Definitive Report - Report No 53, 1961

Case No 240 (Greece) - Complaint date: 17-AUG-60 - Closed

1. 7. This case has already been before the Committee at its 26th Session (November 1960). After studying the case at that time it came to certain conclusions, which may be found in paragraph 51 of its 50th Report. On several points, however, the Committee felt that before it could make its final recommendations to the Governing Body it would be necessary to obtain further information from the Government. A request for such information was addressed to the Government by a letter from the Director-General dated 22 November 1960; the Government replied by a communication dated 13 January 1961. In the paragraphs which follow, reference will be made only to the allegations which were left in abeyance.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations with respect to the Pressure by the Authorities on the Occasion of Trade Union Elections with a View to Influencing the Said Elections
  8. 8 The complainants allege that on the occasion of the elections for the new administration of the Workers' Centre at Rethymnon, all kinds of pressure were brought to bear by the authorities with a view to influencing candidates and electors, and that the effect of such intervention by governmental bodies was to distort the results of the said elections.
  9. 9 More specifically, the complainants allege that the Police Superintendent daily convoked the trade union representatives to his office in order to urge them to vote openly for Mr. Diafermo, the candidate favoured by the authorities. Further, this Police Superintendent pressed the people on the same electoral list as Mr. Saridaki-opponent of Mr. Diafermoto withdraw from the election. Again, he is stated to have brought pressure to bear on Mr. Castrino, a member of the tellers' committee, so that he would vote for Mr. Diafermo; when he refused, the Police Superintendent threatened to prevent his participation in the elections. Moreover, policemen are alleged to have gone every day to the workplace of the trade union representatives and pressed them to vote for Mr. Diafermo. The complainants give the names and occupations of 12 trade unionists who were the object of such direct pressure.
  10. 10 The complainants also allege that the Harbourmaster, Mr. Vlachos, threatened Mr. Peni with expulsion from his union if he did not vote for Mr. Diafermo; for the same reason he threatened Mr. B. Tsoumeni with the expulsion of his brother, Mr. I. Tsoumeni. The Mayor of Rethymnon, Mr. Psychoundaki, it is alleged, exercised the same pressure on Messrs. Delibassi, Vassalo and Castrino, workers in the employment of the town council, to make them vote for Mr. Diafermo.
  11. 11 On the day of the elections, declare the complainants, members of the police in plain clothes were stationed in the square in front of the Workers' Centre and distributed voting papers to the representatives. The Harbourmaster and the Police Superintendent were also there. In addition, several members of the police were in the hall throughout the poll, exercising pressure on the electors and encouraging them to vote for the candidates favoured by the authorities. Despite the protests of the election committee, they refused to leave the hall.
  12. 12 In its first reply, dated 19 October 1960, the Government declared that the allegations made in respect of the administrative authorities and the police by Mr. Coucouvaya, president of the election supervision committee and signatory of the memorandum which originated the complaint submitted by the complaining organisation, were entirely false and assumed a calumnious character. The elections in question-the Government declared-had been conducted in the most complete order, in the presence of the supervision committee of which Mr. Coucouvaya was president and without the latter or his colleagues raising the least objection as to the way in which the elections in question were conducted.
  13. 13 In virtue of article 101 of the Civil Code-continued the Government-all decisions taken by an assembly in conditions contrary to the law must be considered null and void. The nullity should be pronounced by the courts on the writ of " a person not having given his consent to it or any person having a legitimate interest ". In virtue of this article of the Civil Code, the Government declared, Mr. Coucouvaya would have been perfectly justified in starting an action if he considered that the elections were conducted improperly. Now, according to the Government, Mr. Coucouvaya had refrained from taking such action which, according to it, showed the complainants' bad faith.
  14. 14 Having noted that a means of redress was open to the interested parties, through which they could have sought to have the elections annulled by the courts if they considered that they had been conducted improperly, yet they had refrained from making use of the opportunity thus afforded under the national procedure, the Committee, at its November 1960 Session, recalled that in cases where it had had to examine similar situations I it had taken the view that, due to the nature of its responsibilities, it could not deem itself bound by rules such as those applying, for example, to international claims tribunals, which prescribe that all national procedures of redress must be exhausted; on these occasions-it recalled-it had nevertheless considered that in examining a case on its merits it should bear in mind the fact that whereas national legislation afforded the possibility of action, the procedure in question had not been followed in respect of the matters forming the basis of the complaint.
  15. 15 In the case in question, however, the Committee noted that, while it was true that the complainants had refrained from making use of the legal procedure provided for under the Greek Civil Code, there were grounds for observing that the complainants' allegations did not refer solely to the conduct of the poll as such but comprised a multitude of accusations as to the attitude adopted by the representatives of the authorities throughout the period preceding the elections, and that the complaint provided in this respect a wealth of detail in the form of names and descriptions as to the nature of the pressure said to have been exercised with a view to influencing the elections. In this respect the Committee remarked that if it was admitted that such pressure, as described in paragraphs 8 to 11 above, actually took place, it would without the slightest doubt constitute by its nature an intervention implying an attack on the principle of free trade union elections; more specifically, it would have been incompatible with the principle by which workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
  16. 16 Since in its first reply the Government had confined itself to declaring that the allegations made by the complainants with respect to the administrative authorities and the police were false and assumed a calumnious character, the Committee, given the very detailed character of the allegations lodged by the complainants, deemed it necessary, in order to form an opinion with full knowledge of the facts, to obtain from the Government more detailed observations on the said allegations.
  17. 17 In reply to a request to this effect from the Director-General the Government, by a communication dated 13 January 1961, has supplied the following information. On contacting the Minister of the Interior concerning this affair the Minister of Labour obtained information which reveals that, although a representative of the judicial authority was present at the elections z, no complaint was made to this representative by anyone whatsoever concerning interference or other activities by policemen or other state officials. In the same way Mr. Coucouvaya, president of the supervision committee, refrained from taking legal action even though he was fully at liberty to do so, and in the opinion of the Government his abstention stems from the fact that no reason existed justifying the starting of proceedings.: Likewise, although the complainants had every opportunity to do so, no legal action was: taken nor any appeal made before the elections. In the words of the statement furnished by the Minister of the Interior, " no protest was registered on the part of those in opposition to the person elected ", as a consequence of interference or intervention by the representatives:, of the authorities.
  18. 18 The Committee has before it two different versions of the facts. While the complainants, in detailed terms, describe the pressure said to have been brought to bear by the authorities with a view to influencing the elections, the Government declares that nothing of the kind took place and that both during the elections themselves and in the period preceding them the authorities refrained from any form of intervention.
  19. 19 In support of its thesis the Government emphasised that a means of redress was open to the interested parties by which they could have had the elections annulled if they considered that they had been conducted improperly. Now, the data available to the Committee reveal that the persons who could have made such an appeal did not make use of the procedure thus open to them. Likewise, as regards the manoeuvring alleged to have been performed by the authorities before the elections with a view to influencing their result, the complainants, if they had observed such manoeuvring, had full latitude to take legal action in respect thereof, which it seems they refrained from doing. Finally, the Government observes that a representative of the judicial authority was present during the elections in question and that there again, though they could have done so, the interested parties did not make a protest to this representative.
  20. 20 While it is difficult for the Committee, on the basis of the information available to it, to determine the exact degree to which the allegations made are founded or unfounded, it would appear at least that the persons who claim to have been wronged do not seem to have made use of the means which were open to them to try to obtain redress for the injustice which they allege they have suffered.
  21. 21 Bearing this fact in mind and in view of the contradictory statements which have been placed before it, the Committee considers that the complainants have not provided sufficient proof of their allegations, and therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further consideration.
• Allegations with Respect to the Dismissal of Air. Castrino
  22. 22 The complainants allege that the Mayor of Rethymnon brought pressure to bear on Mr. Castrino, a worker employed by the town council, to make him vote for Mr. Diafermo; when he did not do so he was dismissed from his employment. In its first reply the Government confirmed that the person in question had indeed been dismissed but confined itself to declaring in explanation that the person concerned was " a worker employed by the town council according to existing requirements " intending by that to suggest that Mr. Castrino, employed by the town council on a temporary basis, was dismissed because his services were no longer required and for that reason alone.
  23. 23 However, in view of the trade union membership of the person concerned (representative of the building workers, member of the election committee) and the detailed allegation of the complainants according to which the dismissal in question was the direct consequence of his vote, the Committee, at its November 1960 Session, considered that it would be useful to obtain further details from the Government. In accordance with the wishes of the Committee the Director-General requested the Government to furnish information as to the exact status of Mr. Castrino and the precise reasons which led to his dismissal.
  24. 24 In its reply dated 13 January 1961 the Government states that the Rethymnon town- j council employs on a rota basis for the carrying out of public works citizens who are unskilled labourers with a view to employing all those who are desirous of working on municipal operations. Mr. Castrino was one of these unskilled labourers, engaged under a contract of employment governed by private law for the performance of a specified job of work. When this work was finished the town council, having no other work to be done, disposed of the services of Mr. Castrino-as well, it may be said, as of those of several other unskilled labourers whom it had employed under the same conditions.
  25. 25 The Government's reply shows that Mr. Castrino was hired in a temporary capacity to perform a specific job of work and that once this work was finished the town council, it seems, was under no obligation to retain his services, so that his dismissal would not seem to have been connected with the trade union offices or activities which he occupied or exercised.
  26. 26 In these circumstances the Committee considers that the complainants have not furnished proof that an infringement of freedom of association has occurred and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 27. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 8 to 26 above and subject to the observations contained in those paragraphs, that the case as a whole does not call for further examination.