Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2008, Publication: 97th ILC session (2008)

A Government representative recalled that Bulgaria had been a Member of the Organization since 1920 and had ratified to date 80 ILO Conventions, including all eight fundamental and three priority Conventions. His Government fully shared the ILO's values and mission and believed that human rights in the social and economic fields were inseparable from the fundamental human rights. Among its main priorities was improving the application of international labour standards, ensuring effective access to social rights and strengthening their enforcement and implementation.

The last ten years had been marked by intensive cooperation between the International Labour Office and Bulgaria. The Government had received invaluable assistance in its successful process to join the European Union, in reforming its labour legislation, in capacity building and in strengthening implementation of social and economic rights. This discussion offered further opportunity for improving the country's compliance with international obligations and this could be positive in raising awareness of all those stakeholders responsible for the effective implementation of international labour standards in his country.

The observations of the Committee of Experts mostly concerned the right to strike, the most powerful means of pressure available to workers for protection of their interests. In a globalized context, collective actions closely reflected national systems of industrial relations and took into account socio-economic factors that vary from one country to another. The right to strike was guaranteed by the Constitution, which provided that workers and employees had the right to strike for the protection of their collective economic and socials interests. There were several laws regulating the procedure and scope of the right to strike, in particular the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act which provided for different types of strike, such as symbolic strike, warning strike, effective strike and solidarity action. According to the national legislation, the decision to strike had to be taken by a simple majority (50 per cent plus one) of the workers of the enterprise or unit concerned. Such an important decision had to be taken responsibly by the majority of workers, which was in line with the principle of democratic rule. However, the Government was aware of the trade union's requests as well as of the Committee of Experts' observations concerning the need to review this provision. Consequently, it had been decided to search an appropriate solution and in this regard to request the technical assistance of the Office with a view to improving the collective labour dispute settlement system. Following this request, a senior official from the International Labour Standards Department had visited the country a few years ago on an advisory mission. In her mission report, the ILO official had proposed a concrete text for the amendment of the provision in question, which was still under consideration by the social partners.

As the national system of labour relations was based on the principle of tripartite consultations, the Government was committed to encouraging the continuation of tripartite consultations in order to reach a mutually agreed decision which would respond to the Committee of Experts' recommendations, while taking due account of the national social and economic conditions, the positions of different stakeholders and the obligations arising out of binding international legal instruments.

With regard to the obligation to notify the duration of a strike, the relevant legal provision was not considered to give rise to any practical problems. It did not mean that a strike had to last only a few days since a strike might in fact be declared without limit, or until all requests were satisfied. This provision only provided for the possibility to gradually increase pressure by progressively increasing the term of the strike, until it was declared without limit. But there was no obligation to follow this pattern as a strike could be announced as being without limit from the beginning.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts requested the Government to amend section 51 of the Railway Transport Act, which provided that, where industrial action was taken, workers and employers had to provide the population with satisfactory transport services of no less than 50 per cent of the volume of transportation services that were available before the strike. The Committee of Experts estimated that the 50 per cent requirement for minimum service was excessive and pointed out that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricted one of the essential means of pressure available to workers, workers' organizations should be able to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and public authorities. In the light of these observations, the Government had initiated internal expert discussions on the possible amendment of this text. There was a clear will to resolve this question and it was hoped that progress could be achieved in the very near future.

Another observation of the Committee of Experts related to the workers in the energy, communications and health sectors, whose right to strike was denied. In this connection, the Government was pleased to announce that this provision was no longer in force since 2006. Accordingly, these workers now effectively enjoyed the right to strike. Under the new regulations, the workers concerned were required to ensure conditions for the functioning of the respective activities. These conditions should be set out in a written agreement, concluded no less than three days before the beginning of the strike. In case of failure to reach such an agreement, each party could bring the case before the National Institute for Mediation and Arbitration in order to determine the required minimum service. Detailed information would be provided in the Government's next report on Convention No. 87 to enable the Committee of Experts to assess the new system.

Finally, the Committee of Experts also commented on the restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike by civil servants, finding the right to a symbolic strike not to be fully consistent with the requirements of the Convention. In this respect, the Government recalled that the notion of civil service varied from one country to another. For instance, there were cases where civil servants were all those employed in the public sector, e.g. government officials, doctors, teachers, police officers, and persons in the judiciary system. This was not the case in Bulgaria where all employees representing the public sector were more than 500,000 whereas the number of civil servants was around 88,000. The notion of civil service was therefore limited to those persons who assisted a state body in the implementation of its functions. As a result, if those persons were granted the full right to strike, this could imply the cessation of normal state governance, serious negative societal consequences and possible infringement of individual human rights. For these reasons, the Government considered that, under the present circumstances and due to the special nature of the functions of civil servants, such a restriction was reasonable, proportionate and necessary for the protection of public interest, national security, public health and morality. However, in full respect of international labour standards and as further proof of its commitment to the core values of the Organization, the Government was ready to reopen discussions on the right to strike of civil servants in order to reach an acceptable solution. In this respect, the Government would welcome the technical assistance of the Office in analysing different systems and formulating concrete proposals appropriate for the specific situation of the country.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the explanations and expressed their appreciation for the Government's positive attitude. This case was unusual in that the Committee of Experts' observations dealt exclusively with various aspects of the right to strike. As such it provided an opportunity to provide some clarity around the Employer members' view on the right to strike under Convention No. 87.

All would agree that the right to strike was not expressly provided for in the Convention and the negotiating history of the instrument was unequivocally clear that the Convention related only to freedom of association and not to the right to strike. The Employer members recalled in this respect that in one of the preparatory reports (International Labour Conference, 31st Session, 1948, Report VII, page 87), the Office had concluded that several governments had emphasized, justifiably it would appear, that the proposed Convention related only to the freedom of association and not to the right to strike, and that in these circumstances it was preferable not to include a provision on this point in the proposed Convention concerning freedom of association. Both in the preparation and the adoption of the Convention the question of whether the freedom of association created a basis for regulating the right to strike was answered in the negative. The Employer members recognized that freedom of association under Convention No. 87 contained a generalized right to strike but Convention No. 87 did not provide a basis for regulating the right to strike itself. Thus, governments had substantial latitude to determine the scope and limits of the right to strike based on national conditions and circumstances.

This background was essential in considering the Committee of Experts' second, third and fourth observations in this case. The second point concerned the Government's view that workers and employers should provide the population with no less than 50 per cent of the volume of transportation that was provided before the strike. This was a decision for the Government to make. In view of the fact that tripartism was a cornerstone of the ILO, Convention No. 87 was somewhat unusual in that it did not contain an express provision calling for consultations with employers' and workers' organizations in the development of legislation and regulations concerning implementation of the Convention. Nonetheless, by virtue of its membership in the ILO, under the Constitution, the Declaration of Philadelphia and the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Government had an obligation to consult with workers' and employers' organizations on legislation and regulations implementing the Convention. With respect to the third point raised by the Committee of Experts concerning compensatory guarantees for workers in the energy, communications and health sectors, the Employer members noted that the Government had removed the prohibition on strikes in these sectors. This was of course within the competence of the Government and in line with a generalized right to strike. As regards the fourth point concerning a total ban on the right to strike, the Committee of Experts had noted the Government's willingness to consider possible legislative changes.

Finally, regarding the Committee of Experts' first point concerning the right of workers' and employers' organizations to organize their activities freely without interference by the public authorities, the Employer members took the view that Article 3 of the Convention clearly provided for this but it was obvious that strikes had consequences that were not inherently internal. Even though a strike was normally directed against an employer, in a globalized world a strike's inevitable and calculated effects were increasingly intended to be felt on third parties and the public. Sympathy and political strikes, for instance, were aimed at parties not involved in the actual dispute. In other words, Article 3 applied when it was purely an internal matter. The percentage involved to authorize a strike was an internal governance matter of the union and was protected by Article 3. On the other hand, specifying the duration of the strike was an external mat- ter in the purview of the State because of the impact the duration of the strike had. In conclusion, the Employer members restated that the limits on the right to strike were not governed or regulated by Convention No. 87.

The Worker members noted that important progress had been achieved on several critical points raised by the Committee of Experts. They noted with satisfaction that the prohibition of strikes in the energy, communication and health sectors had been repealed in conformity with the principles of Convention No. 87. They also welcomed the commitment of the Government to revising the Civil Servant Act to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 87, and expressed the wish that such revision be undertaken in dialogue with the social partners.

The Worker members noted, however, that two difficulties pointed out by the Committee of Experts persisted. The first concerned the lack of progress in the revision of section 11 of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act, which had repeatedly been requested by the Committee of Experts, and had also been the subject, in 2006, of scrutiny by the Council of Europe and the European Committee of Social Rights under the European Social Charter. The Worker members fully subscribed to the Committee of Experts' request to amend section 11, so as to relax the conditions that needed to be fulfilled before resorting to strike, both as regards the minimum required support to trigger the strike and the obligation of prior notification of its duration. The latter condition could create a situation of serious legal uncertainty for workers, in the case that the strike exceeded the announced duration. This difficulty had also been pointed out by the Council of Europe and the European Committee of Social Rights.

The Worker members further raised the issue of the right to strike of workers in the railway transport sector, which could not be considered, under the principles established by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association, as an essential service within the strict sense of the term. Whilst a revision of the Railway Transport Act had well been announced, the Committee of Experts had noticed that the proposed amendments continued to considerably restrict the right to strike. The Worker members expressed their concern about the recent tendency in several European countries to impose limits on the right to strike by establishing a minimum service, which in turn rendered the right to strike meaningless.

The Worker members also invoked a problem that had recently arisen in Bulgaria concerning the right to strike. Following a large-scale strike in public education in September-October 2007, an association of parents had decided to lodge with the Commission for Protection against Discrimination an appeal against the trade union leaders, namely Yanka Takeva, President of the Bulgarian Teachers' Trade Union of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria (CITUB), and Krum Krumov, President of the education sector. The peculiar argument put forward by the plaintiffs amounted to saying that, due to the strike, pupils in public education had been discriminated against compared to pupils in private education. The Worker members declared that, should Bulgarian authorities come to the point of applying national legislation on discrimination, in order to restrict trade union rights, a new strategy for violating the provisions of Convention No. 87 would have seen the light.

The Worker member of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the CITUB and the Confederation of Labour "Podkrepa", shared the views of Worker members. On the subject of the amendment of section 11(2) and (3) of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act, the revision of laws was being discussed for many years by the Government and the employers' and workers' organizations. Lack of political will and claims by the employers' organizations to have something in return before they could give their consent, made the process unusually long.

Regarding the request addressed by the Committee of Experts to the Government to amend section 51 of the Railway Transport Act of 2000, the recent declaration of the Ministry of Transport on this subject was untruthful, since the CITUB and the Confederation of Labour "Podkrepa" had been requesting such revision for many years without obtaining any reply from the Government.

With regard to the suppression of the prohibition of the right to strike in the energy, communications and health sectors, in the framework of the revision of the Labour Disputes Settlement Act, he wished to thank the ILO for the many years' efforts made in this regard leading to the abovementioned result. Concerning the restrictions on the right to strike of civil servants, the two trade union confederations considered that the provisions of section 47 of the Civil Servant Act were discriminatory against civil servants who could not be considered to be exercising authority in the name of the State. They expressed the hope that such provisions would be repealed with the support of the ILO.

Moreover, regarding the strike of the teachers and the appeal submitted to the Bulgarian Commission for Protection against Discrimination, it was noted that this had been one of the most important strikes in Bulgaria, with a participation of 80 per cent of the education personnel. The issue of legality of this strike had never been raised. However, after the ending of the strike, the authorities, under the guise of a parents' association, referred the case to the Bulgarian Commission for Protection against Discrimination claiming the alleged discrimination suffered by certain pupils with respect to those in private schools. The Commission, quite unusually, accepted the claim, notwithstanding the trade unions' argument that no tangible proof had been given to demonstrate the alleged discrimination. It was indeed an intimidatory action against the teaching personnel based on an inadequate interpretation of the national legislation. It was probable that this case would be submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court. If so, this would be a demonstration of the Government's attempts to hinder the freedom to exercise the right to strike recognized by the Constitution.

The Worker member of France denounced the trend of challenging the right to strike through insidious means such as, the exacerbation and exploitation for their own ends, of the disruption and discontent due to strikes. Strikes were disruptive and costly. However, the strike was also expensive for workers. As recalled in the General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, the system of minimum services should not weaken the workers' actions to defend their rights. For workers, the right to strike represented a means of last resort when collective bargaining failed. The strike of Bulgarian teachers in 2007 showed that costly and disruptive conflicts were often long lasting and it could take time before a government recognized the failure of its policy and finally accepted, as in this case, to seek a solution through negotiation. Finally, the Worker member considered that the right to strike was an indissociable corollary of freedom of association, protected by the Convention.

The Government representative of Bulgaria thanked the speakers for their remarks. He reiterated the Government's intention to rectify the situation, in particular as regards the amendment of section 11(2) and (3) of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act, and reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the search for appropriate solutions through tripartite dialogue. As regards the right to strike in the railway transport sector, he acknowledged that no consultations had been held, but only internal discussions had been initiated. The Government intended to forward new proposals to the Parliament once tripartite consultations had been completed. With respect to the existing restrictions on the right to strike of civil servants, he expressed the hope that a satisfactory solution could soon be found with the help of the ILO. Finally, as regards the recent strike of teaching personnel, he observed that there was an ongoing procedure before the Commission for Protection Against Discrimination and therefore no conclusions could be drawn at this stage.

The Employer members welcomed the Government's statement that it was willing to rectify the situation on the basis of tripartite consultation. Under the circumstances, they expected appropriate steps to be taken and they would be prepared to assess progress in future sessions.

The Worker members stated that, setting aside the issue of the competence of the Committee on questions regarding the right to strike, they always considered the right to strike as a key part of freedom of association, covered by Convention No. 87. In this regard, they requested that the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act would be revised and brought into conformity with Convention No. 87, as recommended by the Committee of Experts. In Bulgaria, as in other countries, railway transport was not an essential service and the workers in this sector should be able to have recourse to strike action. The eventual new obligation for them to guaranteeing a minimum service would make the right to strike in this sector meaningless. Moreover, the Worker members hoped that the Committee of Experts would continue to be vigilant in the face of a dangerous trend attempting to challenge the right to take direct industrial action such as the right to strike, through legal action aimed at presenting the outcome of strikes as discriminatory. The success of such a strategy would negate the right to take industrial action.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee recalled that the Committee of Experts referred to a number of matters relating to the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities freely without government interference.

The Committee noted the Government's statement according to which it committed itself to ongoing tripartite consultations in order to find a mutually agreed upon solution to respond to the comments made by the Committee of Experts bearing in mind the national social and economic factors. The Government further announced legislative changes which granted the right to strike to certain categories of workers who had been previously restricted in this regard.

The Committee noted with interest the Government's indication that some of the matters raised by the Committee of Experts had already been resolved and others were being addressed in consultation with the social partners. The Committee welcomed the Government's statement that it would fully associate the workers' and employers' organizations concerned in all discussions relating to these questions. It expected the Government to take all necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and to provide full information on any relevant development, as well as the corresponding legislative texts, with its report when it is next due for examination by the Committee of Experts.

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

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

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

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria (CITUB) on the issues it has been raising for a number of years and, in particular, the need to amend the following provisions:

–      section 11(2) and (3) of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act, which provide that the decision to call a strike shall be taken by a simple majority of the workers in the enterprise or the unit concerned, and section 11(3) which requires the duration of the strike to be declared;

–      section 51 of the Railway Transport Act of 2000, which provides that, where industrial action is taken under the Act, the workers and employers must provide the population with satisfactory transport services corresponding to no less than 50 per cent of the volume of transportation that was provided before the strike. The Committee recalled previously that, as the establishment of too broad a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities; in cases where agreement is not possible, the issue should be referred to an independent body; and

–      the restrictions on the right to strike of public servants under the terms of section 47 of the Civil Servant Act, including public servants who cannot be considered as exercising authority in the name of the State.

The Committee notes that in its report, the Government: (i) with regard to the strike vote, reiterates its commitment to the tripartite consultations with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable solution that would address the recommendations of the Committee; (ii) on the issue of the right to strike in the railway transport sector, stresses its will to resolve this issue and achieve progress in the near future, and indicates that it has initiated internal expert discussions about a possible amendment of the Railway Transport Act; and (iii) states that is ready to reopen the discussion on the right to strike of civil servants with a view to finding a solution, welcomes ILO technical assistance, and indicates that a working group was established to make proposals for legislative amendments to ensure compliance with the Convention. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government and hopes that in the process of legislative amendments due note will be taken of its comments as well as of the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2696. The Committee requests the Government to transmit any new legislative text once adopted. It trusts that the ILO will continue providing its technical assistance as requested by the Government.

With regard to its previous comments on section 11(3) of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act, which requires the duration of the strike to be declared, the Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that a strike could be declared for an indefinite period of time or until fulfilment of the demands made.

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide the legal text which repealed the prohibition on strikes in the energy, communication and health sectors.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria (CITUB). The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

The Committee notes the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008 on the application of the Convention. In particular, it notes that the Government intends to resolve issues relating to the right to strike with ILO technical assistance and through tripartite consultation. According to the Government, the provision prohibiting strikes in the energy, communications and health sectors has not been applied since 2006. Furthermore, the Government is prepared to reopen the debate once again on the right to strike of public servants with a view to reaching an acceptable solution.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. The Committee recalls that it has been referring for years to the need to amend the following provisions:

–           section 11(2) and (3) of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act, which provide that the decision to call a strike shall be taken by a simple majority of the workers in the enterprise or the unit concerned, and section 11(3) which requires the duration of the strike to be declared;

–           section 51 of the Railway Transport Act of 2000, which provides that, where industrial action is taken under the Act, the workers and employers must provide the population with satisfactory transport services corresponding to no less than 50 per cent of the volume of transportation that was provided before the strike. The Committee recalled previously that, as the establishment of too broad a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities; in cases where agreement is not possible, the issue should be referred to an independent body; and

–           the restrictions on the right to strike of public servants under the terms of section 47 of the Civil Servant Act, including public servants who cannot be considered as exercising authority in the name of the State.

The Committee hopes that, in accordance with the commitments made by the Government, it will be in a position to note additional progress in relation to the issues raised. It hopes that the technical assistance requested by the Government will be provided as soon as possible.

The Committee requests the Government to provide the legal text which repealed the prohibition on strikes in the energy, communication and health sectors.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 28 August 2007 that refer to matters already raised by the Committee.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their activities freely without interference by the public authorities. 1. The Committee recalls that, on previous occasions, it had requested the Government to amend section 11(2) and (3) of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act; section 11(2) provides that the decision to strike shall be taken by a simple majority of the workers of the enterprise or the unit concerned, whereas section 11(3) stipulates that the duration of the strike must be declared. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that no amendments to these provisions have been made. In these circumstances, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures presently being taken or envisaged to amend section 11(2) of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act to ensure that, in strike ballots, only the votes cast would be counted and the quorum would be fixed at a reasonable level, as well as to amend section 11(3) of the Act so as eliminate the obligation to notify the duration of a strike.

2. Previously, the Committee had asked the Government to amend section 51 of the Railway Transport Act of 2000, which provides that, where industrial action is taken under the Act, workers and employers must provide the population with satisfactory transport services of no less than 50 per cent of the volume of transportation that was provided before the strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Transport had expressed the will to amend section 51 of the Act, and had proposed a modification providing that in case of a strike, the employees and the employers “shall be obliged, by a written agreement signed before the start of the strike, to assure 50 per cent of the implementation of the confirmed schedule for the movement of the trains on the day of the action”. The Committee observes, in this respect, that the proposed modification preserves the 50 per cent requirement contained in section 51 of the Railway Transport Act, which, as the Committee had previously pointed out, may considerably restrict the right of railway workers to undertake industrial action. The Committee had also recalled that since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and public authorities. Noting the Government’s statement that the proposed text was still being discussed by the competent institutions, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures so as to ensure that workers’ organizations may participate in negotiations on the definition and organization of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter will be referred to an independent body.

3. The Committee had previously referred to the provision of compensatory guarantees for workers in the energy, communications and health sectors, whose right to strike was denied under section 16(4) of the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that, by the amendment to the Collective Labour Disputes Settlement Act, SG No. 87/27.10.2006, the prohibition on strikes in these sectors has been repealed; workers in the energy, communications and health sectors now enjoy the right to strike. The Committee notes this information with interest and requests the Government to transmit a copy of SG No. 87/27.10.2006 repealing the ban on strikes with its next report.

4. With regard to the restricting of the exercise of the right to strike by civil servants, pursuant to section 47 of the Civil Servant Act, the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that the Ministry of the State Administration and the Administrative Reform (MSAAR) maintains the position that the denial of the right to strike to civil servants is reasonable, as the interruption of their work would place the functioning of the State in danger and bear negative consequences for all sectors of public life. The Government adds that it was nevertheless considering possible legislative amendments to overcome the existing restrictions on the right to strike of civil servants, in accordance with its international obligations. The Committee notes this information and expresses the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to amend section 47 of the Civil Servant Act, so as to effectively guarantee the right to strike to all civil servants who cannot be considered to be exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee requests to be kept informed of the measures taken in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the comments of 10 August 2006 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which largely concern issues of law and practice pertaining to the Convention that the Committee is already examining and refer in particular to flaws in the procedure for determining the representativeness of trade unions. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the ICFTU’s comments.

It also requests the Government, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, to send for examination at the Committee’s next session, to be held in November-December 2007, its comments on all the questions raised in the Committee’s observation of 2005 (see 2005 observation, 76th Session).

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It observes, however, that it does not reply in sufficient detail to some of the points raised in its previous comments. The Committee also notes the observations of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria (CITUB) received with the Government’s report, which address some of the points already raised by the Committee.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their activities freely without interference by the public authorities. 1. The Committee requested information on the mechanisms for determining whether trade unions are representative, pursuant to sections 34 and 35 of the Labour Code. It noted with concern that the Association of Democratic Trade Unions (ADS) and PROMYANA (which had become the NTU - National Trade Union) had been unable to participate in a poll to determine whether they were representative at national level. The Committee also notes the CITUB’s comment that there is no controlling mechanism for verifying whether an organization meets the prerequisites for representativeness and that this is harming social dialogue in the country (CITUB is also recognized as representative at national level). The Committee notes that this issue has been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association and that in its last examination this Committee took note of the Government’s indication that the PROMYANA Alliance had been declared representative at the national level and that ADS and NTU have not requested such status (see 338th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 294th Session, paragraphs 29-31). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the mechanisms available for determining whether trade unions are representative and to keep it informed of any new requests in this regard.

2. As regards the requirements for exercising the right to strike, pursuant to section 11(2) and (3) of the Act of March 1990 on the settlement of collective labour disputes, the Committee asked the Government: (1) to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 11(2) of the Act of March 1990 to ensure that, in strike ballots, only the votes cast would be counted and the quorum would be fixed at a reasonable level; (2) to amend section 11(3) of the Act so as to eliminate the obligation to notify the duration of a strike. In its last report, the Government indicates that decisions for starting strikes must be adopted by an absolute majority of the votes cast and that the requisite quorum is half of "all workers". In order to be able to adequately assess this matter, the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act of March 1990 on the settlement of collective labour disputes have been amended as advised by the Committee.

3. With regard to negotiated minimum services, the Committee noted previously that, under section 51 of the Railway Transport Act of 2000, in the event of action under the abovementioned Act regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes, workers and their employers must provide the population with satisfactory transport services of no less than 50 per cent of the volume of transportation that was provided before the strike. The Committee is of the view that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in establishing the minimum service, together with employers and the public authorities. The Committee again points out that a minimum requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may considerably restrict the right of railway workers to undertake industrial action. Consequently, it once again asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to amend this provision in order to ensure that workers’ organizations may participate in negotiations to determine and organize a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to an independent body.

4. With regard to the provision of compensatory guarantees for workers in the energy, communications and health sectors whose right to strike is denied, the Committee noted the creation, in March 2001, of the National Institute for Conciliation and Arbitration. Since the Institute has been in operation since April 2003, the Committee again asks the Government to keep it informed of the use made of the machinery provided under the auspices of the Institute.

5. With regard to the restricting of the exercise of the right to strike by civil servants, pursuant to section 47 of the Civil Servant Act, the Committee recalls that in its report for 2002 the Government indicated that the Ministry of Labour had submitted a Bill to amend and supplement the abovementioned Act and extend the right to strike to civil servants. The Committee noted that section 24 of the Bill was to amend section 47 of the current Act so as to enable public servants not only to strike symbolically but actually to discontinue their work. It also noted that under the Bill, a decision to go on strike should be taken by a majority vote by an assembly attended by more than half of the public servants concerned. In its report, the Government states that it is unable to report on progress on this point. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report any measures adopted to guarantee effectively the right to strike of all civil servants who cannot be considered to be exercising authority in the name of the State, and to send any relevant bills or final texts.

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

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) and its affiliate, the Association of Democratic Trade Unions (ADS) on the application of the Convention in a communication dated 14 July 2004. The Committee further takes note of the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2047 relating to the matters raised by WCL and ADS.

Article 3. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize freely their activities without interference of the public authorities. The Committee recalls in this respect that in its previous comments, it had asked the Government for information on the application of the representativeness criteria set out in sections 34 and 35 of the Labour Code. It had also requested the Government to indicate how it intends to carry out the inspection mentioned in section 36(a) of the Labour Code and to provide information on the manner by which organizations that are not considered to be representative may request a review of their status after a reasonable period has elapsed since the last election.

The Committee notes that according to WCL and ADS, as per paragraph 1 of the recently adopted Ordinance No. 64/18, only organizations acknowledged as representative were required to submit by 15 October 2003 the necessary documents to certify their representativeness. ADS had therefore sought a clarification from the Government as to whether the Ordinance would be applicable to assess its representativeness and that of NTU (formerly, PROMYANA). The Committee notes that ADS received a reply dated 17 September 2003 from the Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Policy informing them that while ADS had been recognized by a decision of the Council of Ministers in 1997, that decision was subsequently revoked by the Council of Ministers in 1999 in respect of ADS and other workers’ organizations and therefore, ADS is not recognized as representative at the national level. The letter further stated that the Ordinance does not apply to ADS or to other workers’ organizations whose representativeness had been repealed by the Council of Ministers.

The Committee notes the explanation given by the Government to the Committee on Freedom of Association in respect of Case No. 2047 that as per section 1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Council of Ministers Decree No. 152 promulgating Ordinance No. 64/18, only workers’ and employers’ organizations that had been recognized as representative at the national level by a decision of the Council of Ministers were required to submit by 15 October 2003 the necessary documents to assess their representative status. According to the Government, this provision was in accordance with section 36(a), paragraph 2, of the Labour Code and this was affirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court. The Committee also takes note of the observation of the Government that it was however open for ADS and NTU on the basis of section 36, paragraph 2, of the Labour Code, to have made a request to the Council of Ministers in order to have their representativeness assessed for recognition at the national level.

Taking into account the information provided by both WCL and the Government and the contents of the aforesaid letter from the Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Policy to ADS and the fact that the letter does not indicate the avenues which should be taken to assess their representativeness, the Committee considers that access to established mechanisms for determining representativeness is far from evident. The Committee further considers that in order to ensure that the determination of representative organizations is based on clear, precise and objective criteria and not on arbitrary decision-making authority, all relevant workers’ and employers’ organizations must have an opportunity to prove their representative status at regular intervals so that they may freely organize their activities accordingly. In this respect, it notes with concern that ADS and PROMYANA (now, NTU) have since 1999 been unable to participate in a poll to determine their representativeness at the national level.

The Committee trusts that the Government will rapidly take the necessary measures to enable ADS and NTU to establish their representativeness at the national level and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

The Committee further requests the Government to reply to the other issues raised by WCL in its observations as well as to the outstanding matters raised in respect of the application of the Convention (see 2003 observation and direct request, 74th Session) in its next report due for the regular reporting cycle in 2005.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the report submitted by the Government. The Committee also notes the comments made by the Confederation of the Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria (CITUB) and the Union of Private Bulgarian Entrepreneurs - Vazrazdane, which were transmitted by the Government with its report.

Article 3 of the Convention. Negotiated minimum services. In its previous comment, the Committee examined section 51 of the Act on railway transport of 2000. Under this provision, in case of a strike action under the Act regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes, workers and their employers are obliged to provide satisfactory transport services to the population, of no less than 50 per cent of the volume of transportation which was provided before the strike was undertaken. The Committee considered that this minimum requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation might excessively restrict the right of railway workers to undertake industrial action. It therefore requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 51. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not provide any specific information concerning the matter but indicates that the working group established to amend the Act regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes will address the issue of the minimum service in case of strike action. The Committee recalls in this respect that the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests. The service must therefore be genuinely and exclusively a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161). Furthermore, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in negotiations on the definition and organization of a minimum service and, where no agreement is possible, the matter should be referred to an independent body (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 161). The Committee trusts therefore that, within the context of the working group’s discussions on minimum services, the Government will take the necessary steps so as to address the need to amend section 51 of the Act on railway transport, in line with these considerations and it requests the Government to keep it informed in its next report of the specific measures taken in this regard.

Article 3. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize freely their activities without interference of the public authorities. The Committee notes that the recognition of representative organizations at the national level falls within the competence of the Council of Ministers under section 36 of the Labour Code, that this recognition is made according to the criteria set out in sections 34 and 35, and that in case of refusal, the organizations concerned can challenge the decision of the Council of Ministers before the Supreme Administrative Court. Further, under section 36a, three years after an organization has been recognized as representative, the Council of Ministers, at its initiative or upon proposal of the National Council for tripartite partnership, can carry out an inspection on the representativeness of this organization. An appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court is also provided in such instances. The Committee requests the Government to communicate a copy of the regulations (or of any draft) concerning the application of the representativeness criteria and to indicate how, in practice, it has carried out, or intends to carry out, the inspection mentioned in section 36a. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which organizations that are not considered to be representative may request a review of their status after a reasonable period has elapsed since the last election.

Article 4. Dissolution of workers’ and employers’ organizations. In its report the Government indicates that, under the Non-Profit Making Companies Act, the dissolution of workers’ and employers’ organizations is to be regulated by a separate Act and that until its entry into force, the Non-Profit Making Companies Act will apply. The Committee notes also the comments of the CITUB that the separate Act has not been adopted yet. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the matter as well as a copy of the Non-Profit Making Companies Act or any text applicable specifically to the dissolution of occupational organizations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the report submitted by the Government. The Committee also notes the comments made by the Confederation of the Independent Trade Unions of Bulgaria (CITUB) and the Union of Private Bulgarian Entrepreneurs - Vazrazdane, which were transmitted by the Government with its report. The Committee notes the observations submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

-  the scope of the right to organize in the civil service, in light of sections 3(2) and 43 of the Civil Servant Act as amended in 2000 and 2001;

-  the prerequisites to the exercise of the right to strike under section 11(2) and (3) of the Act of March 1990 regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes;

-  the compensatory guarantees afforded to workers in the energy, communications and health sectors, who are denied the right to strike, with the creation of the National Institute for Conciliation and Arbitration;

-  the limitation to the exercise of the right to strike in the civil service under section 47 of the Civil Servant Act.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that while section 43 of the Civil Servant Act provided that civil servants had the right to associate, section 3(2) provided that persons implementing technical functions in the administration are not considered as civil servants. The Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the persons covered by section 3(2) of the Act have the possibility to establish their own organizations and to specify the nature of the functions exercised by these persons. In its report, the Government indicates that the Act applies exhaustively to all civil servants designated in section 2 with the exception of the persons mentioned in section 3, who are not considered as civil servants, and in particular, persons who perform technical and subsidiary tasks in the administration. The Government adds that, as a special law, the Act applies only to persons that are considered to be civil servants and that all other workers exercise their right to organize, in accordance with section 49(1) of the Constitution and section 4 of the Labour Code. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government which confirms that the persons referred to in section 3(2) of the Civil Servant Act have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing in accordance with Article 2.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities in full freedom. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to: (1) indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 11(2) of the Act so that, with respect to a strike ballot, only the votes cast would be taken into account and the quorum fixed at a reasonable level; (2) amend section 11(3) of the Act so as to eliminate the obligation to give notification of the duration of the strike. In its report, the Government indicates that a working group was created to prepare amendments to the Act, following a seminar organized with the participation of the ILO. The group is presently working, together with the ministries and the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, on a bill "on amendments and supplements to the Collective Labour Dispute Act". The group is currently examining, among other things, the issues relating to the conditions applicable to the decision to go on strike, including the reduction of the quorum, and to the necessity to inform the employer of the duration of the strike. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Union of Private Bulgarian Entrepreneurs - Vazrazdane, to the effect that employers’ organizations have reached an agreement on the necessity to lessen the quorum currently determined by section 11(2) and to propose to workers’ organizations a reduction to the simple majority of the employees of the enterprise concerned, without taking into account the employees absent for an objective reason. The Union of Private Bulgarian Entrepreneurs - Vazrazdane indicates that discussions within the working group are continuing but that hopefully the group will soon finish its work. The Committee takes note of this information. It requests the Government to keep it informed in its next report of the progress made in the drafting of the bill that will amend the Act regarding the settlement of the collective labour disputes and to communicate a copy of any draft or final text thereof.

With regard to the provision of compensatory guarantees for workers in the energy, communications and health sectors whose right to strike is denied, in its previous comment, the Committee noted the creation, in March 2001, of the National Institute for Conciliation and Arbitration and requested the Government to indicate if the said Institute was operational. In its report, the Government indicates that the Institute was inaugurated on 25 April 2003. Further, the "Rules on the organization and the functions of the National Institute for Reconciliation and Arbitration" and the "Rules on the realization of the reconciliation and arbitration when settling collective labour disputes", were adopted at a meeting of the board of the Institute and the board approved a list of mediators and arbitrators. The Committee notes this information with interest. It requests the Government to keep it informed on the use made of the machinery provided under the auspices of the Institute.

With respect to the exercise of the right to strike by civil servants, the Committee recalls that section 47 of the Act restricted the right to strike to the carrying and placing of suitable signs and symbols, protest posters and armbands, whereas restrictions on the right to strike should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. In its 2002 report, the Government indicated that the Ministry of Labour had presented on 29 May 2002 a draft Bill amending and supplementing the Civil Servant Act, which would extend the right to strike to civil servants. The Committee noted in this respect that section 24 of the draft Bill was to amend section 47 of the current Act so as to enable public servants not only to strike symbolically but also to discontinue their work effectively. The Committee further notes that, under the draft Bill, a decision to go on strike should be taken by a majority vote by an assembly attended by more than half of the public servants concerned. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the type of employees who would be covered by this new law and expressed the hope that the draft Bill would be adopted soon. In its report, the Government indicates that the working group referred to above will examine the issue of the recognition of the right to strike to civil servants in the Act regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes. The Committee takes note of this information. It would like to underline that the problem of compatibility with the Convention has specifically arisen with respect to section 47 of the Civil Servant Act. It trusts therefore that the Government will take the necessary measures so as to guarantee effectively the right to strike to all civil servants who cannot be considered to be exercising authority in the name of the State, by a specific amendment to section 47 of the Civil Servant Act. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in this respect and to provide any relevant draft or final text.

The Committee is also addressing a request on other points directly to the Government.

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

The Committee take notes of the information provided in the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. Negotiated minimum services. The Committee notes that, according to section 51 of the Act on Railway Transport of 2000, in case activities under Chapter 3 of the Act regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes are undertaken, workers and their employers are obliged to provide satisfactory transport services to the population, but not less than 50 per cent of the volume of transportation which was provided before the strike was undertaken. In this regard, the Committee recalls that since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and public authorities. The Committee considers that a legislatively set minimum requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may excessively restrict the right of railway workers to undertake industrial action. It therefore requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged to amend this provision so as to ensure that workers’ organizations may participate in negotiations on the definition and organization of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter will be referred to an independent body.

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

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report. It also notes with interest the entry into force of the new Labour Code, as amended in 2001, as well as the Civil Servant Act, as amended in 2000 and 2001.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that while section 43 of the current Civil Servant Act provides that civil servants have the right to associate, section 3(2) provides that persons implementing technical functions in the administration are not considered as civil servants. In this regard, the Committee recalls that given the very broad wording of Article 2 of the Convention, all public servants and officials should have the right to establish occupational organizations, irrespective of whether they are engaged in the state administration at the central, regional or local level, are officials of bodies which provide important public services or are employed in state-owned economic undertakings. However, to bar senior public officials from the right to join trade unions which represent other workers is not necessarily incompatible with freedom of association, but on two conditions, namely that they should be entitled to establish their own organizations, and that the legislation should limit this category to persons exercising senior managerial or policy-making responsibilities (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 49 and 57). The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether the persons covered by section 3(2) of the Act have the possibility to establish their own organizations and to specify the nature of the functions exercised by these persons.

Article 3. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the need to amend section 11(2) of the Act of March 1990 regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes, which provides that the decision to strike shall be taken by a simple majority of the workers of the enterprise or the unit concerned. The Committee has recalled in the past that account in a strike ballot should only be taken of the votes cast and that the quorum should be fixed at a reasonable level. It once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention in this respect. Furthermore, the Committee notes that section 11(3) stipulates that the duration of the strike must be declared. In this regard, the Committeeconsiders that forcing the employees and their organizations to specify the length of a strike would restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The right to strike is effectively, by definition, a means of applying pressure which the workers and their organizations may use to promote and defend their social and economic interests and achieve satisfaction in their claims. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend the legislation so as to eliminate the obligation to give notification of the duration of the strike, and asks it to include details in its next report on the measures taken in this connection.

As concerns the provision of compensatory guarantees for workers in the energy, communications and health sectors whose right to strike is denied, the Committee recalls that compensatory guarantee procedures should provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity, arbitration awards should be binding on both parties and once issued should be implemented rapidly and fully. In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the creation, in March 2001, of the National Institute for Conciliation and Arbitration, which is not, however, yet functional. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report if the said institute is operational.

As concerns the Civil Servant Act, the Committee had noted that section 47 of the Act restricted the right to strike to the carrying and placing of suitable signs and symbols, protest posters and armbands. It had thus recalled that restrictions on the right to strike should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Labour has presented on 29 May 2002 a draft Bill amending and supplementing the Civil Servant Act, which would extend the right to strike to civil servants. The Committee notes that article 24 of the draft Bill amends section 47 of the current Act and would enable public servants not only to strike symbolically but also to discontinue their work effectively. The Committee asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the type of employees who will be covered by this new law and trusts that the said draft Bill will be adopted soon. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s latest report, as well as the observations made by the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) accompanied with the Government’s report. The Committee further notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1989 (see 316th Report, paragraphs 163-195, and 320th Report, paragraphs 299-329, respectively).

Article 3 of the Convention.  The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the need to amend section 11(2) of the Act of March 1990 regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes, which provides that the decision to strike shall be taken by a simple majority of the workers of the enterprise or the unit concerned. It notes that the Government has merely reiterated the provisions of this Act, but has not given any indication as to measures taken to amend the section so as to ensure that account in a strike ballot would only be taken of the votes cast and that the quorum is fixed at a reasonable level. It therefore once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention in this respect.

Furthermore, as concerns the provision of compensatory guarantees for workers in the energy, communications and health sectors whose right to strike is denied, the Committee notes that the Government refers to sections 3-7 of the Act regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes and to section 4 of the Labour Code concerning voluntary arbitration. In this regard, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 164 of its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining which provides in particular that the compensatory guarantee procedures should provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity, arbitration awards should be binding on both parties and once issued should be implemented rapidly and completely. The Committee recalls the Government’s indication in its previous report concerning new developments in the field of peaceful settlement of collective disputes. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers who are restricted in their right to strike have machinery available to them which receives the confidence of all parties concerned in the event of deadlock.

The Committee notes the observations made by the CITUB concerning the right to organize and the right to strike under the Civil Servants Act of 1999. In particular, the Committee notes that the Civil Servants Act restricts the right to strike to the carrying and placing of suitable signs and symbols, protest posters and armbands. It recalls in this respect that restrictions on the right to strike should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 158). It therefore requests the Government to specify the types of state employees covered under section 2 of the Act, in particular indicating those whom special legislation grants the statute of state employee and whether postal workers, teachers or workers in state enterprises are covered by the Act. It further requests the Government to indicate the machinery available for resolving collective disputes for public servants who have been restricted in their right to strike.

The Committee would also draw the attention of the Government to the availability of the technical assistance of the Office in respect of the abovementioned matters should the Government so desire.

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

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's latest report as well as the comments of the Confederation of the Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria.

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled the need to take steps to amend section 11(2) of the Act of March 1990 regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes, which provides that a decision to call a strike must be taken by a majority of all the workers in the respective enterprise or unit. While noting the Government's reply which states that the provisions of the Act are liberal in character and any attempt to amend it may infringe its democratic approach, the Committee recalls once again that it considers that account should only be taken of the votes cast and that the required quorum and majority should be fixed at a reasonable level (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 170). In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 11(2) of the Collective Labour Disputes Act of 1990 in order to bring it into closer conformity with the principles of freedom of association contained in the Convention.

Concerning the prohibition for workers from the enery, communications and health sectors to go on strike, the Committee notes the Government's statement that if the demands of these workers are not granted, they may go on strike by wearing or placing suitable signs or symbols but they are not allowed to leave work and must continue working during the strike. In this regard, the Committee recalls the need to ensure that workers in the health, electricity and communication sectors who are forbidden from exercising the right to strike (section 16(4) of the Act), which is an essential means of defending their occupational interests, should enjoy compensatory guarantees to protect their social, economic and professional interests. For example, conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of a deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned should be adopted. In this regard, it is essential that workers are able to participate in determining and implementing the procedure, which should provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity. In addition, the arbitration awards should be binding on both parties and once issued should be implemented rapidly and completely.

The Committee also notes the Government's statement that it is in regular contact with the trade unions and the employers and also notes the new developments made in the field of peaceful settlement of collective disputes. On this issue, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether amendments to the Labour Code and the Collective Labour Disputes Act taking into account these new developments are being prepared.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's latest report.

In its previous comments, the Committee recalled the need to take steps to amend section 11(2) of the Act of March 1990 regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes, which provides that a decision to call a strike must be taken by a majority of all the workers in the respective enterprise or unit. In this respect, the Committee considered that account should only be taken of the votes cast (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 170). The Committee also indicated the need to provide compensatory guarantees for workers who are restricted or prohibited from taking strike action under section 16(4) of the Act (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 164).

The Committee notes from the Government's report that, following an international colloquium on social dialogue, proposals were made to improve social dialogue provisions and the procedures for peaceful settlement of collective labour disputes, with a special emphasis on the conciliation and voluntary labour arbitration. Proposed amendments to the Labour Code and the Collective Labour Disputes Act taking into account these points are now being prepared.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in this regard and to transmit copies of the amended texts as soon as they are adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's reports received in 1995 and 1996. It notes that the Government has not replied to its previous comments which referred to the following points:

1. The Committee recalls the need to take steps to amend section 11(2) of the Act of March 1990 regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes, which provides that a decision to call a strike must be taken by a majority of all the workers in the respective enterprise or unit; the Committee considers that only votes cast should be taken into account (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 170).

2. The Committee notes that workers in the health, electricity and communications sectors, are forbidden to strike under section 16(4) of the Act of March 1990. If the right to strike is subject to restrictions or a prohibition, workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees for the defence of their interests (see op. cit., paragraph 164).

The Committee noted that a technical assistance programme in the field of social dialogue was in the process of application, designed to establish an independent conciliation and arbitration system of tripartite structure.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on these points. It again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to bring its legislation into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

[The Government is requested to supply a detailed report in 1997.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the promulgation of a partial reform (Act of November 1992) of the 1987 Labour Code, containing certain provisions on freedom of association and collective bargaining that are in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to: (1) the need to take steps to amend section 11(2) of the Act of March 1990 respecting the settlement of collective labour disputes, which provides that a decision to call a strike must be taken by the majority of all the workers in the respective enterprise or unit, to enable the decision to be taken by the majority of workers taking part in the vote; and (2) the need to ensure that workers in the health, electricity and communication sectors, who are forbidden from exercising the right to strike under section 6(4) of the Act of March 1990 respecting the settlement of collective labour disputes, have appropriate guarantees for the protection of their social, economic and occupational interests. The Committee notes the Government's statement that it is carrying out a technical assistance programme in the field of social dialogue, which aims amongst other things to establish a conciliation and arbitration system of tripartite structure and free from government control. The Committee hopes that its comments will be taken into consideration in the implementation of this programme and asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to bring its legislation into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the coming into force of the new Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, of 13 July 1991, which enshrines trade union rights (section 49) and the right to strike (section 50). It also notes the Act of December 1992 to amend the Labour Code and the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act of July 1991, and proposes to examine the contents at its next session.

With reference to its previous comments on section 11(2) of the Act of 6 March 1990 respecting the settlement of collective labour disputes, which provides that the decision to go on strike must be made by the majority of all the workers in the respective enterprise or unit, the Committee takes due note of the Government's indication in its report that it will take into account the Committee's opinion that it would be more appropriate for this decision to be taken by the majority of workers taking part in the vote. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measure that has been taken or is envisaged to amend section 11(2) of the Act of 6 March 1990 in line with its comments.

With regard to its previous comments concerning section 16(4) of the same Act, which prohibits strikes in the health, electricity and communications sectors, the Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, the Act on the settlement of collective disputes only provides for a voluntary arbitration procedure (at the request of the two parties - sections 5-8 and 14) which, up to now, has not yet been used. The Government adds that the above Act does not contain specific provisions setting out procedures for the settlement of disputes in the above sectors. The Committee also notes the Government's statement that it intends to call upon the ILO for assistance with the objective of training people in conciliation and arbitration and making the necessary amendments to the Act on the settlement of collective disputes. The Committee hopes that the national legislation will soon contain the appropriate guarantees to protect workers who are deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interests and that the prohibition on strikes in the above sectors will be offset by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures, in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage (paragraph 214 of the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining). It requests the Government to indicate any progress achieved in this respect in its next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes with interest the Act of 6 March 1990 respecting the settlement of collective labour disputes which, under certain circumstances, authorises the calling of a strike after the failure of voluntary procedures for the settlement of disputes. The Committee, however, wishes to make a number of comments on the following points:

1. With reference to section 11(2) of the Act, the Committee notes that the decision to go on strike must be made by the majority of all the workers in the respective enterprise or unit; the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that it would be more appropriate for this decision to be taken by the majority of workers taking part in the vote. It trusts that the Government will envisage modifying this provision in line with its comment.

2. Noting that by virtue of section 11(3) of the Act, notice of the intention to strike must specify its planned duration under pain of sanctions, the Committee requests the Government to indicate what the consequences would be for striking workers and their organisations if the strike action continued beyond the duration mentioned in the strike notice.

3. The Committee notes that by virtue of section 16(4) of the Act, strikes are prohibited in the health, electricity and communications sectors. The Committee has always insisted, in the case of strikes being prohibited in essential services, that the national legislation should provide appropriate guarantees to protect workers who are thus denied one of the essential means of defending their occupational interests. Restrictions should be offset by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures, in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage (paragraph 214 of the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the procedures that are available to workers in these sectors to settle their terms and conditions of employment and their wages.

4. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the procedures that are used and the authorities (administrative or judicial) that are competent in the event of violations of the provisions of the Act.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction from the Government's report the profound changes that have occurred. It notes that, according to the report, section 1 of the Constitution, which gave statutory effect to the guiding role of the Communist Party over mass organisations, was amended by Act No. 29 of 10 April 1990 which sets out the principle of political pluralism. It notes that under the terms of the Act of 6 March 1990 for the settlement of collective labour disputes, workers now have the right, in certain circumstances, to call strikes to defend their occupational interests. Furthermore, the National Constituent Assembly is due in the near future to adopt a new Constitution that will guarantee a democratic structure and pluralism, and a new Labour Code that conforms to the changes that have occurred in the country following the transformation from a centrally planned to a market economy system.

Furthermore, the Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government that there are now in the country organisations of workers and employers established on the principle of individual freedom of choice.

In these circumstances, the Committee hopes that the legislative texts that are being prepared will guarantee full observance of the rights and guarantees set out in the Convention and requests the Government to supply the text of the draft Labour Code so that it can examine it.

The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government concerning the application of the Act of 6 March 1990 for the settlement of collective labour disputes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It recalls that its previous comments referred to the system of trade union unity prevalent in the country, which seems to considerably reduce, for workers who wish to do so, the value of establishing trade union organisations outside the existing trade union structure, due to the broad powers conferred by the law on the central leadership of the trade unions and on the Central Council of Bulgarian Trade Unions with regard to labour protection, labour inspection, State social insurance and safety and health within the enterprise (sections 35 and 36 of the Labour Code and specific laws and regulations adopted with the participation of the Central Council, including the Act of 30 June 1973, Decision No. 15 of 12 May 1973, Decision No. 57 of 13 June 1962, the Regulations of 17 April 1967 and the Ordinance of 25 March 1960). It has also been noting since 1979 the guiding role in society and the State assigned by the Constitution to the Bulgarian Communist Party (section 1(2)) and the fact that, according to the Government, Bulgarian trade unions voluntarily mention in their by-laws the guiding role of the Bulgarian Communist Party.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, Article 3 of the Convention confers upon the founding members of trade union organisations the responsibility of defining the objectives of their activities in the rules that they formulate, and that therefore the question of the possible functions of another trade union structure should be a question for the founding members and not for the Government.

The Government explains that each central leadership of trade unions may take the initiative with regard to laws and that it can put forward any type of proposal concerning the interests of the workers with regard to safety and health, sickness insurance, participation in the management of enterprises, the fixing of wages, vocational training and the resolution of social problems. Consequently, in the Government's opinion, the concerns of the Committee of Experts that there would be an obstacle to the development of another trade union structure have no basis in the text of Convention No. 87 where the activities in question are conferred upon existing trade unions. Furthermore, the Government indicates that Act No. 44 respecting the management of social insurance, dated 5 June 1984, transferred the administration of this insurance, which was previously entrusted to the trade unions under the terms of Act No. 11 of 1960, to the Committee on Labour and Social Affairs, under the Council of Ministers.

While noting this information and these explanations, the Committee emphasises that in its 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, in paragraphs 136 to 138, it indicated that systems of trade union unity set out in the law are at variance with the principle of free choice of workers' and employers' organisations contained in Article 2 of Convention No. 87. This principle of the Convention was not intended as an expression of support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union pluralism. It was clearly not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union pluralism an obligation. However, the Convention at least requires this diversity to remain possible in all cases.

The Committee would therefore like to make it clear that, even in a case where a de facto monopoly exists as a consequence of all the workers having grouped together, legislation should not institutionalise this factual situation, for example, by designating the single central organisation by name. Indeed, even in a situation where, at some point in the history of a nation, all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should, however, be able to safeguard their freedom to set up, should they so wish in the future, unions outside the established trade union structure. In addition, the rights of workers who do not wish to join existing trade unions or the existing central organisation should also be protected.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to enable all workers who so wish, without distinction whatsoever, to establish trade union organisations of their own choosing that are independent from the existing structure, with the objective of furthering and defending the interests of the workers in accordance with Articles 2 and 10 of the Convention.