seriousness of their crimes, with a view to
preventing any recurrence of the latter, and that FEDECAMARAS and the leaders
concerned are compensated for the damage caused by these illegal acts. The Committee
requests the Government to send its observations on the issues raised by FEDECAMARAS
with regard to the bomb attack on its headquarters.
- (c) As regards the
allegations of the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations
to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders, the Committee requests
that those current or former leaders of FEDECAMARAS be compensated in a just manner.
At the same time, the Committee refers to the decision of the Governing Body in
March 2014, in which it “urged the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to develop and implement the Plan of Action as recommended by the
high-level tripartite mission, in consultation with national social partners”, which
involved, as mentioned by the mission, “the establishment of a round table between
the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, to deal with all
pending matters relating to the recovery of estates and the expropriation of
enterprises and other related problems arising or that may arise in the future”, and
regrets that the Government stated in its last communication that establishing a
dialogue round table on questions of recovery of estates and holding consultations
on legislation are not viable. The Committee urges the Government to implement this
request along the lines described in the conclusions and to report thereon. Finally,
like the high-level tripartite mission, the Committee emphasizes “the importance of
taking every measure to avoid any kind of discretion or discrimination in the legal
mechanisms governing the expropriation or recovery of land or other mechanisms that
affect the right to own property”.
- (d) As regards the structured bodies for
bipartite and tripartite social dialogue which need to be established in the
country, and the plan of action in consultation with the social partners, involving
the establishment of stages and specific time frames for its implementation with the
technical assistance of the ILO, as recommended by the Governing Body, the Committee
notes the Government’s indication that it has not yet concluded the process of
consultation with different sectors and organizations and requests the Government to
ensure that FEDECAMARAS is included in all these processes. The Committee recalls
that the conclusions of the mission refer to a round table between the Government
and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, and a tripartite dialogue round
table, with the participation of the ILO and an independent chairperson. The
Committee urges the Government to immediately adopt tangible measures with regard to
bipartite and tripartite social dialogue as requested by the high-level tripartite
mission. Noting that the Government has not yet provided the requested plan of
action, the Committee urges the Government to implement without delay the
conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission endorsed by the Governing Body and
to report thereon. The Committee urges the Government to promote social dialogue and
initiatives taken in this area, such as the meeting held between the authorities and
FEDECAMARAS in February 2015, and to immediately implement tripartite
consultations.
- (e) Finally, the Committee, in line with the conclusions of
the high-level tripartite mission, urges the Government to take immediate action to
create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union
organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations. The
Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this regard.
The Committee further requests the Government, as a first step in the right
direction that should not pose any problem, to enable a representative of
FEDECAMARAS to be appointed to the Higher Labour Council.
- (f) The Committee
notes with concern the new allegations by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS of 27 November
2014 concerning: (i) the detention of Mr Eduardo Garmendia, president of
CONINDUSTRIA, for 12 hours; (ii) the shadowing and harassment of Mr Jorge Roig,
president of FEDECAMARAS; (iii) an escalation of the verbal attacks on FEDECAMARAS
by high-level state officials in the media; and (iv) the adoption by the President
of the Republic, in November 2014, of 50 decree laws on important economic and
production-related matters without consultation of FEDECAMARAS. The Committee
requests the Government to send complete observations on these
allegations.
- (g) The Committee notes with concern the new allegations from
the IOE and FEDECAMARAS and takes note of the recent Government observations on some
of the allegations. The Committee requests the Government to complete its response
and intends to review the issues raised therein in a detailed manner at its next
meeting in May 2015.
- (h) The Committee draws the special attention of the
Governing Body to the extremely serious and urgent nature of this
case.
