Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 278, Juin 1991

1. 530. In communications dated 28 January and 25 February 1991, the International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) submitted a complaint against the Government of Romania alleging violations of freedom of association and trade union rights. The Government sent its comments and observations on this case in a communication dated 12 March 1991.
2. 531. Romania 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 532. The complainant organisation alleges that measures of anti-union discrimination were taken by the managers of the Intercontinental Hotel in Bucharest against officials and activists belonging to the Free and Independent Trade Union set up at the beginning of 1990 at the Intercontinental Hotel - a state enterprise administered by the State.
2. 533. The complainant points out that on 27 November 1990, an extraordinary general assembly of the Free and Independent Trade Union of the Intercontinental Hotel was held. During this meeting, the majority of participants voted that the trade union should be affiliated to the Romanian Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (FRATIA).
3. 534. Soon after, according to the complainant organisation, a parallel trade union was set up as a result of pressure from the hotel management which had expressed its wish that the trade union of the Intercontinental Hotel belong to the Federation of Trade Unions in the Tourist Industry, itself affiliated to the National Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Romania (CNSLR). The complainant points out that the President of this rival trade union, Mr. Aurel, is a former leader of the official trade unions and a member of the Communist Party; at the Intercontinental Hotel, he coordinates the catering services and is manager of the three restaurants.
4. 535. The complainant states that following these events, three members of the Intercontinental Hotel management (Mr. Stancu, Director-General of the hotel, his assistant, Mr. Negrea, and Mr. Aurel) used their authority to exert various forms of pressure (threats, salary cuts, downgradings, transfers) against leaders and activists of the Free and Independent Trade Union and against mere employees in order to force them to leave or not to take up membership of the Free and Independent Trade Union.
5. 536. The complainant organisation, stressing the courage of employees who had allowed their names to be disclosed whereas others, also subject to anti-union discrimination, preferred to remain anonymous, quoted the cases of the following persons:
   • (a) Mr. Spiridon was allegedly threatened in public by Mr. Stancu because of his trade union activities;
   • (b) in June 1990, Mr. Mihaescu, a waiter for 20 years at the Intercontinental, was transferred to room service duty after he had a discussion with Mr. Stancu on his reasons for having been seen talking with demonstrators in University Square. In December 1990, he was informed that he would be sent to the Continental Hotel unless he - as was allegedly inferred by Mr. Aurel - joined the parallel trade union;
   • (c) on 2 August 1990, Mr. Porumb, a waiter for 20 years, was transferred from the Continental Hotel to the Intercontinental Hotel for having attempted, in his capacity as trade union delegate of the Free and Independent Trade Union, to improve employees' working conditions. When the two hotels were officially separated on 2 September 1990, he was once again transferred to the Continental Hotel by Mr. Stancu. Mr. Negrea allegedly informed him that if he belonged to the trade union that the management was introducing and he denounced an article that had appeared in the newspaper Romania Libera stating that he had been harassed, he would have no further problems;
   • (d) after December 1990, Mrs. Nedelciu and Mrs. Andrei were allegedly downgraded by Mr. Aurel from the position of "head waitress" to "station waitress" for having, in their capacity as delegate and activist of the Free and Independent Trade Union, respectively, sought to cut daily working time from 11 to eight hours. The post of head waiter was given to an employee belonging to the parallel trade union. Furthermore, their wages were reduced from November 1990 and, in addition, Mrs. Nedelciu was allegedly transferred to the "Corso" restaurant - considered to be a less interesting post. The Director-General, Mr. Stancu, refused to intercede on behalf of Mrs. Nedelciu because, as he told her, she had made her political and trade union choices and, furthermore, had not given support to the "miners" which had led to a reign of terror in Bucharest;
   • (e) on 16 January 1991, Mrs. Popescu, elected in March 1990 as secretary of the Free and Independent Trade Union, was allegedly transferred after 20 years of service as head typist at the Continental Hotel. When she asked the reasons for this transfer, Mr. Stancu allegedly replied that, if she denounced an article published in the newspaper Romania Libera on a number of discriminatory practices of the management, they could be friends once again;
   • (f) on 16 January 1991, Mr. Carianopol, after 20 years of service in the internal auditing department, was transferred to the Continental Hotel for having supported the criticisms made by the Free and Independent Trade Union of the management's misuse of authority;
   • (g) on 16 January 1991, Mr. Radulescu, engineer, was transferred to the Continental Hotel for having refused to leave the Free and Independent Trade Union and to belong to the parallel trade union controlled by the management.
6. 537. The complainant organisation adds that it was against such a background that the first meeting of the parallel trade union was held on 17 January 1991. At this meeting, Mr. Stancu, Mr. Negrea and Mr. Aurel clearly gave the employees to understand that if they belonged to the Free and Independent Trade Union they would be held back in their jobs whereas if they joined the parallel trade union they would be rewarded. As a result of these threats and penalties, many employees felt obliged to join the parallel trade union controlled by the management and, allegedly, even had to pay the management to obtain the jobs that they wanted.
7. 538. The complainant maintains that these actions clearly show that a vast intimidation campaign has been organised by the management of the Intercontinental Hotel to ensure that a majority belongs to the parallel trade union that it supports while awaiting the adoption of the new Labour Code - thus depriving employees, activists and leaders of the Free and Independent Trade Union trade union rights guaranteed under international labour Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
8. 539. Finally, the complainant points out that as the Intercontinental is a state enterprise, its management is made up of public officials directly responsible to the public authorities. The Prime Minister, the Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs, of Trade and of Tourism, were informed by telex of the situation in the Intercontinental Hotel; however, although the national legislation does not authorise any dismissal if workers have a lawful reason to oppose this dismissal - the exercise of trade union rights clearly being a lawful reason - no measures were taken by the competent authorities to stop these violations.

B. The Government's reply

1. 540. In a communication dated 12 March 1991, the Government points out that on 27 November 1990 a number of employees of the Intercontinental, who refused to belong to the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (FRATIA), set up a trade union and decided to belong to the National Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Romania (CNSLR).
2. 541. The Government further states that, for economic reasons, the Intercontinental company was divided into two companies. Some of the staff, including employees belonging to the Free and Independent Trade Union, were transferred to the Continental Hotel - including Mrs. Popescu.
3. 542. The Government adds that the governing body of the Intercontinental accepted the constitution of the Free and Independent Trade Union as being representative of the justified economic and social interests of the employees. The governing body moreover cooperated with the Free and Independent Trade Union to find a solution to the requests it made. The Government specifies that the tension that arose between the two partners may be ascribed to the fact that it was impossible to meet the claims which did not have a legal basis.
4. 543. Furthermore, the Government states that the complaint of the International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) was submitted, according to the persons involved, without first seeking the mediation of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, which, up to the actual bargaining and conclusion of a collective agreement, is able to assume this function.
5. 544. The Government ends by specifying that the mediation of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs resulted in the following:
   • - the reinstatement of Mrs. Popescu at the Intercontinental Hotel in the post she had filled before the dispute; today, her case is considered closed. The Government encloses a communication from the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (FRATIA) confirming this fact;
   • - the firm commitment from the governing body of the Intercontinental Hotel to respect the protection of trade union officials, irrespective of their choice as to the membership of a higher trade union organisation. The Government points out in this respect that the Parliament is to adopt legislation on trade unions in the near future, that guarantees full protection of trade union officials.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 545. The complaint concerns allegations of anti-trade union discrimination against officials and activists of the Free and Independent Trade Union of the Intercontinental Hotel with a view to preventing employees from belonging to this trade union and obliging them to join the trade union backed by the management.
2. 546. From the information provided, the Committee notes that there are indeed two trade unions at the Intercontinental Hotel: the Free and Independent Trade Union of the Intercontinental Hotel, set up at the beginning of 1990, and a parallel trade union that set itself up on 27 November 1990 to oppose the Free and Independent Trade Union's affiliation to the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (FRATIA).
3. 547. According to the complainant organisation, this parallel trade union was formed as a result of pressure from the management; its President is allegedly a former member of the official trade unions and fulfils leading functions within the hotel management; he is supposed to have used his authority to encourage employees to belong to his trade union. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information on this aspect of the dispute, more particularly on the circumstances and procedures leading up to the creation of the parallel trade union.
4. 548. In this respect, the Committee must point out that under Article 2 of Convention No. 98 ratified by Romania, workers' and employers' organisations should enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other. This Article specifies that acts of interference include those "designed to promote the establishment of workers' organisations under the domination of employers ... with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers".
5. 549. As concerns the allegations of anti-trade union discrimination (threats, salary cuts, downgradings, transfers) against officials and activisits of the Free and Independent Trade Union, the Committee notes with interest that, following the Government's mediation, Mrs. Popescu was reinstated in her previous post at the Intercontinental Hotel and that, as far as she is concerned, the case is now closed. This positive step is confirmed by the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (FRATIA).
6. 550. The Committee notes, however, that the Government has not provided any information concerning the case of other employees who, according to the complainant organisation, were also subject to transfers and other anti-trade union discriminatory measures - including Mrs. Andrei, Mrs. Nedelciu, Mr. Carianopol, Mr. Mihaescu, Mr. Porumb and Mr. Radulescu. None the less, the Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that the governing body of the Intercontinental Hotel has given its firm commitment to respect the protection of trade union officials, irrespective of their choice as to membership of a higher trade union organisation and that the Romanian Parliament is going to adopt legislation on trade unions in the near future to guarantee the full protection of trade union officials.
7. 551. The Committee recalls the importance of guaranteeing all workers covered by Convention No. 98, and not only trade union officials, adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination that might infringe freedom of association in respect of their employment. In this respect, Article 1 of Convention No. 98 stipulates that protection must apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to: (a) make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he does not join a union or relinquish trade union membership; (b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours. The Committee expresses the hope that the forthcoming trade union legislation will be in conformity with these principles, and that it will be fully applied in practice.
8. 552. The Committee notes moreover that, according to the information provided by the complainant organisation, one of the reasons prompting the management of the Intercontinental Hotel to take discriminatory measures was the attempt of officials of the Free and Independent Trade Union to change the employment conditions of the employees concerned. The Government points out in this respect that the governing body of the Intercontinental Hotel has cooperated with the Free and Independent Trade Union in finding a solution to the dispute but that it is impossible to meet the trade union's claims because they do not have a legal basis.
9. 553. The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the main objective of trade union organisations is to defend the economic and occupational interests of their members. In order that these objectives may be attained and that harmonious occupational relations should prevail, it is relevant that measures should be taken to encourage and promote the widest possible development and use of procedures of voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between social partners, and that the latter participate in good faith.
10. 554. While noting that the Government mediated between both parties, the Committee trusts that the negotiations between the governing body of the Intercontinental Hotel and the Free and Independent Trade Union can be resumed in order to settle, by these means, the employment and pay conditions of the employees concerned.