Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2006, Publicación: 96ª reunión CIT (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee also notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) of 31 August 2005 and 10 August 2006, which refer mainly to issues already highlighted by the Committee. Moreover, the ICFTU cites a number of anti-union dismissals in various companies, including in export processing zones. The Committee asks the Government to send its comments in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation, it noted that the fines envisaged in the legislation (from 2,000 to 10,000 cordobas, with 2,000 cordobas being approximately equivalent to US$147) cannot be considered as dissuasive nor as adequate protection against acts of interference and emphasized the need for the legislation to provide for sanctions that are sufficiently effective and dissuasive against acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs. The Committee notes that the Government recognizes that the legislation does not provide for sanctions that are sufficiently dissuasive against acts of interference, that the Government is responsible for preventing any act of anti-union discrimination and that, in the absence of special legislation, supplementary sources of labour law are applied which establish that those cases not provided for in the Code or by the supplementary provisions will be resolved in accordance with the general principles of labour law, case law, comparative law, scientific doctrine, international agreements ratified by Nicaragua, custom and ordinary law. The Committee reiterates once again the need for the legislation to provide for sanctions that are sufficiently effective and dissuasive against acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs and asks the Government to inform it of any measures adopted in this respect in its next report.

Article 4. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it took due note of the statistics provided by the Government on the number of collective agreements concluded (and workers covered by them) in both the public and the private sectors and requested the Government to take measures to encourage the negotiation of collective agreements in export processing zones and to provide information in its subsequent report on any measures adopted in this respect. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that no new collective agreements have been concluded in the export processing zone sector, but that companies in which a collective agreement has been concluded are subject to section 241 of the Labour Code, which establishes that if the period set forth in the collective agreement expires without a request being made for its revision, it will be extended for another period of the same length as that of its validity. The Committee asks the Government, once again, to take measures to encourage the negotiation of collective agreements in export processing zones and to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

Lastly, with regard to the comments of the Confederation of Trade Union Unification (CUS) of 9 September 2004 on the application of the Convention, the Committee notes that they refer to Decree No. 93-2004 which introduces reforms to the Occupational Associations Regulations. The Committee considers that the issues raised do not involve violations of the provisions of the Convention, except in respect of the lack of protection against acts of anti-union interference, as referred to in the paragraph above.