Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2023, publiée 112ème session CIT (2024)

Convention (n° 135) concernant les représentants des travailleurs, 1971 - Costa Rica (Ratification: 1977)

Autre commentaire sur C135

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Costa Rican Federation of Chambers and Associations of Private Enterprise (UCCAEP), communicated with the Government’s report, in which reference is made to the matters addressed below. It also notes the joint observations of the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN) and the Workers’ Union of the Atlantic Coast Port Administration and Economic Development Board (SINTRAJAP), received on 1 December 2022, alleging violations of the Convention in practice, including the suspension of trade union leave. The Committee also notes the joint observations of the CTRN, the Costa Rican Workers’ Movement Central (CMTC), the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), the Costa Rican Confederation of Democratic Workers (CCTD) and the Workers’ Unitary Confederation (CUT), received on 1 September 2023, alleging violations of the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

In its previous comments, the Committee considered that it would be desirable to extend the protection provided under section 365 of the Labour Code to a greater number of trade union representatives. It noted that the issue of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination was the subject of a bill known as the Labour Procedures Reform Bill. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Procedures Reform Act was adopted on 25 January 2016 and introduces a host of innovations in the area of the defence of workers’ rights. It also notes the information provided by the UCCAEP, in its observations, concerning the main changes introduced by the Act. In this respect, the Committee notes that, in 2013, in the context of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), it noted with satisfaction the amendments introduced by the Act with the objective of making judicial procedures relating to acts of anti-union discrimination more expeditious and effective. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the protection provided to trade union representatives under the Labour Code (section 367(b)) continues to cover one trade union leader for the first 20 unionized workers and one for every additional 25 workers, up to a maximum of four. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 367(b) of the Labour Code with a view to increasing the number of trade union representatives protected, especially in the case of organizations with a large membership, and to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the impact of the Labour Procedures Reform Act with respect to the protection of workers’ representatives.

Furthermore, the Committee noted another bill (Bill No. 13475) also relating to the improvement of existing protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Bill No. 13475 was shelved on 16 November 2016 following the issuance of a unanimously negative opinion. The Committee also notes the indication of the UCCAEP that this decision was taken because Bill No. 13475 was outdated by the regulations provided for under the Labour Procedures Reform Act, which surpasses the aspirations set out in the aforementioned Bill, in particular with respect to protection for workers’ organizations.