Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2017, Publication : 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 144) sur les consultations tripartites relatives aux normes internationales du travail, 1976 - El Salvador (Ratification: 1995)



A Government representative emphasized her commitment to compliance with ratified international conventions. She said that, further to the observations of the Committee of Experts and the recommendations of the mediation process on the functioning of the Higher Labour Council on 1 May 2017, the Government has called on the legally registered trade union federations and confederations to make their proposals for Worker representatives to the Council. She noted that, between 12 and 17 May 2017, the Government had received three proposals. The first consisted of eight titular members and their substitutes, which had been made by eight federations and a confederation composed of 39 trade unions with a total of 19,107 members. The second was composed of eight titular members and their substitutes, submitted by 18 federations and two confederations with a total of 108,779 members. Finally, the third consisted of a titular member and substitute, presented by a confederation and 15 unions with a membership of 4,130. She referred to the 2017 decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in amparo appeal No. 951-2013. Worker representatives to the Higher Labour Council consisted of eight titular members and their substitutes, five of whom came from the first proposal, two from the second, and one from the third. The Worker representatives, who had taken their oaths on 29 May 2017, represented 251 of the 445 active unions (approximately 56 per cent), with 131,926 of the 253,139 registered members (approximately 51 per cent). She observed that none of the complainant organizations in Case No. 3054 had made proposals for the Higher Labour Council. She added that the employers’ organizations had requested an extension of 30 days, as from 17 May 2017, to consult their members. The President of the Republic had already appointed the eight members representing the Government. The first meeting of the Higher Labour Council would be convened soon. With regard to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the promotion of tripartism and social dialogue, she indicated that the five tripartite bodies and the 17 autonomous institutions were operational. In particular, she referred to the mandate of the Social Security Institute of El Salvador (ISSS), the Social Housing Fund of El Salvador (FSV) and the Vocational Training Institute of El Salvador (INSAFORP). She also provided information on the process for the nomination of representatives to the National Minimum Wage Board (CNSM). She regretted that the employers represented by the National Business Council (ANEP) did not participate in the CNSM as a result of their disagreement with the outcome of the elections for Worker representatives, despite the fact that the representatives had been elected legally and democratically. In conclusion, she reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to social dialogue, compliance with international Conventions and social justice, based on the conviction that the social transformations that were desired, and which were being worked towards, could only be achieved with the active participation of all the social partners.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information provided and recalled that the Committee had not previously examined the application by El Salvador of the Convention, in contrast with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which had been discussed in 2015 and 2016. They recalled that various matters had been examined during those discussions, which had been raised by the Committee of Experts in its observations in 2007, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. They emphasized that the case was of great significance for the Employer members. With reference to the conclusions of the Committee in 2016, they emphasized that the Government had been requested to reactivate the Higher Labour Council and to ensure the full independence of employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee had also called for a direct contacts mission. However, that mission had not taken place. Despite the technical assistance provided, the Higher Labour Council had not been reactivated. The Government indicated that the Council would soon be operational again. Nevertheless, the Employer members still entertained doubts concerning the nomination of its members and non-interference by the Government. They recalled that, to be effective, consultations needed to be held before decisions were taken, with all the necessary information being supplied sufficiently in advance so that views could be formed. The situation in the country was still a matter of concern in relation to the application of the Convention, as effect had still not been given to the Committee’s conclusions. There were situations that affected the freedom of association of employers, which were contrary to the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 144. They referred to the acts of interference in relation to the election of the members of the CNSM, and noted that on the very day of the elections a directive had been issued, notified and modified. In the view of the ANEP, all of that had been unlawful. They noted that, in the view of the ANEP, the representatives on the CNSM, in the same way as those of the Institute for Access to Public Information (IAIP), were cooperatives, which lacked the necessary legitimacy. The result in both cases was that the members elected were persons or bodies linked to the Government. The most serious issue was the interference in the elections of the Coffee Growers Association of El Salvador (FECAGRO). The Ministry of the Interior was still holding up the necessary credentials for the legal recognition of the change in executive boards for over 50 of the affiliates of the ANEP. During the second half of 2016, there had been a total of 17 marches in front of the headquarters of the ANEP. The situation was of great concern. They added that, in view of the extreme gravity of all the matters raised, the Committee’s conclusions should be placed in a special paragraph of its report. A direct contacts mission was still necessary.

The Worker members emphasized their particular concern at the situation in the country, including the levels of violence and poverty. The direct contacts mission called for by the Committee during its examination in 2016 of Convention No. 87 had still not taken place. It was to be hoped that the Government would give effect to the conclusions adopted in 2016. The authorities needed in particular to shed full light on the murder of the trade unionist, Victoriano Abel Vega in 2010. The failings examined this year would certainly have the same origins as those relating to the application of Convention No. 87. While hoping that the increase in the minimum wage in January 2017 would improve the situation of the poorest categories of the population, it was to be regretted that it had been followed by reactions that had stoked social tensions in the country, namely mass dismissals in certain enterprises and attempts to radically undermine the principle of the eight-hour day. Reference should be made to the constitutional obligations related to the submission to the competent authorities of the instruments adopted by the Conference. The aim of Convention No. 144 is to encourage tripartite consultations at the national level on matters relating to ILO activities. Since 2013, El Salvador had been seriously failing in its compliance with the requirements concerning the submission of instruments. The Government appeared to have failed to establish effective tripartite structures for consultation on matters relating to ILO activities, as required by the Convention. What was important in relation to that obligation was that the social partners were able to express their views before the Government made a final decision. Consultations therefore needed to be held prior to the adoption of the final decision. For that purpose, the Government needed to ensure that the necessary information was communicated sufficiently in advance to the representatives of workers and employers. In that regard, member States had a margin of manoeuvre in determining the nature and form of the tripartite consultation procedures. Under the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), member States were free to carry out consultations through written communications, although those involved in the consultative procedures needed to agree that such communications were appropriate and sufficient. The Higher Labour Council was the competent body in El Salvador for issues relating to ILO activities. The latest information available appeared to report a solution to the blockage that had affected the operation of this body, due to the disagreement that existed between certain trade union organizations. It was to be hoped that employers’ organizations would also nominate their representatives in order to enable the Council to take up its work again as soon as possible. It was essential for the Government to ensure that the solution that was found guaranteed the sustainable operation of the institution in future. With reference to the freedom of representative organizations to select Employer and Worker representatives, as set out in the Convention, the difficulty in the country concerned in particular the nomination of Worker representatives to the Higher Labour Council. It appeared that the dispute that was dividing the various trade union organizations had its origins in the requirement by the Government that trade union federations and confederations should reach consensus on the nomination of their respective representatives to the Council. That totally undermined the freedom of choice of each representative organization in its own right. The solution adopted needed to ensure the nomination of trade union representatives to the Council on the basis of criteria of representativity. It was to be hoped that this solution would be adopted for the long term and would not just be an isolated measure intended to respond to the demands of the ILO. With a view to ensuring the long-term reactivation of the Council, it would be necessary to have pre-established objective and precise criteria and an agreed, clear and permanent electoral process which guaranteed the greatest possible representativity of the organizations. In the event of any challenge, the organizations should also be able to rely on an independent body which enjoyed the confidence of all the parties to decide on the dispute. With regard to tripartite consultations on the submission of instruments to the competent authorities, as envisaged by the Convention, it would appear that the consultation procedure had not yet been established in the country. Such a procedure needed to be implemented in the near future. It was essential for the representative organizations to be able to communicate their views on the action proposed by the Government on ILO standards. The need to determine the consultation procedure to be followed was intimately tied up with the proper functioning of the Higher Labour Council. It would not appear possible to establish this procedure unless all the representatives of the representative organizations had been nominated. A lasting solution therefore needed to be found to ensure the proper functioning of the Higher Labour Council. The improvement of social dialogue would have a calming effect on many of the tensions in the country.

The Employer member of El Salvador said that, despite the Committee’s conclusions, the Government was still failing to comply with the Convention. First, he recalled that the Committee had requested the Government to reactivate the Higher Labour Council immediately. On 11 May 2017, after four years of inactivity of the Council, the employers had been requested to designate their representatives to the Council in only four days. An extension of one month had been requested. The nominations were ready and would be communicated to the offices of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare that afternoon. Worker representatives had been elected to the Council. The media in his country had published statements by the Worker representatives elected, who had denied knowledge of the rules on which the election had been based. Such actions ran counter to the Convention, as well as the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the conclusions of the Conference Committee, in which it had urged the Government to ensure the full autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations. He called on the ILO to investigate this matter. Second, he referred to the conclusions of the Committee in 2016 concerning the need to ensure the full independence of employers’ and workers’ organizations. In that regard, he complained that the Government had withheld the credentials of 25 out of 50 employers’ organizations, without which they could not participate in the tripartite consultations, as they needed to be registered with the Ministry of the Interior after electing a new executive board. He noted, for example, that in the recent convocation for the Higher Labour Council, the Government had requested proof that the organizations were duly registered with the Ministry of the Interior. He also complained that, in the short-lists for election as IAIP commissioners, the Government had only issued credentials to cooperative associations, which meant that many employers’ organizations had been unable to participate. Moreover, some credentials had been issued illegally to a group of people with government ties, so that one of them could assume the presidency of the Association of Coffee Owners of FECAGRO. That person, with support from the national police, had illegally entered the FECAGRO offices. Finally, he complained that there had been acts of intimidation against members of the ANEP by groups linked to the Government and attacks on the ANEP premises. He expressed regret that the Government had still not accepted the direct contacts mission recommended by the Committee in 2016.

The Worker member of El Salvador indicated that in recent years the trade unions had developed proposals in tripartite bodies with a view to promoting structural changes, the equal distribution of wealth and respect for human rights, and fundamental rights and principles at work, despite corporate interference. The Worker representatives had been elected to the Higher Labour Council, which had not been operational since 2013. Once that blockage had been overcome, it would be important for the Council’s rules of procedure to be reformed to establish the procedures and criteria determine the representativeness of Worker representatives. The democratic and transparent composition of trade union and Employer representatives needed to be guaranteed. ANEP should refrain from interfering in trade union representation, and from seeking to promote representatives affiliated to it and attempting to undermine workers’ organizations, a situation which had been brought to the knowledge of the Director-General of the ILO. She urged the Government to develop mechanisms for social action and citizens’ participation to ensure that collective action was carried out democratically and to prevent interference from economic oligopolies. The full exercise of freedom of association was essential for compliance with the Convention. Employers should respect the right to freedom of association and allow the establishment of trade unions without restriction or repression of any kind throughout the production chain. In this respect, she emphasized that responsibility for human rights violations lay not only with enterprises at the lowest levels of the production chain but also, and especially, with large enterprises which benefited most from the profits generated in the value chain. She referred to a case before the Committee on Freedom of Association relating to the repression and criminalization of trade unions by employers in the country. In that case, the workers had been dismissed and had been involved in court cases since 2010 to assert their right to strike and to conclude collective agreements. The Government should intervene as a matter of urgency to prevent the imprisonment of the trade unionists concerned. She hoped that the Government would adopt measures to strengthen labour and social protection, without falling back on false arguments about the flexibility of work, as in other Latin American countries. She trusted that the conclusions in this case would specify clear elements and precise deadlines to allow for the urgent adoption of a plan to address the problems identified and guarantee full compliance with the Convention.

The Government member of Malta, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Norway and Serbia, stated that the Convention was intrinsically linked with two fundamental Conventions, the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). In this regard, he wished to recall the commitment undertaken by the Government of El Salvador under the trade pillar of the EU–Central America Association Agreement, to effectively implement the fundamental ILO Conventions. The case of El Salvador had already been before the Committee in 2016 in relation to the application of Convention No. 87, and a discussion had taken place on the need to foster tripartite dialogue and freedom of association in the country, urging the Government to reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council and ensure full autonomy for employers’ and workers’ organizations. He expressed concerns that, according to the Committee of Experts, there had not been any progress on these two matters. Considering that effective, inclusive and transparent tripartite consultations were essential to ensure social dialogue in a country, he urged the Government to take measures to include all social partners in consultations related to employment and labour policies, in a transparent manner and before a decision was taken, so as to build trust. Expressing concerns that the High Labour Council had not been able to operate for over three years and recalling the importance of ensuring the full autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations to determine their representatives to joint and tripartite bodies, he requested the Government and the social partners to reconstitute the Council as a matter of urgency based on the criteria of the representativeness of organizations. All possible ways to promote social dialogue should be explored. To this end, he reiterated the call for an ILO direct contacts mission in the near future, which could provide significant support in ensuring the conformity of national law with ILO Conventions. A similar call had been issued by the Committee in 2016, but to no avail. At the same time, he reaffirmed the ongoing commitment to constructive engagement with El Salvador, including through EU and Member States cooperation projects aiming to strengthen the Government’s capacity to address all issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Brazil, speaking on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), expressed appreciation for the information supplied by the Government regarding compliance with the Convention. He referred to the report of the Committee of Experts, which noted the dialogue process initiated by the Government following a mediation process carried out in February 2016 with ILO technical assistance. He also noted, the decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in amparo appeal No. 951-2013 had been noted. He observed the comments made by the Government representative in relation to the election by trade union federations and confederations of Worker representatives to the Higher Labour Council, thereby overcoming the main obstacle to its operation. He further noted the appointment of Employer representatives to the Council by the President of the Republic, and that the Council was therefore ready to begin functioning. He reiterated their commitment to the application of the Convention and expressed confidence that the Government would maintain its efforts to comply with that Convention.

The Employer member of Colombia indicated that he was speaking not only as the member representing the Employers of Colombia, but also as the Vice-Chairperson of Latin American Employers. He indicated that, over the past three years, the Committee had examined the situation in El Salvador in relation to various Conventions. There was a lack of tripartite consultation in many aspects of decision-making and he emphasized that consultation needed to take place in advance and to include the reports that were to be submitted. He noted that the direct contacts mission had not taken place and called for it to be carried out. He also requested the Government to provide detailed reports for analysis by the Committee of Experts at its next meeting. He emphasized that Worker and Employer representatives must be freely elected and be represented on an equal footing, as established by Conventions Nos 87 and 144.

The Worker member of Brazil acknowledged the importance of setting up the Higher Labour Council and making it operational. She welcomed the Government’s willingness to implement the recommendations of ILO technical assistance. She also welcomed the initiative to adjust the minimum wage that had been adopted and the round table set up between the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and workers’ organizations. The Government had demonstrated openness to dialogue, which should now be intensified.

The Government member of Cuba endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. She noted that the report of the Committee of Experts confirmed that, following the conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee in June 2015, El Salvador had accepted ILO technical assistance in the form of a mediation process carried out in February 2016. In accordance with the recommendations of the independent mediator, the Government had continued the process of dialogue. Representatives had been nominated by trade union confederations and federations to make the Higher Labour Council operational.

The Worker member of Colombia said that no action had been taken to comply with the conclusions adopted by the Committee in 2016. He considered that the criteria imposed by the Government for nominations to the Higher Labour Council were groundless, as they were not laid down in the Council’s rules of procedure. The sole objective was to hinder the submission of nominations. The workers’ organizations had approved neither the procedure nor the criteria for this process, which had been led and carried out exclusively by the Ministry of Labour. The criteria used in the election process ran counter to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. The determination of the most representative organizations must be based on criteria pre-established by the workers, and not by the Government. The process amounted to serious interference by the Government in the election of Worker representatives. She also alleged that various trade unions and federations controlled by the Government had been created in recent months with the aim of gaining a majority in the Higher Labour Council and other tripartite bodies. She hoped that the Government would initiate a frank and sincere dialogue to resolve these problems.

An observer representing the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) reiterated his great concern at the situation of harassment experienced by employers, which was affecting their freedom of association. The situation had been under examination for three years and, far from improving, had worsened. He emphasized that in 2016 the Committee had called for a direct contacts mission and the Committee of Experts had attached a double footnote to the case. He noted that the Government had nominated the representatives of employers to tripartite bodies responsible for labour matters, including minimum wage fixing. Major increases in minimum wages had been imposed unilaterally, above the level agreed with the workers. He denounced the fact that the Government had ignored the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice in relation to the functions of the ANEP and observed with great concern the results of the violence incited against the ANEP and the demonstrations against the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice which were not considered favourable to the Government’s positions. He called for a change in attitude to guarantee the sound operation of social dialogue and for measures to be adopted to guarantee compliance with the Conventions ratified by El Salvador.

The Worker member of Nicaragua expressed disagreement with the inclusion of the present case on the list. The Government of El Salvador was in compliance with the Convention, and it was not therefore clear why this matter had been included in the list of cases to be discussed by the Committee. He added that last January, the CNSM had decided on an adjustment to the minimum wage, which had resulted in dissatisfaction amongst employers. He added that the call by employers’ organizations to review the trade union representation on tripartite bodies was a clear case of interference in the internal affairs of workers’ organizations. While welcoming the activation of the Higher Labour Council, it was still necessary for employers to nominate their representatives so that the Council could become operational.

The Government member of Panama endorsed the statement by GRULAC and considered that the information provided by the Government contained important elements for the consolidation of the principles underlying the tripartite consultations envisaged by the Convention. He supported the information provided by the Government representative, which showed the clear intention of giving effect to all of the Committee’s recommendations.

The Worker member of the Dominican Republic said that the workers, although they had noted the difficulties in the operation of the Higher Labour Council, had finally reached agreement on the nomination of their representatives to the Council. It was difficult to understand the concerns expressed by employers in relation to the election of the Worker members of the Council, and he called for employers not to interfere in those elections. Workers’ organizations were suffering from greater persecution, in the form of dismissals and murders, and it could not therefore be claimed that only employers suffered from violence. He called for technical support for the operation of the Council so that it could fulfil its functions as a tripartite consultation body.

The Government member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia expressed support for the statement by GRULAC and noted that the Government had taken positive, clear and concrete measures to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. This had been clearly demonstrated by the acceptance of technical assistance from the ILO to carry out a mediation process, which had been launched in February 2016. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had also found that the right to freedom of association had not been violated by the Ministry of Labour by requiring trade union federations and confederations to put forward a single list of representatives. In this regard, she noted with appreciation that the Worker representatives had already been designated by trade union federations and confederations, that employers’ organizations had stated that they would designate representatives, and that Government representatives had already been appointed. She therefore considered that, as the Higher Labour Council would soon be made operational, there were no reasons to support the complaint of failure to comply with the Convention.

The Employer member of Guatemala explained that he had taken the floor concerning the statements made by the Government, whose claims raised many doubts concerning the intentions behind the constitution of the Higher Labour Council, and the treatment of the ANEP. According to the Government, the call to convene the body had been made as late as 1 May 2017. It seemed that such action had been taken in order to present results to the Committee. He denounced the interference in the appointment of Employer representatives to social dialogue forums, and the acts of violence against the ANEP by groups aligned with the Government. He hoped that the Committee would make every effort to use the tools at its disposal in order to ensure that the Government fully respected social dialogue mechanisms and the full autonomy of the ANEP.

The Government member of Honduras observed that the national Constitution and law identified the Higher Labour Council as the body responsible for carrying out tripartite consultations in relation to international labour standards. He emphasized that the Council was ready to begin operation, as the Worker representatives had been appointed, thereby resolving the main obstacle to its activation. The Employer representatives had been convened, but had indicated that an additional month would be required, and the Government representatives had been appointed. He urged the Government to strengthen its national tripartite dialogue body in order to continue to be in compliance with the Convention.

The Employer member of Turkey expressed the belief that the proper functioning of social dialogue was key for sound and effective industrial relations. Political willingness and commitment to engage in social dialogue must be shown by all parties in an enabling legal and institutional framework. As indicated by the Committee of Experts, interference by the Government in the election of members for joint and tripartite executive boards was a clear violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Notwithstanding some improvements reiterated by the Government, there were obvious shortcomings with regard to the operation of the Higher Labour Council. First of all, it had not been functioning for years which meant that the social partners lacked their most important platform to contribute to the decision-making process. Moreover, the social partners were not afforded the necessary timeframe or opportunities to express themselves before the adoption of social and economic regulations. The social partners needed to have the forthcoming rules of procedure before them sufficiently in advance to form their respective opinions. Noting that no concrete steps had been taken to establish an enabling environment for social dialogue, he called on the Government to give priority to measures to promote and reinforce effective social dialogue.

The Employer member of Mexico referred to the information provided by the Government representative, who considered that the country was productive and safe. The latter concept included legal certainty, of which tripartite consultation was one component. Compliance would not be achieved through the provision of explanations, particularly since, in the best of cases, explanations were mere wishes or justifications for what was not happening. The Committee needed to assume its responsibilities and take firm and expeditious measures to ensure that the Government gave effect in practice to tripartite consultation.

The Government representative recalled that the case concerned the application of Convention No. 144, not other Conventions. She emphasized the goodwill and openness of all workers in the process under discussion. The call for the nomination of Worker representatives had been in accordance with the spirit of the decision by the Supreme Court of Justice and the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies. She explained that, in view of the absence of national and international legal texts respecting the determination of the level of representativeness of organizations, account was taken of the number of affiliated unions, workers represented and collective agreements concluded. Her Government agreed with the views expressed by the workers concerning the objective of ensuring that tripartite consultation was a permanent exercise for the promotion of labour rights, as well as with regard to the technical assistance required by the Higher Labour Council, for example for the drafting of new rules concerning the arrangements, competence and procedures to guarantee the representative nature of Employer and Worker representatives on an equal footing. She emphasized the economic growth, the reduction in the cost of a basic basket of goods, the reactivation of the agricultural sector and the creation of 6,000 new jobs. That progress would not have been possible without social dialogue, or without the active participation of employers in economic policy and decision-making bodies. In view of the complaints made by the ANEP and the IOE to the Committee, she observed that no denunciations had been made to the national police or prosecution services. She considered that the ANEP should have gone to the competent national bodies earlier. She recalled that cooperatives were also enterprises, for which reason they enjoyed the same rights to participate in any election process. In conclusion, she noted that the progress made would be significant for full compliance with ratified Conventions.

The Worker members recalled that Convention No. 144 extended the tripartism that characterized the ILO at the national level. The Government must urgently implement, in accordance with the Convention, procedures for tripartite consultations that would enable representative organizations to have their views heard regarding the follow-up to be given to ILO standards-related action. These consultation procedures would only be effective if the Higher Labour Council responsible for following such matters operated smoothly. An impasse had recently been overcome following an agreement between trade union organizations. The Worker members hoped that representatives of employers’ organizations would soon be designated so that the Council could resume its work. In order to guarantee the lasting operation of the Council and avoid another impasse in the future, it was essential for the Government to refrain from imposing consensus on the representative organizations regarding the appointment of their respective representatives. Each representative organization must be given the freedom to designate its own representatives without the need for consent from other representative organizations in order to guarantee its freedom to choose its own representatives. The Worker members invited the Government to define objective and precise criteria and a clear and permanent procedure for elections in order to guarantee that organizations were as representative as possible. An independent appeals body should also be established. Once the Government had put all these elements in place, it would need to ensure the launching of effective tripartite consultations. In order to do so, it must ensure that the social partners had the opportunity to make their opinions heard before the Government took a final decision, and that representative organizations had before them, sufficiently in advance, all the elements necessary to form an opinion. Resolving these different issues should ensure that the Higher Labour Council ran smoothly in the long term. In order to implement these recommendations, the Government was requested to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Employer members reiterated that the present case was a cause of concern and emphasized that, while thanking the Government representative for the explanations provided, the information was not entirely satisfactory. There was failure to comply with Article 1 of the Convention in view of the doubts concerning the “most representative” nature of the organizations, both for employers and workers. Similarly, there were problems in the application of Article 2 in view of the absence of effective consultations on matters relating to the ILO and of an objective and pre-determined procedure known to all the partners; as well as Article 3 in relation to the freedom to elect representatives. The Employer members emphasized once again their great concern at the acts of violence against the headquarters of the ANEP, and the many cases of harassment of their leaders. They therefore urged the Government to: ensure that firm progress was achieved in the freedom and independence of workers’ and employers’ organizations to nominate their representatives to decision-making bodies, and joint and tripartite bodies, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention; reactivate without delay the Higher Labour Council, which was the principal body for social dialogue and tripartite consultation; receive without delay and during the course of the year the mission requested by the Committee; and guarantee the protection of the headquarters of the ANEP. They also called for the case to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

Conclusions

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

The Committee noted with concern the lack of genuine tripartite consultations to date with independent and representative employers’ organizations and urged the Government to take all necessary measures without delay to implement Convention No. 144 in law and in practice. At the same time the Committee noted the Government’s invitation three weeks before the opening of the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference to nominate employers’ and workers’ representatives to the Higher Labour Council.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urged the Government of El Salvador to:

- reactivate, without delay, the Higher Labour Council (CST);

- ensure concrete positive developments with regard to the freedom and autonomy of employers’ and workers’ organizations to appoint their representatives in compliance with Convention No. 144, without intimidation;

- ensure adequate protection for the premises of the representative workers’ and employers’ organizations from violence and destruction;

- report in detail on the application of the Convention in law and practice to the next session of the Committee of Experts.

Confronted with the Government’s failure to take action to apply the provisions of Convention No. 144 in law and practice, the Committee requested once again that a direct contacts mission be sent to El Salvador before the end of 2017.