ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Croatia (Ratification: 1991)

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee notes the comments made by the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (UATUC), the Independent Trade Union of the Croatian Electrical Power Industry and other workers' organizations as well as the Government's reply in this respect.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. 1. The UATUC alleges that although the Act respecting labour relations lays down sanctions against employers as legal entities, in practice these sanctions are not being applied since the complaints brought against employers have been rejected on the grounds that employers, as legal entities, are not liable for petty offences. The Government states that legislation respecting petty offences does not recognize the responsibility of legal entities. Nevertheless, the Government points out that supervision of the application of the labour legislation falls within the competence of the labour inspectorate and that employers have been and are continuing to be punished for non-compliance of this legislation under the Labour Inspection Act. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Labour Act establishes protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference which are accompanied by penal sanctions and fines ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 kunas (section 228 of the Labour Act). In this respect, the Committee considers that the labour legislation provides sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference.

2. The UATUC states that there have been certain instances where the authorities or employers have favoured a workers' organization to the detriment of other organizations and cites the example of the Labud enterprise, whose management favoured the Croatian Association of Trade Unions (HUS). The UATUC also states that the Zagreb local authorities had made financial contributions to trade union activities, one example of which is the International Labour Day celebrations organized by the URSH trade union confederation. The Committee notes that UATUC has not provided specific information, without which the Committee is unable to determine whether, in the above instances, the authorities or the employers committed acts of interference and violated Article 2 of the Convention. Lacking such information, the Committee cannot proceed with its examination of these questions.

Article 4. 1. The UATUC alleges that under section 186 of the Labour Act, an employer may avoid collective bargaining and obstruct the use of collective bargaining machinery by making use of right-wing trade unions. The UATUC states that where a trade union refuses to take a collective trade union position, the Labour Act provides for a ballot to be held. However, since the Act does not lay down the procedure to follow in the event of a ballot or who may participate in the ballot, the ballot can not take place. The Government states that: (i) all trade unions in Croatia agreed to the provisions laid down in section 186 and stipulated the Government's acceptance of this provision as a condition of the enactment of the Labour Act; (ii) section 186 may be applied in practice if interpreted correctly; (iii) if all trade unions represented in the bargaining unit are dissatisfied with the negotiations and do not wish to accept the collective agreement, the employer may conclude the agreement with those trade unions who wish to sign the agreement. The Committee notes that section 186 provides that: (1) a collective bargaining unit may be established if a trade union or a higher-level organization is present in the territory in which a collective agreement is to be concluded; (2) this bargaining unit shall be composed of representatives of those trade unions who shall stipulate the number and the composition of the collective bargaining unit; (3) if trade unions are unable to agree on the composition of the collective bargaining unit, the number of representatives of each trade union participating in the bargaining unit shall be established in accordance with the number of votes cast for each trade union; (4) all trade union members who are active in a territory for which a collective agreement is to be negotiated shall participate in the ballot; (5) the rules and the criteria for electing members to the collective bargaining unit shall be established by a consensus of all the trade unions and if no agreement exists when the elections take place, it shall fall upon the Economic and Social Council to do so; (6) the parties concerned may decide that the members of the collective bargaining units shall not be elected by ballot and shall authorize an industrial tribunal to issue a decision in this regard. Following its examination of section 186 of the Labour Act, the Committee considers that this provision is in conformity with the Convention. Moreover, in its previous report the Government had stated that only bargaining units were established within the collective bargaining framework in respect of public servants and employees. Finally, in the event that an employer uses right-wing trade unions in the collective bargaining process, national legislation lays down adequate sanctions as stated above.

2. The UATUC states that as a consequence of the interpretation given by the Ministry of Labour on 12 February 1996 to all the collective agreements concluded with the Croatian Chamber of Commerce or with its departments these collective agreements were declared null and void as of 1 January 1996, due to the fact that the Chamber of Commerce is an employers' association in which affiliation was compulsory. Consequently, no new agreements have been concluded between the trade union and the relatively small employers' association, which has resulted in a number of trade union organizations petitioning the courts for the recognition of the rights guaranteed in the collective agreements in question. The Government states, in this respect, that: (1) the decision issued by the Ministry of Labour refers to collective agreements concluded by the Croatian Chamber of Commerce as employer -- which did not contain an expiration clause; (2) the Chamber of Commerce was established by law and membership was obligatory; (3) only employers' associations who adhere to the principle of freedom of association and who comply with international standards and labour legislation may conclude an agreement; and (4) several collective agreements have been concluded with the Chamber of Commerce and negotiations are under way with a view to concluding new collective agreements. Under these circumstances and taking into account the principle of freedom of association which applies to both workers' and employers' organizations and the new agreements which have been concluded by the Government in distinct areas of activities, giving rise to negotiations to conclude other agreements, the Committee shall not proceed with its examination of these questions.

Moreover, the Committee notes that the Independent Trade Union of the Electrical Industry of Croatia and other workers' organizations have submitted comments with regard to the application of the Convention in respect of the restrictions on the possibility of bargaining collectively to obtain wage increases in state enterprises and corporations, by virtue of the adoption, on 30 December 1997, of the decision respecting compulsory instructions for the implementation of a remuneration policy, published in the Official Gazette No. 142/97. The Committee requests the Government to comment in this respect.

Finally, the Committee proposes to examine the remaining questions raised in its observation of 1997 during its next meeting within the framework of the regular reporting cycle.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer