Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2021, publiée 110ème session CIT (2022)

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

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA) and the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB), received on 31 August 2021 and referring to the matters addressed below.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that it has been requesting for a number of years the adoption of measures to recognize the right of public servants who are not exercising authority in the name of the State to have recourse to strike action. The Committee had previously noted with interest a 2014 ruling handed down by the Federal Administrative Court holding that, given that the constitutional strike ban depends on the status group and is valid for all civil servants (Beamte) irrespective of their duties and responsibilities, there is a collision with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of civil servants (Beamte) who are not active in genuinely sovereign domains (hoheitliche Befugnisse), for instance teachers in public schools, and this collision should be solved by the federal legislator; and that, in the case of civil servants (Beamte) who exercise sovereign authority, there is no collision with the ECHR and thus no need for action. The Committee also noted that in its 2015 ruling, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed that it is the task of the federal legislator to establish a balance between the incompatible requirements of Article 33(5) of the Basic Law and Article 11 of the ECHR and that, as long as this has not been done, the public-law strike prohibition continues to apply and is a disciplinary rule.

In its previous comment, having noted that a complaint had been raised before the Federal Constitutional Court in relation to the 2014 Federal Administrative Court judgment, the Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, as well as any other pending decision issued by it on the subject. In view of the collision ascertained by the Federal Administrative Court between Article 33(5) of the Basic Law and Article 11 of the ECHR and in light of the persisting need highlighted by the Committee for many years to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention with regard to the same aspect, the Committee once again requested the Government to: (i) refrain, pending the relevant decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, from imposing disciplinary sanctions against civil servants not exercising authority in the name of the State (such as teachers, postal workers and railway employees) who participate in peaceful strikes; and (ii) to engage in a comprehensive national dialogue with representative organizations in the public service with a view to finding possible ways of aligning the legislation with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in its decision of 12 June 2018 (Case No. 2 BvR 1738/12), the Federal Constitutional Court held, contrary to the 2014 judgment of the Federal Administrative Court, that: (i) for civil servants, irrespective of their duties, the strike ban amounts to an independent traditional principle of the career civil service system (Berufsbeamtentum) within the meaning of Article 33(5) of the Basic Law, which justifies an overriding of freedom of association; (ii) this is closely linked to the civil service principle of alimentation (Alimentationsprinzip), according to which civil servants are paid salary commensurate with the civil service position, and also to the duty of loyalty, the principle of lifetime employment and the principle that the legal relationship under civil service law (including remuneration) must be regulated by the legislature; (iii) there is no need for an express legal provision concerning a strike ban for civil servants; (iv) the strike ban for civil servants in Germany is consistent with the principle of interpreting the Basic Law in a manner compatible with international law, as well as with guarantees of the ECHR, as there is no identifiable conflict between German law and Article 11 of the ECHR; and (v) regardless of the question of whether the strike ban for civil servants actually represents an encroachment on Article 11(1) of the ECHR, it would in any case be justified either under the first or the second sentence of Article 11(2) based on the particularities of the German system of the career civil service. The Committee further observes from the text of the ruling that the Federal Constitutional Court opined that: (i) granting the right to strike, even for certain groups of civil servants only, would trigger a chain reaction with regard to the structuring of the civil service, would fundamentally change the system of German civil service law and would interfere with the core of the structural principles guaranteed under Article 33(5) of the Basic Law; (ii) dividing civil servants into groups that have or do not have the right to strike based on their different functions would entail difficulties of distinction that are connected to the concept of public authority and would create a special category of civil servants with the right to strike or civil servants subject to collective agreements, who would be given the possibility of enforcing demands regarding their working conditions through labour dispute measures where applicable, while keeping their civil servant status - this would raise the question to what extent this category of personnel could still be regarded as having the legal status of civil servants; and (iii) to compensate for the civil servants’ lack of possibility to influence their employment conditions by measures of labour dispute, Article 33(5) of the Basic Law affords them, among others, the subjective public right to have the constitutionality of their alimentation reviewed in court, which would be almost completely meaningless if civil servants had the right to strike. The Government adds that proceedings against the strike ban for civil servants are currently ongoing before the European Court of Human Rights.

The Committee notes the observations of the BDA in this respect, pointing to the 2018 decision of the Federal Constitutional Court and indicating that although the concept of freedom of association also includes the right to industrial action (strike and lock-out), this Convention and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) do not regulate or expressly provide for a right to strike. According to the BDA, the manner in which industrial action is organized in practice is always regulated in line with the particular Conventions but at the national level. The Committee also notes the observations of the DGB, claiming that there should be no absolute exclusion of civil servants from the right to strike irrespective of their duties and that a strike ban based on status, as established by the Federal Constitutional Court, represents a hindrance to any practical concordance between Articles 9(3) and 33 of the Basic Law. The DGB argues that a genuine balancing exercise would mean that the strike ban can only remain in place for those officials who genuinely exercise the sovereignty of the State and that civil servants who do not genuinely exercise the sovereignty of the State must benefit from the right to strike to preserve and promote their employment conditions.

The Committee takes due note of the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court that for civil servants, irrespective of their duties, the strike ban amounts to an independent traditional principle of the career civil service system within the meaning of section 33(5) of the Basic Law, which justifies an overriding of freedom of association. Moreover, the Committee wishes to make clear that its task is not to judge the validity of the Court decision of 12 June 2018 (Case No. 2 BvR 1738/12), which is based upon issues of German national law and precedents. The Committee’s task is to examine the outcome of this decision on the recognition and exercise of the workers’ fundamental right to freedom of association. In this regard, the Committee observes with regret that the result of the Court’s decision is not in keeping with the Convention, inasmuch as it amounts to a general ban on the right to strike of civil servants based on their status, irrespective of their duties and responsibilities, and in particular a ban on the right of civil servants who are not exercising authority in the name of the State (such as teachers, postal workers and railway employees) to have recourse to strike action. In view of the above, the Committee encourages the Government to continue engaging in a comprehensive national dialogue with representative organizations in the public service with a view to finding possible ways of aligning the legislation more closely with the Convention. Further noting that proceedings against the strike ban for civil servants are currently ongoing before the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the resulting decision and on any impact it may have at the national level.

The Committee previously noted with interest that, in relation to the 2012 DGB observations denouncing the lack of a general prohibition of the use in non-essential services of temporary workers as strike breakers, national legislation had been amended to ensure that the receiver was no longer allowed to hire agency workers as strike breakers (according to section 11(5) of the Manpower Provision Act, in effect from 1 April 2017, the receiver shall not allow agency workers to work if the business is directly involved in a labour dispute). The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication in this respect that: (i) the deployment of agency workers in industries affected by industrial action is only possible if there is an assurance that they will not take over the jobs of those on strike, either directly or indirectly; (ii) a constitutional complaint against this provision had been brought before the Federal Constitutional Court, claiming that there was a breach of the employer’s freedom of association in that its defences (specifically the use of agency workers during industrial action) were being illegitimately constrained, amounting to undue interference in the ability to carry out a profession; and (iii) in its decision of 19 June 2020 (Case No. 1 BvR 842/17), the Federal Constitutional Court found that the regulation concerned was constitutional and the applicant’s rights had not been infringed.