Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). The Committee further notes the observations submitted by the ICFTU in its communication dated 10 August 2006, concerning the Labour Law of 2005 and alleging cases of anti-union discrimination against leaders and members of the UGS Nezavisnost trade union and denial of collective bargaining rights. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it had requested the Government to provide information on measures taken to investigate the allegation of anti-union discrimination against members and officials of the Nezavisnost national trade union centre submitted by the ICFTU. The Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations on the above ICFTU comments, as well as on the outcome of the investigations into all alleged cases of anti-union discrimination.

2. Article 4 of the Convention. Representativeness of workers’ and employers’ organizations. In its previous observation, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether appeals can be brought before the courts against the Minister’s decision on the issue of the representativeness of employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that section 231(4) of the new Labour Law allows for an appeal against the decision of the Minister to the Supreme Court.

The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information in respect of its previous request to amend section 233 of the Labour Law so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations which previously failed to obtain recognition, or a new organization, may request a new decision on the issue of representativeness after a reasonable period has elapsed, and may do so sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the applicable collective agreement. The Committee notes that the Serbian and Montenegrin Employers’ Association (UPSCG) has criticized this provision in its communication of 7 April 2005. The Committee once again points out that a time period of three years before another organization could seek recognition as the most representative, imposed by section 233, is an excessively long period of time. It once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures so as to amend this legislative provision. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observations, it had requested the Government to lift the 10 per cent requirement for employers’ organizations to engage in collective bargaining. The Committee notes that section 222 of the Labour Code (2005) still requires employers’ associations to represent 10 per cent of the total number of employers and employ 15 per cent of the total number of employees for exercising collective bargaining rights. While noting the Government’s statement that, according to section 249, if no employers’ association fulfils the representativeness criteria, an association agreement might be concluded with a trade union for participation in the collective agreement, the Committee observes that the UPSCG has criticized these provisions. The Committee considers that these two provisions combined together unduly generate confusion and could obstruct collective bargaining. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to lower the mentioned percentage requirements, which it considers excessively high.

The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures without delay in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.