REPRESENTATION (article 24) - SPAIN - C111, C117 - 1987

1. The State Federation of Associations of Employees and Workers of the State Administration

Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the State Federation of Associations of Employees and Workers of the State Administration under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Spain of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) and the Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117)

Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the State Federation of Associations of Employees and Workers of the State Administration under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by Spain of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) and the Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117)

Decision

The Governing Body adopted the report of the tripartite committee. Procedure closed.

Complaint Procedure

I. Introduction
1. By a letter of 3 June 1986 the State Federation of Associations of Employees and Workers of the State Administration, invoking article 24 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation, submitted a representation alleging failure by Spain to ensure the observance of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) and the Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117).
2. This representation refers to two Conventions which have been ratified by Spain and which continue to be in force for that country. (Endnote 1)
3. The relevant provisions of the ILO Constitution concerning the submission of representations are the following:
Article 24
In the event of any representation being made to the International Labour Office by an industrial association of employers or of workers that any of the Members has failed to secure in any respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any Convention to which it is a party, the Governing Body may communicate this representation to the government against which it is made, and may invite that government to make such statement on the subject as it may think fit.
Article 25
If no statement is received within a reasonable time from the government in question, or if the statement when received is not deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter shall have the right to publish the representation and the statement, if any, made in reply to it.
4. The procedure to be followed in the case of representations is governed by the revised Standing Orders adopted by the Governing Body at its 212th Session in March 1980. (Endnote 2)
5. In accordance with Article 1 and Article 2, paragraph 1, of these Standing Orders, the Director-General acknowledged receipt of the representation, informed the Government of Spain of its receipt and referred the representation to the Officers of the Governing Body.
6. At its 234th Session (November 1984), the Governing Body, acting on the recommendation of its Officers, declared the representation to be receivable and set up a Committee to examine it, composed of Mr. Gabriel Ducray (Government member, France, Chairman), Mrs. Lucia Sasso-Mazzufferi (Employer member, Italy) and Mr. Ramón Antonio Baldassini (Worker member, Argentina). Mr. Ducray having since then ceased to be a member of the French Government delegation to the Governing Body, the latter appointed Mr. Giovanni Falchi to replace him on the Committee. (Endnote 3)
7. In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 1(a) and (c), of the Standing Orders, the Committee decided: (a) to invite the complainant federation to communicate by 28 February 1987 any additional information it wished to bring to the notice of the Committee; (b) to invite the Government to submit its comments on the representation by 28 February 1987, it being understood that any further information received from the complainant federation would also be communicated to the Government. The Committee later decided to extend the deadline for the Government's observations to 15 April 1987.
8. The complainant federation sent further information by letters of 19 January and 11 February 1987, and this information was communicated immediately to the Government.
9. The Government transmitted, by communications dated 6 February and 15 April 1987, its observations on the allegations made by the complainant federation.
10. The Committee met in November 1986, March 1987, June 1987 and finally in November 1987, when it adopted its report.
II. Examination of the representation
1. Allegations made
11. The complainant federation alleges discriminatory treatment, which it states is manifested in particular by a lower rise in salary than that provided for under the State Budgets Act, for workers in the public administration into which the members of the federation in question have been integrated.
12. The complainant federation stated that, under Royal Decree No. 23/77 of 1 April 1977, as part of restructuring, the radio stations and daily publications of the dissolved "Movimiento" were absorbed into a new independent state body known as the State Social Communications Media (Spanish acronym MCSE). This was supplemented by Royal Decree No. 1434/79 of 16 June 1979, which established in its first section, the obligation to respect the basic rights of personnel in their new employment in respect of equivalent professional status and in respect of the salaries of workers who worked on one of the daily publications absorbed by the MCSE when these workers were integrated into the public administration.
13. The autonomous body MCSE was abolished under Act No. 11/82 of 13 April 1982, and 21 of the 27 periodicals which continued to appear were auctioned off in May 1984 under Royal Decree No. 1357/83 of 25 January 1983. The complainant federation states that approximately 4,000 persons were employed on these publications.
14. The complainant federation states that Royal Decree No. 1434/79, by providing that "the Administration of the State will asume the rights and obligations resulting from the employment relationship currently established between the said personnel and the autonomous body, the State Social Communications Media", implies recognition by the Administration of the State of the "social benefits and other advantages" provided for in the collective agreement of the MCSE, approved by the General Directorate of Labour on 16 May 1983, in addition to respect for the professional rights of these workers.
15. The complainant federation states that when new collective agreements were negotiated in the ministries where MCSE employees work, these employees were considered as a separate group; for this reason, according to the federation, the State Administration has not taken account of the rights that had been granted previously to these employees, thus constituting a discriminatory act. The complainant federation points out that this situation has been recognised by a certain number of courts, and refers to a series of judgements in this respect handed down by various courts, stating that the Government has not yet implemented these decisions.
16. The federation considers that, in accordance with Royal Decree No. 1434/79, the assumption by the State Administration of the rights and obligations relating to the personnel integrated into the state service implies the respect of all their rights and expectations, and that therefore the right to salary increases should be neither modified nor restricted. In addition, the more favourable conditions which these employees enjoyed should be maintained in the new employment relationship and should be considered as acquired rights.
17. According to the federation, it was necessary to comply with section 3, paragraph 3 of the Workers' Statute; if this was not done, article 14 of the Spanish Constitution would be violated, as well as section 17 of the aforementioned Statute and, consequently, Article 14, paragraph 1(i) of Convention No. 117 and Article 1, paragraph 1(a) and (b) of Convention No. 111.
18. The federation considers that the provisions relating to collective agreements governing employment relationships in each ministry should not run counter to an international obligation entered into by the Government of Spain.
19. The federation also considers that its members have been discriminated against not only in the matter of their salaries, but also as regards their professional activities, since they cannot carry out activities commensurate with their training and experience. In addition, the Administration of the State has not accorded to the MCSE workers' federation the representative status which would allow it to participate in collective bargaining.
2. The Government's observations
20. In its reply, the Government states that, in the first place, conditions of service for State Administration personnel can be regulated by a variety of accords and agreements. The Government indicates in this respect that it is currently reducing the number of collective agreements in force. It points to the most recent framework agreement of 31 January 1986 for personnel of the State Administration, its autonomous bodies and the Social Security Administration, reached with the most representative trade union organisations. Chapter XI.B of the said agreement provides for a series of measures to regulate any cases of higher salaries received by one or more groups of workers of the Administration as compared to other groups. These provisions also govern the application of the principle of compensation and absorption provided for in section 26, paragraph 4 of the Workers' Statute, concerning excess remuneration linked to annual salary increases which may be granted to workers of the State Administration.
21. The Government indicates that when it was decided to dissolve the autonomous body MCSE, its workers were integrated into the administration of the State, its autonomous bodies, autonomous communities and the Social Security Administration. This integration was provided for under Royal Decrees Nos. 1434/79 of 16 June 1979 and 60/84 of 11 January 1984.
22. The Government has pointed out that the way in which the integration of the MCSE personnel was to be carried out has been the subject of negotiations and various collective agreements. These agreements provided for higher wages for MCSE workers than would have applied under the Workers' Statute, in particular its section 26(4).(Endnote 4) The Government has stated that this provision would mean, for the same working time and the same professional categories, 100 per cent compensation and absorption of any salary increase for those workers receiving higher salaries, taken as a whole and calculated over a year, than those laid down by the collective agreement applicable to other workers. The Government has further pointed out in this respect that MCSE workers were assigned to their new appointments with higher salaries than provided for under the agreements which became applicable to them when they joined the Administration of the State.
23. The Government also points out that, in general, agreements concluded prior to the entry into force of the framework agreement of 31 January 1986 had adopted the solution put forward by the instruction of the State Finance Secretariat of April 1985. This solution was based on the following points: (i) the alignment during 1985 of the professional categories of MCSE workers at the date of the dissolution of their organisation, with the categories provided for in the new collective agreement, under Royal Decree No. 1434/79. This alignment was to be carried out by the ministry or autonomous body into which these workers had been integrated, and with the participation of the workers concerned; (ii) the alignment of remuneration by fixing wages and wage supplements according to professional category. The difference between total emoluments and those received in 1984 would constitute a personal allowance which would be the subject of the compensation and absorption provided for under section 26, paragraph 4 of the Workers' Statute. The above-mentioned instruction specified that this supplement could be absorbed and compensated by any increase in remuneration which might be decided on in accordance with future State General Budgets Act, as well as by any increases of a complementary nature (seniority, transfer or change of appointment, etc.), the sole exceptions from these provisions being overtime, indemnities and other special benefits.
24. This compensation and absorption machinery was intended to make it possible to reduce differences in salary progressively until they disappear completely and remuneration becomes identical for the same category of employee, whether they had previously been working in the State Administration or had been integrated into it. The representatives of the Administration of the State could, however, propose to the negotiating committee of each ministry or other body in such cases that this supplement be granted up to a maxiumum of 50 per cent of the increase contemplated for the professional category or salary level of each worker.
25. Should any former MCSE worker not accept the application of this arrangement concerning wages and conditions of work under the collective agreement covering the ministry or body to which they had been transferred, especially with respect to hours of work and other conditions, the supplements would be absorbed 100 per cent, irrespective of any increases, until differences in wages had disappeared completely. In addition, the workers in question could terminate their employment relationship, in which case they received indemnification.
26. The Government has pointed out that in applying the Instruction of the State Finance Secretariat of 19 April 1985 and the framework agreement of 7 February 1986, both mentioned above, the different situations obtaining in the ministries and state bodies which the former MCSE workers have joined, have also resulted in different salary levels.
27. The Government has indicated that collective agreements are negotiated with the most representative workers' organisations at each ministry and state body, in accordance with section 87 of the Workers' Statute and sections 6 and 7 of the Organic Law on Freedom of Association. It has stated out that the State Federation of Employees' and Workers' Associations of the State Administration is not sufficiently representative and thus has not been empowered to participate in collective bargaining under the above provisions.
28. The Government considers that the application of the principles contained in the Instruction of the State Finance Secretariat of 19 April 1985 and in the framework agreement of 7 February 1986 does not constitute discriminatory treatment. It indicates in this respect that the Constitutional Court, in its decision No. 21/82 of 14 June 1982 in respect of article 14 of the Spanish Contitution, decreed that:
The equality referred to in article 14, i.e. juridical equality or equality before the law, does not necessarily carry with it an equality that is material or which is real and effective economic equality. This means that in situations where the facts are similar, similar legal consequences must also apply and that, to take account of differences in factual situations, it is important to note the existence of sufficient justification for such a difference for the difference to appear both well founded and reasonable, in accordance with generally-accepted criteria and value judgements.
29. The Government has stated that the application of the principles stated above is not contrary to section 3, paragraph 3 of the Workers' Statute, (Endnote 5) as the complainant federation alleges, since the application of the Instruction of the State Finance Secretariat of 1985 and the framework agreement of 1986 is more advantageous to the MCSE workers integrated into the ministries and state bodies than the application of the provisions of section 26, paragraph 4 of the said Statute.
30. The Government also points out that no individual rights or claims arise from the State General Budgets Act, which lays down an overall public spending ceiling for personnel expenditure. In other words, the Act defines wage increases as a function of all wages taken together, and not on the basis of individual wages, which are the subject of collective agreements within the ministries and state bodies. When individual differences arise and when measures are taken to bring the wages of workers with identical functions into line with each other, as is the case here, the Government considers that this does not contravene the principle of non-discrimination, but rather is a contribution to its full application.
31. The Government has recalled that, in such cases, the Act provides for the mandatory opinion of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, which is responsible for verifying that wage reviews, whether they be unilateral or through agreements, remain within the public spending limits laid down by the State General Budgets Act. According to the Government, this mandatory opinion has no effect on the existence and validity of collective agreements concluded in accordance with Chapter II of the Workers' Statute.
32. Finally, in formulating certain considerations relative to the contents of the court decisions, the Government has indicated in its observations that it is scrupulously respecting these decisions and that it will not oppose their implementation in any way, even if there may be delays for procedural reasons in certain cases.
3. The Committes's conclusions
33. The Committee notes that the situation raised in the representation concerns the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) and of the Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117), both ratified by Spain and currently in force. These ratifications were registered in 1967 and 1973 respectively. Article 1, paragraph 1(a) and (b) of Convention No. 111 reads as follows:
1. For the purpose of this Convention the term "discrimination" includes:
(a) any distincton, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation;
(b) such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation as may be determined by the Member concerned after consultation with representative employers' and workers' organisations, where such exist, and with other appropriate bodies.
Article 14, paragraph (1)(i) of Convention No. 117 reads as follows:
1. It shall be an aim of policy to abolish all discrimination among workers on grounds of race, colour, sex, belief, tribal association or trade union affiliation in respect of:
(i) wage rates, which shall be fixed according to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in the same operation and undertaking.
34. For the purposes of the analysis of the allegations made by the complainant federation relating to the provisions of these Conventions, the Committee considers it opportune to recall the generally recognised aims of these two instruments.
35. The aim of Convention No. 117 is to promote social progress by the progressive application of the pertinent standards. (Endnote 6) This principle is recalled in the provisions of Article 14 quoted above.
36. For Convention No. 111, "The basic aim ... is the existence and application in every State of a national policy designed to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation with a view to eliminating any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin". (Endnote 7)
37. It can thus be affirmed that these two instruments aim at the elimination of all discrimination in employment, occupation, vocational training, placement and conditions of work, to the extent that this discrimination is based on race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.
38. The Committee must examine in this context whether the measures adopted by the Spanish Government with regard to the workers of the former MCSE autonomous body are compatible with the Conventions in question. It has thus analysed, in addition to the representation and the Government's observations on it, the supplementary information submitted and the substantial documentation communicated by the Federation and by the Government.
i) Legal and administrative measures with regard to wage increases
39. The Committee observes that under Royal Decree No. 1434/79 of 16 June 1979, it became legally possible to suspend publication of any journal belonging to the MCSE. This Royal Decree also provided for the possibility of integrating the personnel of this body into the State Administration and its autonomous bodies, while respecting basic rights relating to equivalent professional and economic status in the new post. Personnel affected by this measure could none the less terminate the employment relationship if paid an indemnity. An interministerial commission from the Office of the Prime Minister was created to integrate the personnel in question into the administration of the State and its autonomous bodies. Royal Decree No. 60/84 of 11 January 1984 also permitted the integration of MCSE personnel into autonomous communities, the Social Security Administration and any other State body.
40. According to the information supplied by the Government, 3,419 workers from MCSE were integrated into the Administration of the State by 31 March 1985, of whom 3,298 entered various ministries or autonomous bodies, and 212 were integrated into autonomous communities.
41. According to the Government, the working conditions for MCSE personnel had been regulated previously by various collective agreements. These provided for wage conditions and social advantages that were in general more advantageous than those for other employees of the Administration of the State. (Endnote 8)
42. Until 31 December 1984, according to information supplied by the Government, the various situations of MCSE workers differed depending on the administration or other State body they had joined. Nevertheless, their wages were generally maintained at their previous levels, and in some cases increases had been granted under the applicable collective agreement. (Endnote 9)
43. The Committee notes that the Government, having regard to these differing situations, considered it necessary to implement the effective integration of the workers into the Administration of the State in such a way that they be covered by the collective agreement in force at their new place of work. The Committee observes that Instructions of the State Finance Secretariat were adopted on 19 April 1985 in order "to establish a basis which allows equality of wages and work conditions to be achieved within a reasonable time for all workers in the same professional category under the same agreement, regardless of the body from which those workers came".
44. The principles contained in these Instructions (and also the provisions of Royal Decree No. 1434/79 of 16 June 1979) implied that during 1985 the professional categories of these workers at the time of the dissolution of the original body, had been the subject of an adequate adjustment in line with one of the categories taken into account in the new collective agreement that was applicable. This adjustment, along with that of all other work conditions, was to be implemented by the ministry or autonomous body to which these workers were transferred, in consultation with the workers concerned.
45. The Instructions also provided for wage adjustment and the fixing of wages and allowances according to the professional category in which the workers had been placed. Any differences between 1984 wages and allowances and those resulting from the application of the collective agreement in effect at the ministry or autonomous body to which they had been assigned, was to constitute a temporary personal supplement, which would be dealt with in accordance with section 26, paragraph 4 of the Workers' Statute. (Endnote 10) Under this provision, this personal supplement could be absorbed or, if appropriate, raised by any wage increase awarded under the terms of future State General Budgets Acts or by complementary increases (seniority, secondment and change of appointment, etc.), the only exceptions being overtime payments, indemnities and other special benefits.
46. The Committee also notes that those responsible in each of the administrations to which these workers had been transferred could propose to the negotiating committee of the ministry or autonomous body concerned that this temporary personal supplement be guaranteed up to a maximum of 50 per cent of the increase awarded to a professional category.
47. It was made clear in the Instructions that, if former MCSE workers did not accept the scheme in force under the collective agreement obtaining at their new place of work, particularly as far as the length of the working day and other conditions were concerned, salary increases would be absorbed totally until salary differentials had disappeared.
48. It was also stipulated that no ministry or autonomous body could unilaterally award wage increases to former MCSE workers, and that the increases awarded in 1984 had to be regularised within the framework of the relevant collective agreement without prejudice to the application of the Instructions of 19 April 1985.
49. The Committee considers that the measures described above are aimed at a progressive elimination of differences in salary existing between the former MCSE workers incorporated into the State Administration, and those workers already in the service of the State, with a view to achieving equality of remuneration for workers in the same professional category. It also appears that, according to the above-mentioned Instructions, the Government was at pains to apply the provisions of section 26, paragraph 4 of the Workers' Statute flexibly, thus avoiding a wage freeze for former MCSE workers. The Committee considers that the provisions of Chapter XI (Wage Structure) of the framework agreement of 31 January 1986, which applies to the personnel of the Administration of the State, autonomous bodies and the Social Security Administration, pursue the same aims as those of the Instructions of 19 April 1985.
50. The Committee notes that in the intervening time, and in accordance with the State General Budget Acts for 1985 and 1986, (Endnote 10) the wages of State Administration employees were increased by 6.5 per cent in 1985 and by 7.2 per cent in 1986.
51. The Committee notes in this respect that Act No. 50/1984 (section 10.3) and Act No. 46/1985 (section 11.1), both governing the State General Budgets, prescribe that the overall wage total shall not exceed the legal rates of increase, without prejudice to the individual results of the implementation of the said increase.
52. The Committee notes that, according to the above-mentioned texts, the percentage wage increases adopted may not be considered as percentage increases to be applied automatically for each individual worker, but as the maximum level of increase, with individual amounts to be determined within the framework of collective bargaining.
53. In the present case, and without going into details which would entail an analysis of the different collective agreements adopted in the various ministries and autonomous bodies, the Committee notes that the legal and administrative texts, and the texts of agreements, in particular the Instruction of the State Finance Secretariat of 19 April 1985 and the framework agreement of 31 January 1986, state general principles and means of implementation of the increases provided for in law, for the whole of the public service with no discrimination whatsoever.
54. The Committee notes that, according to the information received, the Government has ensured that the legal and administrative texts and the texts of collective agreements are implemented in the least rigid manner possible for the former MCSE workers, thus avoiding the direct application of section 26, paragraph 4, of the Workers' Statute.
55. The Committee notes that certain members of the complainant federation have made use of the possibilities of recourse to the relevant courts and that a certain number of decisions have been handed down by different courts of the country, awarding the wage increases provided for globally under the budgetary legislation. The Committee considers that it is not necessary in this case to analyse these decisions, but rather to consider whether the measures adopted by the Spanish Government, and which are the subject of the representation, are compatible with Conventions Nos. 111 and 117.
56. The Committee considers that the differences in treatment between the former MCSE workers and other workers in the State Administration regarding wage increases are not the result of discrimination within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1(a) and (b), of Convention No. 111, or of Article 14, paragraph 1(i) of Convention No. 117, but purely and simply the application of legal and administrative texts and texts of agreements aimed at bringing about equality of remuneration for all employees of the Administration of the State, in each professional category.
ii) Other measures
57. The complainant federation alleges further that its members are victims of discrimination in practice, not only as regards wages, but also as regards the exercise of their occupation; it states that they have been "forced into professional inactivity" in that they have not been offered activities commensurate with their training and experience, since they have not been considered as "favourable to the political party in power".
58. The Government does not refer to this question in its reply.
59. The Committee, upon analysis of the ample documentation made available to it by the complainant federation, has found no evidence which would allow it to conclude that the Conventions in question have been violated in this respect.
60. The complainant federation, referring to one of the documents transmitted to the Committee (Endnote 11) alleges that the representatives of the former MCSE workers who have been incorported into the Administration of the State, have not had the right to be heard before the joint commission responsible for drawing up the collective agreement applicable to personnel of the Ministry of the Interior. It also alleges that representatives of the former MCSE workers also were not included in the joint commissions which decided on the professional category into which these workers were to be graded.
61. The Government states in its reply that the collective agreements in question were negotiated by the representative professional organisations under section 87 of the Workers' Statute. The Government points out in this respect that the complainant federation is not representative in the sense of section 87, or under sections 6 and 7 of the Organic Law on Freedom of Association.
62. The Committee considers that this question might come within the terms of reference of the Committee on Freedom of Association, which has already examined the question of the representativity of occupational organisations under Spanish legislation.(Endnote 12) It considers that this question does not, however, affect the application of these Conventions.
III. Recommendations of the Committee
63. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body:
(a) approve the present report and, in particular, its conclusions; and
(b) declare the closure of the present procedure initiated before the Governing Body as a result of the representation made by the State Federation of Associations of Employees and Workers of the State Administration alleging non-observance by Spain of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) and the Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117).
Geneva, 13 November 1987 (signed) G. Falchi, Chairman,
L. Sasso-Mazzufferi,
R.A. Baldassini.
Endnote 1
Convention No. 111, ratified on 6 November 1967; Convention No. 117, ratified on 8 May 1973.
Endnote 2
See Official Bulletin, Vol. LXIV, 1981, Series A, No. 1, pp. 93-95.
Endnote 3
See GB.234/23/20, GB.234/PV(Priv.)(Rev.), p. VII/2, GB.236/18/20 and GB.236/PV, p. III/19.
Endnote 4
This section provides that: "When the wage actually paid, taken as a whole and calculated over the period of a year, would be higher for the employee than that laid down in the relevant provisions or agreements, the amount shall be compensated and the difference absorbed".
Endnote 5
This section provides: "If there is a divergence between two or more labour standards, whether they have been established by the State or by agreements, and which must in all cases respect the fixed minimum limits, it is the standard which is most advantageous for the employee, evaluated as a whole and according to the annual calculation of all elements capable of being expressed numerically, which will be applied".
Endnote 6
International Labour Conference, Record of Proceedings, International Labour Office, Geneva, 1962, p. 814.
Endnote 7
International Labour Conference, Report of the Committee of Experts, General Survey of Reports relating to the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention and the Recommendation, 1958, Report III (Part 4B), International Labour Office, Geneva, 1971, p. 1.
Endnote 8
This is recognised in paragraph 6 of the Instructions of the State Finance Secretariat dated 19 April 1985.
Endnote 9
The following situations existed:
(a) workers transferred to a ministry or body where wages had been revised under an applicable collective agreement;
(b) workers who had been granted, in their new postings, their wages revised in accordance with the applicable collective agreements;
(c) workers already integrated whose wages were increased by a percentage equal to that applied to the rest of the workers at their new place of work;
(d) workers who had been unilaterally assimilated into a category of the collective agreements applicable to their new place of work, with total or partial absorption of surplus remuneration;
(e) workers who had expressly accepted the conditions of the collective agreement in force and who thus benefited from a 5 per cent increase with retroactive effect;
(f) Finally, workers whose cases had not been taken into account in the collective agreement in force at their new place of work, and whose wages had therefore not been revised, but kept at their former level.
Endnote 10
See above footnote 1, para. 22.
Endnote 11
Act No. 50/1984 of 30 December 1984, (Official Gazette No. 313 of 31 December 1984), and Act No. 46/1985 of 27 December 1985 (Official Gazette No. 311 of 28 December 1985).
Endnote 12
The document dated 12 December 1986 addressed to the "Defensor del Pueblo, Cortes Generales".
Endnote 13
Case No. 1320: Official Bulletin, Vol. LXIX, 1986, Series B, No. 1, 243rd Report of the Committee.