Informe provisional - Informe núm. 222, Marzo 1983

1. 301. By a communication dated October 1982 the Cyprus Airways Cabin Attendants Union Solidarity (CACAU-Solidarity) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights in Cyprus. Additional information in support of the complaint was submitted on 28 October, 5 and 8 November and 17 December 1982. The Government sent its reply in communications dated 28 December 1982 and 27 January 1983.
2. 302. Cyprus 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, 1948 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 303. The CACAU-Solidarity alleges that, although recently set up to represent 95 per cent of its working force, the employer - Cyprus Airways Ltd. - has refused to meet with it and has undertaken a campaign of threats and pressure on the new union's members in an effort to force them to return to their old union which represents the ground staff departments and is, according to the complainant, under the influence of the employer and principal shareholder, the Government of Cyprus. Methods of pressure allegedly include rumours that the CACAU-Solidarity Committee members will be suspended and the long interrogations of union members by an employer-appointed Enquiry Committee.
2. 304. In its communication of 28 October 1982, the CACAU-Solidarity explains the case of its Secretary-General, Mr. A.N. Zivanas, who, after the arrival on 25 September 1982 of a Saturday flight which was 62 meals short, filed a report. The following Monday morning he was interrogated by an Investigation Committee and accused of abuse of power in favour of his union; after further questioning by the Managing Director concerning the flight, he was suspended, the suspension order not mentioning payment arrangements or duration. According to the complainant, a Board of Inquiry Was appointed, but Mr. Zivanas was not informed of its existence until he was called in to be questioned; neither was he informed of the accusations against him. He was punished with the choice between transfer to the freight department or dismissal. The complainant states that it took the case to the Labour Disputes Court on the grounds of anti-union discrimination and the union leader has accepted transfer "under protest" until the Court delivers its verdict.
3. 305. In its letter of 5 November 1982, the complainant states that a number of stewards and stewardesses have been directly or indirectly threatened by higher officials of the company that they would lose their jobs if they joined the complainant union; it is keeping the names and details of such cases confidential for eventual use in court. The complainant does however give details of the case of one steward, Mr. N. Matsentides, who requested to check the contents of his duty free bars before a flight prior to signing the relevant customs documents. He was subsequently off-loaded and suspended from duties for the rest of the day for allegedly acting outside a steward's terms of reference. The complainant also reports that the company has begun recruiting new staff allegedly to be used in the event of strike action by the complainant in support of its application to the Ministry of Labour for official recognition. The complainant's letter of 8 November 1982 adds the name of its President, Mr. T. Stylianou, and Committee members Miss S. Papadopoulou and Mr. A. Hadjinicolaou to the list of threatened union leaders.
4. 306. On 17 December 1982 the complainant sent further information alleging that it is facing a combined effort by the employer, the Cyprus Workers' Confederation and the Union of Cyprus Airways Employees (SYNYKA) to dissolve the complainant union (which was registered on 15 November 1982 under the Trade Unions Law of 1965) and that the national legislation does not allow the Ministry of Labour to protect the workers against anti-labour measures. It requests a meeting with an ILO representative in the presence of employer and government representatives.

B. The Government's reply

1. 307. In its communication of 28 December 1982, the Government states that its Ministry of Labour Conciliation service, in separate meetings with the complainant union and the company, failed to reconcile each party's opposing views; the company reiterates that it cannot recognise a "splinter" union representing only 40 employees out of a total workforce of 1,000, that it has not interfered in the formation or operation of the union, that it rightfully disciplined certain employees, although not on trade union grounds, and that it has not exerted any pressure on its employees to join or not join any particular union. According to the Government, the complainant union insists that the employer recognise it for collective bargaining purposes, that it reinstate disciplined members of the union and that it cease its discriminatory acts.
2. 308. The Government points out that the SYNYKA union, from which the CACAU-Solidarity split, and the Cyprus Workers' Confederation, to which the SYNYKA belongs, regard the complainant union as a renegade which is trying to secure preferential conditions of employment for cabin attendants; the Confederation has even threatened industrial action against the employer if it recognises the new union.
3. 309. According to the Government, one member of the complainant union has applied under the Termination of Employment Laws 1967-1980 to the Industrial Arbitration Tribunal (a body independent of the Ministry of Labour and its Conciliation Service comprising a tripartite board of arbitrators), and the Ministry and its Conciliation Service are still trying to settle the dispute. It stresses, however, that the collective bargaining system in Cyprus

A. The complainant's allegations is completely free so that the Ministry cannot enforce recognition or compulsory reinstatement of disciplined employees. The Government supplies copies of the Trade Unions Law, the Trade Disputes (Conciliation, Arbitration and Inquiry) Law and the Termination of Employment Laws - as well as the Industrial Relations Code - which provide that membership of a trade union or trade union activities shall not constitute a valid reason for termination of employment.

1. 310. In its letter of 28 January 1983, the Government reiterates that in the free system of collective bargaining operating in Cyprus it cannot force recognition or reinstatement.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 311. The Committee notes that this case involves allegations of employer interference in the functioning of a newly-registered union, the Cyprus Airways Cabin Attendants Union Solidarity (CACAU-Solidarity), through its refusal to negotiate with it and anti-union discrimination in the form of transfer, suspension and threats of dismissal against members of the new union.
2. 312. From all the information at its disposal the Committee notes that the complainant union, CACAO-Solidarity, was established and registered, in accordance with the legislation, on 15 November 1982. With some 40 members, it appears to represent 95 per cent of the cabin attendants, whereas the remainder of the total workforce of 1,000 are represented by the Cyprus Airways Employees' Union (SYNYKA), from which the CACAU-Solidarity has broken away. The Committee also notes that SYNYKA is affiliated to the Cyprus Workers' Confederation which, according to the Government, threatens industrial action against the employer if CACAO-Solidarity is recognised.
3. 313. As regards the question of the representativity of unions for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Committee has on a number of occasions pointed out that it is not necessarily incompatible with the principles of freedom of association to provide for the certification of the most representative union in a given unit as the exclusive bargaining agent, but that this is the case only if a number of safeguards are provided, e.g.. (a) certification to be made by an independent body; (b) the representative organisation to be chosen by a majority vote of the employees in the unit concerned; (c) the right of an organisation other than the certificated organisation to demand a new election after a fixed period has elapsed since the previous election. In addition, minority organisations should be allowed to function and at least have the right to make representations on behalf of their members and to represent them in the case of individual grievances. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that steps should be taken by the authorities to verify the various claims of the unions concerned to represent the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit with a view to determining, on the basis of the aforementioned criteria, the most representative union for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of such an inquiry.
4. 314. As regards the employer's alleged anti-union actions, in particular the transfer of the complainant's Secretary-General, Mr. Zivanas, the one-day suspension of Mr. Matsentides and the threats made against union executive members Mr. Styliancu, Miss Papadopoulou and Mr. Hadjinicolaou, the Committee notes the employer's insistence that the disciplinary measures were justified and not based on trade union grounds and its denial that there has been any anti-union pressure exerted on its employees. The Committee also notes that the union's allegations have been examined by the Conciliation Service of the Ministry of Labour which appears merely to have recorded the views of the employer that no act of anti-union discrimination was committed.
5. 315. As concerns all the other acts of alleged anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes, in particular, that the Trade Unions Law, 1965, contains precise provisions guaranteeing protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and that Mr. Zivanas has challenged his transfer before the labour Disputes Court. The Committee, recalling the principle that workers' organisations should be able to function freely without interference by employers or their organisations, requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the case instituted by Mr. Zivanas. It would also like to be informed of the outcome of any other action that may have been taken by the complainant organisation at the national level to seek redress for the other alleged acts of anti-union discrimination to which its members are said to have been subjected.