Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 1987, Publication : 73ème session CIT (1987)

The Government has communicated the following information:

A new Minister has been in charge of the country's labour policy since 12 May 1987. He will try, when the opportunity presents itself, to push for the legal amendments which have been proposed. For this reason, he requests a judicious measure of patience.

The Government reports that the Court of Constitutional Guarantees, on the occasion of a proceeding brought by workers' representatives challenging the continuing validity of Legislative Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967, confirmed that it was still in effect, since it did not violate any constitutional principles. When the Court's decision was presented to the Plenary of the Permanent Legislative Committees of the National Congress, the Parliament confirmed the judgment.

This situation reaffirms and confirms the position which the Government has been maintaining with regard to the above mentioned Legislative Decree, to the effect that it in no way infriges upon the right to organise, or freedom of association, or the spirit or the letter of Convention No. 87.

Primacy of the Constitution over other laws. This concept, embodying the legal hierarchy, is set forth in the Constitution. The guiding principles for labour rights are incorporated in this Constitution. The right to organise trade unions is guaranteed by the Constitution; it is a constitutional precept. Workers' right to strike and employers' right to lock out are guaranteed by the Constitution: they are constitutional precepts.

The right to strike, guaranteed. by the Constitution and effectively protected by the laws, constitutes the suspension of work, called by workers under certain circumstances specifically set forth in positive norms, within the framework of a collective dispute between the employer and his or her workers, as made known to the competent authorities on the subject. This enables the strikers to remain at the workplace and to be watched over by the police, who guarantee order and protect the strikers from the involvement of agitators or strikebreakers. The penalty for leaders of a strike which has been declared illegal is none other than the loss of their stability of employment. The "lock-out" or "work stoppage" (paro) is, in the labour field, the suspension of work provided by the employer, under certain precise circumstances and also within the framework of a process subject to the jurisdiction of the labour authorities. The "stoppage" (paro) referred to in Legislative Decree No. 105 of the National Assembly is something else, since this Legislative Decree is not labour-related in nature.

Legislative Decree No. 105 refers to activities which criminally paralyse the entire nation or locality for disruptive purposes. It refers to misdeeds which fall within the scope of crimes against the internal security of the State or public safety. It is related to the chapters of the Penal Code which are pertinent for the characterisation of such infractions and in particular sections 129, 130, 135, 136, 153, 155, 158, 159, 218 and 221 of that Code.

The Government requests that it be acknowledged in respect to the continuing allegations made concerning Legislative Decree N o. 105, approved by the National Constituent Assembly, that the Legislative Decree in no way runs counter to legal strikes. which are broadly protected by the Constitution and the laws, and that it does not in any way diminish the application of the Convention.

The legal value protected by Legislative Decree No. 105 is public order and the internal security of the State. The direct victim of the crimes could be any inhabitant of the Republic, whether a national or a foreigner; the indirect victim is civil society in general and could even be the State itself in terms of its political organisation.

When the Legislative Decree uses the word "stoppage" (paro), it does not use it in the same sense as the Labour Code: it does not deal with" a suspension of work ordered by an employer or combination of employers".

In this case the word "stoppage" ("paro") is used to mean "paralisation", arbitrarily imposed, by means of a rebellious attitude toward the legitimate authorities, in which daily life in an area is completely suspended in a region or in the nation as a whole, taking advantage of a situation of total or partial anarchy in the community affected and disturbing the peace of the inhabitants.

The penalties provided for in our Penal Code, in order to protect the internal security of the State and public order, are not unknown in the legislation of other countries. All civilised nations on the globe in one way or another envisage measures designed to defend the survival of the state entity and to protect society from anarchy. As Beccaria said, "The primal and the ultimate crimes, since they are the most dangerous, are those termed lèse majesté...; any crime, even a private crime, is an offence to society, but not every crime aims at its immediate destruction."

In addition, a representative of the Government of Ecuador cited in full the comments of the Committee of Experts in its 1987 report with regard to the Convention. Subsequently, he referred to the information provided by his Government in writing and also read out certain provisions of the Constitution and the Labour Code relating to the right to organise and the right to strike.

The Workers' members insisted upon the fact that national legislation was not in conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Two direct contacts missions had taken place in 1980 and 1985. Amendments to the legislation were prepared at the time of the direct contacts mission in 1985. They stated that it was essential to adopt these amendments. They did not think that a new mission of direct contacts was necessary since this would only delay matters. They requested the Government representative to furnish information on the implementation of the legislative reforms which were envisaged.

The Employers' member reminded the Committee that the report of the Committee of Experts had clearly drawn attention to a number of violations, which varied in their importance, with respect to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. At the time of the direct contacts mission in 1985, draft proposals had been worked out so as to ensure the conformity of national legislation with the Conventions. They thought it would be helpful if the Government representative could indicate whether the legislative reforms which had been envisaged had been adopted and, if not, to indicate whether they would be adopted in the near future. They were not convinced that a new direct contacts mission, as requested by the Government, would serve a useful purpose since the amendments necessary to ensure the compliance of national legislation with the Conventions had already been developed at the time of the 1985 direct contacts mission.

The Worker member of Ecuador expressed his complete disagreement with the information communicated in writing by the Government, as well as with the statement made by the Government representative. He stated that government policy with regard to labour matters rested with the President of the Republic through the labour co-ordination office, and not with the Minister of Labour. The nomination of a new minister would not therefore have an important impact on the situation and would not lead to the adoption of legislation giving effect to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, whose provisions were not respected. He added that, certainly, the Constitution and the Labour Code honoured the basic principles of labour law. In practice, however, these principles were not respected. This meant that public employees did not have the right to form trade unions, although the Constitution guaranteed the right. Nor did they enjoy the right to strike, although this was permitted under the Constitution. The Act concerning the civil service and carreers in the administration was contrary to the Constitution. It was essential for the Government to take the necessary measures to reform this Act, since it was the basis of the problem. Furthermore, in practice, when workers presented their demands or gave notice of a strike, employers responded by dismissing workers, often en masse. In other cases, they dismissed trade union leaders. Although arbitration and conciliation tribunals had the right to insist on the reinstatement of workers who had been dismissed for having gone on strike, no one had been reinstated. The prohibition imposed on trade unions to participate in the activities of political or religious parties was also a violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The granting of exclusive rights to bargain collectively to "work councils" was another violation of these Conventions. What was even more serious was the classification of public servants into two categories, those who were covered by the Labour Code and those who were covered by the Act concerning careers in the administration.

As far as Legislative Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967 was concerned, the Government had declared that its objective was to penalise criminal acts aimed at paralysing the activities of national or local communities. He stated that this was false; work stoppages punished by Legislative Decree Nos. 105 were specifically industrial strikes since these were organised and carried out by the four central trade union organisations. It was not, therefore, a question of crimes against the internal security of the State. Nevertheless, Legislative Decree No. 105 had to considered as abolished by the 1979 Constitution and should not, therefore, be applied.

Another Government representative, the Deputy Minister of Labour of Ecuador, indicated that the labour co-ordination office under the responsibility of the President of the Republic was not in charge of the country's labour policy, but was responsible for co-ordinating everything that related to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Constitution guaranteed the right to organise. Civil servants had enjoyed the right to strike since 1979 following the adoption of amendments to the Labour Code, as the last direct contacts mission had been able to observe. As far as the legal provisions on the prerequisites for workers in the public sector to organise were concerned, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees had suspended them for some time. With regard to Legislative Decree No. 105 of 1967, he stated that it was still in effect and its validity had been confirmed in January 1987 by this Court. He said that the Government of Ecuador had noted with interest the comments of the Committee of Experts. This was why the Government was interested in a new direct contact mission to visit the country so that it could familarise itself with the situation. It would be able to see the existence of trade unions and get in touch with the members of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees as well as with the representatives of Parliament. For this reason, he thought that it was not the time to adopt conclusions critical of Ecuador. He added that there was at the moment an ILO official in Ecuador studying the difficulties with respect to applying vari- ous standards concerning civil servants, which proved the Government's willingness to guarantee the full exercise of rights, not only for workers in the public sector but for all workers. Legislative Decree No. 105 of 1967 did not penalise either the workers or their leaders since in Ecuador the right to strike was guaranteed, but rather the Decree was intended to punish criminal acts, no matter who was responsible for them, which were meant to endanger the internal peace and security of the State.

The Worker member from the United Kingdom recalled that the Committee of Experts had expressed its regrets that the Government had not furnished information on the measures which it intended to undertake so as to give follow-up to the direct contacts missions. The information provided by the Government in writing did not provide any new information on this point. With regard to the Government's request for a new direct contacts mission, he could not see the value of this, since the Committee of Experts had already established the fact that the legislation must be amended. He added that the Government representative of Ecuador should be requested to state specifically if the legislation was going to be amended in such a way as to ensure the application of the relevant Conventions.

The Deputy Minister of Labour declared that it was because his Government considered that certain points had not been settled during the last direct contacts mission, despite the excellent work achieved in the course of this visit, that it had requested a new mission to come to Ecuador to complete the task which had already been undertaken. Furthermore, following the last visit, certain decisions had been taken by certain bodies independent of the executive branch of government, such as for instance the above-mentioned decision taken by the Court of Constitutional Guarantees.

The Workers' members emphasised the fact that the 1985 direct contacts mission had worked out precisely the changes which needed to be made so as to bring national legislation into conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. A new mission would not contribute anything new, and would merely delay by one or two years the adoption of the reforms which were necessary. Under these conditions and given the fact that the problem was an old one which had been dealt with for some time, they proposed the adoption of a special paragraph to express the concerns of the Committee and to request the Government to give follow-up to the draft reform proposals prepared during the course of the last direct contacts mission and to adopt the legislation to the requirements of the Conventions.

The Employers' members recalled the fact that no new information had been provided concerning changes in the legislation within the context of the draft proposals prepared during the last direct contacts mission, and expressed the view that they did not find the request for a new direct contacts mission to be very convincing. Given the importance of the question which had been considered in the Committee for a number of years, they expressed their support for the proposal of the Workers' members to include a special paragraph in the report of the Committee concerning this problem in the hope that the Government would put into effect measures which had been proposed for a long time.