Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 1994, publiée 81ème session CIT (1994)

The Committee notes the Government's report and its reply to the comments made by the National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions (MSZOSZ).

1. The Committee recalls that, according to the MSZOSZ, Act No. 28 of 11 July 1991 respecting the protection of trade union property and Act No. 29 of 11 July 1991 respecting the voluntary nature of the payment of trade union membership dues impair the right of trade unions to organize the management of their property freely.

According to the Government, Act No. 28 of 1991 endeavours to resolve the contradictions which existed in respect of the property rights of trade unions and to ensure that these rights can be exercised equally by all trade unions. The Act therefore provides for a transitional period in the management of trade union assets while awaiting their definitive distribution. The Government also states that in December 1992 an agreement was concluded with the MSZOSZ and the National Council of Trade Unions (NCTU) on the distribution of trade union assets. This agreement was introduced in an Act which was adopted by the Parliament in February 1993.

The Committee notes this information. It hopes that the Act of February 1993 will make it possible to resolve the issue of the distribution of the assets covered by Act No. 28 of 1991 in such a manner that the possibility of effectively exercising their activities in full independence is guaranteed on an equal footing to all trade unions. The Committee asks the Government and the trade union organizations concerned to confirm this.

2. With regard to Act No. 29 of 1991 on the voluntary payment of trade union membership dues, the Government points out that under section 1 of the Act the employer may only deduct dues from the worker's wages if the worker gives explicit authorization in writing specifying the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the amount deducted. It is also prohibited for employers to discriminate between workers or different trade union organizations.

In view of this information, the Committee considers that Act No. 29 of 1991 does not jeopardize the safeguards set out in the Convention since it does not establish any discrimination between trade union organizations and does not therefore prejudice the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

3. With regard to the comments of the MSZOSZ relating to the distinction made between the most representative trade unions and other organizations under the provisions of the Labour Code and Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees, the Government states that sections 23 and 29 of the Labour Code establish a right of objection against measures (or acts of negligence) by the employer in respect of trade unions which are recognized for that employer. Trade unions which are not recognized have the right, under section 199(l), to initiate legal proceedings against a measure (or act of negligence) by an employer which violates the appropriate employment regulations or in support of claims deriving from the employment relationship. The Government adds that the Labour Code also establishes two methods of determining the representative status of trade unions for the purposes of collective bargaining and the conclusion of collective agreements (section 33).

The Committee considers that the provisions of the Labour Code do not prevent minority organizations from organizing their activities and representing their members in the case of individual claims. The Committee therefore considers that they are not contrary to the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee will examine Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees, with respect to the application of the Convention, as soon as the text is made available to it.

4. The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government.