Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Georgia (Ratification: 1993)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, which is confined to recalling the information provided in its first report. It recalls that its previous comments related to the following points:

  Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the legislation of Georgia (articles 11(6), 24(2) of the Trade Union Law, 2 April 1997; articles 9(2) and 16(2) of the Law of Georgia on the Procedure of the Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes, 30 October 1998; articles 37 and 206 of the Labour Code as amended by the Act regarding modifications and amendments to the Georgian Labour Code, 12 November 1997) prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination. However, the Committee recalls that the existence of general legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice. Effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions that guarantee the protection of workers against any acts of anti-union discrimination by employers in taking up employment and in the course of employment should be provided in the law (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 214 et seq.). The Committee requests the Government to indicate which procedures are available for workers, in the legislation, in case of acts of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, transfers, downgrading) and which sanctions can be applied in each of these cases.

Article 2. Protection of workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers. The Committee notes that the Trade Union Law of Georgia, 2 April 1997 (articles 5, 21(4) and 22) and the Collective Contracts and Agreements Law of Georgia, 10 December 1997 (article 9) prohibit acts of interference from employers in trade union activities. However, the Committee notes that the Government states in its report that despite the protection mentioned above, many employers in the new transnational and joint enterprises, directly or indirectly prevent the founding of trade unions. The Committee points out that the legislation should make express provisions for rapid appeal procedures, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference in order to ensure the application of Article 2 of the Convention. Moreover, to ensure that these measures receive the necessary publicity and are effective in practice, the relevant legislation should lay down these substantive provisions, as well as appeals and sanctions to guarantee their application explicitly (see General Survey, op. cit., 1994, paragraph 232). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the procedures that are available in the legislation for the benefit of workers’ organizations against acts of interference and the sanctions that can be applied in these cases.