Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Lithuania (Ratification: 1994)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes section 200 of the Labour Code outlining the procedure for unilaterally terminating a collective agreement in force. The Committee requests the Government to: (i) clarify the rules and conditions governing the unilateral termination of collective agreements as set in the referred section of the Labour Code, specifying in particular whether any agreement can be unilaterally terminated at any time six months after its entry into force; and (ii) provide information on the application of this section in practice.

The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded in the private and public sectors, including the number of workers and employees covered.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the entry into force, on 1 July 2017, of a new Labour Code and the information provided by the Government on the procedure of settlement of individual labour disputes regulated by its provisions. The Committee will examine the Labour Code’s conformity with the Convention once its translation becomes available.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the 2011 observations on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

Article 3 of the Convention. Effective national machinery to ensure protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had previously recalled the importance of a rapid and effective protection in proceedings against acts of anti-union discrimination. In this regard, the Committee noted the observations made by the ITUC in 2010 regarding the slowness of the judicial system in dealing with unfair dismissal cases and the lack of labour courts or judges specialised in labour disputes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, by virtue of recent amendments to the provisions of the Labour Code concerning the procedure for collective labour dispute settlement, it was decided not to establish labour courts but to keep the model of labour arbitration at the district courts instead. The Committee observes, however, that these amendments concern the procedure for collective labour disputes. The Committee notes that in its most recent observations, the ITUC reiterates that the existing legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination is ineffective. The Committee once again recalls the importance of the existence of machinery appropriate to national conditions to ensure rapid and effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. It requests the Government to provide its comments on the 2011 ITUC observations. It further requests the Government to discuss this matter with the social partners and to provide information on the outcome.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the Government’s report, which contains the same information that was provided in 2008 with regard to the application of the Convention in law and practice.

Article 3 of the Convention. Machinery appropriate to national conditions should be established. The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 24 August 2010 concerning the need to create labour courts with judges specialized in labour relations, in particular taking into account the ineffective protection afforded by the judicial system in cases of unfair dismissal and more particularly, the slowness of the proceedings and the need to modify the burden of proof in cases of dismissal related to trade union activities. In this regard, considering the absence of a reply from the Government to the ITUC’s comments, the Committee recalls the importance of a rapid and effective protection in proceedings against anti-union discrimination and requests the Government to provide its observations thereon and to discuss these matters with the most representative organization of workers and employers and to keep it informed of any development in this regard.

Comments by the Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation (LTUC). The Committee notes the comments made by the LTUC on 9 September 2010 alleging that members of work councils have more guarantees than members of trade unions operating in private enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to reply to the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleging cases of intimidation, dismissal and ineffective legal protection in cases of unfair dismissal as well as the rarity of collective bargaining in practice.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the legal protection and the relevant legislative provisions concerning anti-union discrimination and interference, as well as the provisions establishing penalties for violation of the labour law. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that there were 1,238 collective agreements concluded at the enterprise level in 2007, and that collective agreements were concluded in agricultural and printed media sectors in 2006 and 2007, respectively.

2. Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to ensure that the existence of elected representatives at the enterprise is not used to undermine the position of trade unions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that according to sections 19 and 21 of the Labour Code and section 3 of the Law on Labour Councils, “the labour councils can be established in an enterprise only in cases where an enterprise has no functioning trade union and if the staff meeting has not transferred the function of employee representation and protection to the trade union of the appropriate sector of economic activity”.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the rulings of the courts relevant to the application of the Convention submitted by the Government.

1. Comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). The Committee notes the observations submitted by the ICFTU in its communication of 10 August 2006, alleging cases of intimidation, dismissal and ineffective legal protection in practice in cases of unfair dismissal as well as the rarity of collective bargaining in practice. The Committee recalls that in its previous direct request it had noted the observation from the Lietuvos Darbo Federacija (LDF) also alleging rarity of collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon. It further requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded in the enterprise, sectoral, territorial and national levels and the number of workers covered.

2. Article 4 of the Convention. Labour councils. The Committee notes the Law on Labour Councils. It further notes that according to section 3 of this Law and section 60(4) of the Labour Code, labour councils are formed in the enterprise if there is no functioning trade union and the staff meeting has not transferred the function of employees’ representation to the trade union of the appropriate sector of economic activity. According to the Government’s indication, the activities of the labour councils shall not limit the rights of trade unions. However, the Committee notes that, according to section 27 of the Law, if a trade union is formed at the enterprise or the employees’ representation is transferred to the trade union of the appropriate sector of economic activity prior to the expiration of the term of the office of the labour council, the labour council continues to exist and collective bargaining rests with the joint representation of the trade union and the labour council. The Committee considers that other workers’ representatives could participate in collective bargaining and conclude collective agreements only in the absence of a trade union organization and requests the Government to amend the Law on Labour Councils accordingly. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report, as well as the comments made by the Lietuvos Darbo Federacija (LDF), and requests the Government to send its observations thereon. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft law of the Republic of Lithuania on labour councils is being considered in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of that law once adopted.

The Committee notes also that the draft law modifying the law on collective agreements and contracts has lost its relevance after the enactment of the new Labour Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Government indicates that a draft law modifying and supplementing the Law on Collective Agreements and Contracts, whose objective is to regulate the activities of bilateral and tripartite structures and create legal preconditions for tripartite cooperation, is in the process of adoption.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the law once it is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes with interest the information provided in the Government's first report. It requests the Government to provide clarification on the following point.

Article 3. The Committee notes that section 21 of the Trades Union Act provides that trade union members dismissed because of their election to a post in the trade union shall be reinstated in their posts. It further notes that section 2 of the Act provides that state bodies, employers and their authorized representatives shall be prohibited from interfering with the internal affairs of trade unions and that individuals who interfere with the legitimate activities of trade unions shall be liable under law. The Committee recalls the importance it places upon providing sufficiently dissuasive sanctions as a means of preventing acts of anti-union discrimination and requests the Government to indicate whether any sanctions exist to ensure respect for the rights set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention and, if so, to provide copies of the relevant legislative texts.