Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 326, November 2001

1. 478. In communications dated 18 July 2000 and 26 July 2001, the Trade Union Association of Railwaymen submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Slovakia.
2. 479. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 13 October and 24 November 2000 and 24 May 2001.
3. 480. Slovakia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 481. In its communication dated 18 July 2000, the Trade Union Association of Railwaymen explained that for the year 2000, they were unable to sign a collective agreement with the Railways Company of the Slovak Republic (ZSR), even after the intervention of a mediator. The dispute between the parties concerned a wage increase for the railway workers for the year 2000. Facing the deadlock, the complainant organization, in conformity with the provisions of Act No. 2/1991, Collection of Laws on Collective Bargaining, informed the management of ZSR of its intention to have recourse to strike action. According to section 17(1) of the said Act, a strike concerning a dispute in the signing of a company’s collective agreement can be declared if at least half of the workers involved in the agreement support the strike. In addition, section 17(5) of the Act provides that the trade union must submit to the employer, at least one working day before the beginning of the strike, a list of the names of workers who will be participating in the strike.
2. 482. The complainant organization alleged that once the management of ZSR was informed of its intention to use strike action, it embarked on a broad mass media campaign, using official information channels, in order to intimidate the railway workers. For example, in March 2000, in an address to all ZSR employees, the Director-General of ZSR stated with regard to the possible declaration of a strike that “I regard as my duty to warn all ZSR employees that this situation influences the receiving of credit for paying the wages of ZSR employees for the month of February 2000”. Furthermore, in an interview for the daily newspaper Pravda on 1 March 2000, the Director-General of ZSR stated that if a strike was going to be declared, and if subsequently wages had to be increased, this would inevitably lead to an increase of workers who would be dismissed due to financial constraints. In addition, in a letter addressed to the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic, one of ZSR’s directors declared that in case of dismissals, “I will firstly take the list of employees who have signed for the strike and I will dismiss them”.
3. 483. Following this intimidation campaign from the ZSR management, the complainant organization explained that since it could not guarantee the success of the strike action, it agreed to reopen negotiations and finally accepted a wage increase which was half of what it had originally requested. Against this background, the complainant organization alleged that the provisions of Act No. 2/1991, Collection of Laws on Collective Bargaining, actually prevented the workers from truly exercising their right to strike since it was required that more than half of all the employees covered by the collective agreement had to agree before calling the strike and, more importantly, the union had to submit to the employer a list of the names of workers who would be participating in the strike, thus exposing these workers to intimidation, discrimination and even eventual dismissal. Lastly, the complainant organization explained that during the negotiation of the Council of Economic and Social Agreement of 31 March 2000, the proposal of the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic for the amendment of Act No. 2/1991 regarding the obligation to submit a list of names of workers participating in a strike was rejected.
4. 484. In a recent communication dated 26 July 2001, the complainant organization acknowledged that after negotiations, the Government had agreed to amend section 17(1) and (5) of the Act and that, under the amended Act, the decision to call a strike would need the consent of more than half of the workers participating in the strike ballot, and the trade union would not need to submit the list of employees participating in the strike. However, the complainant organization explained that recourse to strike action was still only possible in the context of collective bargaining aiming at the conclusion of a collective agreement. Furthermore, since the lodging of the complaint, a new social conflict arose between the ZSR and the complainant organization over the restructuring of the Railways Company of the Slovak Republic and, once again, ZSR management had recourse to intimidation to discourage the workers from exercising their right to strike.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 485. In its communication of 24 May 2001, the Government indicated that in 1999, in compliance with the observations made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, it prepared amendments to Act No. 2/1991, Collection of Laws on Collective Bargaining. The Government negotiated the proposed changes to the Act in consultation with the social partners as well as on the basis of ILO recommendations. The proposed amendments to the Act would be submitted to the Slovak Parliament at the end of May 2001. The relevant amendments were as follows. Section 17(1) provides, amongst other things, that a strike has to be approved by the absolute/clear majority of employees who are participating in the strike ballot. Section 17(8)(c) provides that the trade union shall notify in writing the employer at least three working days before the launching of the strike and shall provide it with a list of names of representatives of the trade union authorized to represent participants in the strike. Section 17(9) provides that a trade union shall provide to an employer, at least two working days before the launching of the strike, information relating to the strike which shall help an employer to introduce work plans to ensure essential activities and essential services during the strike; essential activities and essential services are those the interruption of which shall endanger the life and health of employees or other persons and shall cause damage to machines, equipment and instruments whose nature and purpose do not allow an interruption during the strike.
2. 486. The Government then explained the purpose of each of these amendments. In the case of section 17(1), it stated that the amendment was in line with the view expressed by the Committee of Experts in its 1994 General Survey as the vote to declare the strike would only take account of the votes of workers who participated in the strike ballot. Furthermore, the required quorum and majority were fixed at a reasonable level since the requirements were for an absolute/clear majority – more than half majority. This formulation was a compromise accepted by the social partners after discussions held in February and March 2001.
3. 487. As for the amendments contained in section 17(8) and (9), the Government explained that by removing the requirement for the trade union to provide a list of names of the workers participating in the strike, the objective was to eliminate the possibility of anti-union discrimination against strikers, which was one of the main concerns of the various unions. The proposed text of section 17(8) and (9) reflected once again a compromise reached during experts’ discussions in the framework of social partnership, as well as an attempt to be in line with the views expressed by the ILO Committee of Experts, and in conformity with ILO Conventions.
4. 488. Concerning the allegations of intimidation and violation of trade union rights within the ZSR, the Government explained that the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, with the participation of social partners (namely, the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic and the Federation of Employers’ Unions) conducted a supervision on the observance of trade union rights within the ZSR. This supervision took place in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Labour Code and was conducted from 18 December 2000 to 25 January 2001. The allegations of intimidation and threat of dismissal of workers, claiming to have been made by the management of ZSR, were not proved on the selected premises of the ZSR where the supervision took place.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 489. The Committee notes that this case relates to allegations concerning a legislation which would restrict the right to strike as well as allegations of intimidation and trade union rights violations within the Railways Company of the Slovak Republic (ZSR).
2. 490. With regard to the legislative aspect of the case, namely certain provisions of Act No. 2/1991, Collection of Laws on Collective Bargaining, the Committee observes that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations formulated observations on this legislation in 1999. The Committee notes that following these observations, the Government proposed amendments to the Act, in particular with regard to section 17(1), which originally provided that the vote for a strike needed the support of more than half of the workers covered by the collective agreement, and 17(5), which required the trade union to provide the employer with a list of the names of the striking workers. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the amendments to section 17 reflected a compromise reached after consultations and negotiations with the social partners. While the complainant organization declared that its proposal to amend the Act was rejected in March 2000, which led to the lodging of the complaint in July 2000, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, such consultations did take place in early 2001, which resulted in the compromise on the current draft amendments which had to be submitted to the Slovak Parliament at the end of May 2001. This was later acknowledged by the complainant organization in a recent communication in July 2001. The Committee notes that, according to the new section 17(1), a strike must be approved by the absolute/clear majority of workers participating in the strike ballot, which is in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.
3. 491. With regard to section 17(5), while taking good note of the Government’s willingness to put its legislation into full conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, the Committee observes that section 17(8)(c), as amended, requests trade unions to provide the employer with a list of the names of representatives of the respective trade union authorized to represent participants in the strike. While acknowledging that this provision is an improvement compared to the previous one, which required a list of all participants in the strike, the Committee nevertheless considers that the practical implementation of the provision could lead to discrimination and reprisals against the trade union representatives figuring on the list. The Committee recalls that the protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials in order for them to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence. In addition, the Committee must insist on the fact that the occupational and economic interests which workers defend through the exercise of the right to strike do not only concern better working conditions or collective claims of an occupational nature, but also the seeking of solutions to economic and social policy questions and problems facing the undertaking which are of direct concern to the workers [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 479 and 724]. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take full account of these principles in the drafting of the amendments of section 17 in order to put its legislation into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee trusts that all the relevant amendments to Act No. 2/1991, Collection of Laws on Collective Bargaining, will be adopted in the near future and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. It draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of the case.
4. 492. Concerning the allegations of intimidation and trade union rights violation within the ZSR, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statement according to which an inquiry took place between December 2000 and January 2001 on selected premises of the ZSR. The results of this inquiry, which was conducted in collaboration with the social partners, led to the conclusion that these allegations had not been proven. Nevertheless, in view of the public statements made by the management of the ZSR, some of which appeared in the Slovak media and, in view of the new allegations of intimidation in the context of the restructuring of the ZSR, the Committee must recall that no one should be penalized for carrying out or attempting to carry out a legitimate strike. In addition, while the respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that the public authorities exercise great restraint in relation to intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions, it is even more important that employers exercise restraint in this regard and ensure that no person is prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities. The Committee trusts that the Government will take full account of these principles in the future.