Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2017, publiée 107ème session CIT (2018)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Croatie (Ratification: 1991)

Autre commentaire sur C098

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. In its 2014 observation, the Committee had noted the adoption of the new Labour Act, 2014, and the new Act on Representativeness of Employer Organizations and Trade Union Organizations, 2014, and had invited the Government to provide information on the provisions giving effect to the provisions of the Convention and their application in practice. In the absence of information from the Government, the Committee would like to raise the following points with regard to the content of the Acts.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Labour Act, 2014, explicitly prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination, including in recruitment, during employment and with regard to termination of employment (sections 166(2) and 186(1)–(3)), provides for appeal against such acts (section 133) and provides for reinstatement and compensation for unfair dismissal (sections 124 and 125). The Committee observes, however, that despite detailed provisions on penalties for various violations of the Labour Act, there are no provisions setting up sanctions for acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that a breach of section 166 of the Labour Act (prohibition of anti-union discrimination) constitutes discrimination within the meaning of the Act on the Prevention of Discrimination and that, under section 25 of that Act, a fine of 5,000–30,000 Croatian kuna (US$780–$4,679) can be imposed on any person who, with the aim of intimidating another person or of creating a hostile, degrading or offensive environment on the grounds of a difference in trade union membership, hurts another person’s dignity. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the mentioned definition is based on criteria generally used to qualify acts of intimidation at work and considers that such a formulation might not cover all acts of anti-union discrimination prohibited under Article 1 of the Convention and the relevant sections of the Labour Act. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all acts of anti-union discrimination prohibited by the Convention and the Labour Act effectively give rise to sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee further requests the Government to provide statistics on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints filed before the competent authorities, their follow-up in the labour inspectorate and their outcome, including sanctions and remedies imposed.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Determination of collective bargaining agents. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that the new Act on Representativeness of Employer Organizations and Trade Union Organizations, 2014, was elaborated in close cooperation and after numerous consultations with all representative social partners and had expressed the wish to receive the views and comments of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in this regard. The Committee notes that the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (UATUC) and the Independent Trade Unions of Croatia (NHS) state that in situations where several unions are considered as representative, the employer can only negotiate with a negotiating committee consisting of representatives of each of these unions. In this respect, the UATUC and the NHS allege that any union which does not want to negotiate could prevent other unions from collective bargaining by failing to appoint its representative to the negotiating committee (sections 7(2) and (4), and 9). The workers’ organizations also express concern as to the length of the procedure for the recognition of representativeness of trade unions, which could last several months. In view of the concerns raised by the workers’ organizations, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether a refusal of one or several representative trade unions to nominate a representative to the negotiating committee can prevent such committee from bargaining collectively with the employer. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the Act on Representativeness in practice, including the average duration of the procedure.

The Committee further requests the Government to provide copies of any ordinance adopted by the Minister under section 233(2) of the Labour Act, which could have an impact on the exercise of trade union rights, protection against anti-union discrimination and collective bargaining.