Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 172, Marzo 1978

1. 77. By a communication dated 30 April 1977, the Pan-hellenic Union of Merchant Marine Engineers presented a complaint alleging infringement of trade union rights in Greece. The complainant organisation supplied additional information in a letter dated 13 June 1977.
2. 78. The texts of the above-mentioned communications were transmitted to the Government, which forwarded its observations by a communication received on 17 October 1977.
3. 79. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 80. In its communication of 30 April 1977 the complainant organisation referred to events which, in its opinion, constituted a violation of Convention No. 98, ratified by Greece. It explained that during 1976 the employers' and seafarers' representatives had met to negotiate a collective agreement for the crews of coastal passenger steamers. The stewards' and engineers' unions, disagreeing with the terms proposed by the employers, had refused to sign the agreement. The stewards' union thereupon ordered its members to strike, and they all responded to the call. Despite this, the Minister of the Mercantile Marine, by a decision No. 70245/3918 dated 20 May 1976, laid down the terms and conditions of employment of this category of employees.
2. 81. The complainant organisation went on to refer to negotiations which took place in November 1976 with respect to the crews of liners and Mediterranean cruise ships. The terms proposed by the employers were unacceptable, with the result that all the seafarers came out on strike. But once more the Minister of the mercantile marine, by a decision No. 70105/9043 dated 6 December 1976, determined the terms and conditions of employment of the personnel concerned.
3. 82. In March and April 1977, the employers and the representatives of the coastal passenger steamer crews again entered into collective bargaining. The latter refused to accept the employers' terms, and the Minister of the Mercantile Marine once again laid down the employment conditions of these crews by a decision No. 70104/2676 dated 13 April 1977.
4. 83. The complainant organisation claimed that all these decisions had resulted in an abrogation of the right to bargain collectively. The complainant organisation acknowledged that the ministry's decisions were valid only until an agreement was concluded through free collective bargaining. It was convinced, however, that the employers were not interested in proceeding further with bargaining since the Ministry's decisions had granted them advantageous terms.
5. 84. In its communication of 13 June 1977, the complainant organisation stated that on 20 November 1976 the Panhellenic Maritime Federation had signed contracts covering the crews of 17 Mediterranean cruise ships out of a total of 40. These contracts were signed while a strike was in progress, and other contracts were due to be signed for the remaining ships. However, the Minister of the Mercantile Marine intervened by a decision, No. 70105/9043, of 6 December 1976 prescribing the conditions of employment aboard these vessels, and the afore-mentioned contracts were annulled. The complainants emphasised that the terms of employment fixed by the minister of the mercantile Marine were less favourable than those established in the contracts. By way of an example, the complainants pointed out that the contracts prescribed a working week of 42 hours, whereas the Minister's decision has fixed it at 44 hours.
6. 85. In its reply the Government recalled the terms of section 2 of Act No. 304 of 1947 which provides that in the event of a breakdown in negotiations between employers and seafarers with a view to the conclusion of a collective agreement, the Minister of the mercantile marine may regulate, with the prior authorisation of the Council of Ministers, the wages and conditions of work of the seafarers concerned. These provisions were applicable only in the event of delay in the signing of a collective agreement causing prejudice to the workers and their insurance funds. The Minister's decision was provisional and ceased to be operative as soon as a settlement was reached between the parties. It did not prevent the resumption of negotiations between the parties but, on the contrary, facilitated it.
7. 86. According to the Government, the system had functioned successfully up to now and no request that it be changed had ever been made by the Panhellenic Maritime Federation, probably because, in practice, the interests and rights of seafarers were not impaired. The Government added that neither freedom of voluntary negotiation between shipowners' and seafarers' organisations nor freedom of association had ever been interfered with or infringed in any manner whatsoever. The Government nevertheless stated that reforms in the law on collective agreements in the maritime sector were presently under consideration.
8. 87. Still according to the Government, the ministerial decisions mentioned in the complaint were designed to protect the workers' interests by covering the period following the expiry of the previous collective agreement. However, the right to resume negotiations was not restricted. In fact, such ministerial decisions ceased to be valid as from the moment a collective agreement was concluded. Moreover, there was nothing to prevent the parties to an agreement signed following such a decision from making its effects retroactive.
9. 88. As concerns the collective agreement for coastal passenger steamers, the Government stated that negotiations had taken place and had resulted in a settlement. The collective agreement thus concluded had been signed on the seafarers' side by the Panhellenic Maritime Federation and ten seafarers' unions affiliated to that organisation. It had not, however, been signed by two seafarers' unions likewise affiliated to the Panhellenic Maritime Federation, namely, the Panhellenic Union of merchant Marine Stewards - owing to a disagreement which had arisen at the last moment over a minor point - and the Panhellenic Union of Merchant Marine Engineers. To enable the members of these two unions to obtain the increases granted and their insurance funds to receive contributions based on the new pay rates, the minister, with the authorisation of the Council of Ministers, had extended the coverage of the new collective agreement to these categories of personnel. The Government further pointed out that the previous collective agreement expired on 31 December 1975 and that the minister's decision had entitled the persons concerned to a retroactive payment of the pay increase as from 1 January 1976. The Government added that the extension of the collective agreement had been generally looked upon as a victory for the workers, and that three engineers' unions other than the complainant organisation had signed it.
10. 89. As concerns the collective agreement in respect of liners and Mediterranean cruise ships, the Government stated that it had expired on 30 September 1976. The negotiations had not resulted in a settlement as to the terms of a new collective agreement. In order to protect the seafarers' rights, and in particular their right to an extra month's wages at Christmas, Decision No. 70105/9043 of 6 December 1976 had been issued, with the authorisation of the Council of Ministers, to regulate the conditions of work of the categories of seafarers concerned. Subsequently, the Panhellenic Maritime Federation asked the shipowners to resume negotiations, which finally resulted in the conclusion of a collective agreement applicable up to 31 December 1977. This agreement prescribed the same rates of pay and the same conditions of work as those established by the Minister's decision. It had been signed by all the seafarers' unions concerned, including the Panhellenic Union of Merchant Marine Engineers, which had refused to accept the Minister's decision.
11. 90. During the negotiations for the renewal of the collective agreement for the crews of coastal passenger steamers for 1977, the positions of the two sides were close, but no settlement could be reached. For the same reasons as stated above, the minister issued a decision to enable the crews' wages to be adjusted. The viewpoints of both sides were taken into consideration, as well as the general national collective agreement for 1977 signed by the General Confederation of Labour of Greece.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 91. The Committee notes that the complaint is concerned with alleged interference by the Minister of the Mercantile Marine in collective bargaining through the fixing of wage rates and terms and conditions of employment for various categories of seafaring personnel. According to the complainants, the decisions adopted by the Minister constitute a violation of Convention No. 98. The Government, on the other hand, considers that these decisions were adopted purely to protect the rights of the crews concerned and that they cease to be applicable as soon as an agreement is signed.
2. 92. The decisions adopted by the Greek Government raise certain issues which should be examined in the light of Article 4 of Convention No. 98 - ratified by Greece - which provides that "measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements". In this connection, the Committee has already had occasion to emphasise the importance it attaches to the right of trade unions to bargain freely with employers with respect to conditions of work - a right which constitutes an essential element in freedom of association. Furthermore, the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of trade unions, through collective bargaining or other lawful means, to seek to improve the living and working conditions of those whom they represent, or impede the lawful exercise of this right.
3. 93. In the present case it appears that differences of opinion between the two parties arose during the negotiations, and that in the case of most of them strikes were called by unions representing different categories of personnel. In the absence of a settlement, the previous collective agreements having already expired, the Minister of the Mercantile Marine intervened to prescribe provisional wage rates and conditions of employment. According to the complainants, the effect of his intervention has been to curb the employers' willingness to resume negotiations.
4. 94. The Committee considers it appropriate in this case to refer to the conclusions adopted by the Tripartite Advisory meeting on Collective Bargaining (Geneva, May 1976) on the subject of methods of handling disputes arising in connection with collective bargaining. The Meeting was of the opinion that the parties should attempt as far as possible themselves to find a solution to disputes arising between them. It further emphasised that the state should limit itself to establishing a general framework for the settlement of disputes, correcting as far as possible any imbalance of strength between the parties, providing them with information which could be a solid basis for their discussions, and making available settlement procedures to which the parties could have voluntary recourse. Furthermore, it was necessary for the settlement bodies to be completely independent of the government. The participants in the Meeting also emphasised that settlement procedures could be effective only if they were simple, expeditious and as little legalistic as possible.
5. 95. Associating itself with the conclusions of the Tripartite Advisory Meeting on Collective Bargaining, the Committee considers that the bodies appointed for the settlement of disputes between parties to collective bargaining should be independent and that recourse to these bodies should be on a voluntary basis. In the present case, however, the decisions to prescribe conditions of employment and rates of pay have been taken by the Government and are binding. The Committee notes, however, that reforms in the law on collective agreements in the maritime sector are presently under consideration. It considers that it is important that the Government should take into account, in this connection, the considerations set forth above.