Definitive Report - Report No 90, 1966

1. 14. The present case has already been examined by the Committee three times (at its 33rd, 35th and 38th Sessions, which were held in February 1963, November 1963 and November 1964 respectively). On these occasions three interim reports by the Committee, contained in paragraphs 110 to 124 of its 69th Report, 145 to 157 of its 72nd Report and 140 to 158 of its 78th Report, were submitted to the Governing Body, which approved them. At the various stages of its examination the Committee reached final conclusions on most aspects of the case; at its latest examination, carried out during the November 1964 session, only one particular point remained pending. This point alone will be dealt with in the following paragraphs.
2. 15. Greece 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 16. The essentials of the case should be recalled briefly. The complainants alleged that on 1 September 1962 the management of K.T.E.L. (Joint Bus Receipts Fund)-a public body to which both bus employers and bus employees engaged in urban transport belong-induced the recruitment committee responsible for hiring, retaining in their posts and dismissing bus conductors and drivers in accordance with section 17 of Legislative Decree No. 3990 of 1959 to dismiss a number of conductors (mostly officers or leading members of the Piraeus Bus Conductors' Association) on the ground of " anti-national activity " and in pursuance of Act No. 516 of 1948.
2. 17. Having noted that five of the persons involved had appealed to the Council of State for reversal of the decision not to reclassify them, the Committee, following its invariable practice in such cases, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to communicate to it the result of the proceedings that had been initiated.
3. 18. This recommendation having been approved by the Governing Body, the request for information was sent to the Government by a letter dated 24 November 1964, to which the Government replied in a letter dated 10 February 1966.
4. 19. In this letter the Government states that the appeal made by the persons concerned was allowed by the Council of State since the decision not to reclassify them had been taken by the recruitment committee of K.T.E.L, whereas under the law the case of these persons' should have been considered by the special committees provided for by Act No. 516 of 1948. The Government goes on to say that this procedural defect has since been put right, the case having been brought before the appropriate special committee, which has decided that these persons were not " loyal ", and that the decision not to reclassify them has thereby been confirmed.
5. 20. With regard to the special committees set up under Act No. 516 of 1948 with a view to granting or refusing the " certificates of legality " required of certain workers in public utility undertakings if they are to be engaged or retained in service, the Committee on Freedom of Association thinks it appropriate to recall and repeat the observation it was led to make in examining an earlier case, when it pointed out the desirability of ensuring that restrictions imposed by the special committees in question should in no case give rise to anti-union discrimination.
6. 21. In its letter of 10 February 1966, the Government then states that the persons in question, by not refusing the compensation paid to them for the termination of their contract of employment, have implicitly accepted the decision taken in respect of them. Moreover, adds the Government, they have not adopted the legal procedures of appeal open to them against this decision.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 22. In the past, when the Committee has had to consider a situation of this kind, it has held that in view of the nature of its responsibilities it cannot consider itself bound by any rule, such as that applying to international claims tribunals, that national procedures of redress must be exhausted. It has, however, also held in examining the merits of a case, that when national procedures of redress have not been made full use of, it must take this fact into account.
2. 23. In the present case, not only have the persons involved, by refraining from using the appeal procedures open to them, failed to make a real effort to obtain redress for the wrong that they originally thought they had suffered, but also, by accepting the compensation to which they were entitled by law for the termination of their contract of employment, they appear to have no intention of challenging the decision taken in respect of them.