Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 286, March 1993

Case No 1632 (Greece) - Complaint date: 06-MAR-92 - Closed

1. 230. In a communication dated 6 March 1992, the Greek General Confederation of Labour (its Greek acronym being GSEE) submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Greece. This organization submitted additional information in support of its complaint in a communication dated 27 March 1992.
2. 231. The Government supplied its comments in a communication dated 9 October 1992.
3. 232. Greece has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 233. In its complaint the GSEE alleges that the Government violated Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 as well as the Greek Constitution and legislation defining the institutional framework of collective bargaining by enacting Act No. 2025 of 1992.
2. 234. The complainant states that this legislative intervention prohibits free collective bargaining with a view to concluding a new collective agreement and abolishes wage increases up to the end of 1992 for workers in the public sector in the broad sense of the term, in public utility undertakings, in local authority organizations and in state banks.
3. 235. More specifically, this Act which deprives trade union organizations of one of their basic rights, the right to collective bargaining, violates Convention No. 87 which prohibits state interference in the functioning of trade union organizations and in the exercise of trade union rights.
4. 236. Furthermore, this Act infringes Convention No. 98 by prohibiting all forms of wage increases to workers in the above-mentioned enterprises. Under the terms of the Act, this prohibition covers the granting and conclusion of wage increases fixed by provisions, clauses or terms of a collective agreement, conciliation, arbitration, ministerial decision or any form of administrative action of a regulating nature or by an individual labour contract or agreement.
5. 237. In addition, this Act stipulates that pending procedures before an authority with regard to the above-mentioned wage increases are abolished and that administrative sanctions and fines can be imposed on those employers who contravene the Act's provisions. The GSEE indicates that the Act also suspends the implementation of the basic provisions of Act No. 1876 of 1990 which define the institutional framework of free collective bargaining for workers in the public sector in the broad sense of the term, in local authority organizations and in state banks.
6. 238. The GSEE contends that the Government has been adopting a policy of economic austerity unilaterally against workers with the result that their income has decreased by 20 per cent during the last two years. It states that during the 12 months preceding the 78th Session of the International Labour Conference, it had appealed to the ILO five times because the Greek Government had taken measures that affected seriously the autonomy of the social partners and workers' interests. These appeals concerned in particular the provisions of Act No. 1915 of 1990 which limit drastically the right to strike and especially those which define the minimum personnel to be maintained in the event of a strike in essential services.
7. 239. The complainant concludes by stating that all the above-mentioned measures demonstrate the Government's anti-labour policy, its systematic suppression of workers' rights and its continued interference in institutions that are protected by the Constitution and international labour Conventions. They demonstrate particularly the Government's repeated failure to respect its obligations. It is for this reason that the complainant expresses its firm reservations as to the Government's sincerity in lifting the ban on collective bargaining by the end of 1992.

B. The Government's reply

1. 240. In its communication of 9 October 1992, the Government indicates first of all that it is forced to apply a restrictive wage policy with respect to employees of the civil service and of the public sector in the broad sense of the term since it is trying to bring down inflation, reduce the huge public sector deficit and improve the competitiveness of the national economy. The Government adds that this restriction is valid only for 1992. Furthermore, the above-mentioned employees have already benefited from a special allowance of 9,000 drachmas since 1 January 1992. This allowance, combined with a relief in taxation, will result in a substantial increase in their wages which will be higher than the inflation rate projected for 1992.
2. 241. In addition, workers in the private sector who constitute an overwhelming majority of the workforce in the country have not been affected by any of the restrictive measures. The fact that collective bargaining remains entirely free between workers in the private sector and their employers shows the Government's commitment to the institution of collective bargaining.
3. 242. The Government stresses that allegations stating that such restrictive measures infringe the provisions of the Constitution and of international labour Conventions are not valid for the following reasons. The Administrative and Judicial Supreme Courts in Greece have judged that in similar cases and in order to protect the general social interest, as well as the planning and coordination of the economic activity of the country, the total prohibition on wage increases of certain categories of workers by legislative means is permitted and not contrary to article 22, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, if such a measure is deemed to be necessary to overcome the dangers which threaten the national economy.
4. 243. These Courts have also accepted that such protective measures do not infringe the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 since they do not abolish the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Moreover, national legislation is in conformity with Article 4 of Convention No. 98 since article 22, paragraph 2, of the Constitution consecrates the institution of collective agreements and the Greek legislator is subjected to the above-mentioned limitations such as protection of the general social interest when regulating wages. Since the jurisprudence of these Courts have accepted that such restrictive measures are not unconstitutional then there can be no question of violation of the provisions of Convention No. 98.
5. 244. The Government then contends that the allegations made by the complainant with regard to the right to strike are not valid since the provisions of Act No. 1915 of 1990 do not attempt to invalidate the existing legislation governing the right to strike, but rather to supplement and clarify it. The Government admits that the list of public enterprises and public utility undertakings set out in section 19(2) of Act No. 1264 of 1982 has been expanded in Act No. 1915 of 1990 to cover other services and bodies such as rubbish collection and transport, the Bank of Greece, civil aviation and the accounting services responsible for the payment of staff wages in the public sector in the broad sense of the term. It was felt necessary to extend the list in view of the essential nature of the services provided which cater to the basic needs of the population. An interruption of such services could have serious consequences for the economy of the country (such as putting at risk the health of the population, the breakdown of public transport, the spoiling of perishable goods and raw materials, the non-payment of, or delay in paying workers' wages and other allowances, etc.).
6. 245. Moreover, the Government indicates that by virtue of section 4 of Act No. 1915 of 1990 the designation of minimum staff in the event of a strike in the public sector or public utility services is the responsibility of the employer. This does not amount, however, to a restriction on the right to strike. It is merely the exercise of the employer's right to ensure the functioning of its enterprise and is imposed by the imperative of meeting the basic needs of society as a whole that are affected by the strike. Moreover, this right of the employer to ensure the functioning of its enterprise is already recognized by decisions of administrative tribunals which implement the provisions of Act No. 1264 of 1984.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 246. The Committee notes that this case involves primarily the prohibition of collective bargaining and the abolition of wage increases up to the end of 1992 for workers in the public sector in the broad sense of the term, in public utility undertakings, in local authority organizations and in state banks following the introduction of Act No. 2025 of 1992. The Government for its part contends that this restrictive measure is necessary and justified in view of its efforts to bring down inflation, reduce the huge public sector deficit and revitalize the economy.
2. 247. As regards measures of economic stabilization which restrict collective bargaining rights, the Committee has acknowledged that where, for compelling reasons of national economic interest and as part of its stabilization policy, a government considers that it is not possible for wage rates to be fixed freely through collective bargaining, any restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary without exceeding a reasonable period, and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1985, 3rd edition, para. 641).
3. 248. The Committee notes that, under the terms of this Act, collective bargaining is forbidden from 5 March 1992 to 31 December 1992. While the duration of this restrictive measure in itself does not exceed a reasonable period, it cannot be considered as an exceptional measure. The complainant makes allegations which the Government does not refute with respect to the Government's repeated failure to respect its obligations concerning collective bargaining and freedom of association. Moreover, the Committee notes the observation made by the Committee of Experts in 1991 in which the latter regretted the previous successive interventions of the public authorities in wage negotiations and recalled that persuasion should be preferred to constraint. The Committee feels bound to point out that repeated recourse to such legislative restrictions can in the long term only prejudice and destabilize the labour relations climate if the legislator intervenes frequently to suspend or terminate the exercise of rights recognized for unions and their members.
4. 249. The Committee would also refer in this respect to the response of the Government before the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 1991. In response to allegations made by trade union organizations that the Government had acted arbitrarily at least on two occasions to reduce wage increases provided for in the national labour agreement, with the result that the workers had lost 13 per cent of their purchasing power, the Government expressed its firm hope for the establishment of free collective bargaining and indicated that the most representative organizations of the country, namely the League of Greek Industries and the GSEE, had signed, as a result of free collective bargaining, a new national collective agreement for a two-year period covering 1991 and 1992.
5. 250. However, the Committee notes with concern that although workers in the private sector are not affected, wage increases to public sector workers are abolished once more, this time from 5 March to 31 December 1992 by Act No. 2025 of 1992. This prohibition covers all forms of wage increases fixed by provisions, clauses or terms of a collective agreement, conciliation, arbitration, ministerial decision or any form of administrative action of a regulating nature or by an individual contract or agreement.
6. 251. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Committee considers that Act No. 2025 of 1992 went beyond what it has previously considered to be normally acceptable limits that might be placed temporarily on collective bargaining. It trusts that Act No. 2025 of 1992 did lapse on 31 December 1992 and that collective bargaining has been restored in accordance with freedom of association principles. It requests the Government to confirm that this is so and to refrain from adopting such measures in the future.
7. 252. As regards the allegations made with respect to the provisions of Act No. 1915 of 1990 which limit the right to strike and which define the minimum personnel to be maintained in the event of a strike in essential services, the Committee notes that it has already dealt with the substance of these allegations in a previous case (see 283rd Report, paras. 147-176). It considered that the provisions restricting the right to strike in essential services did not constitute a violation of freedom of association principles. It observed, however, that section 4 of this Act stipulated that the designation of minimum staff in the event of a strike in the public sector or in public utility undertakings was the sole responsibility of the employer. The Committee therefore called on the Government to take the necessary action to guarantee that workers' organizations were involved in defining the minimum services to be maintained in the event of a strike and requested to be kept informed of any action taken in this regard.
8. 253. The Committee regrets to note in the present case that not only has the Government not taken any action in this regard, but that it puts forward exactly the same arguments as before to justify the manner in which minimum staff are designated in the event of a strike. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take the necessary action to guarantee, both in law and in practice, that workers' organizations are involved in defining the minimum services to be maintained in the event of a strike in the services listed in section 4 of Act No. 1915 of 1990, and to keep it informed of any action taken in this regard.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 254. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) Recalling the principles of freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining as expressed in its conclusions, the Committee trusts that Act No. 2025 of 1992 did lapse on 31 December 1992 and that collective bargaining has been restored in accordance with freedom of association principles. It requests the Government to confirm that this is so and asks it to refrain from adopting such measures in the future.
   • (b) The Committee considers that Act No. 2025 of 1992 went beyond what it has previously considered to be normally acceptable limits that might be placed temporarily on collective bargaining.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government once again to guarantee, both in law and in practice, that workers' organizations are involved in defining the minimum services to be maintained in the event of a strike in services deemed as essential in Greek legislation, and to keep it informed of any action taken in this regard.
   • (d) The Committee draws the legislative aspects of this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.