Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 217, Juin 1982

1. 365. The complaint of the Federation of Secondary School Teachers of Greece (OLME) is contained in communications dated 5 and 16 December 1980 and 8 January and 12 February 1981. The World Federation of Teachers' Unions (FISE) endorsed the complaint in a telegram dated 16 December 1980 and supplied additional information in a communication dated 12 January 1981. In addition, the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) supplied detailed information on the case on 10 March 1981, adding that the International Federation of Secondary Teachers (FIPESO) joined it in lodging a complaint.
2. 366. The Government replied in a brief communication dated 5 March 1982.
3. 367. Greece has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Allegations of the complainants

1. 368. In this case, the complainants allege that severe measures were taken by the Government in power at the time when the complaint was submitted against trade unionists of the Federation of Secondary School Teachers of Greece (OLME) when a strike, which began on 3 December 1980, was interrupted by the strikers during the Christmas holidays and resumed on 8 January 1981. The strike was the result of a labour dispute relating to wage claims and demands for the reclassification of jobs in the public service.
2. 369. According to the complainants, the strike was declared illegal and abusive on 19 January 1981 by the Court of Appeal on the application of the Minister of National Education and Religion. The minister, invoking Act No. 643/77, alleged failure to give notice when filing the demands and the budgetary impossibility of meeting the demands, which he considered excessive. The OLME, on the other hand, alleged in particular the discriminatory dismissal of 200 teachers because they had been absent from their posts without due cause, whereas according to the OLME they had specifically stated in writing during the strike that their absence was due to their participation in the strike. The OLME attaches to its communication copies of the letters of dismissal.

B. The Government's reply

1. 370. In its reply of 5 March 1982, the new Government forwards the reply of the competent ministry, i.e. the Ministry of National Education. The Under-Secretary of State for Education states that he is transmitting a photocopy of Decision No. 309 of the Court of Appeal mentioning the reasons for which the Court ordered the suspension of the strike as illegal and abusive, a photocopy of the application filed on 9 January 1981 by the minister of Education before the Athens Court of Appeal, and Memorandum No. 809 of 5 January 1982 in which the complainant federation develops its point of view regarding the justification of the teachers' strike.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 371. The Committee has taken note of the documentation supplied by the complainants and by the Government. In this connection, it notes that the text of the decision of the Court of Appeal declaring the teachers' strike abusive and illegal - to which the Government refers in its reply - was not attached to its communication.
2. 372. Nevertheless, the Committee, having noted the conflicting opinions of the OLME and the Minister of National Education regarding the legality of the strike in question, recalls that, in a previous case relating to Greece where the complainant - the Federation of Greek Primary School Teachers - questioned the provisions of Act No. 643 of 1977 respecting the trade union freedoms of officials and employees of public services, considering in particular that it placed excessive restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike, it already had the occasion to take a position on the contents of this Act.
3. 373. At that time, the Committee noted that under the procedure prescribed by the Act for calling a strike for the purpose of promoting their occupational interests, public employees are bound to submit a request to the competent ministries and to the conciliation board. In accordance with sections 6 to 11 of the Act, the conciliation phase may last 30 days (section 10(4)), unless the parties decide by mutual agreement to continue the negotiations (section 8(8)). Under section 12, magistrates of the Court of Appeal may, in exceptional circumstances, postpone the start of a strike by a further 20 days. In addition, section 13 of the Act requires trade union organisations to set up a skeleton service composed of the staff necessary to maintain the safety of installations and forestall the risks of catastrophe or accident while the strike is going on. Furthermore, the trade union organisations must maintain the staff necessary for the most essential and most appropriate services during the strike, on penalty of three months' imprisonment (section 18(4)).
4. 374. Generally speaking, the Committee, in its previous examination, acknowledged that the right to strike may be restricted or even prohibited in the civil service or in essential services because a strike there could cause serious hardship to the national community. It also stated, however, that it did not appear appropriate that all public services should be treated on the same basis in respect of limitations on the right to strike without distinguishing in the relevant legislation between those which are genuinely essential, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or a part of the population, and those which are not essential according to this criterion.
5. 375. As regards the Act of 1977, the Committee considered that it granted the right to strike to most officials and employees of the State, that it provided for a conciliation procedure which did not seem to impede the exercise of this right, that it instituted the principle of a skeleton service to be provided by the strikers in order to maintain the most essential and most appropriate services and to maintain the safety of installations and forestall accidents or catastrophes, and that all of these provisions appeared to be in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee also pointed out, as regards the penalties of imprisonment provided for in section 18 of the Act in the event of illegal strikes, that the development of labour relations could be compromised by an inflexible attitude in the application of severe penalties for strike action and that any penalty should be proportional to the offence committed.
6. 376. In the present case, the Committee notes that the authorities allege failure to give notice of the strike and the budgetary impossibility of meeting excessive demands. It also notes that the Government has not supplied any information concerning the allegation that 200 teachers were dismissed who nevertheless had apparently duly notified their administration in writing that they were absent because they were on strike.
7. 377. The Committee, considering that the harmonious development of labour relations may be compromised by an inflexible attitude in the application of severe penalties, requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures that it may take to facilitate the reinstatement of the teachers dismissed following the strike held in December 1960 and January 1981, which clearly seems to have been a measure aimed at promoting and defending their occupational interests.