Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2022, Publication : 110ème session CIT (2022)

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

Discussion by the Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The situations are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions of the Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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