This report on the respect of internationally recognised core labour standards in Uruguay is one of the series the ICFTU is producing in accordance with the Ministerial Declaration adopted at the first Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) (Singapore, 9-13 December 1996) and endorsed at the second WTO Ministerial Conference (Geneva, 18-20 May 1998) in which the Ministers stated: "We renew our commitment to the observance of internationally recognised core labour standards." These standards were further upheld in the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work adopted by the 174 member countries of the ILO at the International Labour Conference in June 1998.

An estimated 12 percent of the work force in Uruguay is organised in trade unions. There is one sole trade union centre in Uruguay, the PIT-CNT.

In 1954, Uruguay ratified both ILO Convention No. 87 (1948), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention and ILO Convention No. 98 (1949), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention.

The Constitution provides for freedom of association in trade unions. However, there is no law prohibiting anti-union discrimination, although in 1993 an executive decree established fines for employers engaging in anti-union activities. Trade union organisers are still dismissed and the companies concerned are often able to succeed in fabricating explanations which avoid the penalties under the law.

A long-running example of anti-union discrimination was provided in the multinational company Lloyds Bank (BLSA) Ltd. Such discrimination began in 1985 when Lloyds Bank granted a salary increase of 6 per cent only to its non-union members. Following collective action by the Association of Banking Employees of Uruguay (AEBU), the company agreed to extend this salary increases to union members. However, during a further period of considerable conflict in the banking sector while the collective agreement was being renegotiated in 1990, Lloyds Bank provided bonuses exclusively to non-union member staff, deliberately excluding workers who were union members.

The union then took legal action. Initially the General Inspectorate of Labour and Social Security fined the company for anti-union discriminatory practices, as well as for only nominating non-union members for executive posts. However Lloyds Bank appealed and following several years of administrative delays, in 1996 the Executive Power overturned the ruling.

The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association concluded that this case clearly constitutes an act of anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that there is no repetition of such anti-union discrimination.

Furthermore, over six years have passed since the trade union’s legal complaint was initially lodged and the AEBU has expressed its expectation that, as the Administrative Court dealing with this ruling does not specialise in collective labour law and this is a complex matter relating to anti-union conduct by a multinational enterprise, it will take many more years to reach its conclusion. In this regard, the Committee on Freedom of Association stated in 1997 that, "cases concerning anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98 should be examined rapidly so that the necessary remedies can be really effective… an excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination constitutes a denial of justice." In other words, such unduly long procedures constitute, in effect, a denial of the right to freedom of association.

The Constitution provides workers with the right to strike, which is generally respected. However, the government may legally compel workers to work during a strike if they perform an essential service which, if interrupted, "could cause a grave prejudice or risk, provoking suffering to part or all of the society." In August 1995, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security refused to allow the health workers’ union to undertake a partial strike at the Perses SA medical assistance company, on the grounds that the services provided by the enterprise were essential. However, the union had taken steps to ensure that a minimum service would be provided in cases of genuine emergency. Consequently, the strike would have covered workers such as nursing auxiliaries, the maintenance workshop, the accounts department and the administrative department, which could hardly be considered essential services according to the ILO’s definition of occupations "where there is existence of a clear and imminent threat to the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population".

II. Discrimination and Equal Remuneration

In 1989, Uruguay ratified both ILO Convention No. 100 (1951), Equal Remuneration and ILO Convention No. 111 (1958), Discrimination (Employment and Occupation).

Women in Uruguay constitute 40 % of the work force, compared to 31% in 1980. The Constitution and the law prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or disability. Despite these provisions, discrimination persists. Women have equality under the law, but in practice they face discrimination stemming from traditional attitudes and practices. In the textiles sector, wage scales are specifically differentiated according to sex. In 1998, the PIT-CNT trade union centre made a complaint to the ILO concerning discrimination on the basis of sex in the National Board of Electrical Power Stations and Distribution (UTE), whereby because different social security standards are applied for women, women workers receive smaller amounts than men when they collect voluntary redundancy benefits.

In February 1997, the Government approved Decree No. 37/97 to implement Act No. 16.045 of June 1989 for equality in the workplace, which had previously not been enforced.

The country's black minority, estimated at 5 percent of the population, continues to face discrimination, although there is a lack of official statistics. However, some indication of the extent of the problem can be gauged from the fact that the latest (1993) report puts the number of black university graduates at just 65 people, out of a total black population of some 150,000 - a far lower percentage than for the population at large. The ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has requested the government of Uruguay to provide further information concerning possible discrimination in employment on the bases of race, colour, national extraction or social origin.

III. Child Labour

The Government provides free, compulsory primary education, which is completed by 95 percent of children - one of the highest rates in the developing world. However, many children work as street vendors in the expanding informal sector or in the agrarian sector, which are generally less strictly regulated and where pay is lower. In its most recent report on Uruguay, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child commented that measures to prevent child labour in Uruguay were insufficient and drew attention to the unequal access to services and opportunities of such vulnerable groups as poor children, black children, street children, the disabled, child workers and victims of ill-treatment. The UN Committee recommended raising the minimum age for access to employment, in conformity with the Convention and with International Labour Organisation Convention No. 138, with further technical assistance from the ILO on matters such as education and vocational training.

The government of Uruguay has emphasised its commitment to tackling the problem of child labour, through a series of measures including labour inspections to check the age of young workers; programmes directed at the population between 15 and 24 years of age which had been forced to drop out of school, with the assistance of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB); preventive action to extend school and preschool education nationwide and ensure its accessibility to poorer families; opportunities so that disadvantaged children forced to drop out of school can resume their education; and enhancing teacher training.

IV. Forced Labour

Uruguay ratified ILO Convention No. 29 (1930), the Forced Labour Convention, in 1995 and ILO Convention No. 105 (1957), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention in 1968.

International Labour Organisation (ILO), Reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 1993-98.

World Bank, World Development Report, 1998.