Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 404, Octobre 2023

1. 146. The complaint is contained in communications from the Trade Union Federation of Healthcare Workers of the Argentine Republic (FESPROSA) dated 23 June 2016, 8 September 2017, 23 February 2018 and 2 May 2018.
2. 147. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 6 April 2018, 7 August 2019, 12 September and 11 October 2023.
3. 148. Argentina has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 149. In its communications dated 23 June 2016, 8 September 2017, 23 February 2018 and 2 May 2018, FESPROSA, which claims to represent healthcare professionals working in public establishments and bodies throughout the country, alleges that the State, as an employer, has violated the right to collective bargaining of several of its affiliated trade union organizations in various provinces of the country.
2. 150. The complainant alleges that, after receiving an invitation from the Government of the Province of Santa Cruz to engage in collective bargaining for the health sector on 14 June 2016, it sent the Government, in writing, the names of the two delegates who would attend the meeting on its behalf and on behalf of its affiliate, the Trade Union Association of Public Health Workers of Santa Cruz (APROSA). The complainant alleges that, while the Government did not object to its communication, when the delegates arrived at the meeting site on 14 June, the police questioned them and would not let them to enter. The complainant indicates that this situation was recorded by the media and that, afterwards, they went to the provincial Ministry of Labour and a report of the incident was drawn up. The complainant indicates that, to date, it has not been able to take part in the bargaining.
3. 151. The complainant alleges that the State has refused to allow the Association of Professionals and Technicians of the Dr Juan P. Garrahan SAMIC Paediatric Hospital (a first-level entity with union registration, affiliated with FESPROSA, with majority representation in the hospital) participate in sectoral bargaining. The complainant also alleges that it has been denied a physical space within the establishment for its union headquarters as well as the possibility of automatically deducting union dues from its members’ wages, even though other unions operating in the sector are able to do so. The complainant alleges that the hospital’s board of directors, which consists of representatives of the National Government and of the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, has denied them these rights under the pretext that it does not have trade union status.
4. 152. The complainant alleges that for eight years the Trade Union Association of Healthcare Workers of the Province of Buenos Aires (CICOP) (a first-level union with trade union status, affiliated with FESPROSA, with a scope of action in the Province of Buenos Aires) has been excluded from the Standing Committee on the Interpretation of Healthcare Work (COPICPROSA) under the pretext that it lacks national representation. The complainant indicates that this committee is the body responsible for applying the collective agreement for national hospital workers established in 2009 by means of Decree No. 1133/2009 and indicates that the relevant actors had agreed that the trade union part would be represented by the relevant unions, including CICOP, of which most Posadas Hospital workers are members. The complainant alleges that, despite this agreement, the hospital’s management has not allowed CICOP to participate in this committee.
5. 153. The complainant also alleges that FESPROSA, which also has trade union status, has been excluded from this committee. It further alleges that the hospital provides CICOP with a small office when the other unions have two or three spaces. It also alleges discrimination against its members: the contract of a member who had recently joined was terminated after 8 years of employment and 32 workers, some of whom had recently become members, had 80 per cent of their wages arbitrarily deducted without any explanation.
6. 154. The complainant alleges that on 2 January 2018, the hospital authorities made public the decision to dismiss 122 workers, most of whom were night-shift workers and members of CICOP who had had 70 per cent of their wages deducted by the hospital for failing to comply with a resolution that increased working hours. The complainant also states that after CICOP sent the hospital’s management and the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security the list of delegates elected on 23 October 2017, 16 of them were dismissed (all of whom were highly qualified, demonstrated impeccable professional conduct, without proceedings or sanctions, and had been working at the hospital for between 5 and 20 years) and that the national ministerial authorities and the hospital’s management refused to engage in any dialogue with the union representatives despite repeated requests for meetings, measures of force and mobilizations at the hospital. The complainant also alleges that on 30 January 2018, the hospital’s management stopped deducting the entity’s membership fees after more than 20 years, affecting the union’s assets and defunding its activities.
7. 155. The complainant alleges that, although the Union of University Healthcare Workers (SIPRUS), affiliated with FESPROSA, is the most representative entity of healthcare workers in the public sector, it is prevented from participating in collective bargaining because it does not have trade union status. The complainant indicates that SIPRUS has been registered as a union since 2008 and that although it requested the Ministry of Labour to conduct a membership comparison in 2014, it was not until 2017 that it was informed that the comparison was about to begin. The organization is concerned that this arbitrary delay in the comparison has resulted in bargaining in the province with a sector that is foreign to the legitimate interests of SIPRUS.
8. 156. The complainant indicates that the Province of Córdoba is covered by the Union of Healthcare Workers (UTS), the most representative union in the provincial public health sector, which is affiliated with FESPROSA and has simple union registration. The complainant states that there are four trade union organizations in the provincial public administration and that, with exception of the UTS, the other three (the Public Employees Union (SEP) of the Province of Córdoba, the Association of State Workers (ATE) and the Association of Argentine Healthcare Workers (ATSA)) have trade union status. The complainant states that ATE and ATSA are unions with a scope of action throughout the Argentine Republic, but that only ATSA specifically covers the healthcare sector, albeit with little representation in the public health sector in the Province of Córdoba, where the UTS represents the absolute majority. The complainant states that, although in the province there is no bargaining specifically and exclusively for the health sector, the UTS has never been invited to participate in general bargaining. The complainant also states that even though a sectoral health board has been meeting to address the demands of workers in the provincial public healthcare system since 2014, the UTS has formally submitted a list of demands at every meeting that has never been addressed. It further indicates that at practically all these meetings, it has expressed a desire to be invited to participate in general bargaining, as well as the need for bargaining specifically and exclusively for the health sector.
9. 157. The complainant alleges that the Government of the Province of Chaco refuses to invite the Association of Public Health Professionals, Technicians and Assistants of the Province of Chaco (APTASCH), an organization affiliated with FESPROSA that claims to be the most representative organization for the health sector with 2,000 members, to participate in collective bargaining. The complainant alleges that the Provincial Government disregards the union’s representation, its demands, and the very serious deterioration of working conditions. The complainant also alleges that the Provincial Government ignores the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice, such as its judgment in ATE versus the Ministry of Labour, which states that exclusive trade union status undermines freedom of association and that unions with simple union registration can participate in sectoral bargaining just as unions with trade union status do.
10. 158. The complainant alleges that the Government of the Province of Neuquén denies the Union of Public Health Workers of Neuquén (SIPROSAPUNE) the right to participate in collective bargaining and that this is a result of an omission by the State itself, which has failed to issue the corresponding trade union status, which has been technically approved but not yet issued, in a timely manner. The complainant states that this situation is arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory, since it has completed all the formalities, complied with all the recommendations, and yet both procedures are paralysed, leaving them hostage to a situation that was neither sought nor agreed to.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 159. In its communication of 6 April 2018, the Government provides observations in relation to the allegations concerning the Province of Santa Cruz. In its communication of 7 August 2019, the Government provides observations on the Posadas Hospital in the Province of Buenos Aires and in its communication sent on 12 September 2023, the Government provides observations regarding several of the other provinces mentioned in the complaint. In the latter communication, the Government indicates that, despite the time that has elapsed, the complainant has not insisted on its presentation. The Government also indicates that the claims made by the complainant have not been accompanied by evidence of greater representativeness to support and legitimize the request(s) for the required comparison of representativeness. In its communication sent on 11 October 2023, the Government sends updated information in relation to some of the provinces mentioned in the complaint.
2. 160. The Government indicates that the main issue raised in the complaint concerns the trade union organizations’ role of representation in the institutional spheres where working conditions are discussed, which the system of freedom of association and its provisions have reserved for the most representative organizations. The Government indicates that the national legislation is clear regarding representativeness and that, under the Trade Union Associations Law No. 23.551 and its Regulatory Decree No. 467/88, it is possible to distinguish three different classes or types of trade union entities, based on a strictly temporal/gradual approach: (i) unregistered trade union associations, (ii) associations with simple union registration and (iii) associations with trade union status. The Government explains that a trade union association exists from the very moment a group of workers gets together and decides to form a permanent entity to defend its interests. This means that the affectio societatis of the group of workers, accompanied by certain acts, such as holding meetings, drafting a founding act and discussing bylaws, is sufficient to create the association. It is to be expected that by this stage, the categories of persons and geographical area to be represented, as well as the name, bylaws and founding authorities will have to be specified, all of which usually occurs after agreeing on criteria during successive meetings convened for this purpose.
3. 161. The Government indicates that the creation of a workers' trade union association is a spontaneous act by the group, which does not require prior authorization from the state authority, and that union registration with the Ministry of Labour suffices. The Government indicates that the associations that prove to be the most representative of the group are the ones that negotiate working conditions because they have trade union status. This status is used to designate the organizations that are able negotiate working conditions. The Government explains that this status cannot be granted without making the necessary comparison to determine which organization is the most representative in accordance with the procedure in article 28 of the Trade Union Associations Law No. 23.551. Failure to meet the indicated requirements will result in the annulment of the administrative or judicial act. Once the comparison has been made, the representation must be recognized without any further procedure.
4. 162. With regard to the Province of Santa Cruz, in its communication sent in 2018, the Government indicates that: (i) APROSA is an association with simple union registration and (ii) although the Federation of Argentine Healthcare Workers' Associations (FATSA) is the entity that represents the health sector and participates in bargaining due to its trade union status, the necessary steps were being were taken to analyse granting trade union status to APROSA. In its communication sent on 12 September 2023, the Government indicates that the complainant has not included any evidence in the complaint of a request for comparison or of a comparison being made to displace the organizations representing the workers in the workplace. The Government indicates that it does not have any information that would allow it to establish that APROSA has the largest number of members in the workplace that it claims to represent. In its communication sent on 11 October 2023, the Government indicates that: (i) there was not any arbitrary or unilateral decision to exclude APROSA and FESPROSA from participating in the bargaining in June 2016, but rather that, at that time, the organizations did not comply with the requirements demanded by the national and provincial legislation; ii) on 21 August 2016, members of the Secretary of State for Labor and Social Security and of the Ministry of Health and Environment met with APROSA and FESPROSA and indicated to them what was the necessary documentation to be submitted to be part of the negotiating table, assuring that there was commitment and political will for them to be part of the bargaining; and iii) since 5 September 2016, FESPROSA-APROSA have been participating in the bargaining and have one vote.
5. 163. As to the Posadas Hospital in the Province of Buenos Aires, in its communication of 2019, the Government sent a copy of the report issued by the Undersecretariat of Labour Relations and Strengthening of the Civil Service of the Ministry of Modernization rejecting the request by FESPROSA to join COPICPROSA for that hospital and the other hospitals and national institutions covered by the collective agreement. The report states that as FESPROSA is not a signatory to the sectoral collective agreement that created the above-mentioned committee, it would not be appropriate to grant its request.
6. 164. In its communication sent in 2023, the Government indicates that Law No. 24.185 applies to the representation of trade unions in the State. The law is clear and not only provides for plural representation at both the national and sectoral levels (article 6), but also states that if the trade unions are unable to agree on the composition of the representative delegation, the delegation may be established by the State, with percentages based on representation (article 4). The Government indicates that the complainant has not included any evidence in the complaint to suggest that there was a negotiation between the trade union organizations or a disagreement over which organizations would participate in COPICPROSA. The Government emphasizes that there is no data, number of members, or organizations that have participated in the comparison, and that the State cannot intervene if it is not first clearly established that there is no agreement, because that would violate union autonomy in a broad sense. It would be an imposition without knowing the arguments of each side, as it would mean that the workers were not involved in the discussion to establish representation. The Government considers this to be an internal matter of the unions, which precludes the State from intervening until the unions decide on the matter. The Government indicates that this is an internal disagreement and that the unions must establish the representativeness. If there is no agreement, the State may intervene, but it does not seem appropriate for the State to impose agreements before the dispute between the parties has been resolved, when the law empowers all of them. Dialogue and the possibility of an agreement are favoured and determine intervention by the State.
7. 165. The Government considers that the allegations concerning the Province of Córdoba are misplaced and have no factual or legal basis. The Government states that: (i) FESPROSA, as a second-level entity, does not have trade union status in the Province of Córdoba (that is, it does not represent the direct interests of workers in the provincial health sector); and (ii) the UTS carries out its trade union activities within the scope of article 23 of the Trade Union Associations Law No. 23.551, as a first-level entity with simple union registration. The Government states that the UTS has never established its trade union status and emphasizes that the recognition of trade union status does not stem from a unilateral voluntary act by the employer or a unilateral decision by the trade union, but that, in accordance with the national regulatory framework, the conditions stipulated in the applicable regulations must be met.
8. 166. The Government indicates that, although the complainant alleges that there is no collective bargaining in the provincial public health sector, the assessment of FRESPROSA is erratic. The Government indicates that collective bargaining in the provincial public health sector is long-standing and has strong institutional roots in the province. Collective bargaining consists of an area that includes two defined sectors: (a) general staff regulated by Law No. 7233 (including hospital administrative support staff and staff working in the central area of the Ministry) and (b) human healthcare teams (regulated by Law No. 7625). The Government indicates that the framework regulating the bargaining process is provided for in Law No. 8329 and its regulatory decree and Law No. 8015, which establishes the competence of the Ministry of Labour. In this context, the parties comprising the bargaining unit are the health authorities, members of the general secretariat under the Ministry of Coordination and the three unions that have trade union status.
9. 167. The Government indicates that the general staff is represented by the Union of Public Employees (SEP) (trade union membership No. 838/66) in the executive staff section and by the Union of Senior Staff in the Provincial Public Administration of Córdoba (UPS) (trade union membership No. 1451) in the managerial staff section. As to the group consisting of human healthcare teams, it is represented by SEP and ATSA, which specifically represent the health sector according to their respective statuses. Both entities have sufficient accredited representation of contributing members for the representation.
10. 168. As to the Province of Santa Fe, the Government indicates that this is a request to participate in the bargaining committee, when there is no evidence that there has been a comparison of representativeness or, at least, any initiative or administrative evidence showing that the complainant wanted to resolve which categories of persons it represented with the current trade union status holder, the Medical Association of the Argentine Republic.
11. 169. The Government indicates that the complainant has not even attempted to conduct a comparison with the Medical Association of the Argentine Republic, which covers all physicians regardless of their specialty, including the physicians that SIPRUS claims to represent. The Government indicates that it would have to determine which organization has more members and that, in this case, everything seems to indicate that, even though the representation has not been determined, a mandate to participate in the advisory committee is assigned, with degrees of institutional participation commensurate with the de facto representation it claims to hold. The law thus ensures institutional levels of participation, even for an organization with union registration, reserving the ability to bargain working conditions collectively for those who hold the greatest representativeness through their trade union status.
12. 170. With regard to APTASCH (Province of Chaco), the Government indicates that, even though the complaint alleges that it is the most representative organization in the health sector, no documentation or evidence of any request for a comparison with the organization that currently holds the negotiating representation has been attached to the complaint.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 171. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant (FESPROSA), which represents professionals working in public healthcare establishments in the country, alleges that several of its affiliated organizations have been excluded from collective bargaining in various provinces of the country because they do not have trade union status. The complainant also alleges delays in the granting of trade union status, refusal to deduct union dues because of a lack of trade union status and other acts of anti-union discrimination against several of its affiliated organizations.
2. 172. The Committee observes that the Government sends its observations in this regard and indicates that, under Argentine law, there are three types of trade union entities: unregistered trade union associations, associations with simple union registration and associations with trade union status. The Government indicates that, while the creation of a workers' association does not require prior authorization and that union registration with the Ministry of Labour suffices, the associations that are the most representative of the group are those that have trade union status and are able to negotiate working conditions. In general terms and in relation to the various provinces, the Government indicates that the claims made in the complaint have not been accompanied by evidence of the greater representativeness of the organizations affiliated with FESPROSA that would support and legitimize the request for a comparison of representativeness.
3. 173. The Committee notes that one of the issues raised in the complaint is the right of only those trade union organizations with trade union status, and not those that are simply registered, to participate in collective bargaining. The Committee notes from the complaint and the Government's reply that, out of the seven trade union organizations affiliated with FESPROSA: (i) only CICOP (Posadas Hospital of Buenos Aires) has trade union status; (ii) four trade union organizations have simple union registration: APROSA (Province of Santa Cruz), SAMIC (Garrahan Hospital of Buenos Aires), the APTASCH (Province of Chaco) (even though the complainant indicates that it is the most representative union in the health sector, the Government indicates that no documentation or evidence of any request for a comparison with the organization that currently holds the negotiating representation has been attached to the complaint), the UTS (Province of Córdoba) (even though the complainant indicates that in the province there is no bargaining specifically for the health sector, the Government indicates that collective bargaining in that sector is long-standing and that there are three unions with trade union status); and (iii) SIPROSAPUNE (Province of Neuquén), which supposedly applied for trade union status, and SIPRUS (Province of Santa Fe), which supposedly requested a comparison of members.
4. 174. The Committee notes from the complaint and the Government’s reply that the organizations affiliated with FESPROSA that have simple union registration have not been able to participate in collective bargaining because they do not have trade union status. The Committee observes that, according to the Government, the Trade Union Associations Law No. 23.551 distinguishes trade union organizations that are simply registered from those that have trade union status and are recognized by the State as being the most representative in their geographical area and that, under the provisions of article 31, trade union organizations with trade union status have the exclusive right to participate in collective bargaining. The Committee recalls in this regard that systems based on a sole bargaining agent (the most representative) and those which include all organizations or the most representative organizations in accordance with clear pre-established criteria for the determination of the organizations entitled to bargain are both compatible with Convention No. 98. The Committee also recalls that the granting of exclusive right to the most representative organizations should not mean that the existence of other unions to which certain involved workers may wish to belong is prohibited. Minority organization should be permitted to carry out their activities and at least to have the right to speak on behalf of their members and to represent them. [See Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, paras 1360 and 1388].
5. 175. In relation to the APROSA (Province of Santa Cruz), the Committee notes that, even though the complainant does not indicate if the APROSA had applied for trade union status, the Government indicates that the granting of trade union status to APROSA was analysed in 2018, and in any event affirms that, since 5 September 2016, APROSA and FESPROSA have been participating in the bargaining in relation to the health sector.
6. 176. With regard to SIPRUS (Province of Santa Fe), the Committee notes that, while the complainant claims that it is the majority organization in its area of representation; that in 2014, it submitted its request for a comparison and that in 2017, it was informed that the comparison was about to begin, the Government indicates that the complainant has not sent any evidence that the organization has wanted to resolve which categories of persons it represented with the current trade union status holder, which covers all physicians regardless of their specialty, including those that SIPRUS claims to represent. While noting the divergent position of the parties, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that, if indeed SIPRUS has requested a membership comparison, such a comparison has actually been conducted in a timely manner. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
7. 177. As to SIPROSAPUNE (Province of Neuquén), the Committee notes that the complainant alleges that the State has not issued the corresponding trade union status, which has been technically approved but not yet issued, in a timely manner. The Committee observes that the Government has not provided any information in this regard. The Committee recalls that it has previously examined complaints against the Government of Argentina concerning allegations of excessive delays in the granting of recognition to organizations, and also recalls that in 1997 it urged the Government to take measures to ensure that in future, when requests were made for the registration of an organization or the granting of recognition, the competent administrative authorities would decide on the matter without unjustified delay [see Report No. 307, Case No. 1872, para. 53]. Recalling the importance of the Government taking measures to ensure that, when requests are made for the granting of trade union status, the administrative authorities decide on the matter without unjustified delay, and noting with concern the absence of up-to-date information on the granting of trade union status to SIPROSAPUNE, the Committee hopes that this process has concluded and requests the Government to provide information in this regard.
8. 178. The Committee notes that, in relation to CICOP (Posadas Hospital, Province of Buenos Aires), the complainant alleges that despite the fact that it has trade union status and that in the process that led to the adoption of Decree No. 1133/2009 establishing the sectoral collective agreement for professional staff in hospital and healthcare establishments and research and production institutes under the Ministry of Health, the relevant actors had agreed that CICOP would be represented in COPICPROSA (the body responsible for implementing the collective agreement established in 2009), it was not allowed to participate because it “lacks national representation". The Committee notes that, in this respect, the Government indicates that: (i) the complainant has not included any evidence in the complaint to suggest that there was a negotiation between the trade union organizations on participation in COPICPROSA, which would make this an internal matter of the unions and preclude the State from intervening until the unions decide on the matter; and (ii) the Undersecretariat of Labour Relations and Strengthening of the Civil Service of the Ministry of Modernization rejected the request by FESPROSA to join COPICPSOSA because it is not a signatory to the sectoral collective agreement that created the above-mentioned committee.
9. 179. The Committee observes that article 4 of the Decree No. 1133 provides that the trade union part of COPICPROSA shall be represented by five regular and five substitute members. It also establishes that only trade union organizations with trade union status may participate in the committee, in accordance with Law No. 24.185, and that the organizations whose representation is limited to one or more of the establishments shall be incorporated into the jurisdictional delegations of those bodies. The article also states that these organizations shall be invited to participate in any COPICPROSA meetings that deal with issues affecting the category of persons and geographical area covered by them. The Committee observes that, although it does not have more specific information on a possible agreement between the organizations on their participation in COPICPROSA, according to publicly available information, in May 2021, CICOP took part in the COPICPROSA bargaining team. In the light of the above, and having received no further information on this matter, the Committee will not pursue its examination of these allegations.
10. 180. The Committee notes that the complainant organization also alleges that: (i) the Garrahan Hospital in Buenos Aires does not allow SAMIC to automatically deduct union dues under the pretext that it does not have trade union status; and that (ii) in January 2018, the Posadas Hospital in Buenos Aires stopped deducting CICOP's membership fees after more than 20 years. The Committee regrets that it has not received any observations from the Government in this regard.
11. 181. The Committee recalls that, in previous cases concerning Argentina, it requested the Government to take measures to ensure that with respect to the deduction of trade union dues from wages, legislation does not discriminate against trade union organizations that are merely registered as opposed to those with trade union status [see Report No. 320, Case No. 2054, para.142]. The Committee also recalls that for many years the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to bring several provisions of the Trade Union Associations Law No. 23.551 into full conformity with the Convention, including article 38, which allows only associations with trade union status, but not those that are simply registered, to deduct union dues from wages. Emphasizing the importance of the Government taking the aforementioned measures, and having received neither observations from the Government on this matter nor up-to-date information from the complainant, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that both SAMIC and CICOP are able to automatically deduct union dues in the hospitals concerned and requests the Government and the complainant to provide information in this regard.
12. 182. The Committee notes that the complainant also alleges other acts of anti-union discrimination against members of CICOP (Posadas Hospital, Province of Buenos Aires). While taking due note of the allegations, which include the decision allegedly taken by the hospital’s management in early 2018 to dismiss more than 100 workers, most of whom were union members, as well as the alleged dismissal of 16 elected delegates of CICOP, without proceedings or sanctions, after CICOP communicated its list of elected delegates on 23 October 2017, the Committee notes that the complainant has not provided specific data that would enable the workers in question to be identified or information on whether administrative or judicial appeals were filed in this regard. While noting that the Government has not sent its observations on this matter, and taking into account the time that has elapsed without having received specific information on the alleged facts, unless the complainant provides such information, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this aspect of the case. Noting, however, that the complainant also indicates that the ministerial authorities and the hospital’s management refused to engage in any dialogue with the union representatives despite repeated requests for meetings, measures of force and mobilizations at the hospital, the Committee recalls that it has highlighted the importance for harmonious labour relations of full and frank consultations on matters affecting the workers’ occupational interests.
13. 183. Lastly, the Committee notes that the complainant alleges that the management of the two hospitals in the Province of Buenos Aires does not provide SAMIC and CICOP with adequate physical space for their operations while other trade union organizations supposedly enjoy the necessary facilities. While noting that it has not received any observations from the Government on this matter, the Committee recalls that it has underlined the need to strike a balance between two elements: (i) facilities in the undertaking should be as such to enable trade unions to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently and (ii) the granting of such facilities should not impair the efficient operation of the undertaking [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, para. 1580]. In the light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to encourage dialogue between the hospital authorities and the trade union organizations concerned in order to define the facilities necessary for carrying out their activities that are compatible with the smooth functioning of the hospitals and commensurate with their level of representativeness.