All Comments

Home Page | Français | Español |

ILO is a United Nations Agency

RSS Feed | Newsroom | Contact us

NORMLEX

Information System on International Labour Standards

Instruments
Key documents
Ratification of ILO Conventions
Supervising the application of International Labour Standards: Supervision by country; Search comments by the supervisory bodies; Complaint procedures; Freedom of association cases; Representations (Art. 24); Commission of Inquiry (Art. 26)
Regular reporting
Country profiles
Comparatives
Maritime Labour Convention (2006)

MLC, 2006

NATLEX *new look*
National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights

LEGOSH
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation

EPLex
Employment protection legislation database

Compendium of court decisions

NORMLEX Home > Country profiles > > Comments > All Comments

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Slovenia (Ratification: 1992)

Display in: French - Spanish

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the information on the practical implementation of Convention provided by the Government, in particular concerning the Collective Actions Act, effective from October 2017, which authorizes certain collective actions against discrimination, as set out in Article 57. This enables the Equality Ombudsman and certain NGOs to represent large, undefined groups to stop or prevent discrimination, although it remains unused. In addition, the law grants collective powers to workers to combat discrimination in employment.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that legislation expressly prohibits anti-union discrimination on both the grounds of trade union membership and participation in trade union activities. The Committee also notes note of the Government’s indication that the Protection against Discrimination Act (ZvarD) and the Employment Relations Act (ZDR-1) in Slovenia provide substantial safeguards. Specifically, Article 90 of the ZDR-1 offers explicit protection for both unionized and non-unionized workers engaging in trade union activities or strikes, outlining unacceptable grounds for employment termination. This includes participation in trade union activities outside of work hours, involvement in union activities with the employer’s consent, and lawful strike participation. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s statement that the Slovenian legal framework upholds the rights of workers to become trade union members and participate in trade union activities without fear of reprisal and that, so far, there have been no identified problems or claims for legislative change in this area. The Committee takes due note of these elements and trusts that an adequate protection against anti-union discrimination is granted to workers that may engage in trade union activities without being formally affiliated to a union. The Committee invites the Government to provide information about any labour inspection or judicial decision in this regard.

In its previous comment, the Committee had invited the Government to collect information on the number of complaints specifically related to anti-union discrimination, the outcome of investigations and court proceedings, and their average duration. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indications that the Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia (IRSD) does not specifically categorize violations based on the personal reasons that led to discrimination infractions, and that following an analysis of cases from 2018 to 2022, no violations concerning trade union membership or engagement in union activities were identified. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s indication that between 1 June 2017 and 31 May 2022, the Advocate of the Principle of Equality, who also deals with the prohibition of discrimination due to trade union activities, considered six cases relating to anti-union discrimination on which he issued opinions and provided advice. The Committee further notes that the Government refers to four court cases concerning anti-union discrimination but does not provide information on the total number of judicial complaints relating to anti-union discrimination, nor on the average duration of such complaints. The Committee takes due note of the detailed information provided by the Government and requests it to: (i) continue providing information on the cases of anti-union discrimination addressed by the Labour Inspectorate and the Advocate of the Principle of Equality; and (ii) provide information on the number of complaints before the courts specifically related to anti-union discrimination and their average duration so that it can assess the overall effectiveness of the protection afforded by national legislation in cases of anti-union discrimination.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comments

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had urged the Government to indicate what circumstances fall within the definition of “taking over a trade union” contained in paragraph 2 of section 200 of the Criminal Code on the violation of trade union rights and to provide information on its application in practice. The Committee takes note of the indications of the Government that section 200 of the Criminal Code, which serves as a blanket legal provision, requires reference to several pieces of legislation, including the Trade Union Representativeness Act, the Employment Relations Act, the Collective Agreements Act and the Strike Act, as well as specific trade union statutes, in order to establish the existence of violations of trade union rights. In spite of the comprehensive nature of these references, the term “trade union take-over” remains undefined and will therefore require future legislative interpretation and case law in order to clarify its substantive meaning. As yet, Slovenian courts have not ruled on this specific issue, leaving a degree of uncertainty in the legal field. The Committee takes due note of these elements. The Committee considers that the difficulties in clarifying the meaning and scope of section 200(2) of the Penal Code may hamper the effectiveness of this provision. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires the existence of clear and precise legislative provisions to adequately protect workers’ organizations from acts of interference, such as those aiming to place workers’ organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations by financial or other means. The Committee requests the Government to consider, in consultation with the social partners, complementing its legislation regarding the prohibition of anti-union interference and to provide information of any new developments concerning the interpretation and application of section 200(2) of the Penal Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition
Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether the legislation protects against discrimination, not only on account of union membership but also because of participation in union activities and, if it does not, to undertake any necessary measures to ensure that the legislation provides for the prohibition of all acts of anti-union discrimination, including those on account of union activities, as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) both article 2 of the Protection against Discrimination Act and article 6 of the Employment Relationships Act (ERA), not only explicitly prohibit discrimination for reasons of trade union membership but are also based on a system of a non-exclusive list of personal circumstances; (ii) the prohibition of discrimination refers to a broader area related to the trade union membership itself, irrespective of whether members are active or not, whether they participate in trade union activities or not; (iii) trade union membership is inseparably connected to trade union activities; and (iv) article 90 of the ERA qualifies as unjustified the termination of an employment contract based on the worker’s trade union activities. While taking due note of the Government’s indications, especially concerning article 90 of the ERA, the Committee recalls that, according to Article 1(2) of the Convention, both discrimination based on trade union membership and trade union activities should be prohibited, including against non-unionized workers.The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take, after consultation with the social partners, the necessary measures to ensure that, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention, the legislation explicitly prohibits anti-union discrimination on account of both trade union membership and participation in trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.
The Committee further notes that the Government, while providing the number of discrimination cases examined by the labour inspectorate since 2015, explains that it has no data available about the number of discrimination cases based on trade union membership.With a view to assessing the general effectiveness of the protection afforded by the domestic legislation, the Committee invites the Government to collect information on the number of complaints specifically related to anti-union discrimination, the outcome of investigations and court proceedings, and their average duration. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national legislation contained specific provisions prohibiting acts of interference by employers or their organizations in the establishment, functioning and administration of workers’ organizations, and providing effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee notes that, in addition to reiterating that trade union activities are already generally protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and that adequate judicial protection and sanctions against anti-union interference are set out in the Employment Relationship Act in sections 217 and 218, the Government indicates that violation of trade union rights is defined as a criminal offence in paragraph two of article 200 of the Criminal Code which stipulates that whoever breaches regulations and general acts by preventing employees or hindering them from exercising free association and carrying out union activities, or obstructs the implementation of union rights, or takes over a trade union shall be punished by a fine or sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year.The Committee takes due note of the content of article 200 of the Criminal Code and requests the Government to indicate which circumstances fall within the definition of “takes over a trade union” and to provide information of its application in practice.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether the legislation protects against discrimination, not only on account of union membership but also because of participation in union activities and, if it does not, to undertake any necessary measures to ensure that the legislation provides for the prohibition of all acts of anti-union discrimination, including those on account of union activities, as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) both article 2 of the Protection against Discrimination Act and article 6 of the Employment Relationships Act (ERA), not only explicitly prohibit discrimination for reasons of trade union membership but are also based on a system of a non-exclusive list of personal circumstances; (ii) the prohibition of discrimination refers to a broader area related to the trade union membership itself, irrespective of whether members are active or not, whether they participate in trade union activities or not; (iii) trade union membership is inseparably connected to trade union activities; and (iv) article 90 of the ERA qualifies as unjustified the termination of an employment contract based on the worker’s trade union activities. While taking due note of the Government’s indications, especially concerning article 90 of the ERA, the Committee recalls that, according to Article 1(2) of the Convention, both discrimination based on trade union membership and trade union activities should be prohibited, including against non-unionized workers. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take, after consultation with the social partners, the necessary measures to ensure that, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention, the legislation explicitly prohibits anti-union discrimination on account of both trade union membership and participation in trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

The Committee further notes that the Government, while providing the number of discrimination cases examined by the labour inspectorate since 2015, explains that it has no data available about the number of discrimination cases based on trade union membership. With a view to assessing the general effectiveness of the protection afforded by the domestic legislation, the Committee invites the Government to collect information on the number of complaints specifically related to anti-union discrimination, the outcome of investigations and court proceedings, and their average duration. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national legislation contained specific provisions prohibiting acts of interference by employers or their organizations in the establishment, functioning and administration of workers’ organizations, and providing effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee notes that, in addition to reiterating that trade union activities are already generally protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and that adequate judicial protection and sanctions against anti-union interference are set out in the Employment Relationship Act in sections 217 and 218, the Government indicates that violation of trade union rights is defined as a criminal offence in paragraph two of article 200 of the Criminal Code which stipulates that whoever breaches regulations and general acts by preventing employees or hindering them from exercising free association and carrying out union activities, or obstructs the implementation of union rights, or takes over a trade union shall be punished by a fine or sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year. The Committee takes due note of the content of article 200 of the Criminal Code and requests the Government to indicate which circumstances fall within the definition of “takes over a trade union” and to provide information of its application in practice.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that provisions on anti-union discrimination set out in the Employment Relationship Acts protect against discrimination on account of union membership, covering both jobseekers and employees. The Committee recalls that the obligation to provide protection against union discrimination enshrined in Article 1 of the Convention refers to any prejudicial acts on account of not only union membership but also because of participation in union activities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the legislation also protects against discrimination for participation in union activities and, if it does not, to undertake any necessary measures to ensure that the legislation provides for the prohibition of all acts of anti-union discrimination, including those on account of union activities, as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national legislation contained specific provisions prohibiting acts of interference by employers or their organizations in the establishment, functioning and administration of workers’ organizations, and providing effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that adequate judicial protection and sanctions are set out in the Employment Relationship Act, whose sections 217 and 218 establish fines for discrimination based on union membership against either jobseekers or employees, as well as other fines to employers failing to provide prescribed facilities to unions or to consult them on certain matters, or not affording prescribed protections to union representatives. The Committee recalls that, in addition to the obligation to protect against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Convention requires the existence of clear and precise legislative provisions to adequately protect workers’ organizations from acts of interference, such as those aiming to place workers’ organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations by financial or other means. The Committee again requests the Government to take any necessary measures to ensure that the legislation provides for the prohibition of all acts of interference, as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. Hoping that it will be able to observe progress in the near future, the Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had concluded that the protection against acts of interference afforded by sections 42 (right to associate) and 76 (free establishment, and functioning of, and membership in trade unions) of the Constitution, as well as section 6 of the Representativeness of Workers’ Unions Act (providing that independence from employers is one of the characteristics of a representative trade union), was not sufficient and that sufficiently dissuasive sanctions were necessary. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication that concrete sanctions for employers or their associations in case of interference in the activities of trade unions were currently not provided for by law and that legislative amendments had not yet been adopted in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report, that no legislative amendments in this field are foreseen at present, that the relevant rights provided for in the Constitution are subject to judicial protection and that no practical problems have been detected in this area. The Committee considers that the Convention requires the existence of clear and precise legislative provisions ensuring adequate protection of workers’ organizations from acts of interference as defined in Article 2(2) of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national legislation contains specific provisions prohibiting acts of interference by employers or their organizations in the establishment, functioning and administration of workers’ organizations, and establishing effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts. It once again requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the comments submitted by the Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia (AFTUS) referring to certain acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union representatives in the private sector which, in practice, according to AFTUS, are difficult to prove. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Slovenian Labour Inspectorate has indicated that, in the period between 1 January 2008 and 1 June 2010, no infringements on the provisions of section 6 of the Employment Relationship Act that would be associated with the workers’ membership in a trade union were recorded.

Act implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment (No. 93/2007, UBP (ZUNEO)). The Committee takes note of the adoption of the Act implementing the principle of equal treatment explicitly applicable to cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, in the period between 1 January 2008 and 1 June 2010, there was one case in which discrimination of the workers representative was established. In this case, the Committee notes that the inspector determined that an employer had infringed the provisions of section 4 of ZUNEO while terminating the employment contract allegedly for business reasons but for only three workers who belonged to the trade union, among whom was a trade union representative.

Act Amending the Employment Relationships Act (ERA-A) (OGRS, 103/2007). The Committee notes that the Act Amending the Employment Relationships Act has introduced the principle of reversed burden of proof in its section 6, paragraph 6. Therefore, if, in the event of a dispute, an applicant or a worker cites the fact giving ground for the suspicion that the prohibition of discrimination has been violated, the employer must demonstrate that in the case in question, the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination was not violated. The Committee further notes that section 6, paragraph 8, states that persons who have been discriminated against and persons who help the victims of discrimination may not be exposed to unfavourable consequences owing to actions aimed at fulfilling the prohibition and discrimination. The Committee notes with interest this information.

Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous direct request, the Committee concluded that the protection against acts of interference afforded by sections 42 (right to associate) and 76 (free establishment, and functioning of, and membership in trade unions) of the Constitution, as well as section 6 of the Representativeness of Workers’ Unions Act (providing that independence from employers is one of the characteristics of a representative trade union), was not sufficient and that sufficiently dissuasive sanctions were necessary. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication that it would study the possibility of introducing additional legislative provisions that would address the Committee’s concerns. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report, that concrete sanctions for employers or their associations in case of interference in the activities of trade unions are currently not provided for by law and that legislative amendments have not yet been adopted in this regard. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in order to adopt specific provisions ensuring adequate protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning and administration by employers or their organizations, and providing for effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. It once again requests the Government to indicate any developments in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It further notes the comments submitted by the Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia referring to certain acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union representatives in the private sector which, in practice, are difficult to prove. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Article 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous direct request, the Committee had concluded that the protection against acts of interference afforded by articles 42 (right to associate) and 76 (free establishment, and functioning of, and membership in trade unions) of the Constitution, as well as section 6 of the Representativeness of Workers’ Unions Act (providing that independence from employers is one of the characteristics of a representative trade union) was not sufficient. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take measures to ensure that its legislation contained specific provisions ensuring adequate protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or employers’ organizations in the establishment, functioning or administration of trade unions, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee notes that the Government once again refers to the abovementioned legislative provisions, which, in its opinion, guarantee freedom of functioning of trade unions and states that problems related to interference do not arise in practice. The Government will nevertheless study the possibility of introducing additional legislative provisions that would address the Committee’s concerns. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in order to adopt specific provisions ensuring adequate protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning and administration by employers or their organizations, and providing for effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. It requests the Government to indicate any developments in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. The Committee takes note of the adoption of the Collective Agreement Act, 2006.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its last comments, the Committee had noted the provisions of the Employment Relations Act which entered into force on 1 January 2003 and had requested information about the extent of the legislative protection against acts of anti-union discrimination as well as the procedures of redress and remedies applicable and sanctions. The Committee notes the provisions communicated by the Government prohibiting any act of anti-union discrimination (sections 6(1), 89 and 113), providing for reinstatement (section 118), and establishing severe fines (section. 229).

2. Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes the Government’s indications concerning provisions providing protection against acts of interference in the national legislation. Article 76 of the Constitution stipulates that establishment and functioning of trade unions, as well as membership in them, is free, and article 42 provides for the right to associate. article 6 of the Representativeness of Workers’ Unions Act further stipulates the precise conditions for acquiring the characteristics needed for a trade union to be representative, which includes independence from employers. Though the Committee observes that a certain protection against acts of interference exists, particularly to some extent concerning trade union representatives, the Committee considers that the protection afforded is not sufficiently adequate. The Committee request the Government to take measures to ensure that its legislation contains specific provisions ensuring adequate protection of workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or employers’ organizations in the establishment, functioning or administration of trade unions, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken.

Article 4. Measures to promote collective bargaining. In its report, the Government indicates that the Collective Agreement Act has been adopted in 2006 after having reached a high level of harmonization between the social partners. The Committee takes note of the general comments of the Government concerning this Act, and will examine whether the Act raises any particular issue under the Convention once it has at its disposal the translation.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It also takes note of the excerpts of the Employment Relations Act 2003, transmitted by the Government.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the provisions of the Employment Relations Act which entered into force on 1 January 2003. It notes that several articles provide protection against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and at the time of termination of employment, including with regard to both trade union representatives and members (articles 6(1), 89 and 113). The Act also establishes procedures of notification and resolution of disputes (articles 84, 85 and 205) and establishes fines for acts of discrimination against "jobseekers" on the basis of trade union membership (article 229).

The Committee also notes, however, that the Act does not seem to contain any provision on protection against other acts prejudicial to the workers for anti-union reasons (transfer, relocation, demotion, dismissal, etc.), including procedures of redress and remedies applicable where such acts occur. Moreover, although article 89 of the Act prohibits unfair dismissals based on anti-union grounds, there are no sanctions for violations of this article (despite sanctions for various other violations established in articles 229-231).

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions which prohibit acts of anti-union discrimination, other than refusal to hire or dismissal, as well as the procedures of redress and remedies applicable where such acts occur. It also requests the Government to specify the sanctions applicable in case of violation of article 89 of the Employment Relations Act which prohibits anti-union dismissals.

2. Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes that the excerpts of the Employment Relations Act communicated by the Government do not contain provisions on this issue. It requests the Government to specify in its next report the provisions which prohibit acts of interference by workers’ and employers’ organizations in each other’s functioning and to indicate any rapid appeal procedures, as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure the application of these provisions in practice.

Article 4. Measures to promote collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the excerpts of the Employment Relations Act communicated by the Government do not contain any provisions on this issue. It takes note of the Government’s statement that, until a specific act regulating collective agreements enters into force, this question shall be regulated, according to article 45 of the Employment Relations Act, by the section on basic rights in the current Employment Relations Act, as well as the provisions on collective agreements from the old Employment Relations Act. The Government adds that intensive work with the social partners has been going on in order to harmonize the texts. Certain key questions remain to be agreed upon. The Government expects the harmonization of the draft act on collective agreements to continue this year.

The Committee also notes with interest from the Government’s report that the signatories of the Social Agreement reached for the period 2003-05 (six trade union confederations and four employer associations, as well as three trade unions not affiliated to the above confederations) expressed their consent to the acceleration and development of the system of collective agreements, as well as the improvement of social dialogue at all levels. Thus, the Social Agreement partners undertook to speed up the work related to the drafting of the Collective Agreements Act, as the adoption of the Act is conditional to the agreement of the social partners on all the key issues.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the process of adoption of the draft Collective Agreements Act and to communicate the text of the draft Act as soon as it is harmonized. The Committee trusts that the Government will be able to indicate significant progress in this respect in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the draft Collective Agreement Act has not yet been adopted. The Committee requests the Government to send the text of this Act as soon as it is adopted. Furthermore, the Committee has received the text of the Representativity of Trade Unions Act (Ur.1.RS, 13/93). Finally, the Committee would ask the Government to send a copy of the draft Collective Agreement Act, translated if possible into one of the official working languages of the Office.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the draft Labour Relations Act and the draft Collective Agreement Act have not yet been adopted. The Committee recalls that since its 1995 direct request it has been noting that these texts were in the process of being adopted. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take measures if possible to expedite the adoption process.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s statement concerning the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia decision, related to the Representation of Trade Unions Act (Ur.1.RS, 13/93). The Committee would ask the Government to send a copy of this law, translated if possible into one of the official working languages of the Office.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that the draft Labour Relations Act and the draft Collective Agreement Act have not yet been adopted. The Committee recalls that since its 1995 direct request it has been noting that these texts were in the process of being adopted. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take measures if possible to expedite the adoption process.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government's statement concerning the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia decision, related to the Representation of Trade Unions Act (Ur.1.RS, 13/93). The Committee would ask the Government to send a copy of this law, translated if possible into one of the official working languages of the Office.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report concerning the collective agreements that have been concluded, their scope, the sectors covered and the number of workers concerned.

The Committee notes that the special law on collective agreements and the new law on labour relations are in the course of being adopted and requests the Government to transmit copies of these laws when they have been adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee would ask the Government to communicate in its next report a copy of the Special Law on Collective Agreement, as well as the new Labour Relations Act as soon as they are adopted and to give detailed information on the number of collective agreements concluded, their level, the branches covered and the number of workers concerned.