All Comments

Home Page | Français | Español |

ILO is a United Nations Agency

RSS Feed | Newsroom | Contact us

NORMLEX

Information System on International Labour Standards

Instruments
Key documents
Ratification of ILO Conventions
Supervising the application of International Labour Standards: Supervision by country; Search comments by the supervisory bodies; Complaint procedures; Freedom of association cases; Representations (Art. 24); Commission of Inquiry (Art. 26)
Regular reporting
Country profiles
Comparatives
Maritime Labour Convention (2006)

MLC, 2006

NATLEX *new look*
National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights

LEGOSH
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation

EPLex
Employment protection legislation database

Compendium of court decisions

NORMLEX Home > Country profiles > > Comments > All Comments

Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (Ratification: 1985)

Display in: French - Spanish

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations of Venezuela (FAPUV) and the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI), as well as the observations of the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS), communicated together with the Government’s report.

Article 8 of the Convention. Remedies against unjustified dismissal. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to specify the manner in which it guarantees the impartiality of labour inspectors when effectively certifying a reinstatement order in cases of dismissal. It also requested the Government to indicate the number of occasions on which appeals had been made to set aside a dismissal, and the number of occasions on which appeals had been upheld. The Committee further requested the Government to indicate, with regard to the 972 workers in toll stations belonging to the Ministry of Transport, whether they had been reinstated. The Committee notes that the Government refers to sections 508 and 509 of the Basic Labour Act (LOTTT), setting out the competences of labour inspectors, who are called upon to ensure the correct application of the provisions of labour law. The Government indicates that, as a consequence, in their decisions they must uphold the rule of law and social justice in an impartial and balanced manner. Where appropriate, employers can be penalized in accordance with the provisions of the law. With reference to appeals to set aside dismissals, the Government indicates that the parties are entitled to pursue the necessary remedies through both administrative and judicial channels. The Government reiterates that, in accordance with section 425(9) of the LOTTT, in order to be able to give effect to an administrative appeal, labour inspectors are first required to certify the effective implementation of the reinstatement order and the restoration of the legal situation. The Government reports that between 2017 and the first half of 2022, labour inspectors certified 8,518 orders for reinstatement and the restoration of rights. In this regard, the Committee notes the renewed indication by FEDECAMARAS that the requirement to abide by reinstatement orders as a precondition for appealing against administrative instructions in practice raises an obstacle to access to justice for employers and has severe consequences on enterprise productivity. FEDECAMARAS emphasizes the need to adopt legal and practical measures with a view to ensuring that the procedure of termination of employment is more flexible and less traumatic, in order to improve efficiency and productivity.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, due to the separation of powers, it does not have information on the number of occasions on which appeals were made to the national courts and on which they were upheld. The Government indicates that it is therefore only in a position to report the notifications that were effectively made to the labour inspection services to initiate the appellate procedure. In this regard, the Government indicates that, between 2017 and 2022, a total of 517 appeals were made against the commencement of the procedure. The Government adds that appeals for orders to be set aside can themselves be appealed to the courts. Nevertheless, the rate of final decisions in which reinstatement orders are set aside is very low, as the majority of appeals against reinstatement orders are not upheld (between 2017 and 2020, only 73 appeals against reinstatement orders were upheld).

The Committee further notes that the CTV, FAPUV and CTASI in their observations indicate that the State does not abide by reinstatement orders. The workers’ organizations report that decisions are awaited from the judicial system and the national executive authorities in relation to the dismissal, in violation of their trade union rights, of five union leaders. The CTV, FAPUV and CTASI add that, on 15 January 2021, a procedure was initiated for the mass dismissal of more than 1,000 officials and workers of the National Assembly (representing over one third of the total workforce), without fulfilling the prior steps required by law, such as the presentation of claims to assess the reasons for dismissal, the opening of disciplinary procedures and the establishment of working groups with the unions. The workers’ organizations indicate that, in relation to the dismissals, there were not only infringements of the right to due process and the right of workers to defend themselves, but also of maternal and trade union protections, as the dismissed workers included pregnant women and trade union leaders. They add that the National Union of Men and Women Public Officials in the Legislative Career Stream and Men and Women Workers of the National Assembly (SINFUCAN) has denounced these acts and taken action in various national bodies for the reinstatement of the workers. They add that, in communication No. 191/2022 of 24 February 2022, the former Minister of Labour announced that the implementation of the reinstatement procedures for workers in the Legislative Assembly was set for 7 March 2022. However, the CTV, FAPUV and CTASI complain that the orders have still not been implemented and call for their application. Finally, with reference to the dismissal of 972 workers in toll stations belonging to the Ministry of Transport, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the reinstatement procedures have been set in motion. Moreover, in view of the high number of persons affected, technical working groups have been set up throughout the territory with a view to preventing industrial disputes. The Government adds that 862 workers have been reassigned in the various units of the Ministry of Transport and local authorities, while 110 workers have decided to accept cash payments in accordance with the law rather than reinstatement. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the number of appeals against dismissal and the number of occasions on which appeals have been upheld. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the grounds on which a reinstatement order can be set aside, including extracts from relevant court decisions. With reference to the workers dismissed from the National Assembly, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether they have been reinstated and the dates of their reinstatement.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, between 2017 and 2022, a total of 125,438 appeals for reinstatement were submitted, of which 63,825 resulted in reinstatement orders. With regard to the number of occasions on which the courts upheld a reinstatement order, the Government indicates that, in accordance with the law (sections 8 and 79 of the Basic Act on Administrative Procedures and sections 512, 537 and 538 of the LOTTT), and with national case law (such as ruling No. 0845 of 11 July 2013 of the Administrative Policy Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice), the judicial authorities are not competent to monitor the implementation of administrative instructions issued by the labour inspection services ordering reinstatement and the payment of wage arrears. The Government adds that there is a special procedure through which labour inspectors can enforce the execution of their administrative instructions, including those ordering reinstatement and the payment of wage arrears. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, between 2017 and 2022, labour courts at the national level handed down 318 decisions confirming reinstatement orders issued by the labour inspection services. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on the number of procedures in the labour inspection services following complaints of dismissal, transfer or demotion and procedures to authorize dismissals. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication concerning the finalization of the plan for the restoration of rights and liabilities in cases of insolvency, and the updated plan for the prevention of procedural delays and situations of non-compliance, on which progress had been subject to difficulties encountered by the public administration. The Government adds that, as a result of the implementation of these plans, many administrative delays have been overcome. It adds that measures have been adopted to avoid situations in which procedures are not followed through and in order to be able to ensure greater efficiency and a more appropriate response to procedures that have been commenced, such as the transformation of sub-inspectorates into Labour Inspectorates, thereby extending their competence with a view to ensuring a greater response capacity. Moreover, a policy has also been implemented with a view to improving accessibility to administrative justice in remote areas through mobile inspection services. However, the Committee notes the indication by FEDECAMARAS that procedures for the confirmation of the reasons for dismissal and for reinstatement generally last months, and even years, as a result of delays in the process due to the lack of sufficient personnel to deal with the high volume of applications. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed and updated information on the number of dismissals and the number of reinstatement orders issued by the labour inspection services. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the impact of the measures adopted in ensuring greater efficiency and increasing the capacity to deal with procedures that have been commenced.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS), dated 30 August 2017. It also notes the observations, dated 18 September 2017, by the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA). The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Article 8 of the Convention. Remedies against unjustified dismissal. In response to its previous comments, the Government reiterates that there are two types of stability of employment: relative and absolute stability. The Committee notes the Government’s response indicating that through executive decrees, employment security was granted to workers with more than 30 days’ seniority who were not employed in managerial positions. The Committee notes that, under section 94 of the Basic Labour Act (LOTTT), workers protected by employment security cannot be dismissed, transferred or demoted without justified grounds, which must first be approved by a labour inspector. In this respect, the Committee notes that this procedure is laid down in section 422 of the LOTTT, which provides that the labour inspector’s decision is final, unless the parties assert their right to file an administrative appeal with the competent labour courts. The Government also refers to section 425 of the LOTTT, which provides that, when a worker covered by trade union protection or by employment security is dismissed, transferred or demoted, within a period of 30 consecutive days he or she may submit a complaint to the labour inspectorate requesting reinstatement and the payment of any unpaid wages, and that the decision of the labour inspector regarding reinstatement or redress of the situation of a protected worker is final. In this respect, the Committee notes that the authorities do not proceed with an administrative appeal to set aside the dismissal until the administrative authority has certified that the order of reinstatement or redress of the legal situation has been effectively implemented (section 425(9) of the LOTTT). The IOE and FEDECAMERAS consider that the legal provisions on employment security and the procedures for the approval of dismissals and for reinstatement are not effective. They add that no mechanisms have been established by law or regulations to guarantee the objectivity and impartiality of the procedures for the approval of dismissals nor to guarantee the right to defence and due process for employers. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, under Article 9(1) of the Convention, only impartial bodies such as the courts, labour courts and arbitration boards should be able to examine the reasons given to justify the termination of an employment relationship and all other circumstances related to the case, and to determine whether the termination was justified. In addition, in its report, the Government indicates, with regard to the case previously referred to by the trade unions of the dismissal of 972 workers in toll stations belonging to the Ministry of Transport, that, of the 71 toll stations in the country, only 21 remain in operation, and that in 2014 the management of those toll stations was transferred to the governors’ offices, under the direction of the Department for Land Transport and Public Works (Official Gazette No. 40.577). The Committee requests the Government to specify the manner in which it guarantees, for employers and workers, the impartiality of the labour inspectorate when effectively certifying a reinstatement order under the terms of section 426(9) of the LOTTT. In addition, it requests the Government to indicate the number of times that an appeal to set aside a dismissal has been filed and the number of times it was upheld. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to indicate, with regard to the 972 workers who were dismissed, whether they were reinstated in their posts.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Government indicates that, at the national level and up to the third quarter of 2017, a total of 27,214 complaints procedures were initiated against dismissals, transfers and demotions and 13,244 procedures for the approval of dismissals were submitted to the labour inspectorate. Furthermore, the Government indicates that, from January to July 2017, 9,989 decisions were issued on complaints against dismissals, transfers and demotions, and 5,150 dismissal procedures were authorized. The Committee notes that only 41 per cent of the cases pending between 2006 and 2015 were resolved, which is why the Government has implemented two plans aimed at reducing cases of contempt of court and delays: (i) the plan for the restoration of rights and liabilities in cases of insolvency in the registration system for insolvencies and restructuring (SIRIS), implemented in 2017, which aims to reduce the number of cases of non-compliance with the administrative procedures for reinstatement. In this respect, the Government indicates that during the first 12 weeks of implementation, 6,575 reinstatement orders were issued; and (ii) the Update Plan, which aims at taking action to prevent procedural delays and to follow-up cases in order to prevent non-compliance. In this respect, the Government indicates that, since this plan was implemented, decisions have been issued on 12,139 cases relating to the restoration of rights and 2,684 relating to approvals for dismissals in cases that were pending between 2006 and 2015. The Committee notes the observations of the IOE and FEDECAMERAS indicating that no new labour inspectorates have been established to lighten the workload in processing the approval of dismissals and that neither the statistics nor the Government’s follow up mechanisms are effective or accessible. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing updated information on the number of dismissals, the number of reinstatements ordered by the labour inspectorate and the number of cases in which the labour courts have upheld reinstatement orders. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the plan for the restoration of rights and liabilities in cases of insolvency and the Update Plan in terms of the reduction of delays and cases of non compliance.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the observations made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS), received on 30 August 2016. It also notes the observations made by the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNETE), the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA), received on 8 and 12 September 2016. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Article 8 of the Convention. Remedies against unjustified dismissal. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the appeal procedures that are available to a neutral body in the event of unjustified dismissal, as required by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, in accordance with section 87 of the Basic Act concerning labour and male and female workers (LOTTT), there are two types of security of employment: (1) relative stability, applicable to managerial posts; and (2) absolute security, which is enjoyed by all workers covered by the permanent employment granted by Executive Decree No. 2158 of 28 December 2015 and by those benefiting from special types of protection (trade union protection, protection for mothers and fathers). The Government indicates that such cases are dealt with by the labour inspectorate, in accordance with section 425 of the LOTTT. The Government adds that appeals to set aside the decisions of the labour inspectorate must be referred to the public defender.

The Committee notes the indications of the IOE and FEDECAMARAS that the LOTTT has transferred labour justice from tribunals to the administrative authorities, which has caused serious delays and problems of Government interference. They consider that labour inspectorates are not neutral, as they come under the authority of the People’s Ministry for the Social Labour and Security Process, and are conditioned by Government policies to facilitate reinstatement procedures, and to prevent or unjustifiably delay procedures for the approval of dismissals initiated by employers. The IOE and FEDECAMARAS observe that this situation is resulting in a high number of cases for the approval of dismissals being held up or delayed without justification, which significantly affects the productivity of enterprises and the replacement of inefficient workers, due to the enormous difficulties in the use of judicial remedies.

The Committee also notes the observations of the trade unions UNETE, CTV, CGT and CODESA, reporting the situation with regard to the dismissals of workers in various enterprises, in particular the dismissal of 972 workers in tollbooths working for the Ministry of Transport, and the dismissal of a prevention delegate of another enterprise. The trade union confederations claim that these dismissals are in violation of the employment security of the workers concerned, as set out in Presidential Decree No. 2158, ordering the employment security of men and women workers for a three-year period (from 2015 to 2018). They add that the reinstatement orders issued by the labour inspectorate in 2013 concerning workers dismissed by an enterprise have not been implemented, and that the workers have still not been reinstated in their jobs.

The Committee refers to its previous comments in which it recalled that, in its 1995 General Survey on protection against unjustified dismissal, paragraph 178, it reaffirmed that the right of appeal is an essential element in the protection of workers against unjustified dismissal. The Committee recalled that the Convention also sets forth the principle whereby the body to which the appeal is made must be impartial, which means, for example, that a hierarchical or administrative appeal cannot be considered as the appropriate form of appeal procedure under the provisions of the Convention, and that where such a procedure exists, provision must be made for a subsequent appeal to an impartial body, such as a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator. The Committee considered that, in the case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the neutral bodies envisaged by the Convention are the labour tribunals.

The Committee recalls that Article 9(1) of the Convention empowers the impartial bodies referred to in Article 8, namely a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator, to examine the reasons given for the termination at issue and to render a decision on whether the termination was justified. An obstacle placed in the way of an impartial body’s ability to proceed with the determination of the justification of a termination may limit the powers contemplated in Article 9(1). Although on its face, the LOTTT provides for an ultimate recourse to the labour tribunal by employers and workers, in the case of an employer challenging the decision of the labour inspectorate to reinstate a terminated worker, section 425 of the LOTTT only permits the labour tribunal to examine the reasons for the termination and whether it was justified, if the employer implements the inspectorate’s administrative decision by reinstating the worker. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which section 425 of the LOTTT is applied in practice, including statistics on: the number of dismissals; the number of reinstatements ordered by the labour inspectorate in respect of such dismissals; the number of appeals to the labour tribunals from the inspectorate’s orders of reinstatement; the number of cases in which the labour inspectorate’s decision to reinstate was upheld by the labour tribunal; and the number of cases in which the labour tribunal set aside the labour inspectorate’s order of reinstatement. Please also indicate how many of these dismissals are collective, and indicate the average length of the procedure from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement, and from the date of the reinstatement to the date that the labour tribunal hands down its decision.

The Committee requests the Government to explain the manner in which effect is given to Article 9(1) of the Convention. It also once again requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to facilitate appeals to labour tribunals in cases of unjustified dismissal and to encourage the implementation of their rulings. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide specific information, including updated statistics, on the activities of labour tribunals in relation to appeals lodged against dismissals, the outcome of such appeals and the average time taken for an appeal to be heard and decided in cases of unjustified dismissal. Please provide examples of recent court rulings on issues related to the application of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the observations made by the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMERAS) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 2 September 2015.

Article 8 of the Convention. Appeal procedure against unjustified dismissal. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which appeals can be lodged with an impartial body against unjustified dismissals. The Committee notes the ruling issued on 11 June 2015 by the First High Court of the Labour Circuit of Caracas, which is provided by the Government in its report. It further notes the Government’s indication in its report that, in order to guarantee stability of employment, the labour legislation establishes two concepts: stability, which enables workers to remain in their jobs while there is no reason to justify the termination of the employment relationship; and permanence, which offers certain categories of workers the right not to be arbitrarily dismissed by their employers. The Government maintains that both labour tribunals and the corresponding administrative authority (the labour inspectorate) are impartial bodies that may consider worker’s claims. The Committee observes that the IOE and FEDECAMERAS indicate that: (i) permanent employment and reinstatement give rise to difficulties for employers due to the obstacles and unjustified delays of the administrative authorities in termination procedures; (ii) the reinstatement of workers is approved automatically by the labour inspectorate, without assessing the reasons for the dismissal, which has a significant effect on the productivity on enterprises and the replacement of inefficient workers; (iii) the labour inspectorate is an authority that is dependent on the People’s Ministry for the Social Labour and Security Process, which results in the transfer of labour justice from the tribunals to the administrative authority, giving rise to serious problems of delays and Government interference. The Committee recalls that, under section 425 of the Basic Act concerning labour and male and female workers (LOTTT), the labour inspectorate must examine the grounds given by the employer for the dismissal and this may result in a request for reinstatement from the labour inspectorate. The Committee also recalls that, in its 1995 General Survey on protection against unjustified dismissal, it reaffirmed that the right of appeal is an essential element in the protection of workers against unjustified dismissal. The Convention also sets forth the principle whereby the body to which the appeal is made must be impartial, which means, for example, that a hierarchical or administrative appeal cannot be considered as the appropriate form of appeal procedure under the provisions of the Convention, and that where such a procedure exists, provision must be made for a subsequent appeal to an impartial body. The Convention refers to the following as constituting such a body: a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator. It therefore leaves to each country the choice of the competent body or bodies, provided that such bodies are impartial (paragraph 178 of the 1995 General Survey). The Committee understands that in the present case the neutral bodies are the labour tribunals. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether measures have been envisaged to facilitate appeals to labour tribunals in the event of unjustified dismissal. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide data on the activities of labour tribunals in relation to appeals lodged against dismissal, the outcome of such appeals and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided in cases of justified dismissal. Please provide examples of recent court rulings relating to the definition of justified reasons for dismissal.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 8 of the Convention. Procedure of appeal against unjustified dismissal. The Committee notes the observations received in August 2014 in which the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) express renewed concern at the inefficiencies in the productivity of enterprises caused by the reinstatement procedure provided for in the Basic Act concerning labour and male and female workers (LOTTT), which has been in force since May 2012, and by the guarantee of employment security decreed by the Government. In reply to these observations, in two communications received in November 2014, the Government refers to the information contained in its 2011 report and maintains that the labour inspection services have to handle more than 42,000 complaints of unlawful dismissal each year. The Government also refers to the procedure for reinstatement and restoration of rights established by section 425 of the LOTTT, which concerns workers who have been dismissed despite enjoying protection against dismissal or trade union immunity. FEDECAMARAS and the IOE reiterate that the provisions of the LOTTT and national practice do not allow employers to terminate an employment relationship with the due protection provided for by the Convention. According to FEDECAMARAS and the IOE, the labour inspectorate must first examine the grounds given for the dismissal and this may result in a request for reinstatement from the labour inspectorate (section 425(2) of the LOTTT). According to FEDECAMARAS and the IOE, the labour inspectorate only takes account of the worker’s allegations and approves reinstatement and the payment of outstanding wages or simply reinstatement in the post. If an employer opposes the reinstatement order from the labour inspectorate, he commits contempt of court, an offence for which he may be arrested (section 425(6) of the LOTTT). Furthermore, under section 425(9) of the LOTTT, an employer can only appeal against the reinstatement order after he has complied with it. FEDECAMARAS and the IOE stress that the labour inspectorate takes two, three or even more years to decide on cases of justified dismissals effected by employers, which means that dismissals are becoming more expensive for employers, even in justified cases. FEDECAMARAS and the IOE consider that the legislation and procedures relating to protection against dismissal, reinstatement and payment of outstanding wages should be revised, so that they not only ensure the protection of dismissed workers, even in justified cases, but also guarantee employers’ right to submit their defence in a timely manner and to dismiss with justification those workers who fail to fulfil their employment obligations. The Committee invites the Government to provide information enabling an appraisal of the manner in which effect is given in national law and practice to Article 8 of the Convention, which requires the existence of a procedure for appeal to an impartial body against unjustified termination.

The Committee refers to its observations of 2011 and 2013 and requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied, adding details of the activities of the appeal bodies relating to appeals against justified dismissal, the outcome of such appeals and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided (Part V of the report form). The Committee invites the Government to provide examples of recent court rulings handed down in relation to the definition of justified reasons for dismissal (Part IV of the report form).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Legislative reforms. Observations by employers’ organizations. The Committee notes the observations made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) relating to the impact of the Basic Act on labour and men and women workers (LOTTT), which entered into force in May 2012, on the termination of the employment relationship at the initiative of the employer. In the observations forwarded to the Government in September 2013, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS referred to long delays in the processing of justified dismissals, which have serious consequences on the operation and efficiency of enterprises. The two employers’ organizations state that the legal and practical restrictions on dismissal, including the justified dismissal of inefficient workers, have a negative impact on decent employment levels in the formal economy. In response to the observations made by the employers’ organizations, the Government indicates that the LOTTT guarantees absolute employment security for the working class. It further indicates that if an employer terminates the employment relationship without providing a valid reason, the worker may submit a claim to the labour inspectorate which may order that the worker be reinstated immediately. Once the labour inspectorate orders the reinstatement, the worker is free to choose between reinstatement or payment of adequate compensation. The Committee invites the Government to submit a report in which it provides illustrative examples of decisions taken by the labour inspectorate and the competent tribunals in relation to cases in which employment has been terminated by the employer. The Committee refers to its 2011 observation and requests the Government to provide information on the activities of appeal bodies in relation to appeals against justified dismissals, the outcome of such appeals and the average time taken to issue rulings on appeals against justified dismissals (Part V of the report form).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Legislative reforms. In two communications received in September 2010 and September 2011, the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS) referred to the extension of the decrees providing protection against dismissal until December 2011, which are intended to guarantee labour stability for workers who earn up to three times the minimum wage by requiring employers to seek authorization to terminate employment. According to FEDECAMARAS, the application of the new rules could mean that workers will agree to financial compensation so as to avoid cases being brought before the labour authorities. In a reply received in November 2010, the Government emphasizes the progressive fall in the number of persons applying for benefits for involuntary loss of employment and the annual fall in the number of unjustified dismissals. In the report received in August 2011 and in a new communication received in December 2011, the Government confirms the extension of protection against dismissal until December 2011 for those earning up to three times the minimum wage. Workers covered by protection against dismissal cannot be terminated, without a valid reason approved previously by the labour inspector. The Government indicates that during the course of 2010, a total of 40,298 applications for reinstatement (appeals against dismissal) were lodged with labour inspectorates. These appeals resulted in 19,710 applications being found to be justified, with the corresponding reinstatement of the persons, while 12,718 applications were found to be without merit. The decisions were handed down within a period of between four and eight months. The Government indicates that in 2010 no complaints were recorded for economic dismissals. The Committee also notes the summary of court decisions relating to the definition of justified reasons for dismissal provided by the Government in its report. The Committee invites the Government to continue providing updated information on the activities of the appeal bodies (the number of appeals against unjustified dismissal, the outcome of such appeals, the nature of the remedy awarded and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided) and on the number of terminations for economic or similar reasons (Part V of the report form). The Committee invites the Government to provide examples of recent court rulings handed down in relation to the definition of justified reasons for dismissal (Part IV of the report form).

Exclusions. The Committee understands that workers engaged in managerial positions are excluded from the special protection against dismissal established since 2001. The Committee invites the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure the protection afforded by the Convention to managers.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

In reply to the previous observation, the Government indicates, in a report received in September 2009, that since 2001 workers engaged in managerial functions do not enjoy the special protection against dismissal (inamorilidad laboral especial) applicable for men and women workers earning up to three times the minimum wage. The Committee once again draws the attention of the Government to the fact that the Convention applies to “all employed persons” including managers. It once again invites the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure that managerial workers are covered by the protection afforded by the Convention.

Legislative reforms. The Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS), in a communication forwarded to the Government in September 2009, once again refers to the protection against dismissal decrees and maintains that the policy of labour stability is in violation of the Convention. The Government indicates in its report that during the course of 2008 a total of 39,807 applications for re-employment were filed with labour inspectors at the national level. These applications gave rise to 11,498 requests for the reintegration, while 2,123 applications were declared to be unfounded. The Committee recalls that the Convention reflects a well-constructed balance between the interests of the employer and those of the worker, particularly in relation to dismissals for reasons relating to the operational needs of the enterprise (general observation for Convention No. 158). The Committee reiterates its conviction that, also with regard to the important issues covered by the Convention, the Government and the social partners should make a commitment to promoting and reinforcing tripartism and social dialogue. The Committee reiterates its interest in examining the legislative texts that have been adopted in relation to the termination of the employment relationship. The Committee also requests the inclusion of relevant and updated information on the activities of the bodies of appeal (such as the number of appeals against unjustified termination, the outcome of such appeals, the nature of the remedy awarded and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided) and on the number of terminations for economic or similar reasons (Part V of the report form). The Committee hopes that the Government will also provide examples of recent court rulings handed down in relation to the definition of justified reasons for dismissal (Part IV of the report form).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government states in its report received in August 2008 that, owing to the nature and type of their duties, managers are unable to enjoy the same security as other workers. With regard to domestic workers, the Committee notes that section 281 of the Organic Labour Act applies specifically to termination of domestic workers. The Government also states that, by decree, the jobs of workers earning up to three times the minimum wage have been preserved. The Government states that this means that an employer may not dismiss a worker without complying with the procedure laid down in the Organic Labour Act. The Committee notes the Government’s reasons for excluding managers from the protection of Chapter VII dealing with security of employment in the Organic Labour Act. The Committee observes, however, that the Convention applies to “all employed persons”. Please advise the Committee whether the decrees referred to in its report protect managers from unfair termination and, if not, what steps it proposes to take to afford managers the protections afforded by the Convention.

Legislative reforms. In its observation of 2007, the Committee took note of the observations submitted in October 2007 by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) which referred to an Organic Labour Stability Bill, under which prior authorization would be required from the competent administrative authority for an employment relationship to be terminated by the employer. In September 2008, the Office sent the Government observations from the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Manufacturers’ Associations (FEDECAMARAS), which referred to the extension of the decrees of immunity until 31 December 2008. FEDECAMARAS states that the Government does not have any plans to make labour market controls more flexible and is in the process of adopting an act on permanent labour stability. In 2000, the Committee observed that Convention No. 158 seeks to establish a balance between protection of the worker in cases of unfair dismissal and ensuring flexibility in the labour market. The implementation of the Convention must have a positive effect on social peace and productivity at the enterprise level and the reduction of poverty and social exclusion, leading to social stability (general observation of 2000 on Convention No. 158). The Committee notes that the effectiveness of labour law and institutions is closely linked to the promotion of social dialogue and tripartism (Part I.A(iii) of the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization). The Committee repeats its conviction that, also with regard to the important issues covered by Convention No. 158, the Government and the social partners should make a commitment to promoting and reinforcing tripartism and social dialogue.

The Committee requests the Government to send it copies of any legislative texts adopted in relation to the termination of employment. The Committee also requests the Government to include relevant and updated information on the activities of the bodies of appeal (such as the number of appeals against unjustified termination, the outcome of such appeals, the nature of the remedy awarded and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided) and on the number of terminations for economic or similar reasons (Part V of the report form). The Committee hopes that the Government’s next report will also contain examples of recent court decisions issued in connection with the definition of what constitutes a fair dismissal (Part IV of the report form).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2009.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in September 2006, in which reference is made to the Regulations to the Organic Labour Act adopted by means of Decree No. 4447 of 25 April 2006. The Committee notes the information submitted in October 2007 to the Freedom of Association Committee in the context of Case No. 2254 by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE). The IOE states that according to the Organic Labour Stability Bill, prior authorization will be required from the competent administrative authority in order for an employment relationship to be terminated by the employer. The Committee invites the Government to comment on this matter and to provide with its next report any legislative texts that have been adopted together with relevant and up to date information on the application of the Convention in practice (Parts IV and V of the report form).

2. Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Recourse to fixed-term employment contracts. The Government indicates that “youth training contracts” and “temporary work enterprises” have been excluded. The Committee refers the Government to its previous comments and would be grateful if in its next report, it would continue to provide information on the adequate safeguards provided against recourse to contracts of employment for a specified period of time the aim of which is to avoid the protection resulting from this Convention.

3. Exclusions. Managers. Domestic workers. The Committee reiterates its request for information on any reforms introduced pertaining to categories that may have been excluded from the Organic Labour Act such as those referred to in section 112. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any special arrangements which, as a whole, provide protection at least equivalent to that afforded under the Convention for managers who have served their employers for more than three months and for domestic workers, and to provide details of the position of law and practice regarding the abovementioned excluded categories (see clauses (c), (d) and (e) of the report form for the Convention under Article 2, paragraphs 4–6).

4. Article 7. Procedure prior to termination. According to Article 7 of the Convention, the employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons related to the worker’s conduct or performance before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the law and practice examined showed that the measures referred to by the Government are taken after termination. The Committee invites the Government to indicate in its next report the manner in which law and practice have been brought into conformity with Article 7 of the Convention.

5. Consultation of workers’ representatives. In reply to the comments that the Committee has been making for many years, the Government indicates that the new Regulations to the Organic Labour Act consolidates action by the Ministry of Labour to protect men and women workers against mass dismissals. The Committee notes that, among other measures, sections 40–45 (suspension of mass dismissals) and 46–49 (termination or modification of the employment relationship for economic or technological reasons) of the Regulations confer authority on the Ministry of Labour to issue immediate preventive measures for the benefit of men and women workers. The Committee again refers the Government to Article 13 of the Convention, which lays down a right for the workers’ representatives concerned to be informed or consulted in the event of termination for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons. The Committee again requests the Government also to ensure that the workers’ representatives concerned shall receive relevant information and be given an opportunity for consultation in accordance with Article 13, paragraph 1(a) and (b), of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Article 2, paragraphs 2 to 6, of the Convention. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue providing information on the situation in law and practice with regard to the categories that are excluded and if it would indicate any changes relating to the extent to which the Convention is applied, or it is envisaged to apply the Convention to the categories excluded by section 112 of the Organic Labour Act.

2. Article 7. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, but points out that it does not show compliance with the Convention as the measures referred to apply after dismissal. According to the above provision of the Convention, the employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons related to the worker’s conduct or performance before he or she is provided with an opportunity to defend himself or herself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity. The Committee requests the Government to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention and to provide information on the measures which have been adopted or are envisaged in this respect.

3. Article 14, paragraph 3. With reference to its previous comment, the Committee notes that, under the terms of section 43 of the regulations issued under the Organic Labour Act, as amended in January 1999, workers excluded from the system of employment stability in accordance with section 112 of the Organic Labour Act, and who are affected by dismissals for economic or technological reasons, are entitled to prior notice in accordance with the time limits set out in section 104 of the Organic Labour Act. Where employers omit to give notice, they are under an obligation to pay the workers an amount equal to the wages for the corresponding period and counts it for seniority purposes, for all legal effects.

4. Part V of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report the available statistics on the activities of appeal bodies (such as the number of appeals against unjustified termination, the outcome of such appeals, the nature of the remedy awarded and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided) and on the number of terminations for economic or similar reasons.

5. Article 13, paragraph 1(a) and (b). Noting that the Government’s report does not provide the information requested in its previous comments concerning the application of this Article of the Convention, the Committee reiterates its request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes that the Government endorses the contents of section 34 of the Organic Labour Act, which has to be complied with by employers. The Committee recalls the request made by the Tripartite Committee set up to examine the representation made in July 1991 by two employers’ organizations under article 24 of the Constitution, alleging non-observance of Convention No. 158, among other Conventions (GB.256/15/16, of May 1993). On that occasion, the Government was invited to provide information on the manner in which the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, are applied, with an indication of the manner in which representatives of the workers concerned are consulted, with special reference to the information which the employer is required to provide and the methods and objectives of the consultation. The Committee also noted that section 34 of the Organic Labour Act did not appear to be sufficient to meet the requirements of these provisions of the Convention. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would provide the information required by the report form for the Convention with regard to Article 13.

6. In its report, the Government also refers to the need to adapt legal norms to the reality of the current situation where lacuna still exist. The Committee trusts that the Government will take into consideration the pending comments on the application of this Convention in reforming legislation through social dialogue.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report, which contains information on the points raised in previous comments.

1. Article 2, paragraphs 2-6, of the Convention. The Government indicates that the employment stability of the categories of workers covered by section 112 of the Organic Labour Act is guaranteed through the possibility provided to them to have recourse to the courts to seek the reinstatement of rights which have not been respected. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue providing information on the situation in law and practice with regard to excluded categories, including extracts of judicial rulings issued in this respect.

2. Article 7. The Government refers once again to section 116 of the Organic Labour Act, which establishes the possibility to have recourse to the courts when a worker is not in agreement with the reason given for dismissal. The Government states that this provision guarantees the workers' right of defence in the event of dismissal. The courts can order their reinstatement and the payment of wages which have not been received in the event of unjustified dismissal, under the conditions set out in section 48 of the regulations issued under the Organic Labour Act. The Committee recalls that the purpose of this Article of the Convention is to ensure that any decision to terminate employment is preceded by dialogue and reflection between the parties (paragraph 148 of the General Survey of 1995): the employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons related to the worker's conduct or performance before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to ensure that this Article of the Convention is given effect in law and in practice.

3. Article 13, paragraph 1(a) and (b), of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government endorses the contents of section 34 of the Organic Labour Act, which has to be complied with by employers. The Committee recalls the request made by the Tripartite Committee set up to examine the representation made in July 1991 by two employers' organizations under article 24 of the Constitution, alleging non-observance of Convention No. 158, among other Conventions (GB.256/15/16, of May 1993). On that occasion, the Government was invited to provide information on the manner in which the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, are applied, with an indication of the manner in which representatives of the workers concerned are consulted, with special reference to the information which the employer is required to provide and the methods and objectives of the consultation. The Committee also noted that section 34 of the Organic Labour Act did not appear to be sufficient to meet the requirements of these provisions of the Convention. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would provide the information required by the report form for the Convention with regard to Article 13.

4. Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention. The Government provides information in its report on the new provisions of section 69 of the regulations issued under the Organic Labour Act, which establish the procedures to be followed in the event of staff reduction for reasons of an economic nature, or due to progress or technological changes. The Committee notes that a minimum period of time before carrying out the terminations envisaged in the above provision has not been specified by national laws or regulations, as required under Article 14, paragraph 3. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the manner in which it is envisaged to give effect to Article 14, paragraph 3, through laws or regulations.

5. Part V of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the statistical tables provided by the Government in its report. It requests the Government to continue providing general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice including, for example, available statistics on the activities of the appeal bodies and on the number of terminations carried out for economic or similar reasons. Please also indicate any practical difficulties that may have impeded the application of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

I. The Committee recalls that, because of the representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by a number of workers' organizations in June 1996, the Committee suspended its comments on the application of Convention No. 158. The Committee notes that in March 1997, the Governing Body of the ILO approved the report of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation in question (GB.267/16/1, November 1996). The Committee notes that the tripartite committee decided that the non-observance of obligations arising from Articles 10 and 12 of Convention No. 158 did not require any specific action on the part of the Government, but requested action to ensure that the subsidies prescribed by the Organic Labour Act were protected in the manner provided in the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95). The Committee refers to its observation in 1998 concerning Convention No. 95 in which it noted with satisfaction that the Organic Labour Act had been amended in the manner requested by the tripartite committee.

II. The Committee notes that the Government's report only addresses the reform of section 125 of the Organic Labour Act. The Committee therefore again refers to its direct request of December 1995 and requests the Government in its next report to provide the information requested in the report form on each of the Articles of Convention No. 158, in particular on the following points.

1. Article 2, paragraphs 2-6. The Government is asked to indicate whether safeguards have been provided against recourse to contracts of employment for a specified period of time the aim of which is to avoid the protection resulting from this Convention, particularly in relation to those categories of workers who appear to be excluded from the provisions of the Convention, such as temporary, casual or domestic workers (section 112 of the Organic Labour Act); please also indicate any changes in the extent to which effect is given or is proposed to be given to the Convention in respect of the excluded categories.

2. Article 7. In reply to earlier comments, the Government indicated that, under the terms of section 116 of the Organic Labour Act, an employment relationship is deemed to be terminated at the moment when the worker is dismissed. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which effect has been given, in legislation and in practice, to this Article of the Convention, which stipulates that "the employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons related to the worker's conduct or performance before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity" (emphasis added).

3. Article 13, paragraph 1(a) and (b). In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the invitation of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation made under article 24 of the Constitution by two employers' organizations, alleging non-observance of Convention No. 158 among others (document GB.256/15/16, May 1993). On that occasion, the Government was invited to provide information on the manner in which the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Convention are applied, indicating the manner in which representatives of the workers concerned are consulted, with special reference to the information which the employer is required to provide, and the methods and objectives of the consultation. The Committee observed that section 34 of the Organic Labour Act did not appear to be sufficient to meet the requirements of these provisions of the Convention. Consequently, the Committee trusts that the Government will be able to provide the information on Article 13 requested in the report form.

4. Article 14, paragraph 3. Please indicate whether national legislation provides for a minimum period of notice to the competent authority, as required by this provision of the Convention.

5. Part V of the report form. Please provide general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, available statistics on the activities of the appeal bodies and on the number of terminations carried out for economic or similar reasons. Please indicate any practical difficulties that may have impeded the application of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It further notes that, at its 267th Session (November 1996), the Governing Body set up a tripartite committee to examine a representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation (CTV), the Single Central Organization of Workers of Venezuela (CUTV), the General Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CGT), the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CODESA) and the National Trade Union of Public Employees and Officials of the Judiciary and of the Council of the Magistracy (ONTRAT), alleging non-observance by Venezuela of this Convention. In accordance with customary practice, the Committee is suspending its comments on the application of the Convention pending the Governing Body's conclusion of its examination of the above-mentioned representation.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments.

Article 2, paragraphs 4 to 6. In its previous comments the Committee noted that certain categories of employed persons have been excluded from the scope of the Organic Labour Act of 1990. Apart from members of the armed forces, police forces and others responsible for the defence and security of the nation (section 7) and public service employees (section 8), section 112 of the Act excludes managerial employees and domestic employees from the application of provisions prohibiting dismissal without just cause. As regards consultations with organizations of employers and workers concerning the above-mentioned exclusions, the Committee notes that a draft report under the present Convention was submitted to these organizations for consultation under the provisions of Convention No. 144. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate more precisely whether the question concerning the exclusion of the above-mentioned categories from the application of the Convention was specifically dealt with in the course of these consultations (paragraphs 4 and 5). Please supply information on the special arrangements which provide to excluded categories (such as public service employees who are subject to the corresponding administrative career regulations in accordance with section 8 of the Act) protection equivalent to that afforded under the Convention (paragraph 4). Please also indicate the position of law and practice regarding the excluded categories (paragraph 6).

Article 7. In its previous comments the Committee took note of the provision of section 116 of the Organic Labour Act obliging the employer to inform the district labour-stability judge about the dismissal within five working days, setting out the reasons justifying his action. According to the same section, the employer "shall not proceed with it if obliged to admit that the dismissal is without just cause" and "if the employee does not agree with the allegations leading to his dismissal, he may appeal to the judge for ... reinstatement". The Government indicates in its report that the point of time at which the employment relationship is considered to be terminated under the provision of the above-mentioned section is that of the workers' dismissal. The Committee recalls in this connection that, according to this Article of the Convention, the worker shall be provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made before the employment relationship is terminated. It appears that the procedure set out in section 116 of the Organic Labour Act is not in conformity with this Article of the Convention. It accordingly asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, how effect is given to this Article and if not what measures it proposes to take in that respect.

Article 13, paragraph 1(a) and (b). 1. In its previous comments the Committee noted the report of the committee set up to examine the representation made in July 1991 by the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS) under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by Venezuela of a certain number of ratified Conventions, including Convention No. 158. The committee set up to examine the representation observed, in particular, that the provision of section 34 of the Organic Labour Act which empowers the Ministry of Labour to suspend a mass dismissal "where social reasons so require", leaving the employer to appeal against this suspension to the conciliation and arbitration procedure, does not seem to be sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention, since what is requested by Article 13 is prior information and consultation of workers' representatives before terminations for reasons of economic, technological, structural or similar nature. In its recommendations the Committee invited the Government to provide information on the way in which it implements, under the new legislation, the provisions of the Convention concerning terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural and similar reasons. It asked the Government to indicate, in particular, how effect is given to Article 13 on the consultation of workers' representatives, with special reference to the information which the employer must furnish in good time to such representatives and the methods and objectives of this consultation.

The Committee observes that the Government has not provided the information requested and confined itself to referring to section 34 of the Organic Labour Law, which, as stated above, does not seem to be sufficient to comply with the requirements of this Article of the Convention.

2. In this connection, the Committee notes the observations made in September 1995 by the International Organization of Employers, according to which no follow-up has been given by the Government to the recommendations of the above-mentioned committee set up to examine the representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. It also notes that these observations were sent to the Government for such comments as might be judged appropriate.

3. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to provide the information requested in its next report and to refer to the above-mentioned observations made by the IOE.

Article 14, paragraph 3. The Committee recalls that this provision of the Convention requires the employer who contemplates terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature to notify the competent authority of such terminations a minimum period of time before carrying them out, such period to be specified by national laws or regulations. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate, in its next report, how national laws or regulations specify such minimum period of time before carrying out the terminations, taking into account the possibility of suspension of mass dismissals by the Ministry of Labour provided for in section 34 of the Organic Labour Act.

Point V of the report form. The Committee reiterates its request for general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including for example available statistics on the activities of the bodies of appeal and on the number of terminations for economic or similar reasons. Please also indicate any practical difficulties encountered in the implementation of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

1. The Committee notes the report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made in July 1991 by the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Association of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS) under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by Venezuela of certain number of ratified Conventions, including Convention No. 158. It also notes from the above-mentioned report that the Government was invited to provide information in its report under article 22 of the Constitution, in order to enable the Committee to re-examine the application of the Convention in the light of the new legislation. The Committee observes that no report has been received from the Government so far. It therefore urges the Government to supply, in its next report, the information requested on the following points:

Article 13, paragraph 1(a) and (b), of the Convention. The Committee notes the allegations of the complainant organizations according to which section 34 of the Organic Labour Act of 1990 is not in conformity with this Article of the Convention inasmuch as it makes provision for obligatory arbitration as a last resort to decide on reductions of staff for economic and technological reasons. The Government stated in its reply to these allegations that, according to section 34 of the Act, mass dismissal constitutes a collective labour dispute which is to be settled in accordance with Title VII, Chapter III, of the Act. In case of a reduction of staff for technological or similar reasons, the absence of agreement between the parties will consequently lead to arbitration as a solution.

The Committee set up to examine the representation observed that the provision of section 34 of the Organic Labour Act which empowers the Ministry of Labour to suspend a mass dismissal "where social reasons so require", leaving the employer to appeal against this suspension to the conciliation and arbitration procedure, does not seem to be sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention, since it does not entail prior information and consultation of workers' representatives. It also observed that there is nothing in the Convention to prevent a country from providing, in additon to information and consultation requirements referred to in this Article, for suspension of mass dismissals, and the possibility of their submission to a voluntary procedure for disputes settlement. In its recommendations the Committee invited the Government to provide information on the way in which it implements, under the new legislation, the provisions of the Convention concerning terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural and similar reasons. It asked the Government to indicate, in particular, how effect is given to Article 13 in regard to the consultation of workers' representatives, with special reference to the information which the employer must furnish in good time to such representatives and the methods and objectives of this consultation.

The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to provide the information requested in its next report.

II. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the following points:

Article 2, paragraphs 4 to 6. The Committee notes that certain categories of employed persons have been excluded from the scope of the Organic Labour Act. Please indicate whether the organizations of employers and workers concerned were consulted (paragraphs 4 and 5). Please provide information on the special arrangements which provide to such excluded categories protection equivalent to that afforded under the Convention (paragraph 4). Please indicate the provision in law and practice regarding the excluded categories (paragraph 6).

Article 7. The Committee takes note of the provision of section 116 of the Organic Labour Act obliging the employer to inform the district labour-stability judge about the dismissal within five working days, setting out the reasons justifying his action. According to that section, the employer "shall not proceed with it if obliged to admit that the dismissal is without just cause". The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate, in its next report, the point of time at which the employment is considered to be terminated under the provision of the above-mentioned section, and whether the worker is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made before the employment relationship is terminated.

Article 11. The Committee notes that section 104 of the Organic Labour Act provides for the period of notice only in case of dismissal based on economic or technological considerations and in case of "unjustified dismissal". It also notes the provision of section 101 of the same Act, according to which "justified dismissal" may take place without prior notice. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with this Article of the Convention, "a worker whose employment is to be terminated shall be entitled to a reasonable period of notice or compensation in lieu thereof, unless he is guilty of serious misconduct, that is, misconduct of such a nature that it would be unreasonable to require the employer to continue his employment during the notice period". Please state whether actions on the part of the employee which constitute "just cause" for dismissal under section 102 of the Act are considered in the national legislation or practice as "serious misconduct" within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention. Please also indicate whether dismissal on account of such actions is regarded as "justified dismissal" not requiring prior notice.

Article 14, paragraph 3. Please indicate how national laws or regulations specify the minimum period of time before carrying out the terminations, referred to in this provision of the Convention, in the context of the possible suspension of mass dismissals provided for in section 34 of the Organic Labour Act.

Point V of the report form. Please provide general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including for example available statistics on the activities of the appellate bodies and on the number of terminations for economic, technological or similar reasons. Please indicate any practical difficulties encountered in the implementation of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1994.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

I. The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes with interest the Government's first report. It notes that the provisions of the Labour Act and the Act respecting unjustified dismissals, together with their respective Regulations, apply most of the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information in its next report on the following points.

1. Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the provisions obliging the employer to inform the tripartite commission of the grounds justifying the measures taken to terminate the employment relationship. But the Committee would like to know how the worker is given an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made before the employment relationship is terminated.

2. Article 13(1). The Government states in its report that the tripartite commissions which examine procedures for reducing the number of personnel include a workers' representative. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the information that the employer is obliged to supply to the workers' representative and how long before the contemplated terminations this information is to be supplied (subparagraph (a)). Please also specify how an opportunity is given to the workers' representative for consultation, how long before the contemplated terminations such opportunity is given, and the object of such consultation (subparagraph (b)).

3. Article 14, paragraph 3. Please indicate how the minimum period of time referred to in this provision is established in national laws or regulations.

4. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the main decisions of the courts as to valid reasons justifying the termination of the employment relationship (Article 4). Please also indicate any practical difficulties encountered in the implementation of the Convention and supply examples of collective agreements and typical decisions relating to them (point V of the report form).

II. The Committee notes Decree No. 449 of 2 September 1989 to set up a scheme to cover unemployment benefits. This Decree was in force from 10 September until 30 November 1989. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any new legislative measures that have been adopted with a view to applying the Convention.