Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 238, Marzo 1985

1. 83. The complaint from the International Transport Workers' Federation against the Government of Greece is contained in a communication dated 17 October 1984. The Government replied in a communication of 1 December 1984.
2. 84. Greece has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.087) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.098).

A. The complainant Federation's allegations

1. 85. The complaint from the International Transport Workers' Federation concerns a labour dispute between the Association of Flight Engineers (OSPA), one of its member organisations, and the airline Olympic Airways. The complainants allege that, in the present case, Greece violated Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, especially Article 3 of Convention No. 87, by preventing the Association of Flight Engineers from bargaining collectively as long as this category of workers was mobilised; the complainant further alleges that Greece violated Article 1 of Convention No. 98, by preventing the members of the trade union in question from exercising their trade union activities although Greece is not in a state of war, that it violated Article 2 of Convention No. 98, as the Greek Government interfered in trade union matters, and that it violated Article 3 of Convention No. 98, concerning the establishment of machinery for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise, as the Minister of Labour has the authority to mediate at the national level.
2. 86. The complainant explains that the Association of Flight Engineers had submitted a 72-hour strike notice to its employer, Olympic Airways, on 19 June 1984, as negotiations on the renewal of the 1984 collective agreement had been broken off. At the request of Olympic Airways, the Minister of Transport decreed that the Olympic Airways flight engineers should be mobilised as from 19 June 1984 and it authorised the director of the Civil Aviation Department of the Ministry of Transport to requisition individual workers (Decision No. 3219 of 18 June 1984). Those flight engineers who became ill after the date of the requisition order were forced to undergo a medical examination at the military hospital and the said hospital was instructed to inform the employer of the measures he should take. Individual requisition orders were also issued to those who were on sick leave and one of the persons in question went to work although he was ill. According to the complainant, a worker refusing to obey the requisition order would have been liable to 12 months' imprisonment.

B. The Government's reply

1. 87. The Government explains that the trade union in question had failed to abide by the legal procedure with respect to the renewal of collective agreements; requisitioning had taken place following the said federation's decision not to respect the legal procedure and to refuse to comply with the procedure for settling collective agreements laid down in Act No. 3239 of 1955.
2. 88. The Government explains that, under this legislation, the parties (employers and workers) may settle labour disputes themselves but, if it proves impossible to reach an understanding, they may apply to the Ministry of Labour for its mediation (section 2(4) of Act No. 3239 of 1955).
3. 89. It adds that, in this case, the Minister's role is restricted to finding a solution of conciliation and, if this fails, the parties are bound to submit the matter for arbitration. If the dispute is referred to the arbitration tribunal, any attempt by the parties to force a settlement of the dispute in their favour by a stoppage or evident slow-down of work is prohibited for a period of 45 days, or 60 days where an appeal has been made (section 18(2)).
4. 90. Not only had the trade union in question (OSPA) failed to respect the procedure, it also stated that it would not abide by the law. The Government therefore states that, at the initial stage, the workers' contracts were terminated as they had infringed the law (section 18(3), subparagraph 1) and penal actions were brought against the authors of the strike (section 18(2), (3) and (4)). However, the Government states that, at a later stage, it acted with leniency and did not impose penalties. It even ruled that strikes of this nature should no longer be subject to penalties, by repealing the provisions contained in section 18(3), subparagraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Act No. 3239 of 1955. Furthermore, the dialogue between Olympic Airways and the OSPA has been resumed and a collective agreement has been signed and promulgated by the Order YPA 49 527/1699 of the Minister of Transport, putting an end to the requisitioning.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 91. The Committee notes that this case concerns a labour dispute which occurred between the management of Olympic Airways and the Association of Flight Engineers (OSPA) concerning the renewal of the collective agreement in this sector for 1984 and that, according to the Government, a collective agreement has now been signed, thereby putting an end to the dispute. The Committee also notes with interest that the provisions of Act No. 3239 of 1955, which enabled penal action to be brought against workers who went on strike while conciliation and arbitration procedures were in process, have been repealed by Act No. 1483 of 1984 (section 21).
2. 92. In view of the above and especially taking into account that this labour dispute has been settled by the signing of a collective agreement for this occupational category and that the striking workers have not been penalised, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.