Interim Report - Report No 50, 1961

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

1. 31. In a communication dated 17 August 1960 addressed directly to the I.L.O, the Federation of Workers and Technicians of the Rethymnon (Crete) Soap Works filed a complaint of infringement of the freedom of association against the Greek Government. The complainants were informed by letter dated 30 September 1960 of their right to furnish, within one month, further information in support of their complaint, but did not make use of this right. The complaint of the Federation of Workers and Technicians of the Rethymnon Soap Works was communicated to the Government by a letter dated 30 September 1960; the Government presented its observations on the case by a communication dated 19 October 1960.
2. 32. Greece has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and the Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 33. The complainants allege that, during the elections of the new administration of the Workers' Centre of Rethymnon, the authorities exercised all kinds of pressure with a view to influencing the candidates and electorate, and that the effect of the intervention of government organs was to distort the result of the said elections.
2. 34. More specifically, the complainants allege that the Police Superintendent daily convoked the trade union representatives to his office in order to urge them only openly to vote 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. Diafermo - to withdraw from the election. Again, he is stated to have brought pressure to bear on Mr. Castrino, 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 workplaces 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.
3. 35. The complainants also allege that the day preceding the elections, 12 May 1960, the Prefect deposed Mr. Athanase Macroglou from his office of President of " the hairdressing employees ". The Harbourmaster, Mr. Vlachos, threatened Mr. Peni with removal from his trade union if he did not vote for Mr. Diafermo; for the same reason he threatened Mr. M. B. Tsoumeni with removing his brother, Mr. I. Tsoumeni, from his trade union. 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, in order that they would vote for Mr. Diafermo; Mr. Castrino did not do so and was, for this reason, dismissed from his employment.
4. 36. 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. Mr. Farsaris, of the Prefecture, entered the voting hall at the same time as the representative of the judicial authority, Mr. Fameli, Judge of First Instance, and continued, it is alleged, despite the protests of the representative of the judicial authority, to make propaganda in favour of Mr. Diafermo, while several members of the police were also in the hall during the whole of the poll, exercising pressure on the electors and encouraging them to vote for the candidates favoured by the Government. Despite the protests of the election committee, they refused to leave the hall.
5. 37. In its reply the Government declares that, in a letter of 2 May 1960 addressed to the Prefecture, Mr. Elie Clainzidakis, President of the Workers' Centre of Rethymnon, informed the authorities of the date of the elections for the renewal of the administration of the Centre and invited a representative of the Prefecture to attend these elections. As a result of this invitation and in conformity with article 48 (2) of the Decree of 20 May 1920 on Industrial Association, the Prefecture delegated one of its officials, Mr. Farsaris, to attend the elections, elections at which, according to the law, a representative of the judicial authority should also attend.
6. 38. The Government affirms that the allegations formulated in respect of Mr. Farsaris as well as other administrative and police authorities by Mr. Coucouvaya, Chairman of the Committee of Supervision of the Election and signatory of the memorandum which originated the complaint deposited by the complaining organisation, are entirely false and assume a calumnious character. The elections in question-the Government declares-were conducted in the most complete order, in the presence of the Committee of Supervision 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.
7. 39. In a large number of cases the Committee has declared that the right of trade unions to hold meetings freely in their own premises, without the need of previous authorisation and without control by the public authorities, is a fundamental element in freedom of association. In the present case, where the Government admits that, as required by the law, an official of the Prefecture, in addition to a representative of the judicial authority, attended a meeting in the course of which elections were held, the Committee considers, as the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations did during its examination of the manner in which Convention No. 87 was applied in Cuba, that the presence of an official of the Prefecture during trade union elections is likely to constitute an " interference " which, in the terms of Article 3, paragraph 2, of Convention No. 87, " the public authorities shall refrain from ".
8. 40. In consequence the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the presence during trade union elections of an official of the Prefecture is liable to infringe freedom of association, and, in particular, to be incompatible with the principle according to 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.
9. 41. The Government in its reply proceeds by declaring that in virtue of article 101 of the Civil Code 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 of any person having a legitimate interest ". In virtue of this article of the Civil Code, the Government declares, Mr. Coucouvaya would be perfectly justified in starting an action if he considered that the elections were conducted improperly. Now, according to the Government, Mr. Coucouvaya has refrained from taking such action, which, according to it, shows the complainant's bad faith.
10. 42. It follows from the Government's reply that there was a redress open to the interested parties by which they could have attempted to have the elections annulled by the courts if they considered, as seems the case, that these were conducted improperly; from this same reply it follows that the interested parties refrained from utilising the means open to them in the national procedure.
11. 43. In cases where it had to examine similar situations, the Committee has considered, in view of the nature of its responsibilities, that it could not deem itself bound by any rule that national procedures of redress must be exhausted such as applies, for instance, to international claims tribunal. However, it considered that, in examining a case according to its merits, regard must be had to the fact that redress before an independent national tribunal whose procedure offers appropriate remedies had not been sought in respect of the questions which are the basis of the complaint.
12. 44. In the present case, if it is true that the complainants refrained from utilising the provisions of the Greek Civil Code, there are grounds for observing that the allegations of the complainants are not wholly limited to the way in which the poll was conducted. In fact they comprise a large number of accusations regarding the attitude adopted by the representatives of the authorities throughout the whole period preceding the elections. In this respect the complaint provides detailed indications: names are given, numerous details are given concerning the nature of the pressure brought to bear in order to influence the elections. If it is admitted that these practices, such as they are described above in paragraphs 33 to 36, were actually used, they would without doubt constitute, by their character, an intervention implying an infringement of the principle of the right to elect representatives in full freedom; more specifically they would be incompatible with the principle laid down in Article 3 of Convention No. 87, mentioned in paragraph 40 above.
13. 45. In its reply the Government restricts itself to declaring that the allegations lodged by the complainants in respect of the administrative and police authorities are false and assume a calumnious character. In these conditions, given the very detailed character of the allegations lodged by the complaining organisation, the Committee considers it necessary, in order to form an opinion with full knowledge of the facts, to obtain from the Government more detailed information on the said allegations. To this end, it has requested the Government for fuller information on the question, and, while awaiting receipt of the said information, has adjourned the examination of this aspect of the case.
14. 46. As regards the allegations according to which Mr. Castrino was dismissed by the Mayor of Rethymnon because he refused to vote in favour of Mr. Diafermo, the Government confirms the dismissal of the person concerned but confines itself to declaring, in explanation, that the person concerned was " a worker employed by the Town Council according to existing requirements ".
15. 47. The Greek Government intends without doubt by that to suggest that Mr. Castrino, a worker employed by the Town Council in a temporary capacity, was dismissed because his services were no longer required and for that reason alone. 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 considers it useful to obtain precise details from the Greek Government in this connection. To this end, it has asked the Greek Government to be good enough to furnish further information as regards the status of Mr. Castrino and as regards the exact reasons on which his dismissal was based. While awaiting receipt of the said information, the Committee has adjourned the examination of this aspect of the case.
16. 48. Finally, as regards the allegation according to which the Prefect of Rethymnon deposed Mr. Marcroglou, President of the Hairdressing Employees' Association, from his trade union office, the Government states that this dismissal was in fact carried out by the Prefect. It declares, however, that it was justified by the fact that Mr. Marcroglou devoted himself to the diffusion of anti-national propaganda among the members of his association, had transformed the association office into a centre of Communist propaganda and antinational activity and, by this fact, had diverted the association from its true objectives.
17. 49. It seems to follow from the explanation furnished by the Government that the removal of the person concerned from his trade union office originated in the fact that he used his post to pursue illegal political objectives and not because of his trade union activities.
18. 50. However, in a previous similar case, the Committee expressed the opinion that the procedure followed might give rise to abuses, the removal from office having been effected by decision of a prefect, and that measures of this kind might infringe the generally recognised right of workers' organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities. In the present case the Committee recommends the Governing Body, as it did in the case mentioned above, to draw the attention of the Government to the desirability of amending this procedure and of providing the necessary safeguards to ensure that it shall not be utilised in such a manner as to infringe the free exercise of trade union rights and to the importance which it attached to trade unions being able to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 51. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the presence, during trade union elections, of an official of the Prefecture is likely to infringe freedom of association, and to be incompatible with the principle according to 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 ;
   • (b) to affirm the importance which it attaches to the principle that trade unions should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities; to express its view, in this connection, that the power given to the Prefects to depose trade union leaders from their trade union office, by reason of their political activity, may give rise to grave abuse, and, therefore, to draw the attention of the Government to the desirability of amending this procedure and providing the necessary safeguards to ensure that it shall not be utilised in such a manner as to infringe the free exercise of trade union rights;
   • (c) to take note of the present interim report of the Committee as regards the outstanding allegations, it being understood that the Committee will report further when it has received the further information requested from the Government as indicated in paragraphs 45 and 47 above.
     • Geneva, 10 November 1960. (Signed) Paul RAMADIER, Chairman.