Allegations: The rejection by the Ministries of Economy and Finance of a
collective agreement on financial and budgetary grounds
- 194. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Union of
Workers of the National Centre of Registries (STCNR) dated 10 August 2012. This
organization sent additional information and new allegations in communications dated 25
October 2012 and 5 March 2013.
- 195. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 30 May
2013.
- 196. El Salvador has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection
of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective
Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Labour Relations (Public Service)
Convention, 1978 (No. 151).
A. The complainant’s allegations
A. The complainant’s allegations- 197. In its communication of 10 August 2012, the STCNR alleges that,
having negotiated and signed a collective agreement with the National Centre of
Registries (CNR) in April 2012, following the corresponding legal and financial
examination by that Centre (which verified that the institution had the necessary
budgetary resources), it received a ruling from the Minister of Finance, dated 17 July
2012, containing an unfavourable opinion with respect to the approval of the collective
agreement.
- 198. In its communication of 25 October 2012, the STCNR indicates that,
in view of the above, the parties to the negotiation agreed to make the clauses relating
to the duration of the collective agreement clearer, specifying that it would come into
force on 1 January 2013. They accordingly signed a new collective agreement, adding a
text signed by the parties and addressed to the Minister for the Economy (indicating
that the workers will continue to receive the current financial benefits with some
slight increases, thereby demonstrating that the collective agreement was reasonable and
could be funded) and another explanatory text addressed to the Minister of Finance.
- 199. In its communication of 5 March 2013, the STCNR reports that
eventually, on 20 February 2013, the collective agreement was registered by the Minister
of Labour and Social Welfare following its approval by the Minister for the Economy and
the Minister of Finance.
B. The Government’s reply
B. The Government’s reply- 200. In its communication of 30 May 2013, the Government responds to the
complaint by the STCNR and reports that on 3 September 2012 the trade union presented a
draft collective labour agreement to the CNR authorities to initiate the procedure for
the agreement to be negotiated, signed and registered. In accordance with section 287 of
the Labour Code, which states that: “To be valid, a collective agreement signed with an
autonomous official institution shall first be approved by the ministry concerned, after
the Ministry of Finance has given its opinion”, the CNR authorities submitted the draft
collective labour agreement to the Minister of Economy and the Minister of Finance, and
received an unfavourable opinion on the grounds that the financial clauses could not be
funded under the public sector cost-saving and austerity policies for 2012.
- 201. The Government further indicates that, for that reason, the CNR and
the trade union of that institution examined the grounds for the unfavourable opinion
issued in relation to the collective labour agreement with a view to addressing the
observations regarding the public sector cost-saving and austerity policies for 2012,
and that the corresponding amendments were made.
- 202. Subsequently, on 6 September 2012, the CNR sent the collective
labour agreement to the Minister of Economy, addressing the observations made by the
Minister of Finance. On 1 February 2013, the Minister of Economy indicated that it had
no objection to the approval of the collective labour agreement including the new
changes, considering that they addressed the observations made by the Minister of
Finance regarding clauses 71 (salary adjustments) and 79 (Voluntary Retirement
Fund).
- 203. The Government adds that, on 19 February 2013, members of the trade
union executive board submitted the collective labour agreement to the National
Department of Social Organizations of the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare for
registration on 20 February 2013, and that the agreement was registered.
C. The Committee’s conclusions
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 204. The Committee observes that the complainant in this case alleges
that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economy issued an unfavourable opinion
regarding the collective agreement between the STCNR and the CNR.
- 205. The Committee observes that the Government reports that both
ministries indicated that the financial clauses of the collective agreement could not be
funded under the public sector cost-saving and austerity policy for 2012. The Committee
notes that the Government indicates that, having addressed the observations made by the
financial authority and introduced the corresponding amendments, the parties resubmitted
the draft collective agreement to both ministries and that the Minister of Economy
confirmed that the observations had been duly addressed.
- 206. Lastly, while it highlights that the examination of collective
agreement clauses with a financial impact by the financial authorities should take place
during the collective bargaining process and not, as has occurred in this, and in other
cases brought before the Committee, after the collective agreement has been signed by
the parties, as this is incompatible with the principle of free and voluntary collective
bargaining and the principle according to which “agreements should be binding on the
parties” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association
Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 939], the Committee notes with interest
that the complainant and the Government confirm that the collective agreement was
registered by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare on 20 February 2013. In that
light, and given that the problem that gave rise to this complaint has been resolved,
the Committee will not pursue the examination of this case.
The Committee’s recommendation
The Committee’s recommendation- 207. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the
Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.