Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 306, March 1997

1. 556. The National Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Romania - FRATIA (CNSLR-FRATIA) presented a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Romania in a communication dated 19 June 1996. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) associated itself with this complaint in a communication dated 8 July 1996. The Government submitted its observations in a communication dated 28 October 1996.
2. 557. Romania 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. 558. In its communication dated 19 June 1996, the CNSLR-FRATIA states that it is bringing this complaint on behalf of its affiliates, the Free Trade Union and the "Viitorul" ("Future") trade union of the CELROM S.A. company in Drobeta Turnu Severin in the county of Mehedinti. The CNSLR-FRATIA refers first to police action against striking employees of the CELROM S.A. company and, second, to certain provisions of Act No. 15 respecting the settlement of labour disputes, in particular section 30.
2. 559. According to the complainant organization, the police used force against strikers during the night of 19 to 20 March 1996. The organization points out that this action violates the right of trade unions to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, laid down in Article 3 of Convention No. 87. The organization explains that the workers had gone on strike after unsuccessful attempts by the Directorate of Labour and Social Security to settle the dispute by means of conciliation and following the failure of negotiations between trade union and workers' representatives and the management of the enterprise.
3. 560. The police intervention took place at 4 a.m. The reason given was the execution of a court decision to allow the management access to the enterprise. Since it was a sit-down strike, the strikers were inside the premises of the enterprise. The complainant organization alleges that police attacked the strikers when entering, despite the fact that other means are provided for by law (such as instituting legal proceedings); moreover, the police entered during the night, while the law stipulates that this cannot be done before 8 a.m., and it did not do so in the presence of bailiffs or the public prosecutor. The police thus interfered violently with the peaceful exercise of the workers' right to strike, although there had not been any damage to property or any other act of violence.
4. 561. According to the documents sent by the complainants, the CELROM S.A. company produces corrugated cardboard and paper. It employs 1,200 workers, of whom some 800 are members of the CELROM trade union and about 30 are members of two other trade unions. The labour dispute, which began on 15 February 1996, took place in the context of a complicated privatization process. The strike declared by the trade union was followed by a spontaneous strike led by elected representatives of the strikers. The latter refused to comply with the court decision to allow the management access to the enterprise. After two vain attempts by the police to present the court decision, 200 to 300 police officers intervened on the night of 19 to 20 March 1996. The trade unions immediately protested against this action. On 20 March, the Supreme Court of Justice handed down a decision to suspend the strike for 50 days. The Ministry of the Interior carried out an inquiry into the dispute, but its report was not made public. A representative of the CNSLR-FRATIA and a representative of the ICFTU met with the strikers and drafted a report which stated that policemen had broken down the doors of the enterprise, guarded at night by some 30 strikers, but that, having been warned of the intervention, some 350 persons had gathered at the enterprise, that there had been confrontations between the police and strikers, many of whom had been hit and at least one of whom had been injured. The police left the establishment at about 9 a.m. On 9 April the Mehedinti court handed down a final decision declaring the strike lawful. The workers went back to work on 13 May 1996.
5. 562. On the second point, concerning Act No. 15 respecting the settlement of labour disputes, the complainant organization cites the following provisions of section 30: "At the request of the directors of units in which a labour dispute has arisen, the Supreme Court of Justice may suspend the holding or continuation of a strike for up to 90 days if the predominant interests of the national economy or humanitarian interests are jeopardized." According to the complainant organization, this provision made it possible for the Supreme Court of Justice, by interpreting it in an abusive manner, to suspend the strike in the CELROM S.A. company for 50 days. The CNSLR-FRATIA mentions the comments of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, which had requested the Government to amend the provision in question. The complainant organization stresses that section 30 of the Act has resulted in the suspension of the strike in the CELROM S.A. and other strikes without any evidence having been produced that these strikes jeopardized humanitarian interests or the national economy.

B. The Government's reply

1. 563. In its communication dated 28 October 1996, the Government states that the police intervention in the collective dispute in the CELROM S.A. company took place in compliance with the applicable legislative provisions. In particular, under Act No. 26 of 1994 respecting the organization and functioning of the police and section 373 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the police have the obligation to provide assistance in the execution of a court decision and to restore law and order. The Government points out that the strike launched by the workers of the CELROM S.A. company was declared unlawful by the court of Drobeta Turnu Severin and by Civil Judgement No. 2354 of 14 March 1996. The same court, in accordance with section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 28 of Act No. 15 respecting the settlement of labour disputes, recognized the right of the director of the unit to enter the establishment in order to carry out his duties. According to the Government, the court decision calls for immediate and compulsory execution without notice.
2. 564. The Government states further that since it was not possible to execute the above-mentioned court decision because of opposition from the strikers, the court had issued an express request for police assistance in executing the court's final decision (request No. 302/R/1996 based on section 373, paragraph 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that when the bailiff deems it necessary, the police have the obligation to assist him in enforcing a court decision). According to the Government, police intervention is also justified by the provisions of section 46(1) of Act No. 15 respecting the settlement of labour disputes, which provides that the use of threats or violence to prevent a worker or a group of workers from striking or from working during a strike or to oblige them either to strike or to work during a strike constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonment or a fine, or, where applicable, more severe penalties. The powers vested in the police under section 1 of Act No. 26 respecting the organization and functioning of the police include those relating to the defense of citizens' fundamental rights and freedoms.
3. 565. In the light of the above facts and legislative provisions, the Government considers that the police intervention carried out to assist the bailiff was not intended to involve the police in the labour dispute in the CELROM S.A. company and that the exercise of the company's employees' right to strike was not affected.
4. 566. As regards section 30 of Act No. 15 respecting the settlement of labour disputes, in accordance with the prerogatives established by the law, no authority, including the Supreme Court of Justice, may suspend the exercise of the right to strike as such, i.e. the right of trade unions to hold a strike. The provision merely allows the Supreme Court of Justice to delay the holding of a strike or to suspend it.
5. 567. As regards the reasons for the suspension of the strike in the CELROM S.A. Drobeta Turnu Severin company, the parties had been informed of these through the content of the decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice.
6. 568. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security constantly endeavours to improve the system of labour legislation, with a view to harmonizing it with European regulations. These efforts include the amendment of the Act respecting labour disputes, but account should be taken of the particular complexity of the process of legislative amendment.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 569. The Committee notes that the allegations in the present case concern violent intervention by the police in an enterprise in which a sit-down strike was taking place, as well as the application of section 30 of Act No. 15 respecting the settlement of labour disputes, which lays down the conditions for suspension of a strike.
2. 570. As regards the allegation of violent police intervention against strikers on the night of 19 to 20 March 1996 in the premises of the CELROM S.A. company, the Committee observes that the Government does not refute the allegation but justifies the intervention, which was intended to enforce a court decision recognizing the director's right to enter the establishment and to restore law and order. Firstly, the Government points out that the police acted in conformity with the provisions of legislation. Secondly, the Government states that the strike launched by the workers of the CELROM S.A. company was declared unlawful by the court of Drobeta Turnu Severin by Civil Judgement No. 2354 of 14 March 1996. The court decision called for immediate and compulsory execution, without notice. Since it was not possible to execute the decision, the court requested police assistance to enforce the final decision. The complainant organization, for its part, recognizes that the police intervention was aimed at enforcing the execution of the court decision to allow the management access to the enterprise, but it states that the police infringed the law because they used force to attack the strikers, the intervention took place at night and neither a bailiff nor the public prosecutor was present. Lastly, the strikers were peacefully exercising their right to strike. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information on the circumstances explaining the fact that the police intervention took place at night, nor on those in which acts of violence were committed.
3. 571. The Committee considers that if the police were called in to allow the management to have access to an enterprise in which workers were carrying out a sit-down strike, in accordance with a court decision handed down in due form, this does not constitute an infringement of the principles of freedom of association. It does appear, however, that certain rules and guarantees applicable to police intervention have not been fully observed. The Committee considers that, while workers and their organizations are obliged to respect the law of the land (Article 8, paragraph 1, of Convention No. 87), police intervention to enforce the execution of a court decision affecting strikers should observe the elementary guarantees applicable in any system that respects fundamental public freedoms.
4. 572. As regards section 30 of Act No. 15 respecting the settlement of labour disputes, which authorizes the Supreme Court of Justice to suspend a strike for up to 90 days at the employer's request if the strike is likely to affect major interests of the national economy or humanitarian interests, the Committee notes that this provision was applied without any evidence to show that these strikes affected humanitarian interests or the national economy. The Committee observes that the CELROM S.A. company produces paper and cardboard, that it employs 1,200 workers and that it could hardly be admitted that a work stoppage in such an enterprise would by definition be such as to provoke an acute national crisis.
5. 573. The Committee has already examined the application of section 30 of Act No. 15 in the context of Case No. 1788 (see 297th Report, paras. 316-366). It had noted that the violations of the principles of freedom of association in this case resulted from section 30 of the Act and had requested the Government to take the initiative of having this provision repealed. The Committee notes that the same provision has been the subject of repeated comments by the Committee of Experts, which in its most recent observation recalled the need to amend or repeal this provision.
6. 574. In this case, the Committee considers that the restrictions imposed exceeded those that are acceptable and hence infringed the principles of freedom of association. Noting that the violations of the principles of freedom of association in the present case again resulted from the provision in question, and considering that the powers of the court should be restricted to cases of strike in essential services in the strict sense of the term, the Committee strongly urges the Government to take steps to repeal it as soon as possible.