Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2015, publiée 105ème session CIT (2016)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Hongrie (Ratification: 1957)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2015, which mainly concern allegations pertaining to the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 3 September 2014 included in the Government’s report, as well as the Government’s comments thereon. The Committee notes the observations from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the newly adopted Labour Code prohibit any conduct of workers including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests; and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict the workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had invited the Government to assess, in consultation with the social partners, the need for amending these provisions so as to ensure the respect of freedom of expression. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that: (i) an assessment of the impact of the Labour Code on employers and employees was undertaken as part of the “For Employment” project, which was implemented between 1 September 2013 and 31 August 2015 and consisted of various workshops and official presentations, and, while the results of the project are not yet available, in order to be able to achieve its objective, the review and modification of the Labour Code was included in the legislative schedule for 2015; and (ii) as agreed with the social partners in December 2014, consultations are being undertaken since February 2015 on the modification of the Labour Code within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government, a forum composed of tripartite theme-based expert groups, that deliberates on the matters raised by the Committee, and that is due to present consensus-based proposals for modification. The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council questions the efficiency and effectiveness of these consultations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the results of the “For Employment” project as well as on the outcome of the consultations within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government. The Committee expresses the hope that the review of the Labour Code will fully take into account the Committee’s comments with respect to the need to take any necessary measures, including legislative amendments, to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede freedom of expression and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members. It requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the allegation of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council that numerous rules in the new Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) obstructed their registration in practice. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) based on the experience so far (most of all, the small number of pending judicial proceedings), the requirements of the new Civil Code have not made it significantly more difficult for trade unions to be registered; (ii) unless trade unions pursue activities which require a licence, they may pursue their activities automatically after being registered by the court; and (iii) the Civil Organization Registration Act of 2011 permits the registration of an association by the court within the framework of a simplified registration procedure (duration of 15 days). The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council reiterates that the relevant provisions made the registration of trade unions and the modification of the articles of association of already registered trade unions so difficult that it is basically impossible for them to function. Noting the divergence between the statements of the Government and the workers’ organizations, and recalling that registration should be a mere formality, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) assess without delay, in consultation with the social partners, the need to simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters, as well as the ensuing obligation to bring the trade union by-laws into line with the Civil Code on or before 15 March 2016; and (ii) take the necessary steps to effectively address the difficulties signalled with respect to registration in practice, so that the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing is not hindered. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that: (i) section 3(3) of the Act on Strikes, as amended in 2010, states that the degree and condition of the minimum level of service may be established by law, and that, in the absence of such regulation, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations; or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court; and (ii) the Government had indicated that based on trade union applications to the courts for determination of minimum services, it became necessary to amend and clarify the provisions of the Act on Strikes with respect to services where parties could frequently not agree (public transport and postal services) so as to guarantee a predictable service level for users. In reply to the Committee’s request for information, the Government indicates that: (i) the Act XLI of 2012 on passenger transport service (Passenger Transport Services Act) states that for the period affected by the strike, the minimum level of service for local and suburban passenger transportation public services is 66 per cent; and the minimum service for national and regional passenger transportation public services is 50 per cent; and (ii) with regard to postal services, section 34(3) of the Act CLIX of 2012 on postal services (Postal Services Act) states that in case of a strike, official documents must be collected at least four days a week and shall be delivered within a period no more than 50 per cent longer than the specified time frame; and other mail shall be collected at least on every second working day and delivered within a period no more than twice as long. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that, as agreed with the social partners in December 2014, consultations are currently being undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government; and that the Committee’s comments are being discussed in these consultations. The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council questions the efficiency and effectiveness of these consultations, and alleges that it is practically impossible to organize or maintain a lawful strike because the Strikes Act establishes the definition, degree and volume of passenger transportation public services and postal services in such detail, and because the Act prescribes an unreasonably high minimum level of service.

The Committee recalls that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in establishing the minimum service, together with employers and public authorities. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service, and empowered to issue enforceable decisions. The Committee further recalls that the minimum service must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear; and that, in the past, it has considered that a requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may considerably restrict the right of transport workers to take industrial action. The Committee therefore highlights the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act), in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. In view of the consultations currently being undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act, the Committee trusts that due account will be taken of its comments during the legal review, and requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.