Definitive Report - REPORT_NO287, June 1993

CASE_NUMBER 1644 (Poland) - COMPLAINT_DATE: 02-APR-92 - Closed

1. 84. The Committee examined this case, presented by the Federation of Mining Unions (FMU) and the Occupational Union of Employees in the Copper Industry (UPEIC), at its November 1992 Session, and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. (See 284th Report, paras. 1030 to 1050.) Subsequently, the Committee received a communication dated 9 February 1993 from the Government.
2. 85. Poland 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 86. Following the examination of the case by the Committee in November 1992, an allegation made by the UPEIC in a communication of 7 August 1992 remained pending. The UPEIC alleged that the Government refused to negotiate with the strike committee of miners and copper works' group. According to the UPEIC, the Government imposed as a condition for beginning negotiations the presence of officials of "Solidarity", an organization which was not a party to the dispute. The complainant organization considers the Government was not justified in imposing this condition, which is contrary to the Act on Industrial Disputes Settlement of 23 May 1991, especially since representatives of "Solidarity" were present on the strike committee at the enterprise level.
2. 87. At its November 1992 Session, the Committee requested the Government to send its observations on the allegations presented by the Occupational Union of Employees in the Copper Industry (UPEIC).

B. The Government's reply

1. 88. In a communication dated 9 February 1993, the Government sent its observations on the allegations of the UPEIC. The Government states that, by virtue of Acts which have recently been adopted to facilitate Poland's passage from central planning to a market economy, it cannot be a party to the dispute with the UPEIC. The Government emphasizes that the new legal system (which includes the Trade Unions Act, the Employers' Organizations Act and the Act on Industrial Disputes Settlement of 23 May 1991) establishes a system of industrial relations based on the principle of dialogue and social partnership, in which the employer alone - and not a ministry of local or national government - may participate in negotiations.
2. 89. The Government states moreover that the Employers' Organizations Act establishes the rights of employers in conformity with Convention No. 87, and emphasizes that employers are defined as "individuals or organizational units employing workers and dedicated to an economic activity". Consequently, the Government asserts that the party to the dispute is not the Government but the Management Board of the Lubin copper industry, and that it is the Management Board that is obliged to begin negotiations.
3. 90. The Government also reiterates its previous statements to the effect that the only way to initiate negotiations between the Government and the trade unions is through procedural agreements concluded with individual trade unions, such as the "procedural agreement on the settlement of disputes between the state administration and the "Solidarity" independent trade union" of 29 May 1992. In this case, the Government emphasizes that "Solidarity" "was not, at the establishment level, authorized by the national committee to engage in negotiations with the Government". The Government was thus not entitled to negotiate with the trade unions in question.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 91. The Committee notes that the allegation pending in this case concerns the Government's refusal to negotiate with the strike committee of miners and copper works' group. The complainant organization also alleges that the Government imposed as a condition to begin negotiations that an organization not party to the dispute ("Solidarity") be present.
2. 92. According to the Government, it cannot be a party to collective labour disputes of this kind. It is the employer - in this case the Management Board of the Lubin copper industry - which should negotiate. The Government further points out that it was not permissible to negotiate with the "Solidarity" trade unions at the enterprise level.
3. 93. In a general sense, the Committee must note that the UPEIC's complaint raises questions similar both to those examined in a previous case (see 279th Report, Case No. 1545, paras. 288 to 314) and to those examined in the present case, as regards the complaint of the Federation of Mining Unions (FMU), examined in November 1992.
4. 94. The difficulties encountered in the collective dispute in the copper industry indicate firstly, in the Committee's opinion, that despite the adoption of new legal provisions, the industrial relations system still suffers from a lack of clarity. The Committee thus can only reaffirm that measures should be taken to set up a stable and efficient disputes settlement system. It therefore reminds the Government once again that the ILO's advisory services are at its disposal, if it considers it necessary, to examine the industrial relations system.
5. 95. The Committee once again notes that the Government in May 1992 signed an agreement with the "Solidarity" trade union organization on the procedure for settling disputes. In the Committee's opinion, it would be desirable that agreements be signed with the other trade union organizations in order, on the one hand, to promote the settlement of disputes with these organizations and, on the other hand, to dispel any possibility of discrimination against them, such as the one which appears to lie behind the UPEIC's complaint. The Committee thus encourages the Government to begin negotiations with these trade union organizations with a view to concluding agreements on the procedure for settling collective disputes, as it stated was its intention in a communication of July 1992. In addition, these agreements should unambiguously define the management side in the bargaining process which, in the Committee's opinion, should be the employer of the workers concerned.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 96. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) Noting that, despite the adoption of new legal provisions, the present industrial relations system still suffers from a lack of clarity, the Committee considers that measures should be taken to establish a stable and efficient system in order to facilitate the settlement of collective disputes.
   • (b) The Committee once again reminds the Government that the ILO's advisory services are at its disposal, if it considers it necessary, to examine the industrial relations system.
   • (c) The Committee encourages the Government to begin negotiations with the trade union organizations with a view to concluding agreements on the procedure for the settlement of collective disputes; in addition, these agreements should unambiguously define the management side in the bargaining process which, in the Committee's opinion, should be the employer of the workers concerned.