Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 236, Noviembre 1984

1. 37. The Committee considered this case at its meeting in February 1984 when it presented interim conclusions (233rd Report, paras. 593-627), which were approved by the Governing Body at its 225th Session (February-March 1984). The Committee has since considered certain additional information sent by the Government, in particular, in a communication dated 20 June 1984.
2. 38. Greece 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 39. This case relates to a labour dispute between the Panhellenic Union of Mechanics in the Merchant Marine (PEMEN) and the Dockers' Union (PENEM), on the one hand, and the Union of Greek Shipowners (EEE), on the other, concerning the renewal of a collective agreement. The complainant alleges that the employers refused to renew the agreement at a time when a bill, aiming to reduce Greek seafarers' wages and lower working conditions, to the detriment of Third World seafarers, had just been brought before Parliament.
2. 40. An initial 48-hour strike took place in June 1983. This strike was declared by Greek seafarers who were in different world ports, including ports in the United States of America, Algeria, the, Ivory Coast, Belgium and the Netherlands. It is alleged that this.; strike led to the dismissal of several seafarers. It is also alleged, that in New Orleans (Louisiana, United States) ten trade unionists were forbidden to land on United States territory and to board a ship entering an American port. According to the complainant, no ship would recruit trade unionists any more because, if they did so, they would liable to be denied entry into an American port.
3. 41. A second 48-hour strike was declared later in August 1983, in support of a demand for wage and bonus increases, as there had been a breakdown in negotiations with the shipowners who, according to the complainant, had the backing of the Government. The striking trade, union leaders were arrested on 19 August 1983 and brought before the Piraeus court on 28 September 1983.
4. 42. After examining the case, the Committee requested the Government to supply its comments on the outstanding allegations, namely the dismissal of strikers and the entry of their names on black lists, which prevented them from finding work, and the arrest of strikers following the strike of August 1983.

B. The Government's reply

1. 43. In the additional information which it has supplied, the Government admits that 14 persons were arrested during the strike on 19 August 1983, but it explains that it intervened when the persons in question had sought to prevent the transport of passengers and the sailing of ships, in defiance of orders made by the public prosecutor of the port of Piraeus. They were arrested by the harbour police and prosecuted for breach of sections 167 and 169 of the Penal Code concerning resistance to the orders of authorities and disobedience. They were later tried and nine of them were sentenced to four months' imprisonment by the Piraeus court. These persons appealed and were finally released. None of them was registered as a crew member.
2. 44. The Government indicates that the strikers who were dismissed by the ships' masters were dismissed because they had used violence and threats to prevent the freedom to work of non-strikers, in contravention of section 40 of Act No. 330/1976. The Government supplies detailed information concerning the illegal acts committed by the dismissed seafarers in ports in the Ivory Coast, the United States, Greece and Belgium and, in particular, on the eight cases of written appeals lodged on 13 July 1983, and the Minister for the Merchant Marine has decided that the actions referred to by the ships' masters constituted offences. According to the information contained in the reply, the strikers intimidated non-strikers by forbidding them to sail, by threatening to cut off their legs with a hatchet, by forbidding them to open hatchways, by hitting officers, by forcing journalists to board the ships to prevent loading, by refusing to join their vessel when it was about to sail and by throwing themselves into the water in front of the ships. However, the Minister for the Merchant Marine has given the port authorities instructions not to dismiss the seafarers concerned and the entries concerning dismissals ordered have been deleted from their papers.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 45. The Committee observes in this case that, according to the complainant, the strikes declared by the seafarers which led to the dismissal and imprisonment of seafarers were of an occupational nature. While the Government has confirmed that nine of the strikers were sentenced to four months' imprisonment and that other seafarers were dismissed, it has stated that the sentences were given on the grounds of resisting orders and disobedience and that the' dismissals were justified because the seafarers in question had impaired the freedom to work of non-striking seafarers by measures of intimidation and by threats and violence.
2. 46. In the circumstances, the Committee must draw attention to the fact that, while the authorities must not resort to measures of imprisonment in the case of a peaceful strike, and even less to dismissal, in the cases involved here, according to the detailed information furnished by the Government, the strikers, by blocking access to vessels, by hitting non-strikers and by seriously threatening other seafarers, appear to have exceeded what may be regarded as the legitimate and peaceful exercise of the right to strike. In any event, it appears that the persons arrested have been freed and that the dismissals ordered have been cancelled.