Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol
- 79. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2012 meeting [see
363rd Report, paras 900–922] when it made the following recommendations:
- (a) In view of the recent suspension and disciplinary proceedings
initiated against Mr Pajovic, President of the new Trade Union of the RTCG, who had
previously been dismissed but was then re-engaged, the Committee once again urges
the Government to institute an independent investigation into the allegations that
these workers were dismissed or suspended for anti-union reasons and to provide full
details as to the outcome. Noting that the complainant indicates that Mr Janjic’s
downgrading case is now pending before the courts, the Committee requests the
Government and the complainant to provide the court judgment as soon as it is handed
down, as well as any other additional information relating to this matter. In the
meantime, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that Mr Janjic is
maintained in his position pending the final court judgment.
- (b) The Committee requests the complainant to provide more
information concerning the allegations of threats against, and pressure on trade
union members to withdraw from their union and urges the Government to carry out an
independent investigation without delay into these serious allegations. It requests
the Government to provide detailed information on its outcome.
- (c) Concerning the issues of recognition of the complainant
organization as representative and the refusal to grant certain facilities to the
union, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome
of the proceedings pending before the court. In the meantime, the Committee once
again requests the Government to bring the parties – the management of the
enterprise and the New Trade Union of the RTCG – together in order to facilitate
their reaching an agreement in relation to the facilities to be provided to the
representatives of the complainant, bearing in mind the principles above. It
requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
- 80. In its communication dated 19 July 2012, the complainant provides
additional information on the anti-union dismissals, suspensions and harassment faced by
its members and officers, as well as the related judicial procedures.
- 81. As regards recommendation (a), the complainant reiterates its
allegations that the dismissed union officers Mr Pajovic, Ms Popovic and Mr Janjic had
been reengaged in other positions with lower salary. The complainant alleges that: (i)
the High Court has issued a final judgment declaring the reengagement of Mr Janjic, a
radio journalist, as an administrative clerk for a much lower salary, as lawful; (ii)
the reengagement of Ms Popovic, an adviser to the General Manager, as an administrator
paid almost twice less than in her previous functions, was also confirmed; (iii) both Mr
Janjic and Ms Popovic have filed appeals against these decisions, which are now pending
at the Supreme Court; and (iv) Mr Pajovic who had also been reengaged in a new lower
salary position without filing a complaint against this decision and had been suspended
in February 2012, was subsequently dismissed following allegedly fabricated disciplinary
proceedings on 16 May 2012 and was deliberately not given back his employment booklet,
without which he could not apply for health care and other unemployment rights (a
complaint was filed in this regard with the labour inspection and the court).
- 82. As regards recommendation (b), the complainant declares that the
Government has failed to conduct an independent investigation on the allegations of
threats against, and pressure on trade union members to withdraw from their union, as
requested by the Committee. The complainant organization provides various testimonies of
members who were allegedly harassed, threatened and pressured to withdraw from the
union. In particular, it alleges that: (i) the management repeatedly brought allegedly
false criminal charges against Mr Pajovic and Ms Popovic, which have been partly
dismissed (e.g. for defamation) or are still pending, including for abuse of authority
(a counterclaim was filed) and for secretly recording and eavesdropping, and that Mr
Janjic was the subject of disciplinary proceedings due to unjustified absence from work
(refuted by the complainant), which were conducted during his sick leave and resulted in
a reduction of salary by 20 per cent for three months; (ii) as regards the dispute
concerning the return of the documentation belonging to the union, which had been taken
away by the management after the dismissals in 2008, the complainant alleges that the
proceedings have lasted now for more than two years, and that Mr Pajovic was punished
for protesting against the delay with fines amounting to €2,600 (as he is allegedly
unable to pay, he will have to serve a prison term of four months); and (iii) bonuses
are generally not given to the members of the complainant (only to occasional passive
union members or to those performing work as part of a team).
- 83. As regards recommendation (c), on the issue of recognition of the
complainant organization, the complainant indicates that none of its applications to the
court, the Ministry of Labour or the enterprise for review and determination of the most
representative union was successful, in spite of a judicial order for the complainant
union and the allegedly pro-government union to submit copies of registration forms to
the court, which were not complied with. The complainant further asserts that the
Government has not yet complied with the Committee’s recommendation to bring the
management of the enterprise and the complainant together in order to facilitate their
reaching an agreement in relation to the facilities to be provided to the
representatives of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant alleges that the
management continues to confiscate its union dues by deducting them from the wages of 30
of its members and directing the money to the pro government union instead (complaint
letters of two union members are attached to the complaint). The complainant
organization adds that it continues to be generally banned from meetings of the
enterprise and that a lawsuit has been filed in this regard to the Prosecutor’s
Office.
- 84. In its communication dated 2 August 2013, the Government indicates,
with respect to recommendation (a), that Miodrag Boskovic, Dragan Janjic and Mirjana
Popovic – who had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in 2008 – had been
dismissed but that, in accordance with the final decision of the court, they returned to
work. On 2 August 2013, the Administration for Inspection Affairs found that Mr Janjic,
Ms Popovic and Mr Boskovic were working in the enterprise and performing duties in
accordance with their qualifications and job performance. The Government further
emphasizes that in 2012–13 neither of these employees nor the members of their union
addressed grievances to the Administration for Inspection Affairs.
- 85. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations that the
management of the Radio and Television of Montenegro (RTCG) refused to recognize the New
Trade Union of RTCG as the representative organization of the workers, as well as the
dismissal of its officers and harassment of its members. The Committee notes the
complainant’s additional allegations as well as the information provided by the
Government in its previous recommendation.
- 86. The Committee regrets that the Government did not provide any
information as to the requested conduct of an independent investigation into the alleged
anti-union dismissals in 2008 of four union officials (Mr Dragan Janjic, Mr Radomir
Pajovic, Ms Mirjana Popovic and Mr Miodrag Boskovic). Concerning the allegation that
these workers had been reengaged in new positions with lower salary, the Committee notes
the Government’s indication that on 2 August 2013, the Administration for Inspection
Affairs found that Mr Janjic, Ms Popovic and Mr Boskovic were working in the enterprise
and performing duties in accordance with their qualifications and job performance.
Noting that the complainant indicates that Mr Janjic and Ms Popovic’s demotion lawsuits
were still pending before the courts, the Committee requests the Government and the
complainant to provide the court judgments as soon as they are handed down as well as
any additional information relating to this matter. Moreover, the Committee deeply
regrets the seriousness of the additional allegation that Mr Pajovic, President of the
union, who had previously been dismissed, then re-engaged and subsequently suspended,
was again dismissed on 16 May 2012 following fabricated disciplinary proceedings. The
Committee recalls 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, demotion, transfer or
other prejudicial measures. 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 should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on
account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions [see Digest of decisions
and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006,
para. 799]. In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to
institute an independent investigation into the allegations of repeated acts of
anti-union discrimination allegedly committed by the company since 2008, including the
dismissal of Mr Pajovic on 16 May 2012, and to keep it informed on the outcome of such
inquiry. Should it be found that Mr Pajovic was dismissed due to his exercise of
legitimate trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to take the
necessary measures to ensure that he is fully reinstated without loss of pay. In the
event that the reinstatement is not possible, for objective and compelling reasons, the
Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the
union member concerned is paid adequate compensation which would represent a
sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union dismissals.
- 87. As regards the question of representativeness, the Committee notes
that, according to the complainant, the proceedings initiated to achieve the review and
determination of the majority representative union were not successful. The Committee
further notes the additional allegations made by the complainant, including the alleged
confiscation of union dues by the enterprise and their transfer to another union and
requests the Government to respond to these allegations without delay.
- 88. Finally, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided
information on the measures taken to bring the management of the enterprise and the
union together in order to facilitate their reaching an agreement in relation to the
facilities to be provided to the representatives of the complainant and once again urges
the Government to intercede with the parties in order to facilitate their reaching a
mutually satisfactory agreement in this regard.
