Definitive Report - Report No 204, November 1980

1. 27. The Committee last examined this case at its February 1979 Session, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. Since then, the Greek Federation of Teachers in Private Teaching (OIELE) has sent the ILO a communication, dated 10 March 1979, and further allegations in a letter dated 10 October 1979. The Government, for its part, sent its observations in communications of 23 June 1979, 11 October 1979, 9 February 1980 and 24 April 1980.
2. 28. Greece has ratified both 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 29. The allegations outstanding following the examination of the case by the Committee in February 1979 related to the dismissal of Mr. C. Voliotis, of the Ionios school, Secretary-General of the Union of Teachers in Private Teaching (Athens and Piraeus), and Mr. M. Krikis, of the Delassal school, President of the Union of Teachers in Private Teaching (Salonica) in violation of section 26(1) of Pct No. 330/1976. The complainants claimed that these dismissals were proof of the anti-worker nature of Law No. 682/1977 respecting general education private schools and boarding schools, which had recently been passed by Parliament. OIELE also mentioned the dismissal on 21 August 1978 of Mr. Agorastos, Secretary-General of the Union of Teachers in Private Teaching (Salonica).
2. 30. OIELE also referred to the dismissal on 15 August 1978 of over 100 private schoolteachers, many of whom were active trade unionists and had been members of strike Committees. Seven of them had taken part in the congress of the complainant organisation in September 1977. Moreover, several hundred other teachers were without work because their schools were closed. Under Law No. 682/1997 they were not entitled to financial compensation. OIELE also alleged that the Government had taken no measures to reinstate the persons who had been dismissed because they had been candidates for the general elections in November 1977, despite the fact that the Council of State had considered that the dismissals were illegal.
3. 31. At its February-March 1979 Session the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, noted that Mr. Voliotis had appealed against the decision to dismiss him, and requested the Government to supply the text of the judgment. In the case of Mr. Krikis the Committee noted that a court of first instance had pronounced his dismissal illegal. According to the complainants, the Court of Appeal had confirmed the judgment, with which the employer refused to comply; this amounted to a refusal to reinstate Mr. Krikis in his employment. The Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, requested the Government to supply its observations regarding the decision of the Court of Appeal and the allegations concerning the refusal of the employer to comply with the decision of the Court. As regards the dismissals of the seven teachers' trade union members, the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, requested the Government to transmit its observations.

B. Further allegations

1. 32. In a communication of 10 March 1979 OIELE mentions three judicial decisions in the complainants' favour; dating from 1978. The first, which was rendered by the Legal Council of State (a consultative body), established that incompatibility between the status of officials and candidature for elections does not apply to contract employees, still less to teachers in the private sector. The two ether decisions rendered formally establish the unconstitutional and illegal nature of the dismissals of the trade unionists concerned. According to the complainants, the Government refuses to apply these orders for the reason that they are not decisions of the last instance.
2. 33. In its most recent communication, dated 10 October 1979, OIELE gives the names of various trade unionists who were dismissed in 1977 and 1978, including Mr. Zafiris, of the Mavromatis School. The complainant organisation also mentions four new dismissals on the same grounds as those for which seven teachers were said to have been dismissed in 1977, namely their participation in the OIELE congress. These dismissals took place in 1979 and affected the following persons: Christos Christopoulos (Ziridis school), Marcopoulos Dimitris and Scandamis Christos (Barbikas school) and Mangivas Ypatia (Karabetsos school). The complainant organisation especially wishes to draw the attention of the Committee to the inadequacy of the protection afforded to trade unionists by Greek legislation and to the prejudice caused to its members by the dismissals, which jeopardise its future activities. It also emphasises that the legal instances have often rendered judgments favourable to the persons concerned and that the Government refuses to apply them and to reinstate the dismissed persons in their employment.

C. Reply of the Government

1. 34. In its letter of 23 June 1979 the Government states that, after his dismissal from the Ionios school, Mr. Voliotis was engaged by the Ahedonopoulos school, from which he had been dismissed for absenting himself in November 1977 to stand for the legislative Elections. At that time legal proceedings were under way. On 9 February 1980 the Government informed the ILO that the decisions rendered by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation concerning Mr. Voliotis and Mr. Krikis respectively confirmed the judgments in their favour. The Government attached copies of these judgments to its latest communication, dated 24 April 1980.
2. 35. Is regards Mr. Krikis in particular, whom his employer refused to reinstate in his employment, the Government states that Act No. 330 of 1976 establishes legal protection only by order of the courts. It considers that it cannot ensure the "automatic application" of the law, nor can it confer, for the purpose of guaranteeing such protection, the power to act "as of right" either on itself on behalf of the persons protected, or on the latter. In the Government's view the fact that the employer refuses to accept the work of employees in whose favour the court has rendered a judgment is in no way imputable to the provisions of Act No. 330 of 1976. The employer is merely under the obligation to pay compensation to the persons concerned.
3. 36. Regarding the dismissals of the seven teachers, the Government states on two occasions that these were due not to the trade union activities of the persons concerned but to the manner in which Act No. 682 of 1977 was applied. It also states that under section 30 of this Act these teachers may request recruitment in similar establishments of the public general sector on the basis of a contract of indeterminate duration under private law. In this connection the Government mentions the cases of certain of the dismissed teachers (including Messrs. Voliotis and Agorastos), who have been appointed and have taken up their duties in certain schools of the public sector.
4. 37. As regards Mr. Zafiris, the Government states that, following his dismissal from the Mavromatis school for standing for the general elections in 1977, he will be entitled to reinstatement in his employment. When ,judging his appeal, the Administrative Court of Larissa considered that the restrictions imposed by section 56 of the Constitution did not apply to teachers in private schools, and that accordingly the action of the Ministry of National Education in considering teachers who stood for elections as having resigned from their posts was unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

D. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 38. The present case concerns allegations relating to dismissals of trade union leaders and activists in the private teaching sector. In this connection the Committee would recall that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers - and especially trade union officials - should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment.& However, this principle does not necessarily imply that the fact that a person holds trade union office confers on him immunity against dismissal irrespective of the circumstances.
2. 39. In the present case the Committee observes that the dismissals were motivated by the fact that the teachers had stood as candidates for legislative elections or by the application of an Act respecting private schools. These measures thus do not appear to have violated freedom of association.
3. 40. The Committee also notes that the courts found in favour of the dismissed trade unionists and that the employers will have to pay them compensation. Furthermore, the persons concerned may request recruitment in the public teaching sector; certain of them have, in fact, already been appointed to posts in public schools.