Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Pologne (Ratification: 1957)

Autre commentaire sur C098

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) sent on 4 August 2011 and 31 July 2012. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to some of the observations made by the ITUC. Similarly, the Committee takes note of the reply from the Polish Confederation of Private Employers (LEWIATAN), dated 3 November 2011, to the ITUC’s allegations on the refusal of an enterprise to negotiate improvements in employment conditions, and in particular its statement that the crisis – which started after the agreement had been concluded in 2008 – had had drastic repercussions on the economic situation of enterprises; in September 2011, all the enterprise’s shares were sold. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in connection with the ITUC’s comments made in 2012 on anti-union dismissals in various sectors of activity. The Committee also notes the comments from the National Commission of the Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union (NSZZ) “Solidarnosc” on matters already highlighted by the Committee.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee noted the allegations of inefficiency of the proceedings and sanctions established in the legislation, and urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective application of the legal sanctions for all cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee also requested the Government to continue providing information on the number of complaints for anti-union discrimination, the average duration of the proceedings and the outcome of these proceedings. The Committee notes that the Government states as follows: (1) section 38 of the Labour Code contains the obligation to consult with the trade union concerned before the termination of an employment contract; (2) section 18 of the Labour Code stipulates the principle of non-discrimination in employment on grounds of trade union membership and provides for compensation for damages incurred; (3) section 45(1) stipulates that in the event of an unjustified termination of the employment relationship the employee may demand reinstatement with the same conditions as before; (4) freedom of association is protected under article 59(1) of the Constitution and any violation of this right is subject to criminal liability (section 218(1) of the Penal Code and section 35(1) of the 1991 Act on trade unions).

The Committee also notes the Government’s information on the following: (1) in 2010, there were 244 complaints lodged for the violation of the principle of special protection for members of trade unions; 20 per cent of the cases were dismissed; 15 per cent were discontinued due to a settlement or withdrawal of the claim; and, to date, only two cases are pending before the judicial authority; (2) as regards the allegation of the excessive length of proceedings in labour matters, out of 63,417 cases submitted to district courts in 2010, 47.4 per cent were completed within a period of three months and 72.5 per cent within six months; less than 10 per cent of the total number of cases were pending for more than 12 months and, of these, only 1.7 per cent of cases were pending for more than two years; (3) there were 35 cases of criminal proceedings related to the violation of the principle of association in 2010, of which 14 were pending in April 2011, 12 persons were convicted, two were acquitted and proceedings against eight people were discontinued. The Committee takes due note of all this information and emphasizes the high number of complaints concerning anti-union practices. The Committee requests the Government to submit in its next report statistics on the number of new cases concerning anti-union practices brought before the courts.

Compensation for anti-union dismissal. The Committee had noted that, according to the ITUC, victims of anti-union dismissals could ask for reinstatement, but court proceedings could take up to two years. In this respect, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government, to which it referred in the previous paragraph, concerning the procedural deadlines for dealing with complaints for violations of trade union rights. Similarly, the Committee notes that the Government refers once again to a possible legislative reform that would introduce an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure giving the judicial authority the possibility, in cases of termination of an employment relationship in which there are allegations of anti-union discrimination, of granting the right for the persons concerned to remain in their jobs during the proceedings. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report of any initiative to amend the legislation in this respect.