Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 72, 1964

1. 145. This case has already been examined by the Committee at its 33rd Session, held in Geneva in February 1963, and dealt with in an interim report contained in paragraphs 110 to 124 of the 69th Report of the Committee; that report was adopted by the Governing Body at its 154th Session (March 1963). Following its examination of the case at that time, the Committee reached final conclusions concerning the case as a whole, except for one particular point on which it considered that the Government should be requested to supply further information. The following paragraphs relate solely to that aspect of the case which had remained in suspense.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 146. One of the complainants' allegations was that on 1 September 1962 the management of the Joint Bus Receipts Fund (K.T.E.L.)-a public body to which both bus employers and employees engaged in urban transport services belong-brought about the dismissal of 47 conductors (mostly officers or leading members of the Piraeus Bus Conductors' Association) on the grounds of " anti-national activity " and in pursuance of Act No. 516 of 1948, through the recruitment committee responsible for hiring, retaining in their posts and dismissing bus conductors and drivers in accordance with section 17 of Legislative Decree No. 3990 of 1959.
2. 147. The complainants stated that these dismissals had occurred following four stoppages of two hours each carried out under the leadership of the Piraeus Bus Conductors' Association on 17 and 27 August 1962 as a protest against reduction of the wage allowance in respect of dependent children and the failure of the management of the K.T.E.L to pay wages.
3. 148. When it examined this aspect of the case during its session of February 1963, the Committee noted that, of the 47 persons alleged to have been dismissed, 28 were named by the complainants and that, of those 28 persons, 19, whose titles and functions were specified, were trade union leaders.
4. 149. In these circumstances the Committee, noting that the Government's reply did not refer to the specific cases of dismissal mentioned by the complainants, recommended that the Governing Body should request the Government to state whether the persons named in the complaint had been dismissed, and if so to explain for what precise reasons.
5. 150. This recommendation was approved by the Governing Body and the abovementioned request for further information was communicated to the Government by letter from the Director-General dated 7 June 1963. The Government replied by a communication dated 24 August 1963.
6. 151. The Government's reply states that one of the 19 persons mentioned above, namely Mr. Basil Papastaphidas, had no longer worked as a bus conductor since April 1958, and that section 17 (3) of Legislative Decree No. 3990/1959 provides for reclassification within the K.T.E.L only of such persons as had been employed as conductors or drivers for not less than six months before the decree was passed.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 152. With regard to Mr. Papastaphidas, it seems that the reason why he was not reclassified within the K.T.E.L is that he did not satisfy the conditions required, and was not due to any trade union activities he may have engaged in.
2. 153. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the particular case of Mr. Papastaphidas does not call for further examination.
3. 154. With regard to the 18 other trade union leaders mentioned in the complaint, however, the Government's observations of 24 August 1963 merely state that they were not reclassified " because they did not meet the standards laid down by the Legislative Decree " (honesty, discipline, diligence, attitude towards passengers).
4. 155. In several previous cases, the Committee has emphasised that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment (such as dismissal, transfer or other prejudicial matters) and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has pointed out that one way of ensuring such protection is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter, except, of course, for serious misconduct. The Committee also considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom.
5. 156. In view of the importance of the above-mentioned principles, and since the dismissals (or refusals to re-classify workers) concerned seem to have taken place after stoppages of work and to have been aimed against the leaders of the organisation which called those stoppages, the Committee, noting that the Government's observations do not reply to the Governing Body's questions as to " the precise reasons " for the action taken against the persons concerned, finds it necessary to recommend the Governing Body to repeat its request to the Government to be good enough to furnish the information previously requested, together with the fullest details.