Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the new Labour Organization Act, No. 25877, provides in section 24(b) on the ranking of rules, that “a later agreement of different scope, whether broader or narrower, amends the agreement that preceded it in so far as it establishes conditions that are more favourable for the worker. To this end, a comparison of the two agreements shall be carried out by institutions”.

The Committee also notes the concern expressed by employers with regard to the centralization of collective bargaining as it emerges from the report of the follow-up mission in the context of the application of Convention No. 87, carried out in Argentina in August 2005. The Committee understands that, the employers are of the view that the abovementioned provision could cause difficulties. The Committee invites the Government to hold discussions with the social partners to examine the consequences of applying this provision and any dysfunctions it may cause in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

It notes the Government’s observations on comments sent by the Confederation of Argentine Workers (CTA) in a communication of 19 November 2004. The CTA draws attention to the need to extend the protection (tutela) enjoyed by representatives of organizations that have trade union status (sections 48 and 52 of Act No. 23551) to representatives of trade union organizations that are merely registered and to the founding members of the provisional committees of new trade union organizations, in order to comply with Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee refers the Government to its comments on the application of Convention No. 87 in which it addresses this matter.

The CTA also refers to section 3 of Decree No. 1040/01, which allows employers to set in motion the procedure of establishing the sector within which a trade union operates through the competent authority so that the latter can determine the trade union that is representative in disputes relating to representation by several organizations where such disputes could affect the wage or benefit systems in the enterprise, or where this process could enable asymmetric coverage by collective agreements to be corrected. The Committee observes that the CTA alleges that this provision is contrary to Article 2 of the Convention because it may give rise to acts of interference by the employer. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the abovementioned procedure may be applied only in the event of an inter-union dispute and there is no possibility of the procedure being set in motion at the wish of the employer alone. The Committee notes that the Government has sent judicial decisions in support of its comment and states that the parties involved in the procedure, namely the trade union associations and the employer, may lodge administrative complaints and appeals and may seek judicial review by the National Labour Appeals Chamber.

The Committee is addressing to the Government a direct request on another matter.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that for several years it has been commenting on certain provisions which restrict free collective bargaining by requiring the approval of the Ministry of Labour for the registration of collective agreements which are broader in coverage than enterprise agreements (in according approval, the Minister takes into account criteria of productivity, investment, the introduction of technology and vocational training systems). In this respect, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the Labour Regulation Act No. 25877, of 18 March 2004, has removed these criteria. The Committee also notes that, under the above Act, collective agreements covering an enterprise or group of enterprises may be registered on the motion of one of the parties (section 11 of the Act).

2. The Committee also recalls that it referred previously to the need to ensure the right to collective bargaining of public officials in the Province of Buenos Aires, since the Convention allows only public officials engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from this right. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the legislation vetoed by the executive authorities of the Province of Buenos Aires on the grounds that it afforded the right of collective bargaining to public servants in the province referred specifically to public officials engaged in the administration of the State, and that the Convention allows the exclusion of such public officials from collective bargaining.

3. Finally, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided its observations on the comments made by the Confederation of Argentine Workers (CTA) on 19 November 2003 and repeated in its communication of 19 November 2004. The Committee notes the view expressed by the CTA that, in order to comply with Article 1 of the Convention, the Government should extend the protection enjoyed by the representatives of organizations with trade union status (sections 48 and 52 of Act No. 23551) to the representatives of trade union organizations which are merely registered and to the founding members of the provisional committees of new trade union organizations. The Committee refers in this respect to its comments on the application of Convention No. 87 by Argentina. The Committee also notes that the CTA considers to be in violation of Article 2 of the Convention the provisions of section 3 of Decree No. 1040/01, which allows employers to set in motion the procedure of establishing the frame within which a trade union operates through the competent authority so that the latter can determine the trade union that is representative in disputes relating to representation by several organizations in cases where disputes could have an impact within the enterprise to wage or benefit systems, or when through this process asymmetric coverage by collective agreements could be corrected. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the interpretation of this provision, in particular regarding acts of anti-union interference, including information on possible means of judicial recourse.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s reports.

1. Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee has been commenting for several years on certain provisions which restrict free collective bargaining by requiring the Ministry of Labour’s approval for collective agreements which are broader in coverage than enterprise agreements. Under these provisions, and in granting approval, the Minister considers not only whether the collective labour agreement contains clauses that are contrary to the public order provisions of Acts Nos. 14250 and 23928, but also whether it meets criteria relating to productivity, investment and the introduction of technology and vocational training systems (section 3 of Act 23545, section 6 of Act No. 25546 and section 3 of Decree No. 470/93). The Committee observes that the Government has not communicated information on this matter. That being so, it once again asks the Government to take steps to repeal or amend the provisions in question in order to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all such measures in its next report.

2. The Committee further notes that, under section 7 of Act No. 25250 of May 2000, collective agreements concluded at enterprise level with the association having trade union status in the enterprise, must likewise be approved. The Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on the grounds on which such approval may be denied (stating whether they are the same as the criteria for approval of the agreements that are broader in scope than enterprise agreements, referred to in the previous paragraph).

3. Furthermore, in the light of the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 2117, 326th Report, paragraphs 196-209), the Committee also pointed out the need to ensure the right to collective bargaining of public officials in the province of Buenos Aires, since the Convention allows only public officials engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from this right. The Committee notes that the Government has not commented on this matter. It accordingly asks the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted to ensure that the workers in question enjoy the right to collective bargaining.

4. Lastly, the Committee takes note of the comments dated 17 November 2003, made by the Confederation of Argentine Workers (CTA), and requests the Government to send its response thereto.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes that section 7 of new Act No. 25250 of May 2000 provides that collective agreements concluded at enterprise level with the association having trade union status in the enterprise must also be approved. The Committee asks the Government to inform it in its next report of the grounds on which such approval may be refused.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it referred to Act No. 25013 of September 1998, amending Act No. 14250 on collective bargaining, in which section 14 provides that "representation of workers in collective bargaining shall be incumbent on the most representative trade union organization, which may delegate its bargaining power to a decentralized body" and that it stressed that on the basis of the principle of free and voluntary negotiation laid down in Article 4 of the Convention, negotiations at enterprise level should depend essentially on the will of the parties at that level. In this regard, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the contested section of Act No. 25013 has been repealed by adoption of Act No. 25250 of May 2000 which provides the possibility of bargaining at all levels and grants representation of workers in negotiation of enterprise collective agreements by the union which represents them.

2. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that the new Act does not refer to the legislative provisions commented on by the Committee which restrict free collective bargaining by stipulating that collective agreements which go beyond enterprise level be submitted for approval by the Ministry of Labour (for granting official approval), the Ministry considers not only whether a collective labour agreement contains clauses violating the public order standards of Acts Nos. 14250 and 23928 but also whether it complies with the criteria of productivity, investment, and the introduction of technology and vocational training systems (section 3 of Act No. 23545, section 6 of Act No. 25546 and section 3ter of Decree No. 470/93). On this matter, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to repeal or amend the provisions in question in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on all measures taken in this respect.

3. Finally, the Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association, having observed that the Executive in the province of Buenos Aires vetoed a draft law guaranteeing the right to collective bargaining of public officials in that province, requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the right of these officials to undertake collective bargaining is respected (see 326th Report, Case No. 2117). The Committee shares the concern of the Committee on Freedom of Association and requests the Government to supply information in its next report on any measures adopted to ensure that the workers in question enjoy the right to collective bargaining.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report. The Committee notes that under section 13 of Act No. 25013 of September 1998, prior to consultation with the most representative employers' organizations and the General Labour Confederation, a mediation and arbitration service would be established to act in an industrial dispute to study the issues involved and whose intervention could be requested by the parties concerned. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the operation of this service as well as the composition of the respective bodies.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been commenting on the legal provisions which impede free collective bargaining by stipulating that collective agreements which go beyond enterprise level be submitted for approval to the Ministry of Labour. In considering whether official approval should be given, the Ministry considers not only whether a collective labour agreement contains clauses violating the public order standards of Acts Nos. 14250 and 23928, but also whether it complies with the following criteria: productivity, investment, and the introduction of technology and vocational training systems (section 3 of Act No. 23545, section 6 of Act No. 25546 and section 3ter of Decree No. 470/93). The Committee also recalls that, in its previous observation, it had noted the Government's statement to the effect that legislation reforming the approval procedure for collective agreements and the requirement for analysis of collective agreements prior to approval had been drafted. The Committee notes that in recent practice the Government has not refused to approve any collective agreement under the above criteria. The Committee, however, once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend or repeal the provisions in question in order to come into conformity with the Convention.

2. Similarly, in its previous observation the Committee had commented on the contents of Decree No. 1553/96 (endorsing and granting wider powers of intervention to the administrative authority in the collective bargaining process) and Decree No. 1554/96 (stipulating that in cases where the parties do not reach agreement on the sectors to be covered by negotiations, those proposed by the enterprise shall receive precedence and be submitted to the administrative authority). In this regard, the Committee notes with satisfaction that: (1) these Decrees have been revoked by Act No. 25013, reforming the labour legislation, adopted on 2 September 1998; and (2) the provisions of the Decrees referred to by the Committee, have been repealed by Decree No. 50/99 of 29 January 1999.

3. The Committee notes that under section 14 of Act No. 25013 of September 1998 "representation of workers in collective bargaining shall be incumbent on the most representative trade union organization, which may delegate its bargaining power to a decentralized body". Under these circumstances, the Committee considers that, on the basis of the principle of free and voluntary negotiation of collective agreements laid down in Article 4 of the Convention, negotiations at enterprise level should depend essentially on the will of the parties of that level. While an enterprise-level workers' organization may voluntarily cede authority to a higher level, legislation should not dictate which level of a workers' organization has authority to bargain. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend national legislation to that effect and to provide information in its next report on measures taken in this regard.

In addition, a request is being addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the report supplied by the Government. It also notes the observations made on the application of the Convention by the Union of United Maritime Workers (SOMU) on 20 November 1996 and 6 January 1997, and by the Bank Association (AB) on 20 November 1996. Similarly, the Committee notes that in December 1996, Decrees Nos. 1553/96 and 1554/96 on collective labour agreements were issued.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee observes that the Bank Association states that the Government is not complying with the provisions of Act No. 23523 of 28 September 1988 which grant preferential treatment for admission to previous employment for bank workers who were dismissed on political or trade union grounds between 1 January 1959 and 10 December 1983. In this respect, the Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has already taken a decision on this matter and refers to this Committee's conclusions of March 1997 in which it indicated the following: "recalling once again the importance it attaches to the effective implementation of Act No. 23523, the Committee requests the Government to continue to make all efforts to find a negotiated solution as quickly as possible" (see 306th Report, Case No. 1723, paragraphs 12, 13 and 14).

2. Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it has criticized the legal provisions relating to the granting of official approval by the Ministry of Labour for the validity of collective agreements which go beyond enterprise level; for the purposes of official approval consideration must be given not only to whether a collective labour agreement contains clauses violating the public order standards of Acts Nos. 14250 and 23928, but also whether it complies with the following criteria: productivity, investment, and the introduction of technology and vocational training systems (section 3 of Act No. 23545, section 6 of Act No. 25546 and section 3ter of Decree No. 470/93).

In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government states that the question relating to the approval to be granted by the labour authorities, together with the contents of the collective agreements analysed prior to the granting of approval, should be dealt with in a draft legislative reform. Similarly, the Committee notes that the Government states that the influence of the State, through the granting of approval, has been significantly reduced as a result of the increase in collective bargaining at enterprise level, and that Decree No. 1334/91 which links wage negotiation to an increase in productivity is virtually revoked by Decree No. 470/93 for a wide range of conventional activities.

In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the hope that the draft reform on collective bargaining to which the Government refers will eliminate the provisions which place conditions on the official approval necessary from the administrative authorities for collective agreements going beyond enterprise level, and which are linked to criteria of productivity, investments and the introduction of technology and vocational training systems. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the draft legislation with its next report.

3. The Committee observes that in December 1996 the Government issued Decree No. 1553/96 which authorizes the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to revoke, in part or in whole, the official approval of a collective agreement if the provisions thereof conflict with the legal rules issued after approval has been granted and if, once the agreed period has expired, the Ministry considers that the validity of the agreement no longer meets the requirements of section 4 of Act No. 14250. The Committee considers that this Decree confirms and expands the intervention of administrative authorities in collective bargaining, something which has already been criticized under point (2).

Furthermore, the Committee observes that in December 1996, Decree No. 1554/96 was also issued and provides that in cases where parties do not reach agreement on the sectors to be covered by negotiations of a collective agreement, this shall be decided by the Ministry of Labour which must not exceed the minimum scope proposed. In the Committee's opinion, this implies that between a proposal for negotiation at the level of industry or branch of activity and a proposal for negotiation at enterprise level, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, a decision is taken within the enterprise sector and is imposed by the administrative authority concerned. In this respect, the Committee emphasizes that in drawing up the Convention, the principle of voluntary collective bargaining and the level of negotiation should not be conditioned or imposed by legislation or by a decision of the administrative authority, but should depend essentially on the will of the parties concerned.

The Committee has learnt that certain provisions of the Decrees referred to appear to have been declared as unconstitutional by courts of first and second instances and that a decision is currently expected from the Supreme Court of Justice. The Committee notes that in its report the Government states that the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) (as part of a complaint made to the Committee on Freedom of Association on the same question (Case No. 1887)) and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security have requested that the legal proceedings be suspended for a period of 120 days, a request which has been accepted by the judicial authority; it also notes that the Decrees have not been applied.

The Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislation in order to bring it into full conformity with Article 4 of the Convention and to provide information in its next report on all measures adopted in this respect.

4. Finally, the Committee observes that the Union of United Maritime Workers (SOMU) states in its observations that, following the repeal of 62 collective agreements in 1992 under Executive Authority Decrees Nos. 817/92 and 1264/92, from 1994 onwards it has endeavoured to conduct negotiations with a view to concluding collective agreements in the sector (with the enterprise United Tugs of Argentina for crew members of vessels sailing under flags of convenience and for those continuing to sail under the Argentine flag; with the Buenos Aires sand and stone sector and the coastal river navigation sector; and with the Argentine Chamber of Owners of Freezer Fishing Vessels), but that the employer in this sector refuses to negotiate without the administrative authorities having adopted measures in this respect. In this connection, the Committee recalls the principle of good faith in negotiations and requests the Government to mediate between the parties in order to help them find common ground.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and recalls that its previous comments concerned the obligation that collective agreements, in order to be approved, should not contain "clauses which infringe the norms of public order or standards issued in the protection of the general interest" (section 3 of Act No. 23545 of 22 December 1987). The Committee requested the Government to inform it of any measure which is envisaged or adopted to encourage the voluntary negotiation of terms and conditions of employment without impediment in both the public and the private sectors.

In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that section 3bis (c) of Decree No. 470/93 of 18 March 1993, respecting collective labour agreements, provides that works collective labour agreements concluded by a trade union association covering the occupation in which the enterprise is active do not require approval. The Committee also takes due note of the indication in the report that the Government is endeavouring, to the extent that it is possible under the current economic conditions, to bring together the parties to the various collective labour agreements, particularly in the public sector, with a view to developing agreed standards through direct negotiations which are adapted to the current and more permissive social and economic circumstances, and to the potential of each sector. In this respect, the Government points to the ratification in 1993 of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

Nevertheless, the Committee regrets to note that other agreements, when they are concluded at the enterprise level, have to be approved by the Ministry of Labour in order to enter into force, in accordance with section 6 of Act No. 23546 of 22 December 1987, and also that under section 3ter of Decree No. 470/93, for the purposes of approval, the Ministry of Labour has to take into account whether the collective agreement contains clauses infringing the norms of public order and the criteria of productivity, investment, the introduction of technology, the system of vocational training as well as the provisions of the legislation that is in force.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments it referred to the observations made by various trade union organizations from different sectors criticizing the restrictive Government policy with regard to the negotiation of wages, which were conditional on increases in productivity. These included the comments of the United Teachers' Trade Union of Buenos Aires, of March 1992, the Trade Union of United Seafarers (SOMU), of March 1993 and December 1994, and the Argentinian Congress of Workers (CTA), of June 1993, concerning the restrictions on collective bargaining in various sectors (public enterprises, the maritime and education sectors and the private sector), and particularly concerning Decree No. 1334/91 of 15 July 1991, which restricts any wage negotiations to the increase in productivity, with the exclusion of any other parameter; Decree No. 1757/90 of 5 July 1990, which permits the nullification of clauses in collective agreements which in the opinion of the State are prejudicial to the productivity and efficiency of public enterprises; Decree No. 435/90 of 4 March 1990, which fixes a maximum wage for all public activities, irrespective of whether or not they are covered by a collective agreement; and Decree No. 817/92 of 26 May 1992, which suspends the application of clauses in collective agreements or in legislation which establish conditions of employment that are prejudicial to productivity in the merchant navy and port sector; and Decree No. 1264 of 24 July 1992, which suspends collective labour agreements covering the maritime, river and lake transport sector for passengers, cargoes and fishing, as well as all port activities.

In this respect, the Committee also takes due note of the information supplied by the Government, particularly regarding the restrictions on collective bargaining in the shipping sector, to the effect that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has adopted a policy of dialogue in the framework of the Tripartite Consultation Commission for the Application of International Labour Standards (Convention No. 144). The objective in this respect is for the parties to sectoral collective agreements who would be affected by Decree No. 817 to conclude agreements through direct and voluntary negotiation to resolve the differences that currently exist, particularly through the adaptation of agreements to the current social and economic circumstances and the potential of the shipping industry.

The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government, and particularly the developments in the system for the registration of enterprise level collective agreements without the need for approval, and the policy adopted by the Government with regard to collective bargaining, based on free discussion with the parties concerned, especially in the context of the Tripartite Consultation Commission for the Application of International Labour Standards (Convention No. 144) as they relate to the shipping sector. The Committee hopes to be able to note concrete results in the near future in both law and practice for the encouragement and promotion without impediment of the voluntary negotiation of terms and conditions of employment, in both the public and the private sectors, without interference by the public authorities.

The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any developments in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the comments of the United Teachers' Trade Union of Buenos Aires of March 1992, the Trade Union of United Seafarers of March 1993, and the Argentinian Congress of Workers of June 1993 concerning the restrictions on collective bargaining in various sectors (public enterprises, the maritime and education sectors, and the private sector), and in particular concerning Decree No. 1334/91 of 15 July 1991, which restricts any wage negotiations to the increase in productivity, with the exclusion of any other parameter; Decree No. 1757/90 of 5 July 1990, which permits the nullification of clauses in collective agreements which in the opinion of the State are prejudicial to the productivity and efficiency of public enterprises; Decree No. 435/90 of 4 March 1990, which fixes a minimum wage for all public activities, irrespective of whether or not they are covered by a collective agreement; and Decree No. 817/92 of 26 May 1992, which suspends the application of clauses in collective agreements or in legal contracts which establish conditions of employment which are prejudicial to productivity in the merchant navy and ports sector.

With reference to its previous comments on the obligation that collective agreements, in order to be approved, should not contain "clauses which infringe the norms of public order or standards issued in the protection of the general interest" (section 3 of Act No. 23545), the Committee regrets that the Government has confined itself to supplying information of a general nature on case-law in this respect and has not replied in a substantive manner to its questions.

The Committee recalls that a system of official approval is acceptable insofar as the approval can only be refused on grounds of form and where the clauses of a collective agreement do not conform to the minimum standards set out in the labour law. The Committee also notes with concern that in Cases Nos. 1560, 1567 and 1639, the Committee on Freedom of Association noted that, both in the public and private sectors, decrees which make it possible to waive provisions of collective agreements if they are prejudicial to productivity do not encourage the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation of terms and conditions of employment. The Committee is bound to emphasize that interference by governments in collective bargaining over many years restricts the right of workers and employers to negotiate freely their terms and conditions of employment. The Committee emphasizes that in cases of economic difficulty, the Government should resort to persuasion rather than constraint, it being understood that the final decision in the matter rests with the parties to the agreement.

Therefore, whilst recognizing the specific features of the collective bargaining system in the country, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measure which is envisaged or adopted to encourage the voluntary negotiation without impediment of terms and conditions of employment in both the public and the private sectors.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the Government's report, to which it annexed a long list of the collective agreements concluded between 8 July 1988 and 14 August 1990.

In its previous comments, the Committee observed that section 3 of Act No. 23545 specifies that, in order to be approved, collective agreements should be free of any "clauses which infringe the norms of public order or standards issued in the protection of the general interest; nor shall the entry into force of the agreement significantly affect the overall economic situation or the situation of certain branches of activity, or result in a serious deterioration in the standard of living of consumers". In this connection, the Committee requests the Government to give details of the underlying basis of approval given to collective agreements in Argentinian legislation and to indicate whether this is also applied to a collective agreement extended to all the workers in a sector of activity or an occupational category in the area concerned, even when a proportion of these workers are not members of the signatory trade union organisations. The Committee also requests the Government to supply details on the legal effect of collective agreements that are not approved, and to specify in particular whether they apply fully to workers who are members of the signatory trade union organisations.

Finally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the development of collective bargaining in the public sector.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the new Act on Trade Union Associations (No. 23551) promulgated on 14 April 1988 contains measures for protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, unfair labour practices and acts of interference on the part of the employer, both at the time of taking up employment and in the course of the employment relationship, accompanied by civil remedies and penal sanctions.

Article 4. The Committee has taken note of the comments made by the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) raising issues related to collective bargaining, in a communication dated 9 March 1987 and the information forwarded by the Government in communications dated 29 September 1987 and 16 February 1988, and of the Government's report. The Government indicates that it has finally carried out its promise to re-establish in full the system of free negotiation between the parties, thereby implementing the collective bargaining system. To this end, during the period 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1988, the system remained in force whereby it was possible for the parties signatory to collective labour agreements periodically to update the remuneration rates established in these agreements, through the bilateral negotiation system. In order to safeguard the purchasing power of wage earners, and to make up for the lag due to the high rate of inflation, periodic automatic wage adjustments were made to the remuneration agreed upon by the parties.

In addition, the Government indicates that the National Congress adopted the Bills regulating the collective bargaining system, with the result that Acts Nos. 23545 and 23546 of 22 December 1987 were promulgated, definitively re-establishing this system on the basis of free discussions between the representative associations of employers and workers in each sector. Act No. 23545 brings back into force, with certain modifications, Act No. 14250 of 1953 which had ceased to be applied by the de facto Government. The amendments to the above Act include section 1 which expressly extends the collective agreement system of state enterprises to state companies or limited liability companies in which the State holds a majority interest and State financial institutions and bodies coming under the national public administration which had already negotiated collective agreements prior to the entry into force of the Act. Act No. 23546 sets out the procedural rules for collective bargaining and specifies that the initiative for negotiations rests with the parties concerned, that is, the representative associations of the employers and workers on condition that they must notify the Ministry of Labour and Social Security of their decision.

The Committee notes this development with interest, but observes that section 3 of Act No. 23545 specifies that an essential prerequisite for approval shall be that the collective agreement is free of any clauses which infringe the norms of public order or standards issued in the protection of the general interest; nor shall the entry into force of the agreement significantly affect the overall economic situation or the situation of certain branches of activity, or result in a serious deterioration in the standard of living of consumers. In this connection, the Committee recalls that a system of official approval is acceptable in so far as the approval can only be refused on grounds of form and where the clauses of a collective agreement do not conform to the minimum standards set out in the labour law. The public authorities should, as a general rule, refrain from intervening to alter the content of freely concluded collective agreements. Such intervention could only be justified for major economic and social reasons of general interest. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the scope of this provision and state whether any collective agreements have been refused approval under it.

The Government has undertaken to extend the collective bargaining system to the public administration. Under the Act, new legislation is to be issued within 365 days, regulating the application of this system to the public service.

The Committee takes note of the detailed information supplied by the Government, in particular, on the development of the collective bargaining system which is based on free negotiation between the parties concerned.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in the application of Article 4 of the Convention.