Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 333, March 2004

Case No 2291 (Poland) - Complaint date: 12-AUG-03 - Closed

Allegations: Acts of intimidation and anti-union harassment by the management of two companies; anti-union dismissals and discrimination of union members and officers for their participation in union activities, in particular strike action; interventions of private security guards and police officers; partiality of the Public Prosecutor’s Office; lengthy proceedings; and non execution of judicial decisions

1. 878. NSZZ Solidarnosc sent a complaint concerning the situation in the enterprise SIPMA S.A. in a communication dated 12 August 2003, and a second complaint concerning the situation in the enterprise Hetman Ltd. in a communication dated 26 August 2003.
2. 879. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 22 December 2003.
3. 880. Poland has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

• SIPMA S.A.
  881. 881 In its communication of 12 August 2003, NSZZ Solidarnosc (Solidarnosc) alleges repressive and harassment measures against trade union officials and members of the multi-enterprise trade union in SIPMA S.A., a company located in Lublin. In May 1998, the company had a total staff of 947 workers, 392 of whom (or 41.4 per cent) were Solidarnosc members. In February 2003, there were around 400 employees in the company, nine of whom (or 2.2 per cent) were Solidarnosc members. In other words, while the employment in the company only diminished 2.4 times from 1998 to 2003, the percentage of Solidarnosc members dropped 43.6 times during that same period, as a result of the employers’ actions.
  882. 882 The collective dispute between the union and the management of SIPMA S.A. began in March 1998. After ten months of negotiations and mediation, the trade union announced and launched a general strike in February 1999, after holding a strike vote where 80 per cent of the employees were in favour of the strike. The managing board of the company started to question the lawfulness of the strike without any basis; security guards and members of the management threatened to dismiss the workers who would participate in the strike, which nevertheless continued. The Regional Board of Solidarnosc confirmed the lawfulness of the strike. On the tenth day of the strike, some ten members of the management led by the chief of the company’s security service, and escorted by police officers acting on an order of the Lublin Appeal Prosecutor, cut a padlock in order to open the entrance gate but were prevented from doing so by the strikers.
  883. 883 The strike was suspended on 20 February and negotiations took place until 28 February 1999, without results. On 28 February, the members of the strike committee were no longer admitted to the trade union office. In spite of having declared publicly their will to negotiate with the strike committee, the managers of the company asked the Lublin Prosecutor’s Office to issue a bill of indictment against the members of the committee, accusing them of conducting an illegal strike with use of violence. The strike resumed on 1 March, on which date a group of security guards belonging to another agency (Alkom) hired by the management forced their way into the establishment at night to crush the strike. The management filed another complaint to the Lublin Prosecutor’s Office against the strikers. On 3 March, police officers in plain clothes entered the establishment to intimidate the strikers and arrested a member of the strike committee, Tomasz Sawka, who was also publicly slandered and called a criminal by a member of management. Mr. Sawka was then led handcuffed to the police station to be heard as a witness and released. The strike committee requested the Lublin Prosecutor’s Office to issue a notice of offence, alleging violations of rights by the police officers. On 6 March, the management hired another security firm (Walmark) in order to end the strike by force, which they tried to do on 8 March, without success. A representative of the company threatened to close down the whole establishment. Between 5 and 11 March, the company committed other acts of intimidation, by depriving eight strikers of foreman’s title, which entitled them to a 10 per cent pay allowance. To further weaken the union, the management started a procedure of collective dismissal affecting about 99 per cent of the workers. Due to the intervention of the chairman of the Regional Board of Solidarnosc, an agreement was signed on 23 March, whereby the union suspended the strike and the management committed itself to refrain from dismissals until the end of 1999 and to undertake collective bargaining.
  884. 884 It soon became clear to the union that the settlement was a mere pretext to stop the strike. None of the company commitments were fulfilled (except for maintaining the number of employees until the end of 1999) and it engaged into discussions with a non-representative body (the Trade Union of Workers and Security Guards of SIPMA S.A.) created before the signature of the 23 March agreement and totally controlled by the employer; the executive of that new “union” was composed of six representatives of security guards and managers and only two workers. The union made some proposals for common positions, without success. The management of the company was thus able to make decisions on issues affecting the workers, without regard to the agreement or even to the labour and trade union legislation. From April to May 1999, the company took a series of repressive measures. Four workers were issued with a serious reprimand for complying with the orders of the strike committee, and Mr. Lwieslaw Kozlowski, chairman of the union, was given for the same reason, a notice of termination of contract, which was eventually withdrawn upon intervention. From May to September 1999, SOLIDARNOSC held negotiations on: the limitation of workers to be made redundant; increased severance pay for dismissed employees; protection of workers in difficult social circumstances; and defence of the rights of strikers. But the company held parallel negotiations with the Trade Union of Workers and Security Guards, which accepted and signed “collective dismissals regulations”. This led to the dismissal of 150 employees, 80 per cent of whom were Solidarnosc members who had taken part in the strike. On 14 September 1999, the company spokesman confirmed that the 23 March agreement would not be executed.
  885. 885 Between October and December 1999, the company took other measures such as: tearing Solidarnosc information bulletins from the notice board posted in the company; under the pretext of reorganization, moving its office further from the entrance gate; closing a meeting place for workers; introduction of a forced six-week break in production, with the workers getting only unpaid holiday or their remaining days of paid holiday; termination of check-off facilities under the pretext of trade union’s actions considered as detrimental by the company (the check-off was later reinstalled upon intervention from the Regional Board of Solidarnosc and a deputy of the Polish Parliament). Between January and March 2000, the management requested from the union the nominal list of its members, which it refused in view of the numerous acts of harassment against union members. In June 2001, the management launched a campaign against officials and members of the union, branding them as criminals. In September 2001, access to the union meetings held on company premises was denied to worker members of the same union but employed in establishments other than SIPMA S.A.; this made union activities difficult as it was impossible to have a quorum to adopt binding resolutions. The human resources manager sent to the workers “Declarations of loyalty” to the company, that they were supposed to fill and sign, which caused another series of resignations from the union. The chairman of the union, Marek Kozak, was given a notice of termination of his employment contract. The pressure on union members was so strong that four other members resigned from the union.
  886. 886 In December 2001, the management deprived members and officials of the union of a Christmas grant (commodity coupons) without any motive. These workers were given such poor work appraisals that they were classified as employees to be dismissed. During meetings organized by management, other workers were also threatened with a downgrading of their evaluation, or with redundancy. Facing these threats of sanction, workers were induced to sign a petition censuring the union and its chairman. In addition, members of the union employed in affiliates of SIPMA S.A. (Agro Trading Ltd.; PlastForm Ltd.; LMFR S.A.) were strongly incited to stop participating in the structures of the union and to create separate trade unions. As a result, it became necessary to create and register a new trade union body in the company (registered under No. 0030 in the Regional Board of Solidarnosc). The Warsaw General Labour Inspectorate sent a team from outside the Lublin district to carry out an in-depth inspection at the company, which confirmed all the cases of infringements alleged by the union. At the end of February 2002, there remained only 21 Solidarnosc members in the company. Elections were nevertheless carried out, and Mr. Zenon Mazus nominated as chairman. The management questioned the legality of the elections, refused to recognize the new union and to cooperate with it. The intimidation and harassment continued without interruption in 2002 and 2003, the following cases being examples only of such measures against officials and members of the union: negative work assessments; threats of dismissal unless they changed their attitude; access denied to trade union premises by the security guards; deprivation of part of remuneration; Mr. Zenon Mazus received five penalties, all of them connected with trade union activities, was affected to a different working post and was not allowed by the supervisor to leave his post to participate in, and preside, trade union meetings; penalties imposed for presence at union meetings, even after working hours; disconnection of internal and external telephone lines, and fax lines in the union office; the external correspondence sent to the trade union did not reach it; etc. As a result, there remained only 13 members in the union in December 2002.
  887. 887 Concerning the enforcement of workers and trade union rights before the Lublin Labour Court and the Supreme Court in Warsaw, the complainant organization alleges a number of situations where the proceedings were prolonged in order to hold the execution of judgements unfavourable to the company, or where the judgments were not carried out. For instance:
• – Mr. Waldemar Wojtas dismissed in April 1999, reinstated in his job in December 1999, received the remaining part of his due remuneration only in November 2000.
• – Mr. Henryk Jedrejek dismissed in March 2000 and reinstated in his job by the Court in November 2000; the employer used all sorts of delaying tactics not to return him to his previous post; it took other legal proceedings, up until 2003, to have the judgement executed upon the court’s terms.
• – Two years elapsed between the date where Mr. Marek Kozak filed a claim for due remuneration and the judgement. Meanwhile, he was dismissed in 2001 and the proceedings had not ended yet although 15 months passed since the action was brought in law.
• – Mr. Zenon Mazus appealed to the Labour Court against his termination in July 2002; at the date of preparing the present complaint, the hearing had not taken place.
  888. 888 The complainant organization further alleges the partiality of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. On 29 April 1999, an official of that Office issued a decision to commence prosecution following the notice of an offence filed by the strike committee of Solidarnosc concerning the unlawful conduct of the management and security guards of the company. While visiting the company, the prosecutor did not contact the trade union body, but presented to the manager the statements of employees attached to the notice of an offence, which exposed 41 workers named in the statements to repression from the management. The same Prosecutor’s Office decided however to commence investigation against 15 members of the strike committee and to issue a bill of indictment against three leaders of the strike; it took two years to have that charge rejected and the workers had to defend themselves without any help of an attorney. The complainant organization also alleges that the Lublin Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an indictment against Henryk Jedrejek, accusing him, as chairman of the union, of causing damages to the company, based on article 23 of the Unfair Competition Act; he is now awaiting criminal proceedings. The complainant organization also mentions the case of Tomasz Sawka who was not informed of the date of his hearing and was thus condemned to the payment of a fine. Finally, the complainant organization indicates that following the notification of an offence submitted by Solidarnosc against the president of the company, the Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office decided, on 30 September 2000, to discontinue the investigation, despite a decision of the National Labour Inspection stating that the employer had infringed labour law and trade union law.
• Hetman Ltd.
  889. 889 The second part of the complaint concerns the situation in Hetman Ltd., a clothing company, established as a result of the privatization of a state-owned enterprise. Several infringements of the labour law were reported to the Labour Inspection from 1997 to 2002. In December 2002, the workers decided to establish a union in the establishment; it was registered with the Regional Board of Solidarnosc which immediately informed the employer. On the same day, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company dismissed two members of the union, who had been the most active in setting up the union, without obtaining the approval of the union, as required by law.
  890. 890 On 27 December 2002, the CEO assigned the remaining eight officers of the union to perform work in another establishment of the enterprise in Gizycko, a town situated 230 km away. When the employees reported for work there, nobody was waiting for them and no work was organized. Between 27 and 31 December 2002, the company dismissed 25 members of the trade union in the enterprise.
  891. 891 On 8 January 2003, the CEO notified Solidarnosc of his intention to dismiss 96 workers for disciplinary reasons, alleging that they refused to work on 18 December 2002 (in fact, the employees had held a meeting due to delays in payment of remuneration). Although the dismissals did not take place, 50 members of the union were notified on 17 January 2003 that they would receive a serious reprimand for unjustified refusal to perform work on 18 December 2002. The CEO of the company also tried to obtain the names of the union members in the enterprise, which Solidarnosc refused.
  892. 892 The Regional Board of Solidarnosc requested the Labour Inspection Directorate to undertake an investigation on the company, which eventually confirmed the accusations of violations of the law by the employer, in particular the dismissals of members and officials of the union. The artificial assignment of workers in Gizycko was mentioned as an evident example of discrimination for setting up a trade union. In December 2002, Solidarnosc submitted a notice of an offence (discrimination against trade union members) against the CEO of the company to the Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office. The proceedings started on 13 January 2003; about 200 witnesses were interrogated but a decision to file charges was only made on 6 June 2003. No progress has been made since then.
  893. 893 The first hearing before the Labour Court concerning the reinstatement of employees who had been dismissed was scheduled on 20 February 2003. Due to serious delays in court proceedings and lack of cooperation from the CEO of the company, the hearing was delayed and had still not taken place at the time of filing this complaint.
  894. 894 As a result of mediation activities, including intervention of the Regional and National Boards of Solidarnosc, the CEO announced on 17 January 2003 that he had decided to reinstate in their employment 25 members of the union. Actions taken by Solidarnosc also led to a cancellation of the abovementioned reprimands given to 50 union members. However, the CEO ultimately refused to reinstate nine union members in their employment. He also refused to continue discussions with worker’s representatives. On 28 May 2003, he terminated the contracts of 48 women workers who were members of the trade union, while simultaneously announcing that the company was looking for 60 new employees.
  895. 895 During the dispute, Solidarnosc had asked the Prime Minister to change the legislation, so as to avoid the repetition of similar situations in the future. The issue was ultimately referred, through the Ministry of Labour, to the regional authorities so that a session of the Regional Social Dialogue Commission could discuss the non-observance of labour laws by employers in the region, with particular focus on the situation at Hetman Ltd.
  896. 896 The complainant organization concludes that this case further reveals serious shortages in the legislation for securing workers’ right to associate.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 897. In its communication dated 22 December 2003, the Government indicates that the legislation does guarantee the rights and freedom guaranteed by Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 135, and provides information on the legislative provisions in this respect.
2. 898. As regards the situation in SIPMA S.A., the Government does not agree that the proceedings have been excessively lengthy. The proceedings conducted by the district and provincial courts in Lublin have been supervised by the Department of Common Courts of the Ministry of Justice, which entails an obligation to submit monthly reports on the activities undertaken by a court in a given case. Unjustified delays in proceedings are subject to disciplinary penalties; in practice, supervision by the Department of Common Courts means an acceleration of the proceedings.
3. 899. In the case of Mr. Marek Kozak, the proceedings were delayed only by the gathering of the bulky evidence required to settle the case and by the claimant himself, who requested an adjournment of the case due to his attorney’s absence. The claimant’s attorney also did not act with due diligence in submitting all motions of evidence during the suit and requested more and more evidence during hearings, which meant more adjournments. As regards Mr. Tomasz Sawka, the claimant himself did not appear at the first hearing and the proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Second Instance, as the opposing party exercised its constitutional right to lodge an appeal; concerning the criminal proceedings, Mr. Sawka was present at the hearing on 16 April 2003, where the case was remanded for consideration at another date, which was notified to him at the hearing. Therefore, the allegation that he had not been informed of the hearing is totally unjustified. In the case of Mr. Zenon Mazus, it was the claimant himself who requested his case to be considered jointly with the cases of other employees, which complicated the proceedings, that have not been completed to date.
4. 900. Concerning the alleged lack of objectivity of the Prosecutor’s Office and of support given to the employer, the Government states that these allegations are not justified when considering the course of action of the Prosecutor’s Office and the court procedures currently pending. The notice of offence submitted in June 2001 by Solidarnosc concerning a violation of workers’ rights was referred in July 2001 to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office in Kielce due to the similarity of the issues in another case previously submitted to that office, which also took over the cases conducted by the District Prosecutor’s Office of Lublin.
5. 901. The proceedings of the District Prosecutor’s Office in Lublin concerning the collective dispute at SIPMA S.A. were finalized by a decision of 26 April 1999 to refuse to commence an inquiry, as it was concluded that no violation of the Act on Settlement of Collective Disputes had been committed. An investigation conducted by the District Prosecutor’s Office did not give grounds for reversing that decision.
6. 902. The investigation of the District Prosecutor’s Office in Kielce was closed on 29 August 2003. As a result, a bill of indictment was lodged on 14 October 2003 against Mr. Leszek Kepa and Mr. Jerzy Czopa, CEO and Managing Director of the company, respectively. They were charged with malicious and persistent violations of workers’ rights and discrimination against trade union members due to their membership, functions and activities in the union. In addition, 17 persons with managerial functions were charged with similar offences. The Government explains that, on 29 August 2003, the material regarding discrimination of two workers, Messrs. Mysliwiecki and Jedrejek was removed from the case because their employment contracts were terminated in 2000. The case of Mr. Tomasz Sawka was also excluded from the file because his contract of employment was terminated in 2002; the investigation on this case was discontinued as it was concluded that there was no evidence of offence under article 218(1) of the Penal Code.
7. 903. As regards Mr. Jedrejek, the notice of offence had been submitted by the company. The investigation led to an accusation, filed on 4 June 2002, that he had used confidential employer information for his own economic benefit, which caused financial damage to the company. The proceedings in this case are currently pending at the district court in Lublin.
8. 904. As regards the proceedings related to offences allegedly committed by strikers (Article 26 of the Act on the Settlement of Collective Disputes and articles 191 and 212 of the Penal Code), the Government indicates that the investigation against Mr. Kozak and 14 other persons was discontinued on 15 November 1999 due to the minor amount of damages involved. The remaining findings of the investigation led to charges filed in November 1999 against Messrs. Wojtas, Mazus and Kozak, for threatening managers and forcing them to leave the workplace. Messrs. Wojtas and Mazus were found not guilty under article 191 of the Penal Code and the proceedings against Messrs. Kozak and Mazus under article 190 of the Penal Code were discontinued due to the low amount of damages caused by the alleged acts.
9. 905. The Government concludes that the prosecutors were duty-bound to deal with the notices of offences submitted by both parties according to the legal procedural course, and the decisions taken were supported by the evidence gathered in these cases. The Government recalls that the justification of indictment bills is subject to supervision by a competent court.
10. 906. Concerning the situation in Hetman Ltd., the Government indicates that 53 lawsuits, including two collective actions, were filed against the company by the workers at the Elblag District Court. These proceedings were under the supervision of the Department of Common Courts of the Ministry of Justice since 17 March 2003. The hearings set for 24, 27 March, 1 and 4 April 2003 did not take place because the defendant requested an adjournment due to the fact that the CEO of the company was in hospital. He appeared at the next hearings (30 April, 8, 13 and 16 May 2003) and by September 2003, the Court had considered and finally settled the cases of 89 employees, whose claims were considered justified and who obtained effective legal protection, according to the Government.
11. 907. As regards the claims for reinstatement of Ms. Barbara Chmielewska and Ms. Elzbieta Chojnicka, the charges were filed on 19 December 2002. The hearing set for March 2003 was adjourned to 30 April 2003 due to the defendant CEO’s hospitalization. One day before the next hearing, the defendant requested that the district court and the provincial court in Elblag be excluded from the consideration of the case, which motion was overruled by the Appellate Court in Gdansk on 22 July 2003. The hearing on the merits set for 17 October 2003 was again adjourned to 13 November 2003. By judgment issued on 21 November 2003, both employees were reinstated and granted remuneration for the period of unemployment.
12. 908. Concerning the alleged Court’s failure to conduct the proceedings on the offences allegedly committed by the CEO of the company, the Government indicates that it considers it unjustified. The District Prosecutor’s Office in Elblag instituted preparatory proceedings and gathered evidence and documentation; a representative of the Regional Board of Solidarnosc, a representative of the State Labour Inspection Elblag Division, an employee of the Gizycko branch of the company, and 40 employees of the company who suffered as a result of the company’s president’s actions were heard and cross-examined. The delay in the preparatory proceedings was due to the high volume of evidence and the difficult circumstances (other allegations of violation of workers’ rights). As a result of the preparatory proceedings, on 29 October 2003, the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office in Elblag brought a bill of indictment against the CEO of the company, charging him, inter alia, with discrimination against workers for the establishment of a trade union, their membership thereof, and hindrance of trade union activities.
13. 909. Regarding the notification to the Prime Minister of the situation in Hetman Ltd., the Government indicates that the Minister overruled the possibility of considering the conflict in the company under the Act on the Settlement of Collective Disputes, since that would have prevented from appointing a mediator, and referred the issue on 16 January 2003 to the Regional Commission of Social Dialogue. The irregularities occurring at Hetman Ltd. were discussed in that tripartite commission on 21 March and 23 May 2003.
14. 910. The Government concludes that it did not fail to fulfil its obligations under Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 135 in ensuring that the worker members of the trade union at Hetman Ltd. were provided with adequate legal protection.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 911. The Committee notes that this case concerns two sets of alleged violations of freedom of association by the management of two private companies (Hetman Ltd. and SIPMA S.A.) namely: acts of intimidation and anti-union harassment; anti-union dismissals and discrimination against union members for their participation in union activities, in particular strike action; intervention of security services and police officers. The complainant also alleges partiality on the part of the Prosecutor’s Office, the excessive length of proceedings and the non-execution of judicial decisions. The Government replies that the applicable legislation guarantees the rights and freedoms provided for in the relevant Conventions ratified by Poland.
2. 912. As regards the situation in SIPMA S.A., the Committee notes that the dispute in that company dates back to March 1998 and resulted after ten months of unsuccessful bargaining in a legal strike in February 1999, which marked the beginning of a long series of actions by the employer, challenged by the trade union as being acts of anti-union discrimination. Without going into each and every instance presented by the complainant as evidence of such anti-union action by the employer, the Committee notes that numerous members and officials of the trade union were subject to a number of measures which are generally illustrative of anti-union discrimination: disciplinary dismissals and terminations of contract; imposition of penalties and reprimands for trade union activities; artificial assignment to remote postings; failure to reinstate dismissed employees in their previous posts, in violation of a court order to that effect; sanctions imposed for presence on the company premises after work for participation in union meetings; negative work appraisals; deprivation of bonuses, rewards and other allowances in kind; refusal to recognize the union elected for the term 2002-06 and to cooperate with it; etc. The union used the available legal avenues to challenge these actions, with varying results. The Committee notes that the Government does not refute the substance of the allegations, but essentially replies that the existing labour and trade union legislation is compatible with applicable freedom of association instruments, and that the competent administrative and judicial bodies have duly exercised their jurisdiction when requested to do so. The Committee finally notes that, at the end of the day, the presence of Solidarnosc in the company dropped from 392 to nine union members (41.4 per cent to 2.2 per cent of the total number of employees) during the period 1998-2003.
3. 913. As regards the situation in Hetman Ltd., while noting that the events spread over a shorter period, the Committee cannot but observe the coincidence in time between the establishment of the union and the beginning of a long series of acts of anti-union discrimination, similar to the ones described above, including dismissals and other measures affecting the free exercise of trade union activities. Here too, the Government does not challenge the substance of the allegations, but replies that the legislation is compatible with freedom of association and that administrative and judicial bodies appropriately exercised their jurisdiction when requested to do so. The Committee further notes that the rate of success of union challenges before these jurisdictions was relatively higher in this case.
4. 914. The complainant organization alleges in both cases unjustified delays in the courts’ proceedings for alleged violations of workers’ rights, and partiality on the part of the Prosecutor’s Office. The Committee notes on the other hand that, according to the Government: these cases have been processed under the supervision of the Department of Common Courts of the Ministry of Justice, where unjustified delay is subject to penalties; that whatever delays occurred can be explained by the complexity of cases, the high number of witnesses and the sheer volume of evidence; that the adjournments resulted from motions presented by either party, from considerations related to the good administration of justice; and that the courts took the necessary steps for the due processing and settlement of the cases. In summary, according to the Government, the employees obtained effective legal protection where justified.
5. 915. While recalling that an excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding proceedings concerning the reinstatement of trade union leaders dismissed by an enterprise constitute a denial of justice [Digest, op. cit., para. 749], the Committee expresses its concern regarding the length of time elapsed between the submission of a notice of offence by Solidarnosc in June 2001 and the corresponding bill of indictment lodged in October 2003. It appears to the Committee that the problem here might be more one of systematic recourse by an individual employer to all available legal recourses both as regards the merits and the execution of judgements, than one of appropriateness of the legislation.
6. 916. The Committee thus considers, based on the extensive and detailed evidence submitted, that the present complaint might not be so much an issue of inadequate legislation, applied in an unsatisfactory manner and with inordinate court delays, but rather two isolated instances of bitter industrial relations characterized by permanent conflict, and the refusal of individual employers to recognize a workers’ organization and enter in good faith in a collective bargaining relationship with it. The Committee recalls in this respect that employers should recognize for collective bargaining purposes the organizations representative of the workers employed by them, and that recognition by an employer of the main unions represented in its undertaking, or the most representative of these unions, is the very basis for any procedure for collective bargaining on conditions of employment in the undertaking [Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 821-822]. In addition, the Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the obligation to negotiate in good faith for the development and maintenance of harmonious labour relations [Digest, op. cit., para. 814].
7. 917. Given the nature of this case, the Committee must emphasize that no person should be prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities [Digest, op. cit., para. 701]. One of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against 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. The guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom [Digest, op. cit., para. 724].
8. 918. The Committee notes that the Government was apparently concerned enough about the recurring situation in the enterprises SIPMA S.A. and Hetman Ltd., that the Ministry of Labour felt it appropriate, at least as regards the latter, to refer the issue to the Regional Social Dialogue Commission. Expressing its concern about the labour relations situation in the companies in question, the Committee urges the Government to reiterate and intensify its efforts, under the auspices of that tripartite commission, to bring back the parties to the bargaining table and resume social dialogue, and ensure that the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining are applied, particularly as regards effective recognition of unions and protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the developments in this regard.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 919. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee expresses its concern regarding the length of time elapsed between the submission of a notice of offence by Solidarnosc in June 2001 and the corresponding bill of indictment lodged in October 2003.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government to reiterate and intensify its efforts, under the auspices of the tripartite Regional Social Dialogue Commission, to bring back the parties to the bargaining table and resume social dialogue, and ensure that the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining are applied, particularly as regards recognition of unions and effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.