Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 214, Marzo 1982

1. 351. The complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the Trade Unions International (TUI) of Transport Workers is contained in a communication dated 16 July 1981. Information on the case was supplied by the Panhellenic Union of Merchant Marine Engineers (PEMEN) on 27 August 1981. The Government, for its part, supplied its observations in communications dated 10 August, 15 October and 7 December 1981.
2. 352. Greece has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Eight to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 353. The WFTU and the TUI of Transport Workers protest against the repressive measures taken against the Panhellenic Union of Merchant Marine Engineers (PEMEN), an organisation which is affiliated to them.
2. 354. The complainant organisations explain that the PEMEN was forced to issue a strike notice for 13 July 1981 since the legitimate demands of workers in this sector were refused despite several approaches made to the competent authorities.
3. 355. At the request of the employers, the Greek authorities then took legal proceedings against the union, the complainant organisations continue, and on 9 July 1981 Piraeus court prohibited the strike, contrary to the safeguards provided for by the Greek Constitution concerning strikes and collective bargaining.
4. 356. The documentation attached to the complaint indicates that the demands of the merchant marine engineers related to wage adjustments, pay for Saturdays and holidays, a change in the overtime rate, the classification of this sector in the category of unhealthy and dangerous occupations, and a rectification of the low pay for non-certified engineers, demands which had been declared illegal and excessive by a court decision.
5. 357. The strike was prohibited, the PEMEN explains, because the collective agreement governing conditions of employment in this sector remained in force until 30 September 1981. However, although that agreement had been signed and ratified by the Union of Greek Shipowners (EEE), the Panhellenic Maritime Federation (PNO) and the Diesel Engineers' Union (PEME KEN) (the last organisation having only 260 members), it was extended to the members of the PEMEN by a decision of the Minister of the Merchant Marine at a time when the PEMEN was still in the process of negotiating. Moreover, the employers argued that the strike would cause great damage to their own interests and to the national economy and that the demands made by the engineers were illegal, excessive and unacceptable because they were very well paid workers. The employers therefore requested the court, in addition to prohibiting the strike, to impose a fine of 100,000 drachmas in the event of violation of the court decision and a sentence of one year's imprisonment for each member of the union's executive Committee.

B. The Government's reply

1. 358. In its reply of 10 August 1981, the Government transmits' information supplied by the ministry of the Merchant Marine on this case. According to the Government, the right to strike must be exercised in accordance with the law and any dispute on the matter must be settled by the competent courts. In this case, the Government states that in July 1980 the court had prohibited a 48 hour strike in this sector and issued an order to prohibit any further strike concerning the same demands. The Government notes that the PEMEN had not appealed against that decision at the time; in May 1981, three months before the collective agreement was due to expire, the PEMEN decided to call a strike for more or less the same demands. The court, on the basis of its previous decision, declared the strike illegal.

C. Additional information supplied by the complainants

1. 359. In its communication of 27 August 1981, the PEMEN states that a three-day strike was in fact held on all Greek ships throughout the world and ended successfully. However, the PEMEN continues, a number of the strikers were dismissed and some had to return to Greece at their own expense.

D. Further replies of the Government

1. 360. In his communication of 15 October 1981, the Minister of the Merchant Marine replies that the PEMEN could have appealed against the court's decision. As regards the procedure for negotiating and approving collective labour agreements, the Minister refers to the explanations which he gave in conjunction with Case No. 947, the that the collective agreement in question had been ratified by the union of Greek Shipowners (FEE) and by the Panhellenic Maritime Federation (PNO), to which the PEMEN belongs. It had been extended to this sector by the Minister in accordance with the law. In its communication of 7 December 1981, the Government states that the strikers were in fact dismissed by the shipowners for having illegally called a strike from 13 July to 11 August 1981, and specifies that the persons concerned are entitled to file an appeal with the courts to obtain their reinstatement.

E. The Committee's conclusions

1. 361. The Committee observes that the labour dispute between the PEMEN trade unionists and their employers was already examined by it in Cases Nos. 947 and 1008 in which it reached definitive conclusions.
2. 362. When those cases were examined, the Committee stated that the approval by the Ministry of the Merchant Marine - and the subsequent extension to the PEMEN trade unionists - of the collective agreement signed by the PNO and the FEE did not seem to constitute an infringement of the principles of collective bargaining since the agreement in question had been signed by the Panhellenic Maritime Federation (PNO), to which the PEMEN belongs, and by the competent employers' organisations. However, the Committee considered that inasmuch as the PEMEN is the most representative organisation of the sector, it would have been desirable for this organisation to be represented in the negotiations concerning problems specific to the category of staff it represents.
3. 363. In the present case, the Committee observes that the PEMEN considers that the collective agreement which was extended to it by a ministerial decision, and which remained in force until 30 September 1981, was extended to it when it was still in the process of negotiating and consequently that it was fully entitled to call a strike for the purpose of obtaining changes in the conditions of employment which had been imposed upon it. In the Government's opinion, on the other hand, a previous court decision had forbidden the workers concerned to strike and they had not appealed against that decision. The court confirmed its previous decision and again declared the strike illegal. The PEMEN trade unionists could have appealed against this second decision which was handed down three months before the collective agreement governing their conditions of employment was due to expire.
4. 364. For its part, the Committee notes that, despite the prohibition decided by the court, the strike took place and strikers were dismissed. The Committee therefore wishes to remind the Government that it has always regarded the right to strike as one of the legitimate means available to workers for protecting their occupational interests. While the Committee has nevertheless acknowledged that this right may be restricted, and even prohibited, in certain essential services that is, services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population, it has considered that this principle might well become meaningless if it were so interpreted as to permit prohibition of a strike in an undertaking not providing an essential service in the strict sense. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it would be appropriate for the Government to take measures to facilitate the reinstatement of the workers dismissed.