Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 368, Juin 2013

1. 365. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Independent Union of Journalists and Media Workers in the Republic of Macedonia dated 2 September 2012.
2. 366. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 9 October 2012.
3. 367. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 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. 368. In a communication dated 2 September 2012, the Independent Union of Journalists and Media Workers in the Republic of Macedonia alleges that its President, Ms Tamara Chausidis, who was employed for an indefinite period by the Broadcasting Company, ALSAT-M DOO, was dismissed by the company, in August 2011, to prevent her from pursuing her union activities. In particular, the complainant alleges that, before her dismissal, Ms Chausidis had been active in seeking information from the employer in relation to the dismissal of Mr Bobi Hristov (at the time a union representative in the company), allegedly done through a false resignation agreement, which the union considered was an act of anti-union discrimination (Mr Hristov filed a complaint which is still pending before the Basic Court No. 2 of Skopje).
2. 369. The complainant indicates that Ms Chausidis was informed of the termination of her employment on the basis of an agreement that she states she had never seen nor signed. At her request, the State Labour Inspectorate conducted an inspection into these allegations. The Inspectorate’s report states that “during this inspection it was established that on 1 August 2011 a written agreement was concluded for the termination of the employment agreement”, pursuant to section 62(4) and 69(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The report further states that if Ms Chausidis believed that her signature was forged she should refer to the official institutions in the Ministry of Interior, and that, if she believed that her rights were violated, she can address the authorized Court, pursuant to article 181 of the Labour Relations Act. The complainant adds that Ms Chausidis subsequently submitted, in August 2011, an application to the Basic Court No. 2 of Skopje and that the case is still pending before the court.
3. 370. The complainant requests the Committee to recommend that Ms Chausidis be reinstated in her previous position and adequately compensated, and that adequate measures be adopted to avoid the repetitions of acts of anti-union discrimination in the future.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 371. In its communication dated 9 October 2012, the Government indicates that the national legislation contains a number of provisions protecting workers from anti-union discrimination, including the right to protection of trade union representatives by the State Labour Inspectorate, as well as the possibility for employees to seek court protection.
2. 372. In the particular case of Ms Tamara Chausidis, the Government indicates that, after the intervention of the State Labour Inspectorate, litigation proceedings have been initiated and are still in progress. Should the Court reach a final decision finding that her employment has been unlawfully terminated, she is entitled to return to work, if she so requests, with full compensation.
3. 373. The Government confirms that Ms Chausidis addressed the State Labour Inspectorate in order to protect her rights. The very next day, the Inspectorate conducted control procedures and inspection of the employer, and found that the employment had been terminated on the grounds of a consent signed by both the employee and the employer, which meant that this was a case of amicable termination of employment (pursuant to article 69 of the Labour Relations Act). While noting that the employee has contested the validity of the signature on the consent, the Government indicates that the validity of the signature cannot be determined by the State Labour Inspectorate, but only by the court.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 374. The Committee notes that, in a communication dated 2 September 2012, the Independent Union of Journalists and Media Workers in the Republic of Macedonia alleges that its President, Ms Tamara Chausidis, who was employed for an indefinite period by the Broadcasting Company, ALSAT-M DOO, was dismissed by the company, in August 2011, to prevent her from pursuing her union activities. In particular, the complainant alleges that, before her dismissal, Ms Chausidis had been active in seeking information from the employer in relation to the dismissal of Mr Bobi Hristov (at the time a union representative in the company), allegedly done through a false resignation agreement, which the union considered was an act of anti-union discrimination (Mr Hristov filed a complaint which is still pending before the Basic Court No. 2 of Skopje).
2. 375. The Committee further notes that the complainant indicates that Ms Chausidis has been informed of the termination of her employment on the basis of an agreement that she states she had never seen nor signed. Both the complainant and the Government indicate that, at Ms Chausidis’ request, the State Labour Inspectorate conducted an inspection into these allegations which concluded that on 1 August 2011 a written agreement was signed for the consensual termination of the her employment, pursuant to section 62(4) and 69(1) of the Labour Relations Act. Ms Chausidis subsequently submitted, in August 2011, an application to the Basic Court No. 2 of Skopje and the case is still pending before the court.
3. 376. The Committee further notes that, in its communication dated 9 October 2012, the Government indicates that the validity of the signature on the consensual termination agreement cannot be determined by the State Labour Inspectorate, and specifies that should the court reach a final decision finding that her employment has been unlawfully terminated, Ms Chausidis is entitled to return to work, if she so requests, with full compensation.
4. 377. The Committee notes with regret that the labour inspectorate did not apparently address or consider the allegations of anti-union discrimination raised by Ms Chausidis and merely limited itself to taking note of an allegedly consensual agreement. The Committee recalls in this regard that it has considered that governments should take the necessary measures to enable labour inspectors to enter freely and without previous notice any workplace liable to inspection, and to carry out any examination, test or inquiry which they may consider necessary in order to satisfy themselves that the legal provisions – including those relating to anti-union discrimination – are being strictly observed [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 834]. Moreover, the Committee observes with concern that this is the second alleged case of false resignation or termination agreement at the Broadcasting Company, ALSAT-M DOO and that both cases are still pending consideration at the court of first instance nearly two years after the termination of the employment relationship. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in the future, labour inspectors fully inquire into allegations of anti-union discrimination so as to ensure that such matters are examined rapidly and effectively, and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.
5. 378. Moreover, recalling that, in a case in which proceedings concerning dismissals had already taken 14 months, the Committee requested the judicial authorities, in order to avoid a denial of justice, to pronounce on the dismissals without delay and emphasized that any further undue delay in the proceedings could in itself justify the reinstatement of these persons in their posts [see Digest, op. cit., para. 827], the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the legal proceeding filed by Ms Chausidis is concluded without delay and to keep it informed of the outcome. Pending the conclusion of the legal proceedings, and taking into account the fact that Ms Chausidis is a union leader, the Committee requests the Government to ensure her immediate reinstatement. Furthermore, if the termination of her employment is found to constitute an act of anti-union discrimination, the Committee expects her to receive adequate compensation which would constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction against anti-union dismissals.