Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) - Serbia (Ratification: 2005)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)



A Government representative indicated that social dialogue at the national level was a tripartite process between representatives of employers, workers and the Government, and that collective bargaining and the work of social and economic councils were the most important forms of social dialogue. The foundation of social dialogue had been set out in the Labour Code, primarily with respect to the establishment of trade unions and employers’ associations, as well as the method of and requirements for determining their representativeness. The establishment of the Social and Economic Council of the Republic of Serbia (SEC) in 2004 had created the conditions for a more successful social dialogue at the national level. Social dialogue was promoted by regular staff meetings and the SEC sessions. Four sessions of the SEC had been held in 2018, and eight in 2017. With respect to the remarks made by the social partners that draft laws had not been submitted for consultations, the speaker explained that in 2017, the following laws and other acts, which had been prepared by the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs (the Ministry of Labour), had been communicated to the SEC for its consideration and opinion: (1) the Draft Law on Amending the Law on Peaceful Settlement of Labour Disputes; (2) the Draft Law on Amending the Labour Code; (3) the Proposal for a Rulebook on Amending the Rulebook on previous and periodical medical examinations of employees in employment at increased risk; and (4) the Proposal for a Rulebook on acquiring new knowledge relating to occupational health and safety. In addition, also in 2017, the following draft laws prepared by the Ministry of State Administration and Local Self-Government had been considered by the SEC: (1) the Draft Law on Salaries of Civil Servants and State Employees in Autonomous Province Authorities and Local Government Units; (2) the Draft Law on Employees in the Public Service; and (3) the Draft Law on Amending the Public Sector Wage System Law. Apart from the SEC established at the national level, there were social and economic councils at the level of the autonomous territories and the local government. There were 19 councils in the registry maintained by the Ministry of Labour. One of the most important forms of social dialogue was collective bargaining. The amendments to the Labour Code made in July 2014 aimed to encourage social dialogue and collective bargaining for the purpose of concluding collective agreements at all levels (enterprise, industry, local government unit, as well as at the national level). Government representatives were involved in the negotiation procedures for collective agreements covering public enterprises and corporations funded by the Republic, and for special collective agreements for public enterprises and public services. Seventeen special collective agreements and five collective agreements covering economic sectors were currently registered by the Ministry of Labour and published in the Official Gazette. For instance, special collective agreements had been concluded covering institutions in the areas of health, culture and social protection; employees in elementary and secondary schools and student homes; police officers; state authorities; and pre-school institutions. Collective agreements covering economic sectors had been concluded for such industries as: chemistry and non-metals; agriculture, food, tobacco and water management; construction and construction materials; and road maintenance.

With respect to the observation that the social partners were excluded from the process of drafting labour and social legislation, the speaker reiterated that social dialogue was a very important part of the law-drafting process. In line with the Government’s workplan for 2016–18, a legal framework on strike and peaceful settlement of labour disputes was in the process of development. The working group had consisted of representatives of trade unions and of employers’ associations at national level and members of the SEC. At the session on 28 December 2017, the Government had finalized a draft Bill on Amending the Law on Peaceful Settlement of Labour Disputes, and had communicated it to the National Assembly for adoption. Public discussion on the Draft Law on Strikes had been finalized on 10 May 2018, and further activities had been undertaken for this Bill to be adopted by the Government. In response to the observations made by the social partners that the Representativeness Committee had ceased to function in May 2017, the speaker stated that since the new Government had been formed on 29 June 2017, new Government representatives to the Committee had to be nominated by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health. Following nominations on 19 April 2018, the Representativeness Committee had held its first session on 7 May 2018. With respect to the observations made by the social partners that no consultations on international labour standards had taken place, she stated that such consultations had been regularly held. The most obvious example of the consultation results was the ratification of the Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183). This Convention had been ratified after the meeting between the Government representatives and the trade union representatives. The ratification procedure had started at the initiative of the Trade Union Confederation “Nezavisnost”, with the support of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia, and employers’ associations. All reports on the implementation of ILO Conventions had been regularly communicated to the social partners on a yearly basis for their opinion and comments. All comments received were forwarded to the ILO by the Government in a timely manner. In order to prepare the delegation of the Republic of Serbia to the International Labour Conference, the Government had delivered the following documents to the SEC: the invitation letter, information on the Conference and the guidelines for participation and a request to the SEC to transmit to the Government information on the social partners’ delegates to the Conference. Furthermore, the Government had delivered the following ILO documents to the social partners: the text of the newly adopted Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017 (No. 205); and a questionnaire on the implementation of the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202). The SEC had met twice, in March and April 2018, concerning the participation in the International Labour Conference.

The Worker members recalled the need to organize social dialogue effectively to cover all of the problems that could arise in the context of the implementation of international labour instruments. Indeed, social dialogue was present in a cross-cutting manner in all ILO instruments, and particularly in the present Convention, which directly addressed the question of social dialogue within the context of tripartite consultation relating to international labour standards. The Convention benefited from broad support from ILO member States, as it had so far received 140 ratifications. They recalled that a ratification campaign had been launched with the aim of achieving universal ratification of the Convention for the ILO Centenary. States which had not yet done so should initiate the process to ratify the Convention. Indeed, while the ratification of the Convention was essential, compliance with it in law and practice was just as important. The application by Serbia of the Convention which it had ratified in 2005 had been problematic. As it was a relatively recent ratification, the failings were perhaps due to the relatively short period for which the Convention had been in force in the country. It appeared difficult to find an echo in Serbia of the Convention, which set out fundamental principles of social dialogue. According to the social partners, in practice social dialogue had been reduced to the strict minimum at all levels. Although the Convention was intended to promote effective tripartite consultation, it was clear that this was far from being the case in Serbia at present. It was not by reducing social dialogue to a minimum that effective consultations could be established in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. In that regard, the social partners reported that, in general, draft legislation on social and labour issues was not always submitted to the competent consultation mechanism. It was difficult to imagine how it could be otherwise for all of the items that had to be submitted for consultation with the social partners under Article 5 of the Convention. In practice, all draft legislation was submitted directly to the Legislative Assembly without any prior consultation in the competent tripartite advisory body. Article 2(1) of the Convention provided that each member State should undertake to establish procedures to ensure effective consultation, but this did not appear to be the case in Serbia. If the Government needed to establish or re-establish such procedures, it would need to consult the representative organizations of workers and employers in this regard, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Convention. In this respect, the representative organizations of workers indicated that their representative was no longer allowed to participate in the drafting of legislative texts in the field of social and labour legislation. This situation was compounded by the lack of dialogue with the social partners, particularly with workers’ organizations. A Representativeness Committee had been established to determine the representativeness of workers’ and employers’ organizations, but had ceased functioning in May 2017. According to the social partners, the non-functioning of the above Committee had strongly affected social dialogue in that the Government was now determining the representativeness of organizations. The decisions taken by the Government in relation to representativeness were adopted without consulting the Committee. It was evident that this procedure, probably applied in response to the non-functioning of the competent body, should have been the subject of consultation with the social partners.

Contrary to Article 5(2), no schedule appeared to have been determined in consultation with the social partners in order to ensure tripartite consultation at regular intervals on the matters covered by the Convention. The absence of regular consultations meant that, in practice, consultations were held too late, or not at all. The Government should therefore be called upon to review the applicable procedures, in dialogue with the social partners. In light of the difficulties observed, it would appear to be useful for the Government to invite the competent authority to produce an annual report on the working of the consultation procedures, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention. It was the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the competent authority had all the necessary resources for the preparation of the report. The report would make an assessment of the situation and would provide a basis for reviewing all of the elements which were paralysing social dialogue in the country. Serbia was already benefiting from an ILO technical assistance programme, which was intended to strengthen the capacities of the competent authority in relation to tripartite consultation. It was important to assess the progress achieved in their context and to encourage recourse to such assistance. A tripartite workshop had also been organized by the ILO in Belgrade in 2017 to train the tripartite partners on the implementation of the Convention. Despite this assistance, it was clear from the comments of the Committee of Experts that there remained many shortcomings in the application of the Convention. The Worker members considered that the situation could be improved significantly if the Government made efforts to this end. The measures that needed to be taken to resolve the difficulties noted and re-establish effective tripartite consultation were not excessively complex and required only a minimum of political will.

The Employer members emphasized the importance of States complying with this governance Convention. Serbia had ratified the Convention on 13 May 2005 and, to date, the Committee of Experts had already issued seven comments, the last three dating from 2012, 2015 and 2017. In 2001, the SEC had been created as a tripartite advisory body. The legislation provided for the representation of the social partners and the Government on an equal footing. The SEC therefore appeared to be the competent national authority par excellence to assume an advisory role on ILO instruments. It seemed, however, to be well established that it was rarely consulted by the authorities, particularly with regard to the obligations laid down in the Convention. The content, procedure, time limits for consultation, outcome and frequency of the consultations were clearly still posing problems. The Employer members had expressed their concern with regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts. Having taken note of the Government’s explanations, they considered that specific action was needed to apply the Convention at the national level.

The Employer members attached great importance to the Convention, given that, as stated in the ILO Constitution, tripartism was one of the pillars of the Organization. It was what distinguished the ILO from other international organizations. The Convention had the merit of flexibility, leaving it to national practice to determine the nature as well as the form of consultation procedures. Very different tripartite consultation procedures and methods could therefore satisfy the aims of the Convention. Nevertheless, to be meaningful, consultations must not be simply a matter of form, but should command the full attention of representative employers’ and workers’ organizations so as to assist the Government in decision-making. In that respect, tripartism was not an easy road to travel. It required appropriate means of keeping organizations informed so that they had a sufficient basis for consultation, the exchange of information on different points of view and the settlement of disputes, taking into account the positions of the social partners before any final decision was made. It was essential for final Government decisions concerning their obligations towards the ILO to take into account the points of view expressed by employers and workers. Article 5(2) of the Convention provided that consultations should be held at least once a year. It was difficult to envisage consultations being held less frequently, bearing in mind the diversity of issues warranting consultation at different times of the year. However, Governments were under no obligation to publish annual reports on how the procedure was functioning; they were required to hold consultations on whether such a report was appropriate. That being said, the burden of government reporting obligations was heavy and sometimes delayed or reduced the time available for tripartite consultation, or even prevented consultations from taking place within the time limits. The Employer members supported any initiative that eased the administrative burden of governments, while maintaining the quality of the information they communicated. Such rationalization would facilitate the holding of tripartite consultations. With regard to the observations made by the Committee of Experts, the Employer members recalled that tripartite consultations by the Government could not be confined to draft legal texts or a purely formal consultation. It was not enough to organize the travel for employer and worker delegates to participate in the International Labour Conference, nor to provide them pro forma, selectively or at the last minute with general notes that were not conducive to meaningful consultation. Instead, a basic process of effective consultation needed to be established. Certain issues examined by the Committee of Experts had been raised on many occasions. It was therefore important for the Government to provide full, detailed and useful information in writing on the effective functioning of the SEC.

The Worker member of Serbia indicated that the Law on the Social and Economic Council had defined the SEC as an independent body, composed of representatives of the Government, representative employers’ associations and representative trade unions. Pursuant to the Law, the SEC should take positions on issues such as development and improvement of collective bargaining, impact of economic policy and measures for its implementation with regard to social development and stability, employment policy, wage and price policies, competition and productivity, privatization and other structural adjustment issues, protection of working and living conditions, education and vocational training, health care and social welfare, demographic trends and other issues. These positions should be taken by consensus of the members of the SEC. Regarding the implementation of the Convention, the speaker regretted that draft laws in the area of labour and social legislation or those that regulated the right to work were not submitted to the SEC for review. Instead, the Government had directly submitted these bills to the National Assembly. In the course of 2017, 18 bills had been submitted to the National Assembly without having first consulted the SEC. With respect to representativeness, the speaker indicated that, pursuant to section 224 of the Labour Code, representativeness of a trade union at national level was determined by the Minister on the recommendation of the Representativeness Committee. The Committee should be composed of three representatives of each group: the Government; the trade unions; and the employers’ organizations. The Committee had ceased to function from May 2017 to April 2018, due to the Government’s failure to nominate its representatives. Moreover, section 229 of the Labour Code had been amended in July 2014, to provide that the Representativeness Committee could only operate and adopt proposals if at least two-thirds of its members were present at the meeting (prior to the amendment all decisions had to be taken by consensus). As a result, the representative trade union, as one of the social partners, did not have equal status in the Committee, since the Government, together with the representative employers’ organizations, could make decisions and proposals even without the trade union, which was contrary to the Convention. Pursuant to section 229(7) of the Labour Code, as amended, the Government had taken over the determination of representativeness, as the Minister could take decisions in this regard without seeking the Representativeness Committee’s views. With regard to sectoral collective agreements, he regretted that these were non-existent in the industrial sector. Moreover, those that were signed were not implemented or failed to obtain approval for extending its application. The speaker added that there were no employers’ organizations in Serbia that met the representativeness requirement prescribed by the Labour Code as amended (more than 50 per cent of employees in a specific sector), and collective agreements could not be implemented without extending its application. The speaker therefore called on the Government to: (i) introduce a provision in its Rules of Procedure to the effect that a draft law could not be submitted to the Government for review unless it was accompanied by an opinion of the SEC; and (ii) ensure the full implementation of the Convention through an amendment of the relevant laws. 

The Employer member of Serbia highlighted that the Convention called for “effective consultations” for the purpose of exchanging opinions before the Government took a final decision. The Serbian Association of Employers (SAE) had never been provided with information regarding the majority of the topics covered by the Convention. There had been no exchange of opinions or consultations with employers. For example, the Convention had been ratified by Serbia in 2005, and since then, six additional Conventions had been ratified without consulting the social partners on the benefits of ratification, the improvements expected, or the changes required in national legislation. The laws related to ratification were submitted directly to the National Assembly. Hence, the employers were not given the opportunity to express their opinion on matters concerning ILO activities. The allocation of sufficient time to examine the information provided was also an important element. The Government’s requests for comments from the workers’ and employers’ organizations on ratified Conventions were usually accompanied by an extremely short deadline for within which to reply. In response to complaints made by the social partners in this regard, the Government had introduced the practice of approving additional time where requested. Subsequently, the Government had stopped requesting comments. In 2017, bearing in mind the deadline set by the ILO, the SAE had prepared its comments in a timely manner and had sent them directly to the ILO. The scope of issues that should be subject to tripartite consultations had been selectively implemented. The Government’s comments on proposed texts to be discussed by the Conference were in the form of a document called “Platform”. However, this document contained only general notes and short descriptions about the Conference agenda and the relevant committees, without including any remarks on the Government’s position regarding any issue on the agenda. There was nothing to comment on or add to. This year’s Platform had been received by the social partners only on 25 May 2018, and no information had been included about Serbia being on the preliminary list of cases to be discussed by the Committee. The Conference was put on the agenda of the SEC, the national tripartite body, but only for formal approval of the composition of the delegation. Furthermore, there had been no requests for consultation from the Government on the denunciation of ratified Conventions, even in the case of automatic denunciation, for example, when the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC, 2006), had been ratified in 2006. There had been no consultations on examining non-ratified Conventions or Recommendations to which effect had not yet been given. With regard to reports on ratified and non-ratified Conventions, apart from the typically short deadline, which could occur during the holiday season, the speaker was not aware of any “questions arising out of reports to be made” to the Office, as required under Article 5(d) of the Convention. The employers had never been given the opportunity to read all of the comments provided by the Government, trade unions and employers in one document. In addition, they had never received the final copies of the reports that had been sent to the ILO, either on ratified or on non-ratified Conventions, pursuant to article 23, paragraph 2, of the ILO Constitution. Furthermore, no consultations had ever been held after the Conference, related to the Conference Committees’ conclusions and decisions, not even when Serbia had been the subject of the discussion. In 2017, the SAE had filed a complaint to the Credentials Committee. However, a discussion on the Credential Committee’s request to the Government to act in accordance with the ILO Constitution had taken place only upon the employers’ initiative, during a meeting of the SEC. The Government’s comments had revealed that it had not taken the request into consideration, and that it did not intend to do so in the future.

The nature and form of consultations would have to be determined according to national practice. As the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), explained in more detail, the Government was free to organize consultations in the most time-efficient and non-bureaucratic manner, taking into consideration cost-effectiveness. Consultations would have to be related to ILO standards, be effective and be held before a decision could be taken, and should take place at least once a year. In Serbia, there was a national tripartite body with an equal representation of government, trade unions and employers, the SEC, which had been established in 2001 based on an agreement signed by all three social partners. The SEC’s purpose was to enable the development of tripartite dialogue at the national level. Considering the purpose and composition of the SEC, the speaker believed that it should be considered as the body where the discussions and consultations should be taking place among the social partners, in line with the Convention, and should not be used only for the formal approval of the composition of the delegation to the Conference. With regard to the absence of determined intervals for consultations on issues related to the Convention, the administrative capacity of all three constituents did not correspond to the scope and variety of their tasks. For this reason, it would be useful to establish such intervals. This would enable sufficient time for planning and preparation, particularly bearing in mind that, on the one hand, the reporting cycle and deadlines introduced by the ILO, as well as the items on the Conference agenda, were well known in advance and, on the other hand, that the SEC met on a regular basis. Serbia was fully equipped with an excellent framework to implement the Convention and Recommendation No. 152, but there was a lack of will to use this framework.

The Worker member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Worker members of the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom, highlighted the importance of tripartite consultations, which enabled the full inclusion of workers’ and employers’ representatives in legislative processes and in the implementation of international labour standards. Tripartite consultations, as set out in the Convention, were the cornerstone of the ILO and its supervisory mechanisms. Tripartite consultations could take place in various forms, but had to meet the preconditions established in the country concerned. The speaker referred to the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), a European Union (EU) advisory body made up of representatives of workers’ and employers’ organizations, which delivered opinions on relevant EU legislative projects and policy initiatives. Moreover, one of the priorities of the EU was to promote social dialogue, as evidenced by the European Pillar of Social Rights, which included the promotion of social dialogue among its 20 principles. According to this pillar, social partners had to be consulted on the design and implementation of economic, employment and social policies, and were encouraged to negotiate and conclude collective agreements. In this context, the EU had identified closer cooperation with the Western Balkans, including Serbia, as one of its priorities. Serbia had recently committed to such closer cooperation as part of the measures taken toward EU accession. Highlighting that social dialogue was one of the fundamental values of the EU, the speaker urged the Government to comply with international labour standards, particularly this Convention, thus demonstrating its true commitment in practice.

An observer representing Education International (EI) recalled that the Convention lay at the heart of tripartism. The Teachers’ Union of Serbia (TUS) was affiliated to Education International and wanted the claims and expectations of its members to be taken into account in collective bargaining. Collective agreements had been concluded in all education sectors, apart from higher education where bargaining had begun in 2015 and had not yet been concluded. Higher education teachers did not therefore enjoy the same rights as their colleagues. The situation was problematic from the point of view of democracy and equality. According to the TUS, various ministers involved in the negotiations were obstructing the agreements, namely the Minister of Education and the Ministers of Labour and Finance, who had referred to financial difficulties. However, high-quality education was vital to economic and social development and required State investment, as recognized in the 1966 and 1997 ILO/UNESCO recommendations. Furthermore, the TUS had not been consulted on various draft laws. That had been the case, for example, with the Education Act adopted at the end of 2017. Teachers’ trade unions had been consulted initially, and then excluded from negotiations. They had also been excluded from discussions on the reform of the school system, despite the inevitable consequences on the status and rights of the staff. In fact, the majority of teachers were employed under precarious conditions, especially on short-term contracts. Teachers’ salaries had been reduced by 10 per cent in 2014 and, although they had increased since that time, they remained 16 per cent below the national average. With regard to the Bill on the right to strike, the TUS regretted that its voice had not been heard and questioned the functioning of the Social and Economic Council and the Representativeness Committee, which had not been operational since May 2017. Similarly, the TUS was concerned at the criteria established by the Government to assess representativeness. In conclusion, she called for full and permanent dialogue to be restored with the TUS so that its voice could be heard on those issues on an equal footing with other parties.

The Government representative thanked all participants in the discussion for their comments and indicated that the Government had already tackled most of the issues that had been mentioned. A new meeting of the Representativeness Committee, the authority responsible for determining the representativeness of workers’ and employers’ organizations, would be held on 6 June 2018. Referring to the intervention of the Worker member of Serbia in relation to a law in the field of education, the speaker stated that she was not in a position to provide concrete answers at this time, but that the Government would provide information on this matter in its next report under article 22 of the ILO Constitution, or in a separate letter to the ILO. The next report on the application of the Convention would contain a copy of the request that had been sent to the social partners. The Ministry of Labour, which was the authority responsible for drafting the report, would do its best to respond to all comments made by the Committee of Experts.

The Employer members reiterated that tripartism was one of the pillars of the ILO. It was fundamental for tripartism to be implemented effectively at the national and international levels. If a government was envisaging the ratification of an ILO Convention, it should examine not only its own capacity to implement the Convention in law and practice at the national level, but also its capacity to fulfil the administrative obligations arising out of ratification, particularly those relating to reporting on the implementation of the Convention and the related tripartite consultations. Taking into account this administrative burden, governments were, however, free to organize the consultations in the most effective manner possible to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, on condition that the following requirements of the Convention were respected: (i) the consultations had to cover all ILO standards, as indicated in Article 5(1), but there was no obligation under the Convention to consult the social partners on general economic and social matters; (ii) under Article 2(1), the consultations needed to be effective, or in other words be organized in such a way that the views of the respective organizations were taken into consideration by the Government before it took any decisions; and (iii) pursuant to Article 5(2), tripartite consultations should be held at least once a year. Having taken due note of the explanations provided by the Government, the Employer members recommended that the national authorities take the necessary and appropriate measures to ensure effective and efficient tripartite consultations with the national social partners, as required by the Convention. More specifically, they called on the Government to: (i) take the necessary measures to ensure meaningful, effective and timely consultations on all the questions covered by the Convention; (ii) take the opportunity offered by the existing tripartite social dialogue body, the SEC, to organize the tripartite consultations required by the Convention, without having to establish other bodies; and (iii) provide in writing all relevant information on the outcome of such tripartite consultations. Finally, they called on the Government to continue availing itself of ILO technical assistance in relation to their recommendations.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the information provided to the Committee. It was essential for the Government to take decisive measures to bring its law and practice into line with the Convention. While the ILO had set the objective of achieving universal ratification of the Convention, the Government’s concern lay elsewhere: that of ensuring the respect and effective application of the Convention. Indeed, the recommendations made to the Government could easily be implemented if the political will existed. The Government should establish or re-establish procedures to hold effective consultations between its representatives and the social partners, particularly within the SEC. It was essential to hold consultations with the social partners with a view to establishing or re-establishing such procedures so that they could express their views. In that regard, it was important for the Representativeness Committee to resume its activities so that it could discuss issues of representativeness and advise the Government accordingly. The Government could not, without the advice of an independent body, make valid decisions on the representativeness of organizations. This situation could not continue. The Worker members welcomed the Government’s indication that the Committee had held its first meeting on 7 May 2018, following the appointment of the Government representatives. The Government was invited to ensure the operation of the Committee in future, even if a new government was being formed. It was also important for the Government to ensure that regular consultations were established or re-established on the items covered by Article 5(1)(a) to (e) of the Convention and to establish an annual schedule for the tripartite consultations. A report on the situation, as provided for in Article 6 of the Convention, could inform the Government and the social partners with regard to compliance with the procedures set out in the Convention. The Government was requested to make every effort to ensure that the SEC had the resources to produce such a report. As the Government had benefited from an ILO technical assistance programme (the ESAP Project), it should also report on the progress achieved by the programme. Following that such an assessment, and in view of the persistent difficulties in the implementation of the Convention, the Worker members called on the Government to participate more actively in the technical assistance programme.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion that followed, the Committee recommends that the national authorities take the necessary and appropriate measures to ensure effective and efficient tripartite consultation of the national social partners in implementation of Convention No. 144. It further recommends the Government to:

- take the necessary steps to ensure that meaningful, effective and timely consultations on matters concerning international labour standards take place including within the framework of the Social and Economic Council of the Republic of Serbia; and

- report on the issues discussed and the frequency of tripartite consultations to the Committee of Experts before its November 2018 session.

The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in relation to these conclusions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Serbian Association of Employers (SAE) and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) communicated with the Government’s report, received on 30 September 2022.

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (the Conference Committee) at its 108th Session in June 2019 concerning the application by Serbia of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1979 (No. 129). The Conference Committee called upon the Government to, inter alia, undertake the legislative reforms, in consultation with the social partners, as well as to ensure effective collaboration between the labour inspectorate and the social partners. The Committee notes that, following the recommendations of the Conference Committee, a tripartite workshop to follow-up on the application of Conventions Nos 81 and 129 was held on 11 and 12 February 2020, with technical assistance from the ILO.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that social dialogue takes place by way of regular meetings within the Social and Economic Council of the Republic of Serbia (SEC), an independent tripartite body. The Government indicates that the SEC held ten sessions in 2021 and four collegiums and sessions in the first half of 2022 on various topics, such as employment, situation of women at work, minimum wage, child allowance, collective agreements, occupational safety and health, peaceful resolution of labour disputes. These meetings resulted in initiatives and opinions on laws, collective agreements, rules, regulations and plans submitted to the competent ministries, including on the Proposed Employment Strategy in the Republic of Serbia for the period 2021–26 and the initiative to ratify the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190). The Government also reports on the participation of all representative workers’ and employer’s organizations and the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs in preparations to the 110th Session of the International Labour Conference and SEC’s adoption of a joint platform accommodating tripartite suggestions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it undertakes, as part of the IPA 2022 project supported by the ILO, to improve the capacities of the social partners through amendments to the Act on the Social and Economic Council, as well as to take measures to improve social dialogue, including through analyses of law and practice with a view to revising laws and policy documents on social dialogue. The Committee notes that, in its observations, the CATUS states that tripartite consultations are misused for political purposes. It also highlights instances in which trade unions were not involved in dialogues between large investors and the State on issues concerning relations between employers and workers, such as wage setting. The CATUS also indicates that its initiative to ratify Convention No. 190, supported by employers and forwarded to the relevant authorities, has been stalled for almost a year. The Committee notes the SAE’s observation that many initiatives adopted by the SEC have not been implemented through laws and by-laws. The Committee requests the Government to respond to the observations made by the CATUS and the SAE.

The Committee recalls that the Convention requires effective tripartite consultations to take place on a list of matters related to international labour standards as stipulated in Article 5(1) and that, in order to be “effective”, consultations need to enable employers’ and workers’ organizations to have a useful say in matters relating to the activities of the ILO referred to by this provision of the Convention. The Government is therefore requested, to provide detailed information on the manner in which effective tripartite consultations are carried out on each of the items specified by the Convention, detailing their content, frequency and outcome. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the result of the consultations held with the social partners relating to the possible ratification of Convention No. 190 as well as of any amendments made to the Act on the Social and Economic Council to improve the capacities of the social partners through amendments, as well as on any measures to improve social dialogue more generally. The Committee recalls in this respect that “the active engagement and meaningful participation in decision-making of the social partners … can help to build a climate of trust and ensure the development, adoption, implementation and review of measures that are both evidence- and consensus-based and promote increased ownership among the tripartite partners” (see the Committee’s Addendum to the 2020 General Survey on employment, p. 151).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee examines the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes the observations of the Serbian Association of Employers (SAE), the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) and the Trade Union Confederation “Nezavisnost”, transmitted by the Government together with its 2019 report. It also notes the observations of the CATUS, transmitted by the Government together with the supplementary information in 2020.

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes that, following the recommendations and the report of the Conference Committee at its 107th Session in June 2018, a tripartite workshop on the application of Convention No. 144 was held on 25 January 2019, with technical assistance from the ILO. The workshop was attended by representatives of trade unions and employers’ associations as well as the Secretary of the Social and Economic Council of the Republic of Serbia (SEC). It was agreed at the workshop that issues concerning the preparation of the delegation of Serbia for its participation at the International Labour Conference (ILC) would be addressed in person through tripartite consultations in the SEC to be held at least two times a year (before and after the ILC), in addition to issues dealt with through written communications . In this context, the Government indicates that the composition of the delegation and the platform for its participation will be discussed in person as a separate item to be placed on the agenda of the SEC. It adds that the consultations held during the SEC sessions will also address all other matters of relevance to cooperation with the ILO, including: replies to questionnaires; recommendations submitted to the competent authorities with regard to the submission of ILO Conventions and Recommendations in compliance with article 19 of the ILO Constitution; re-examination and review at regular intervals of unratified Conventions and Recommendations not yet given effect to examine the measures to be taken, if any; issues that have arisen from the obligation of submission of national reports in compliance with article 22 of the ILO Constitution; and those concerning the proposed abrogation of ratified Conventions. The Government also reports that, on 25 September 2018, the SEC organized an Information Day at the National Assembly where discussions focused on, inter alia, strengthening social dialogue and building the capacities of the SEC and the social partners. The Committee notes that the SAE affirms that, during 2018 and the first half of 2019, tripartite consultations were held within the SEC with regard to different economic and social topics, which were formalized by the adoption of conclusions. The SAE argues, however, that the said conclusions were not implemented by the responsible national institutions. In this regard, the SAE emphasizes that the SEC, is the highest national institution of social dialogue and a legal platform, whose initiatives must be respected by the competent institutions.

The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in its supplementary report with regard to the content of the tripartite consultations held during the five sessions of the SEC that took place between 17 March and 14 September 2020, including the adoption of the 2020 Work Plan for the SEC. In its observations, the CATUS submits that social dialogue in Serbia is still in its infancy. It considers that there is a need to adopt further measures to strengthen social dialogue in the country, stressing that the SEC is the appropriate body to ensure a transparent process of social dialogue where the views of the social partners may be heard and consensus may be reached. The Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts to take effective and time-bound measures to ensure effective tripartite consultations in conformity with the provisions of the Convention, and to report on the nature, content and frequency of consultations in relation to the matters within the scope of Article 5(1)(a)–(e) of the Convention.

In the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee recalls the comprehensive guidance provided by international labour standards. It encourages Member States to engage in tripartite consultation and social dialogue more broadly as a solid foundation for developing and implementing effective responses to the profound socio-economic impacts of the pandemic. The Committee invites the Government to provide updated information in its next report on measures taken in this respect, including with regard to steps taken to build the capacity of the tripartite constituents and strengthen mechanisms and procedures, as well as challenges and good practices identified in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention and Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes that, following the recommendations and the report of the Conference Committee at its 107th Session in June 2018, a tripartite workshop on the application of Convention No. 144, for which the ILO had provided technical assistance, was held on 25 January 2019. The workshop was attended by the representatives of trade unions and employers’ associations and the Secretary of the Social and Economic Council of the Republic of Serbia (SEC). It was agreed that all issues concerning the preparation of the delegation of Serbia for its participation at the sessions of the ILO, except those dealt with in writing, will be dealt with through the consultative process of the SEC and are to be discussed a minimum of two times a year (before and after the Conference). In this context, the Government indicates that the composition of the delegation and the platform for its participation will be discussed verbatim as a separate item to be placed on the agenda of the SEC. It also indicates that the verbatim consultations held during the sessions of the SEC will be held in connection with all other matters of relevance to cooperation with the ILO, including: replies to questionnaires; recommendations submitted to the competent authorities with regard to the submission of ILO Conventions and Recommendations in compliance with article 19 of the ILO Constitution; re-examination and review at regular intervals of unratified Conventions and Recommendations not yet given effect to examine the measures to be taken, if any; issues that have arisen from the obligation of submission of national reports in compliance with article 22 of the ILO Constitution; and those concerning the proposed abrogation of ratified Conventions. The Government also reports that, on 25 September 2018, the SEC organized an Information Day at the National Assembly where, discussions focused on, inter alia, strengthening social dialogue and the capacities of the SEC and the social partners. The Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts to take effective and time-bound measures to ensure effective tripartite consultations in conformity with the provisions of the Convention, and to report on the nature, content and frequency of consultations in relation to the matters within the scope of Article 5(1)(a)–(e) of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 107th Session, May–June 2018)

The Committee recalls that the Conference Committee, at its June 2018 session, recommended that the national authorities take the necessary and appropriate measures to ensure effective and efficient tripartite consultation of the national social partners in implementation of Convention No. 144. It further recommended that the Government take the necessary steps to ensure that meaningful, effective and timely consultations on matters concerning international labour standards take place, including within the framework of the Social and Economic Council of the Republic of Serbia. The Conference Committee also requested the Government to report on the issues discussed and the frequency of tripartite consultations to the Committee of Experts before its November 2018 session. It invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in relation to the conclusions.

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. The Committee nevertheless understands that the Government has made a request for technical assistance in relation to the application of the Convention. In this regard, the ILO is providing technical support for a tripartite workshop to be held in January 2019. The Committee requests the Government to report on the outcome of the planned tripartite workshop. It also urges the Government to continue its efforts to take effective and time-bound measures to ensure effective tripartite consultations in conformity with the provisions of the Convention, and to report on the nature, content and frequency of consultations in relation to the matters within the scope of Article 5(1)(a)–(e) of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS), received on 7 July 2017, the observations of the Serbian Association of Employers (SAE), received on 31 August 2017, and the observations of the Trade Union Confederation “Nezavisnost” received on 14 November 2017. The Committee notes that the observations presented by the CATUS, which relate to a strike in an individual enterprise, fall outside the scope of the Convention and it will therefore not address these.

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Government recalls that the Social and Economic Council of the Republic of Serbia (SEC), established in 2001, is an independent tripartite body comprised of six Government representatives, six SAE representatives, four CATUS representatives and two Nezavisnost representatives. The Committee notes that the social partners freely choose their representatives to the SEC and their substitutes within their own organizations. The Government indicates that, during the reporting period, the SEC held 21 sessions in which it discussed labour legislation, collective bargaining, social dialogue, education, media, economic and financial matters, and international cooperation. In its observations, Nezavisnost expresses concern with regard to the application of the Convention, indicating that social dialogue at all levels of collective bargaining, labour and social legislation and reform strategy have been reduced to a minimum, while in certain areas it is non-existent. It also observes that not all draft laws in the area of labour and social legislation are submitted to the SEC for its opinion, but instead the Government is submitting legislative proposals directly to the National Assembly without previously consulting the SEC. Nezavisnost provides a series of examples in this respect and urges the Government to establish Rules of Procedure that end this practice. Nezavisnost also observes that the representative workers’ organizations have also been excluded from participating in drafting of labour and social legislation. The Committee notes that the Representativeness Committee, a second-instance authority responsible for determining the representativeness of workers’ organizations, ceased functioning in May 2017. According to Nezavisnost, this has a direct impact upon collective bargaining at all levels. Nezavisnost also observes that the Government has taken over the determination of representativeness, in that the minister may take decisions on the representativeness of an organization without seeking the Committee’s advice. The Committee also notes the observations of the SAE indicating that, contrary to Article 5(2) of the Convention, there are no established time intervals for tripartite consultations. It adds that consultation with the social partners on the matters related to international labour standards covered under Article 5(1) often occurs late or not at all. The Committee requests the Government to provide specific information on the content, outcome and frequency of tripartite consultations held on the matters concerning international labour standards covered by the Convention (Article 5(1)(a)–(e)). It also requests the Government to communicate information concerning any reports or recommendations made as a result of the consultations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in November 2014 and the observations made by the Union of Employers of Serbia and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS), transmitted by the Government. The Committee also notes the observations made by the Trade Union Confederation “Nezavisnost”, received in August 2014, and the Government’s response which was received in December 2014. In its observations, Nezavisnost warns of the consequences of the absence of social dialogue and non-compliance with ILO Conventions in Serbia, adding that a set of laws has been enacted in breach of the procedure laid down in legislation and of the Convention. Nezavisnost also states that it was not informed about whether the Government had prepared its report on the application of the Convention, nor whether the Government had asked the social partners for comments on its report. The Union of Employers of Serbia states that, in spite of the fact that the regulatory framework and proclaimed support to social dialogue is in place, effective tripartite consultations between the Government and the social partners have not been regular and steady practice, but rather a matter of choice for individual ministries. It adds that not all the laws authorizing the ratification of ILO Conventions have been submitted to consultation, such as the Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) Convention, 1949 (No. 94), which was ratified in December 2014. CATUS indicates that Serbia needs to consider unratified ILO Conventions and embark upon the ratification of those that may improve and advance workers’ rights and position, improve occupational safety and health standards and place environmental protection at a higher level. CATUS is also of the view that representative trade unions should be consulted on which of the Conventions should be ratified. In its reply to the observations made by Nezavisnost, the Government indicates that the 2014 reports on the application of ILO Conventions were communicated at a later date to the social partners, on 6 October 2014, due to the enactment of the Law Amending the Labour Code, which was adopted on 29 July 2014. Moreover, the Government states that the social partners, including the Union of Employers of Serbia, Nezavisnost and CATUS, have always been involved in the working groups tasked with the development of labour legislation. In its report, it adds that all pieces of legislation governing labour and welfare are regularly communicated to the Social and Economic Council. The Committee requests the Government to provide specific information on the tripartite consultations held on the matters concerning international labour standards covered by the Convention (Article 5(1)). Please indicate the nature of any reports or recommendations made as a result of the consultations. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the activities of the Social and Economic Council on the matters covered by the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report received in September 2012 in response to the request made by the Committee in its 2011 observation and by the Conference Committee in June 2012. It also notes the observations submitted by the Trade Union Confederation Nezavisnost and the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) in September 2012. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government indicating that, as a result of the submission procedures, it has the intention to ratify both the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), and the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). The Government indicates that it submits a report each year on the implementation of ILO Conventions to the social partners and the Economic and Social Council. It adds that the opinions of the social partners are duly submitted to the ILO. With respect to the observations submitted by the Serbian Association of Employers, noted in the 2011 observation concerning the short deadline to provide comments on reports on the application of ratified Conventions, the Government replies that reports were submitted to all the social partners on 18 August 2011, with the deadline for submitting comments until 28 August 2011. Reports could not have been submitted earlier to the social partners due to delays in the delivery of contributions from other relevant institutions. The Government indicates that representatives of CATUS sought and were granted an extension of this deadline, and their comments were submitted by 15 September 2011. The Government adds that it has never happened that it does not accept a request to extend the deadline for the submission of contributions of any organization which is responsible for providing comments on the implementation of ILO Conventions. To avoid such situations in the future, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy will inform social partners that they can always request additional time to submit comments, if needed.

The Committee notes that Nezavisnost reiterates its prior concerns, that while a regulatory framework for social dialogue exists formally, the Government’s report does not include information on the functioning of the consultative mechanisms nor information on the activities of the Economic and Social Council. In addition, the CATUS indicates that a number of legal projects were submitted to Parliament for adoption without the opinion of the Economic and Social Council. The Committee invites the Government to provide information with respect to the issues raised by the social partners. It also invites the Government to provide in its next report information on the operation of the consultation mechanism, specifying the activities of the Economic and Social Council on the matters related to international labour standards listed in Article 5(1) of the Convention. Please also indicate the frequency of consultations held and the nature of any reports or recommendations made by the Economic and Social Council on the matters covered by the Convention as a result thereof (Article 5(2)).

The Committee notes that the Government provided an additional reply in late November 2012 to the comments from Nezavisnost. The Committee will examine this additional reply in 2013 at the same time it will consider the Government’s further information requested above in this observation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending in August 2011. It also notes the comments submitted by the Serbian Association of Employers and by the Trade Union Confederation Nezavisnost forwarded by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in August 2011. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the remarks of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) indicating that there was no progress in connection with the functioning of the Economic and Social Council tripartite consultations system. The Government reiterates in its report that, within the framework of the regular reporting on the implementation of ILO Conventions, it submits all reports prepared to the social partners for opinion. The views of the social partners are then submitted to the ILO along with the reports. The Government also reports on the tripartite consultations held through the Economic and Social Council to prepare the participation of the delegates to the International Labour Conference. Nezavisnost observes that the Government’s report does not include information on the work of the consultative mechanisms or exact information on the activities of the Economic and Social Council – questions which are essential indicators of the observance of the matters listed in Article 5(1) of the Convention. Nezavisnost also indicates that the report does not contain information on the results achieved from tripartite consultations. The Serbian Association of Employers claims that it received the reports on the application of ratified Conventions on a very short deadline, and therefore was unable to provide any comments. The Committee requests the Government to include further information in its next report on the operation of the consultation mechanism, specifying the activities of the Social and Economic Council of Serbia on each of the matters related to international labour standards listed in Article 5(1) of the Convention. The Government is also requested to indicate the frequency of consultations held and the nature of any reports or recommendations made by the Economic and Social Council as a result thereof (Article 5(2)).

The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2012.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Effective consultations required under the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report received in September 2008, and the comments provided by the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS). The Government indicates that it communicates its reports on the implementation of the ratified Conventions of the International Labour Organization to the social partners for their verification. The Government also indicates that the social partners were invited to hold consultations in preparation for the presentations of the delegation of the Republic of Serbia to the International Labour Conference in 2008. The CATUS indicates that the tripartite consultations system under the Social and Economic Council of Serbia hardly functions at all, does not operate on a regular basis, and does not form opinions, recommendations and conclusions. The CATUS notes that, while there have been some successes in establishing communication with the Government, for example, when new laws are drafted, or in cases of issues concerning relevant economic sectors, there is no forum for systemic joint work between the State, employers and trade unions on issues of mutual interest. The CATUS indicates that there has not been any progress in connection with the functioning of the Social and Economic Council of Serbia. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information in its next report on the operation of the consultation mechanism, including precise information on the activities of the Social and Economic Council of Serbia on each of the matters related to international labour standards listed in Article 5(1) of the Convention. The Government is also requested to indicate the frequency of consultations held in this regard, and to indicate the nature of any reports or recommendations made as a result thereof (Article 5(2).

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

Effective consultations required under the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report received in September 2008, and the comments provided by the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS). The Government indicates that it communicates its reports on the implementation of the ratified Conventions of the International Labour Organization to the social partners for their verification. The Government also indicates that the social partners were invited to hold consultations in preparation for the presentations of the delegation of the Republic of Serbia to the International Labour Conference in 2008. The CATUS indicates that the tripartite consultations system under the Social and Economic Council of Serbia hardly functions at all, does not operate on a regular basis, and does not form opinions, recommendations and conclusions. The CATUS notes that, while there have been some successes in establishing communication with the Government, for example, when new laws are drafted, or in cases of issues concerning relevant economic sectors, there is no forum for systemic joint work between the State, employers and trade unions on issues of mutual interest. The CATUS indicates that there has not been any progress in connection with the functioning of the Social and Economic Council of Serbia. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information in its next report on the operation of the consultation mechanism, including precise information on the activities of the Social and Economic Council of Serbia on each of the matters related to international labour standards listed in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Government is also requested to indicate the frequency of consultations held in this regard, and to indicate the nature of any reports or recommendations made as a result thereof (Article 5, paragraph 2).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. The Committee notes the Government’s first report on the application of the Convention received in October 2007. It further notes the observations from the Trade Union Confederation Nezavisnost, the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia and the Union of Employers of Serbia, attached to the Government’s report.

2. Article 5 of the Convention. Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes that regular consultation procedures in writing had been established since the entering into force of the Convention. The Social and Economic Council of Serbia (SECS) has also been established and became operational in July 2007. The SECS aims to develop a negotiation culture and will be charged with issues relating to the development and promotion of collective negotiation. The Committee further notes that Nezavisnost indicates that consultations in the reporting period were held concerning strategies, plans, development programmes, labour legislation and social security legislation. The Union of Employers of Serbia and Nezavisnost have also indicated that the work of the SECS remains formal and that progress in respect of its work has not been achieved so far. The Committee further notes that under Article 5 of the Convention, the Government’s report only mentions the consultation required on drawing up the reports on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention). The Committee therefore invites the Government to provide information on consultations held on all the matters related to international labour standards covered by the Convention, specifying their subject and frequency and the nature of any reports or recommendations resulting from the consultations.