Informe provisional - Informe núm. 378, Junio 2016

1. 821. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting of May–June 2015, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 375th Report, paras 560–618, approved by the Governing Body at its 324th Session (June 2015)].
2. 822. The Government sent additional observations in communications dated 9 and 30 October 2015.
3. 823. The International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production (FEDECAMARAS) provided additional information in a joint communication dated 20 May 2016.
4. 824. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 825. In its previous examination of the case at its May–June 2015 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations on the matters still pending [see 375th Report, para. 618]:
   • (a) While expressing its deep concern at the various and serious forms of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, their leaders and affiliated companies, including threats of imprisonment, statements of incitement to hatred, accusations of conducting economic warfare, the occupation and looting of shops, the seizure of FEDECAMARAS headquarters, etc., the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the importance of taking strong measures to prevent such actions and statements against individuals and organizations that are legitimately defending their interests under Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which have been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
   • (b) The Committee notes with regret that the criminal proceedings relating to the bomb attack on FEDECAMARAS headquarters on 26 February 2008 and the abduction and mistreatment in 2010 of the leaders of that organization, Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz (the latter sustained three bullet wounds) have not yet been completed (FEDECAMARAS appealed against the ruling ordering the closure of the case concerning the bomb attack on its headquarters), again expresses the firm hope that they will be concluded without further delay, and requests the Government to keep it informed. The Committee reiterates the importance of ensuring that the perpetrators receive sentences that are in proportion to the seriousness of their crimes, with a view to preventing any recurrence of the latter, and that FEDECAMARAS and the leaders concerned are compensated for the damage caused by these illegal acts. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the issues raised by FEDECAMARAS with regard to the bomb attack on its headquarters.
   • (c) As regards the allegations of the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders, the Committee requests that those current or former leaders of FEDECAMARAS be compensated in a just manner. At the same time, the Committee refers to the decision of the Governing Body in March 2014, in which it “urged the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to develop and implement the Plan of Action as recommended by the high-level tripartite mission, in consultation with national social partners”, which involved, as mentioned by the mission, “the establishment of a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, to deal with all pending matters relating to the recovery of estates and the expropriation of enterprises and other related problems arising or that may arise in the future”, and regrets that the Government stated in its last communication that establishing a dialogue round table on questions of recovery of estates and holding consultations on legislation are not viable. The Committee urges the Government to implement this request along the lines described in the conclusions and to report thereon. Finally, like the high-level tripartite mission, the Committee emphasizes “the importance of taking every measure to avoid any kind of discretion or discrimination in the legal mechanisms governing the expropriation or recovery of land or other mechanisms that affect the right to own property”.
   • (d) As regards the structured bodies for bipartite and tripartite social dialogue which need to be established in the country, and the plan of action in consultation with the social partners, involving the establishment of stages and specific time frames for its implementation with the technical assistance of the ILO, as recommended by the Governing Body, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has not yet concluded the process of consultation with different sectors and organizations and requests the Government to ensure that FEDECAMARAS is included in all these processes. The Committee recalls that the conclusions of the mission refer to a round table between the Government and FEDECAMARAS, with the presence of the ILO, and a tripartite dialogue round table, with the participation of the ILO and an independent chairperson. The Committee urges the Government to immediately adopt tangible measures with regard to bipartite and tripartite social dialogue as requested by the high-level tripartite mission. Noting that the Government has not yet provided the requested plan of action, the Committee urges the Government to implement without delay the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission endorsed by the Governing Body and to report thereon. The Committee urges the Government to promote social dialogue and initiatives taken in this area, such as the meeting held between the authorities and FEDECAMARAS in February 2015, and to immediately implement tripartite consultations.
   • (e) The Committee, in line with the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission, urges the Government to take immediate action to create a climate of trust based on respect for employers’ and trade union organizations with a view to promoting solid and stable industrial relations. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this regard. The Committee further requests the Government, as a first step in the right direction that should not pose any problem, to enable a representative of FEDECAMARAS to be appointed to the Higher Labour Council.
   • (f) The Committee notes with concern the new allegations by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS of 27 November 2014 concerning: (i) the detention of Mr Eduardo Garmendia, President of CONINDUSTRIA, for 12 hours; (ii) the shadowing and harassment of Mr Jorge Roig, President of FEDECAMARAS; (iii) an escalation of the verbal attacks on FEDECAMARAS by high-level state officials in the media; and (iv) the adoption by the President of the Republic, in November 2014, of 50 decree laws on important economic and production-related matters without consultation of FEDECAMARAS. The Committee requests the Government to send complete observations on these allegations.
   • (g) The Committee notes with concern new allegations from the IOE and FEDECAMARAS and the observations by the Government of 10 and 12 March 2015 on some of the allegations. The Committee once again requests the Government to complete its response, to indicate the specific allegations against each of the 13 employers or managers from the different sectors who have been detained or placed under precautionary measures by the judicial authorities, and not to limit itself to an indication of the general criminal offences (boycott, hoarding, smuggling, speculation, etc.), and also to provide information on developments in the respective judicial proceedings. The Committee also requests the Government to forward its observations concerning the latest additional information transmitted by the IOE and FEDECAMARAS in their communication dated 19 May 2015. The Committee intends to examine these serious issues in a detailed manner, in full knowledge of the facts, and requests the authorities to consider lifting the precautionary custodial measures imposed on employers and business leaders pending trial.
   • (h) The Committee expresses its deep concern, observing the lack of information and any progress on the previous recommendations and firmly urges the Government to take all the requested measures without delay, including with regard to the new allegations of acts of intimidation and stigmatization against FEDECAMARAS, its leaders and members by the authorities, contained in its communication of 19 May 2015.
   • (i) The Committee draws the special attention of the Governing Body to the extremely serious and urgent nature of this case.

B. New allegations from the complainants

1. 826. In their communication dated 20 May 2016, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS denounce new violations of the principles of freedom of association and the absence of dialogue from the Government.
2. 827. First, the complainants denounce the enactment in December 2015, without consultation with the social partners, 29 national laws, including the law on job security which allows the labour inspection, under the Government’s authority, to determine the qualification of a dismissal as well as the automatic reinstatement of the employee without the guarantee of the right to defence for employers.
3. 828. Second, the complainants allege that through communications Nos 1980 and 1981 from the Ministry of Popular Power for Social Work Process, aimed at FEDECAMARAS on 18 and 24 December 2015 (during the festive period), the Government intended to maintain some semblance of dialogue with FEDECAMARAS when, in reality, the Government does not encourage constructive dialogue and continues to take measures without due consultations. In communication No. 1980 of 18 December 2015, the Government requested FEDECAMARAS to substantiate its application for the annulment of the LOTTT, to which FEDECAMARAS replied in specifying, by letter dated 6 January 2016, that it had not called for the repeal of the law, but referred to the document entitled “Commitment to Freedom: for a regulatory framework for a better future”, approved by the 71st Annual Meeting of FEDECAMARAS – which had already been submitted to the Government – that contained comments on the rules governing employers, including some provisions of the LOTTT, since the latter was approved without consulting employers and workers. In communication No. 1981 of 24 December 2015, the Government declared reiterating its request to FEDECAMARAS, made during previous meetings of 8 and 14 October 2015, to submit proposals on wage policy that would be evaluated in 2016, on the regulations implementing the LOTTT and on job security. However, the complainants allege that the day after the meeting of 14 October and prior to the sending of their communication, the President of the Republic had already announced to the media a new increase in the minimum wage and other legislative reforms on tax, exchange rate and pricing, as well as the new law on job security, without engaging due consultation. Consequently, the complainants allege that the intended effective dialogue does not exist, that the alleged inquiries are made untimely when the measure to consult on has already been adopted or announced, and that the Government has not made up any workplan, nor has it engaged in serious and comprehensive discussions on labour issues, as requested by the supervisory bodies of the ILO.
4. 829. Third, the complainants denounce the unilateral adoption without prior consultation of the Decree of the President of the Republic declaring a state of emergency for economic hardship, suspending constitutional guarantees on economic matters and granting extraordinary powers to the Government, in a context where the President cannot exercise legislative power without the prior consent of the opposition majority in the National Assembly. The complainants denounce the fact that the bases of the Decree put the blame for the crisis on an economic war allegedly led by FEDECAMARAS and national entrepreneurs with foreign governments and international organizations. This Decree, to which FEDECAMARAS expressed adverse position, could justify the takeover of some companies and inventories. The complainants add that although the National Assembly, having engaged in a dialogue with various business and labour sectors including FEDECAMARAS, issued a decision disapproving the Decree, the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the validity of the latter. The complainants allege that with such decision the Supreme Court undermined the separation of powers and the role of the National Assembly, exceeding its mandate by declaring, without having been asked, the nullity and annulment for unconstitutionality of article 33 of the Organic Law on the state of emergency (which provides for the omission of any decision and the termination of the instance in the event of disapproval of a state of emergency decree by the National Assembly). The complainants consider that the Government consolidates a model of autocratic State, at a time when the country requires mechanisms for effective social dialogue to address the crisis – to which the technical assistance of the ILO could be of great value, but the Government refuses to receive such assistance in the terms recommended in the report of the tripartite high-level mission of 2014. With regard to the establishment of the National Council for a Productive Economy on 19 January 2016, the complainants state that, although some businesses representing the various economic sectors represented in FEDECAMARAS were incorporated under their personal capacity to the Council, there is neither an institutional representation of FEDECAMARAS nor the participation of independent trade unions in the Council. And yet there has been no agreement in the sectorial working groups of the Council which would permit to reach concrete solutions.
5. 830. Fourth, the complainants denounce new acts of intimidation towards FEDECAMARAS, contrary to the recent findings of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the 104th International Labour Conference, which urged the Government to immediately cease all acts of interference, aggression and stigmatization against FEDECAMARAS, its affiliated organizations and their leaders. In particular, the complainants indicate that, on 8 December 2015, the President of the Republic stated publicly that FEDECAMARAS requested the repeal of the LOTTT, the Organic Law on Fair Prices and other regulations that protect people insinuating that the opposition parties and FEDECAMARAS hate the workers. The complainants further allege that, on 30 April and 3 May 2016, the President of the Republic made accusations of intimidation against FEDECAMARAS and delivered statements instigating hatred against the institution, presenting the leaders as enemies of the workers. The complainants also refer to additional allegations of stigmatizing attacks raised in other cases before the Committee.
6. 831. Fifth, the organizations denounce the approval of a new increase in the minimum wage and the value of the socialist Cestaticket in February 2016, without consulting with FEDECAMARAS and the statement by the President of the Republic that he was not willing to engage in a dialogue with the organization.
7. 832. Sixth, the complainants denounce the failure of the Government to implement the road map proposed to the Governing Body of the ILO in March 2016, and they indicate that, at the date of their submission to the Committee, there has not been any meeting between the Government and FEDECAMARAS.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 833. In its communication of 9 October 2015, the Government sent its observations with regard to the Committee’s aforementioned recommendations.
2. 834. As regards recommendation (a) (allegation of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups or organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, its leaders and affiliated companies), the Government denies that there have been any attacks, persecution, harassment, intimidation or stigmatization against FEDECAMARAS. The Government indicates that, although the complainant organizations accuse the Government of threats of persecution and imprisonment, no FEDECAMARAS members are being detained or persecuted, even though the organization is responsible for actions that have created the climate of intimidation leading to the death of hundreds of people and serious harm to the nation. The Government indicates that some of these actions included participating in, funding and carrying out a coup d’état, an illegal work stoppage by the employers, and sabotage of the oil industry, and it indicates that it has responded to these violent and continued actions by FEDECAMARAS, considering them not to be business-related but motivated by political interests that are opposed to Venezuelan democracy.
3. 835. As regards recommendation (b) (allegations of acts of violence and threats against FEDECAMARAS and its employer members, specifically as regards the abduction and mistreatment of FEDECAMARAS leaders), the Government indicates that, as regards the acts carried out against Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz, the trial of Mr Antonio José Silvia Moyega was concluded on 18 September 2015 with him being sentenced to 14 years and eight months’ imprisonment for the crimes of brief abduction, aggravated theft of a motor vehicle, criminal conspiracy and attempted homicide in the context of aggravated robbery against the victims. The Government indicates that the convicted person is being held in custody. The Government adds that it was demonstrated that it was a chance act perpetrated by a group of criminals and that it was not carried out against the victims because they were FEDECAMARAS employers’ leaders. The Government adds that it will forward any additional information received from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in relation to these cases.
4. 836. As regards recommendation (c) (allegations of the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders), the Government again indicates that in all cases of land recoveries, where the persons who occupy the land are able to demonstrate that they have made improvements to it, they are entitled to the respective compensation. The Government adds that, in recent years, under the policy for the recovery of agricultural land, many recoveries have been carried out on illegally occupied idle land where the occupants were not able to prove ownership, highlighting that only a minute proportion of the recoveries could have affected FEDECAMARAS leaders (the reported cases account for 0.74 per cent of the lands recovered). The Government considers that this demonstrates that it is not a case of retaliation against any employer. As regards Mr Eduardo Gómez Sígala, Mr Rafael Marcial Garmendia and Mr Manuel Cipriano Heredia, the Government again indicates that it was not a case of expropriation but that the lands were recovered because they were idle and the occupiers were not able to demonstrate their ownership; due process was followed and the regulations were complied with (in the case of Mr Garmendia, the recovery was limited to only part of the lands that he occupied, since he had only been able to demonstrate his ownership of another part, which is still in his possession). As regards the cases of Mr Egildo Luján and Mr Vicente Brito, the Government again indicates that the National Land Institute reported that its archives contain no information on any recoveries or expropriations under the names of these leaders.
5. 837. As regards recommendation (d) (bipartite and tripartite social dialogue), the Government reiterates that social dialogue in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is conceived from a broad and inclusive perspective and that participation mechanisms should not be limited to the most representative organizations but should also include the whole spectrum of employers and workers. It indicates that consultation and participation is a constitutional mandate exercised through broad, inclusive, participatory and proactive social dialogue. It reports that consultations are carried out at all levels through participatory, inclusive social dialogue, even though certain organizations seek to exclude other organizations, exclude themselves or fail to attend consultations and working groups as a political strategy, which has not prevented hundreds of member employers’ organizations from participating. The Government highlights, as a starting point, the Economic Conference for Peace, in which all the economic and social sectors were called upon to take part and in which 14 different working groups were set up, with the participation of the Government, workers and employers from the whole country with the aim of boosting the national economy. In this regard, the Government indicates that in 2015 the Presidential Commission of Economic Affairs was established as one of the outcomes of the economic working groups, to boost the export of non-traditional products. Furthermore, the Government highlights the work carried out by the regional governments, which have organized many events to promote productive development, bringing together hundreds of employers. The Government also emphasizes that it has used the National Assembly as a platform to encourage meetings with national employers to promote the reactivation of the economy. While highlighting these examples of broad, inclusive, participatory and proactive social dialogue, the Government indicates that the leaders of FEDECAMARAS have themselves gone so far as to indicate their appreciation for this work, according to their statements in the national media. As examples of the work carried out with the employers’ sector, with the participation of many enterprises, the Government draws attention to the International Chocolate Fair (October 2015) and the Sustainable Venezuela World Expo (September 2015).
6. 838. Furthermore, in its communication of 30 October 2015, the Government forwards a letter of 23 October 2015 sent by the People’s Ministry of Labour to the President of FEDECAMARAS. It refers to two meetings held with FEDECAMARAS and indicates the Government’s willingness to enter into broad social dialogue and to establish mechanisms that will give FEDECAMARAS a larger role in the discussion with a view to developing labour policies and labour-related legislation and regulations, requesting in particular the submission of proposals for the development of wage policies and of new implementing regulations for the Basic Act on Labour and Workers (LOTTT).
7. 839. As regards recommendation (e) (actions to create a climate of trust, including the appointment of a representative of FEDECAMARAS to the Higher Labour Council), the Government indicates that the Higher Labour Council was a body created to monitor the implementation of the LOTTT, and the transitional provisions of the LOTTT established that it would cease its functions three years after the approval of the act. Having approved the LOTT in May 2012, the Government indicates that the LOTTT expired in May 2015 and was no longer applicable.
8. 840. As regards recommendation (f) (allegations concerning detention, shadowing and harassment of leaders, escalation of verbal attacks and adoption of decree-laws without prior consultation of FEDECAMARAS), the Government provides the following information:
   • (i) As regards the supposed detention of the former president of the Venezuelan Confederation of Industrialists (CONINDUSTRIA), Mr Eduardo Garmendia, the Government reports that he was not detained but that, on the contrary, he made his own way to the headquarters of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN), in compliance with a summons that he had received to answer questions on statements he had made in a national newspaper on how the outbreak of chikungunya would affect productivity (the Government indicates that the statements had been made without evidence, as he recognized). The Government points out that Mr Garmendia was treated courteously by the SEBIN officials who questioned him, and it requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of this matter.
   • (ii) The Government also indicates that no organization is currently shadowing or harassing former FEDECAMARAS president Mr Jorge Roig; it therefore requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of the allegation.
   • (iii) The Government denies the allegation of an escalation of the alleged attacks against FEDECAMARAS and indicates that there are no attacks or instances of persecution, harassment, intimidation or stigmatization against FEDECAMARAS, its leaders and members.
   • (iv) As regards the alleged adoption by the President of the Republic, in November 2014, of 50 decree-laws on important economic and production-related issues without consulting FEDECAMARAS, the Government indicates that the discussion of laws and bills comes within the competence of the National Assembly and that national socio-economic policy comes within the competence of the Executive, in coordination with the other branches of government, without limiting the mechanisms for consultation and broad social dialogue that already exist and are implemented with the various sectors. Furthermore, the Government again reports to the Committee that article 236(8) of the Constitution grants the President of the Republic the possibility, subject to authorization under an enabling act, of issuing decrees with the force of law, indicating that enabling acts must be approved by three-fifths of the members of the National Assembly, in order to establish guidelines, objectives and the framework for matters delegated to the President of the Republic.
9. 841. As regards recommendation (g) (allegations of the detention of employers or leaders), the Government makes the following observations:
   • (i) In the case of the “Día a Día Practimercados” supermarket chain, the Government reports that on 2 February 2015 an inspection of the supermarket chain was carried out by a presidential commission and the Office of the National Superintendent for the Defence of Socio-Economic Rights (SUNDDE). It found irregularities in the distribution of goods, as a result of which Mr Manuel Andrés Morales Ordosgoitti and Mr Tadeo Arriechi, director-general and legal representative of the chain, respectively, are currently the subject of an investigation procedure by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the hearing for which was deferred on the request of their private defence.
   • (ii) As regards the directors of the Corporación Cárnica company, the Government reports that, on 30 January 2015, SUNDDE officials visited the establishment following complaints that it was selling goods at excessive prices. Irregularities were established during the inspection, leading to the seizure of more than 44 tonnes of hoarded meat products. As a result of this situation, the Government indicates that Ms Tania Carolina Salinas, Ms Delia Isabel Ribas, Ms Anllerlin Guadalupe López Graterol, Mr Ernesto Luis Arenas Pulgar and Mr Yolman Javier Valderrama Santiago are currently being investigated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
   • (iii) As regards the case of the FARMATODO pharmacy chain, the Government indicates that even though irregular situations affecting users had been detected, a hearing was held in the competent court for the review of the precautionary measure against Mr Pedro Luis Angarita and Mr Agustín Álvarez, who are managers of the pharmacy network, in which the Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a decree for their unconditional release. The Government therefore requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of this allegation.
   • (iv) The Government indicates that there is no record of investigations against the president of the National Association of Supermarkets and Self-Service Stores (ANSA), Mr Luis Rodríguez, whose freedom is unrestricted. The Government therefore requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of this allegation. It adds that, on 2 February 2015, an interview was held at SEBIN headquarters, after Mr Rodriguez had expressed his wish to provide information on the “Día a Día Practimercados” case.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 842. As regards recommendation (a) from its previous examination of the case (allegations of stigmatization and intimidation by the Bolivarian authorities, groups and organizations directed against FEDECAMARAS, its member organizations, its leaders and affiliated companies), the Committee notes with deep regret that the Government is again using its reply to accuse the complainant organization and that it gives no indication that it has taken any measures to prevent acts and statements of stigmatization and intimidation, as the Committee had recommended. The Committee is therefore bound to reiterate its previous recommendation and urges the Government to take the requested measures without delay. A climate of violence, coercion and threats of any type aimed at trade union leaders and their families does not encourage the free exercise and full enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in Conventions Nos 87 and 98. All States have the undeniable duty to promote and defend a social climate where respect of the law reigns as the only way of guaranteeing respect for and protection of life [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 58].
2. 843. As regards recommendation (b) from its previous examination of the case (allegations of violence and threats against FEDECAMARAS and its member employers, specifically the abduction and mistreatment of FEDECAMARAS leaders Mr Noel Álvarez, Mr Luis Villegas, Mr Ernesto Villamil and Ms Albis Muñoz in 2010), the Committee notes that one of the accused, Mr Antonio José Silva Moyega, was sentenced to 14 years and eight months’ imprisonment for the crimes of brief abduction, aggravated theft of a motor vehicle, criminal conspiracy and attempted homicide in the context of aggravated robbery against the victims. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that it has been demonstrated that it was a criminal act which was not committed against the victims because they were FEDECAMARAS leaders. The Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the aforementioned ruling and to continue providing additional information concerning any penalties imposed on the perpetrators of these crimes and any compensation to FEDECAMARAS and to the leaders concerned for damage caused by those illegal acts. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations concerning the points raised by FEDECAMARAS with regard to the bomb attack on its headquarters on 26 February 2008. In this regard, the Committee recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed; that a climate of violence, such as that surrounding the murder or disappearance of trade union leaders, or one in which the premises and property of workers and employers are attacked, constitutes a serious obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights; such acts require severe measures to be taken by the authorities; that the killing, disappearance or serious injury of trade union leaders and trade unionists requires the institution of independent judicial inquiries in order to shed full light, at the earliest date, on the facts and the circumstances in which such actions occurred and in this way, to the extent possible, determine where responsibilities lie, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of similar events; and that the inviolability of trade union premises is a civil liberty which is essential to the exercise of trade union rights [see Digest, op. cit., paras 43, 46, 48 and 178].
3. 844. As regards recommendation (c) from its previous examination of the case (allegations of the seizure of farms, land recoveries, occupations and expropriations to the detriment of current or former employers’ leaders), observing that the Government reiterates previously submitted information and deeply regretting the absence of any indication of progress, the Committee reiterates its recommendation and urges the Government to take the requested measures without delay. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the confiscation of trade union property by the authorities, without a court order, constitutes an infringement of the right of trade unions to own property and undue interference in trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 190].
4. 845. As regards recommendation (d) from its previous examination of the case (bipartite and tripartite social dialogue), the Government reiterates the information already provided on previous occasions concerning the broad, inclusive, participatory and proactive social dialogue that exists in the country, referring to certain recent initiatives in this regard. The Committee takes due note of the communication sent to the president of FEDECAMARAS and welcomes the provision that it makes to give FEDECAMARAS a larger role in the discussion with a view to developing labour policies and labour-related legislation and regulations, requesting in particular the submission of proposals for the development of wage policies and the new LOTTT regulations. However, the Committee observes that the Government does not provide any indications concerning the implementation of the plan of action recommended by the Governing Body. Regretting the lack of information and progress in this regard, the Committee reiterates its recommendation and urges the Government to take the requested measures without delay.
5. 846. As regards recommendation (e) from its previous examination of the case (actions to create a climate of trust, including the appointment of a representative of FEDECAMARAS to the Higher Labour Council), the Committee notes with regret that the Government merely indicates that the Higher Labour Council ceased its functions in May 2015. The Committee has emphasized the importance it attaches to the promotion of dialogue and consultations on matters of mutual interest between the public authorities and the most representative occupational organizations of the sector involved [see Digest, op. cit., para. 1067]. Regretting the lack of information and expressing its deep concern at the lack of progress, the Committee regrets that the Government has not appointed a representative of FEDECAMARAS to the Higher Labour Council or the social dialogue body fulfilling its functions, and urges the Government to do so as soon as possible.
6. 847. As regards recommendation (f) from its previous examination of the case (allegations concerning detention, shadowing and harassment of leaders, escalation of verbal attacks and adoption of decree-laws without prior consultation of FEDECAMARAS), the Committee notes, firstly, the Government’s statements to the effect that: (i) the president of CONINDUSTRIA, Mr Garmendia, was not detained but summoned, he made his own way to SEBIN headquarters, and he was treated courteously by the officials who questioned him regarding his statements on how the outbreak of chikungunya would affect productivity; and (ii) no organization is shadowing or harassing former FEDECAMARAS president Mr Jorge Roig. Noting the contradiction between the Government’s reply and the allegations made by the complainants, the Committee invites the latter to provide the Government and the Committee with additional information, including any evidence they may have, and it urges the Government to carry out any relevant further investigation on the basis of such information.
7. 848. Secondly, the Committee notes the Government’s statement denying the escalation of verbal attacks and indicating that there are no attacks or instances of persecution, harassment, intimidation or stigmatization against FEDECAMARAS, its leaders and members. However, the Committee recalls that throughout its examination of this case it has been witness to many serious accusations levelled against FEDECAMARAS by the Government, and it has noted with great concern the many allegations of attacks against this organization, emphasizing that all the allegations create a climate of intimidation against employers’ organizations and their leaders, which is incompatible with the requirements of Convention No. 87. In this regard, the Committee regrets that it is bound to recall once again the principle whereby the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 44] and it firmly urges the Government to take the measures that are necessary both in this regard and to promote social dialogue based on respect.
8. 849. Thirdly, as regards the alleged adoption by the President of the Republic, in November 2014, of 50 decree-laws on important economic and production-related issues without consulting FEDECAMARAS, the Committee notes with regret that the Government merely repeats information that it has already provided on the constitutional legal basis empowering the President of the Republic to issue decrees with the force of law, without making any observation concerning their relevance for or impact on social dialogue. The Committee is bound to point out once again that, over the years, when examining various complaints relating to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, it has noted the use in many cases of enabling legislation by the Legislative Assembly empowering the President of the Republic to adopt many decrees and laws that affect the interests of workers’ and employers’ organizations without a parliamentary debate being held [see, in particular, Case No. 2698, 368th Report, para. 1020]. The Committee underlines that it is important that consultations take place in good faith, confidence and mutual respect, and that the parties have sufficient time to express their views and discuss them in full with a view to reaching a suitable compromise. The Government must also ensure that it attaches the necessary importance to agreements reached between workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee has also emphasized the value of consulting organizations of employers and workers during the preparation and application of legislation which affects their interests, and has drawn the attention of governments to the importance of prior consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations before the adoption of any legislation in the field of labour law [see Digest, op. cit., paras 1071, 1072 and 1073]. Deeply deploring the persistence of this situation, the Committee firmly expects that full consultations will be held in the future with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, including FEDECAMARAS, on draft legislation covering labour or social matters that affect their interests and those of their members.
9. 850. As regards recommendation (g) from its previous examination of the case (detention of employers or leaders), in relation to the case of the supermarket chain “Día a Día Practimercados”, the Committee notes the Government’s statements indicating that, having found irregularities in the distribution of goods in this supermarket chain, Mr Manuel Andrés Morales Ordosgoitti and Mr Tadeo Arriechi, director-general and legal representative, respectively, are currently undergoing investigation. Furthermore, as regards the case of the directors of the Corporación Cárnica company, the Committee notes that Ms Tania Carolina Salinas, Ms Delia Isabel Ribas, Ms Anllerlin Guadalupe López Graterol, Mr Ernesto Luis Arenas Pulgar and Mr Yolman Javier Valderrama Santiago are currently being investigated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Deeply regretting that no further information has been provided as requested regarding the allegations against these seven individuals under investigation, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether or not they are subject to precautionary or detention measures, to indicate the specific allegations against them, and to provide up-to-date information on the status of the procedures against them. The Committee recalls that the arrest of trade unionists and leaders of employers’ organizations may create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the normal development of trade union activities; and that in cases involving the arrest, detention or sentencing of a trade union official, the Committee, taking the view that individuals have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty, has considered that it was incumbent upon the government to show that the measures it had taken were in no way occasioned by the trade union activities of the individual concerned [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 67 and 94].
10. 851. As regards the case of the FARMATODO pharmacy chain, in which, according to the Government, Mr Pedro Luis Angarita and Mr Agustín Álvarez were released unconditionally, the Committee requests the Government to confirm whether the charges against these individuals have been dropped or, if not, to indicate the specific allegations against them, and to provide information on the progress of the respective judicial proceedings. In view of the complainants’ allegation that four of the owners and managers of this pharmacy chain had been arrested, the Committee urges the Government to indicate whether any other individuals are currently under arrest or trial and it invites the complainants to provide the Government and the Committee with any detailed information that they may have on this matter.
11. 852. As regards the case of the president of the National Association of Supermarkets and Self-Service Stores (ANSA) and of the president of the Venezuelan Association of Clinics and Hospitals, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that they were both only interviewed at SEBIN headquarters, that there are no restrictions on their freedom, and that the Government therefore requests the Committee not to pursue its examination of these allegations. Noting the contradiction between the Government’s reply and the allegations made by the complainants, the Committee invites the latter to provide the Government and the Committee with additional information on this matter, including any available evidence, and urges the Government, on the basis of such information, to carry out any relevant additional investigations and to keep it informed in this regard.
12. 853. The Committee notes with great concern the new allegations of the IOE and FEDECAMARAS dated 20 May 2016, in which it is alleged: (i) the enactment in December 2015, without consultation with the social partners, of 29 national laws, including the law on job security; (ii) semblance of dialogue through communications to FEDECAMARAS by the Government, when it has already announced or adopted the measures concerned; (iii) the unilateral promulgation without prior consultation of the Decree of the President of the Republic declaring a state of emergency for economic hardship; (iv) new acts of intimidation against FEDECAMARAS; (v) approval without consultation of a new increase in the minimum wage and the value of the socialist Cestaticket in February 2016; and (vi) failure by the Government to implement the road map presented to the Governing Body of the ILO in March 2016. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on these allegations without delay so that the Committee can examine all the relevant elements.