Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 306, Mars 1997

1. 576. On 8 October 1996, the National Trade Union Block (BNS) and the Metro Workers' Federation (USLM) submitted a complaint of violation of trade union rights against the Government of Romania.
2. 577. In a communication dated 23 January 1997, the Government sent its observations.
3. 578. 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), and the Right to Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 579. The National Union Bloc (BNS) states that it is submitting a complaint on behalf of its member, the Metro Workers' Federation (USLM) against actions directly attributed to the Government of Romania and the independent manager METROREX RA (METROREX), a state enterprise.
2. 580. The complaint refers to unjustified restrictions on the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike.
3. 581. The complainant organizations recall that Act No. 15/1991 on the settlement of labour disputes (Monitorul oficial, Part I, 11 February 1991, No. 33, pp. 1-4), defines collective disputes, under section 2(2), as disputes that might arise between the director of the unit and the employees of a subordinate unit or a department of this unit, as well as between the director of the unit and employees with the same trade or occupation within this unit. Furthermore, under Act No. 13/1991 on collective agreements (Monitorul oficial, Part I, 9 February 1991, No. 32, pp. 1-2), a collective agreement is an agreement signed between employees and employers, including independent management, commercial companies or any other entities or individuals employing workers. According to the complainant organizations, the intervention of the highest governmental authorities during the collective dispute which occurred in March 1996 at METROREX is contrary to the legislation in force and unjustified, even more so since it gave rise to pressure being put on trade union representatives and their workers and threats being made against them.
4. 582. The documents submitted to back up the complaint state that the labour dispute at METROREX began on 4 December 1995 and ended during the month of March 1996. The USLM's grievances particularly concerned improvements in working conditions, occupational diseases, wage increases and the granting of rights identical to those of railway workers. On 4 December 1995, in accordance with section 7 of Act No. 15/1991 on the settlement of labour disputes, the USLM informed the METROREX management that the procedure for direct conciliation had been set in motion. On 17 December 1996, as no agreement had been reached, the USLM informed the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection that it would like conciliation proceedings to continue under its auspices. Once the procedures for settling differences provided for under the law had been exhausted, a two-hour warning strike was held on 8 February 1996. The following day, the METROREX management referred the matter to the courts asking them to declare the strike illegal on the grounds that it was attempting to amend a collective agreement contrary to section 25 of Act No. 15/1991. On 11 February 1996, the parties took part in arbitration proceedings presided over by the President of Romania. It was decided at that time that the METROREX management should be replaced, that solutions to the collective dispute should be found before 29 February, that the strike should be postponed until that date and that METROREX would withdraw its legal action. As no settlement had been reached before 1 March, the USLM announced that the strike would be called on 4 March stipulating that, in accordance with the law, a third of the metro services would be maintained.
5. 583. There was increasing tension between, on the one hand, the workers in METROREX and, on the other hand, the management and government authorities. The complainant organizations allege that trade union representatives received threats of dismissal. On 6 March, the USLM announced that the strike would be suspended for the following reasons: unfavourable weather conditions; involvement of the highest government authorities; the wish to settle the dispute through negotiation.
6. 584. Once they had learned of the USLM's statements, the METROREX employees spontaneously gathered the next day to demonstrate their discontent, blocking the platforms and tunnels of the metro and making any attempts to operate it impossible. When they saw that work had not been resumed, the METROREX management filed a new complaint with the courts. On 8 March, the Sector I Court and the Supreme Court declared the strike illegal. On 11 March, the USLM lodged an appeal against these decisions with the Municipal Court of Bucharest. On the same day, the Government issued a public statement to the effect that all METROREX workers deciding to return to work should sign an agreement confirming their intentions (commitment). It would seem that 609 out of the 6500 workers concerned signed the agreement in question. Negotiations and talks allegedly continued throughout the following days until 14 March when work was resumed and the Government dropped its plans to dismiss any workers who had not signed the agreement confirming they were returning to work. Finally, on 29 March, the Municipal Court of Bucharest pronounced in favour of the USLM and ordered a new trial. On 31 March 1996, all the grievances which had given rise to dispute were settled to the USLM's satisfaction.
7. 585. The complainant organizations refer to section 25 of Act No. 15/1991 which prohibits the use of strike action to obtain changes in the clauses of a collective agreement. It explains that the strike did not aim to change a collective agreement but protect the occupational interests of workers, in accordance with section 2(1) of Act No. 15/1991.
8. 586. The complainant organizations also recall that section 30 of Act No. 15/1991 authorizes the Supreme Court to suspend a strike for a period of 90 days if the strike is likely to jeopardize the predominant interests of the national economy or interests of a humanitarian nature. They maintain that the banning of the right to strike represents a major restriction on one of the essential instruments trade unions use to defend the interests of their members. They feel that a strike should only be suspended in extreme cases and always for a limited period of time. The strike called by the USLM did not occur under these circumstances and, consequently, should not have been declared illegal by the Romanian courts.
9. 587. Concerning more specifically the judicial action initiated by METROREX, the complainant organizations state that their right to a fair defence had not been respected and that many of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code had been infringed by virtue of the fact that the writ of summons issued to the USLM and the way in which it had been conveyed invalidated it ab initio.
10. 588. Finally, the complainant organizations allege that the fact that the Government refused to allow Mr. Radoi, Chairman of the USLM and duly elected representative of the METROREX workers, to attend the meeting called to put an end to the collective dispute in March 1996, contravened section 3 of Convention No. 87 which guarantees the right of workers to choose their representatives freely.
11. 589. Finally, the complainant organizations stress that the new Bill on collective labour agreements which the Romanian Parliament is examining, contains many restrictions on trade union activity; these include the power granted to employers alone to set in motion the procedures for collective bargaining and the preference given to individual agreements over collective agreements.

B. The Government's reply

1. 590. In its reply, the Government of Romania recalls that following parliamentary and presidential elections in November, a new government had been formed. It therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the allegations concerning the public statements of the former government do not apply to it.
2. 591. The Government points out that, according to recent statements made both by the authorities and the trade union organizations, including the complainant organization, the relations between the executive and social partners are based on transparency and the common will to cooperate with a view to concluding a social agreement. In order to be informed of the point of view of the trade union organizations, the Government has requested them to make proposals to improve the collective bargaining machinery and put forward proposals concerning the act on collective labour agreements and the act on collective labour disputes.
3. 592. The Government states that proposals put forward will be discussed with the social partners and examined by independent individuals. It concludes by stating that with this objective in mind, the Minister of Labour and Social Protection announced that it would make the revision of labour legislation a legislative priority in order to ensure that it was in accordance with ILO Conventions. It recalls that following a request for technical assistance from the ILO, an expert was sent to Bucharest at the end of January 1997 to assess ways in which the most urgent draft legislation in the area of labour and social protection could be overhauled as effectively as possible. The employers' and workers' organizations also took part in this exercise. The Government states its intention of asking for the ILO's assistance when in the process of analysing the labour legislation.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 593. This case concerns allegations referring to restrictions imposed on the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining.
2. 594. Before turning to the substantive issues, the Committee wishes to recall, concerning the Government's statement to the effect that the actions of the previous government do not apply to it, that "faced with allegations against one government for violations of trade union rights, (...) a successive government in the same state cannot, for the mere reason that a change has occurred, escape the responsibility deriving from events that occurred under a former government. In any event, the new government is responsible for any continuing consequences which these events may have. Where a change of regime has taken place in a country, the new government should take all necessary steps to remedy any continuing effects which the events on which a complaint is based may have had since its accession to power, even though those events took place under its predecessor" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 18).
3. 595. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the documentation provided by the complainant organizations, the grievances which were at the origin of the dispute and strike in March 1996 in the "regie autonome" of METROREX, a state enterprise running the metro service in the city of Bucharest, had been settled to their entire satisfaction.
4. 596. As regards the threats of dismissal made by the government authorities after the strike had been announced, the Committee notes that the complainant organizations do not refer to any dismissal or discriminatory measures actually imposed. The Committee nevertheless wishes to recall that as regards principles of freedom of association, the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests. No one should be penalized for carrying out or attempting to carry out a legitimate strike. The dismissal of workers because of a strike, which is a legitimate trade union activity, constitutes serious discrimination in employment and is contrary to Convention No. 98. (See Digest, op. cit., paras. 590 and 591.) In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the authorities do not exert any influence or pressure which might in practice affect the exercise of the right to strike.
5. 597. Generally speaking, the Committee feels that the events underlying the complaint, may be attributed, to a great extent, to the application of Act No. 15/1991, particularly the section concerning the illegality of strikes. The Committee recalls that Act No. 15/1991 was also examined, in March 1995, as part of a complaint lodged by the BNS and the Free and Independent Trade Union Federation of Train Drivers of Romania (see Case No. 1788, 297th Report, paras. 316-366). On this occasion, the Committee had concluded, as had the Committee of Experts on the application of Conventions and Recommendations, that a number of provisions under Act No. 15/1991 were contrary to ILO Conventions and requested the Government to amend the Act to bring it more in line with the principles of freedom of association.
6. 598. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government is making a revision of its labour legislation a priority. It takes note of its statement that it wishes the social partners to be fully involved in this exercise. It also notes that the Romanian Parliament already adopted, on 17 October 1996, the new act on collective labour agreements. In this context, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in the legislative revisions and points out that the ILO's services are at its disposal to facilitate the adoption of legislation on collective labour disputes which is fully in accordance with the standards and principles of the ILO in the area of freedom of association and with its recommendations.
7. 599. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case.