Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2006, Publicación: 96ª reunión CIT (2007)

Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (núm. 87) - Rumania (Ratificación : 1957)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and its reply to the comments made by the National Confederation of Trade Unions (CARTEL ALFA), the National Trade Union Bloc (BSN) and the Democratic Confederation of Trade Unions of Romania (CSDR), received on 7 June 2006, and by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), dated 3 November 2005. The Committee also notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 10 August 2006, concerning matters already raised by the Committee, and the comments provided by the WCL on 6 September 2006 on the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to reply to the comments of the ICFTU and the WCL.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that its comments of the past several years, as well as those of the WCL of 31 August 2005, have referred to sections 55, 56 and 62 of Act No. 168/1999 on the settlement of labour disputes. Under section 55 of the Act, the management of a production unit may demand the suspension of a strike, for a maximum period of 30 days, if it endangers the life or health of individuals, and an irrevocable decision may be taken in this respect by the Court of Appeal under the terms of section 56. With regard to section 62, the management of a production unit may submit a dispute to an arbitration commission in the event that a strike has lasted for 20 days without any agreement being reached between the parties and its continuation would affect humanitarian interests. With regard to the suspension of a strike under sections 55 and 56 and the ending of strike under sections 58‑60, the Committee requested the Government in its 2004 observation to provide detailed information on the application of these provisions in practice and, in particular, to indicate whether they are frequently invoked by the management of a production unit, and to provide copies of decisions handed down under these provisions. With regard to section 62, the Committee requested the Government to repeal the provision so as to fully guarantee the right of workers’ organizations to engage in industrial action to defend and further the occupational interests of their members.

With regard to the application of sections 58‑60, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that the court has established a time limit for dealing with an application to bring a strike to an end, which may be no longer than three days after it was lodged, and that it calls the parties to a hearing. The court examines the application to bring the strike to an end and issues an urgent ruling in which, after examining the case, it either sets aside the application by the enterprise or upholds the application and orders the strike to end on the grounds that it is unlawful. The Government indicates that Act No. 168/1999 provides in section 54(1) that participation in the strike or the organization of a strike, in compliance with the provisions of the law, is not a violation of the work duties of employed persons and cannot have negative consequences for those on strike or for the organizers. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide copies of the decisions handed down under these provisions with its next report.

In relation to section 62, the Government describes the content of the section and indicates that two conditions have to be fulfilled simultaneously for the management of an enterprise to be able to request arbitration, and that one of these conditions relates to aspects of a humanitarian nature. According the Government, measures adopted to protect humanitarian interests cannot be considered as a restriction on the right to strike. The Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is acceptable if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or if the strike in question may be restricted, even banned, for example in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and it requests the Government to adopt measures to ensure that the legislation is in compliance with the Convention in this respect.

Finally, the Committee notes the comments made by CARTEL ALFA, the BSN and the CSDR to the effect that, as a result of internal rules adopted by the Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and the Family, regional labour offices no longer register applications for conciliation submitted by trade unions as a consequence of a refusal by the employer to accept the workers’ claims in relation to the mandatory annual negotiations on wages, hours of work, the work programme and working conditions. CARTEL ALFA, the BSN and the CSDR recall that the conciliation phase is compulsory before calling a strike under the terms of Act No. 168/1999. They allege that the reasons given by labour officials relate in most cases to internal decisions of the Ministry of Labour or an incorrect interpretation of the Act, which considers this type of dispute as consisting of conflicts of rights (rather than conflicts of interests), which lie within the competence of the courts. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (1) the Ministry of Labour has not issued any internal written or verbal instruction to labour directorates not to register conflicts of interests; (2) the Ministry of Labour, through its territorial branches, has registered disputes which, in accordance with section 12, constitute conflicts of interests and has designated delegates for the conciliation of these labour disputes; (3) the Ministry of Labour has also registered as conflicts of interest the situations indicated in section 12(d) as exceptions. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the trade union organizations have not lodged a complaint with the relevant judicial bodies. The Committee notes this information.

The Committee notes Act No. 371/2005 of 13 December 2005 approving Ordinance No. 65/2005 issuing amendments and supplementing Act No. 53/2003 issuing the Labour Code and Act No. 251/2006 of 22 June 2006 issuing amendments and supplementing Act No. 188/1999 on the conditions of service of public officials. The Committee will examine these texts when the translation has been received.

The Committee is also raising other matters relating to the new Act on trade unions in a request addressed directly to the Government.