Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Czechia (Ratification: 1993)

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

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (ČMKOS) transmitted with the Government’s report, which concern matters examined by the Committee in its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) (an amendment bill which abolishes the possibility of deducting membership fees of trade union members from the tax base, while retaining this option for employers’ organizations).

The Committee also notes the observations of the Confederation of Industry, transmitted with the Government’s report, which concern matters addressed by the Committee in the present comment.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee recalls from its previous comments the concerns raised by the ČMKOS that the requirement under section 286(4) of the Labour Code (notification to the employer that the union fulfilled the requirements for its operation in line with section 286(3)) implied that a trade union may be required to provide the names of trade union members and leaders to the employer, creating a risk of anti-union dismissal during the period of time between the notification to the employer and the day when the union’s entitlements vis à vis the employer take effect (the next day). Having noted the Government’s position in this regard, the Committee invited it to continue monitoring the practical application of the provision.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, since its previous report, several court decisions addressed this issue, including decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, which considered that: (i) the obligation to notify the employer of the fulfilment of the conditions for a union’s activity at the employer (authorization to act as a trade union pursuant to its statutes and employment of at least three of its members by the employer - section 286(3) and (4) of the Labour Code) includes an obligation to demonstrate such fulfilment, as a simple notification without proof would create an unjustifiable imbalance between the parties to the employment relationship; (ii) the Labour Code does not specify how a trade union has to prove that three of its members are employed by the employer, however, this cannot be interpreted as obliging the union to provide the employer with a list of its members, considering that union membership constitutes sensitive data; (iii) while in practice, at least three members of the union (trade union officials) will usually openly declare their membership, cases where they refuse to do so cannot be excluded; (iv) it is up to the union to choose the method of proving compliance with the conditions in question which does not involve the disclosure of membership in the trade union organization, which can be done, for example, through a certification of other factual events under the provisions of Section 79 of the Notarial Code in the form of a notarial deed. On this basis, the Government concludes that the existing legislation is sufficient in terms of protection against anti-union discrimination and the Confederation of Industry also welcomes these judicial decisions, indicating that they provide a way to prove the validity of the formation of a trade union and ensure that the employer can fulfil its obligations towards the union while at the same time minimizing anti-union discrimination. The Committee welcomes the detailed information provided by the Government and trusts that, in line with the mentioned judicial decisions, trade unions have, in practice, various means at their disposal to show that they fulfil the requirements to be established under the law, which also ensure adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the concerns of the ČMKOS that, following the repeal of section 24(2) of the Labour Code (providing that the employer must negotiate with all unions and, in case of disagreement among unions, may conclude a collective agreement with one or more trade unions which have the largest number of members) and due to legislative inaction, minority unions have a veto power that may limit the right to collective bargaining of the vast majority of employees. The Committee encouraged the Government to keep on discussing the matter with the social partners with a view to preparing legislative amendments and any other pertinent measures to ensure that the current situation does not hinder the conclusion of collective bargaining agreements.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, despite discussions with the social partners during the preparation of several amendments to the Labour Code, no tripartite agreement has been reached on section 24 of the Labour Code, which regulates collective bargaining involving multiple trade unions, and that one of the most representative unions – the Association of Independent Trade Unions – considers the current situation to be satisfactory. The Government further informs that it aims to address the issue of trade union plurality in an action plan to promote collective bargaining and increase the level of collective bargaining coverage, which it is preparing in the context of its obligations within the European Union. The Committee also notes the observations of the Confederation of Industry, which welcomes the ongoing discussions on the wording of section 24 of the Labour Code and indicates that it is of utmost importance for employers to ensure that, in case of multiple unions without agreement among them, collective bargaining can be initiated with a trade union determined by a clear mechanism laid down in the law. Taking due note of the ongoing discussions among the social partners, including in the framework of legislative reforms, the Committee encourages the Government to pursue this discussion and the review of section 24 of the Labour Code to ensure that there is clarity on the mechanism to initiate negotiations in situations of multiple trade unions, so as to contribute to the promotion of collective bargaining.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 320(a) of the Labour Code, which concerns state contributions to activities of trade unions and employers’ organizations, was amended to extend such state contributions beyond mutual negotiations about areas of important interest to workers also to areas of risk prevention relating to damages to workers’ health as a result of occupational accidents or diseases. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in its report under the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), about the different projects relevant to the promotion of collective bargaining and social dialogue for which it provided financial support between 2020 and 2023.

In its previous comment, the Committee encouraged the Government to develop additional mechanisms to collect information on collective bargaining in the country and requested it to continue providing information relative to collective bargaining in practice. The Government reiterates that statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded and the coverage of workers in individual sectors do not exist but some information is available from a structural sample survey on wages. According to the survey, in 2021 and in 2022, 45 per cent of workers were covered by collective agreements, without specification as to the level of bargaining (company or higher-level). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that another source of information is the annual Information on Working Conditions survey, the main purpose of which is to analyse collective bargaining and provide an overview of trends in collective bargaining, to be used by the social partners in further negotiations. In 2022, the survey analysed data on wages and working conditions from 1,764 collective agreements (1,276 in enterprises and 488 in public services and administration) from 28 unions representing 813,000 workers and 20 higher-level collective bargaining agreements. The sectors in which collective bargaining agreement were concluded in the private sector are: agricultural and nutrition; banking and insurance; catering, hotels and tourism; commerce; food industry; glass, ceramic and porcelain; healthcare and social care; mining, geology and oil industry; postal, telecommunications and newspaper services; orchestral music; railways; science and research; construction; textile, clothing and leather; transport; aviation; universities; and wood, forestry and water management (sectors of public services and administration are assessed in more detail in the Committee’s comments on Convention No. 154). Taking due note of the information provided by the Government and observing that some mechanisms already exist in the country to collect statistics in relation to collective bargaining agreements, the Committee encourages the Government to engage with the social partners to explore ways in which these mechanisms could be further extended, or additional mechanisms created, to collect comprehensive statistics in relation to collective bargaining, including the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, disaggregated by level and industry, and the number of workers covered. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on any initiatives to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

Direct Request (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 proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government and the social partners this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes the 2019 and 2020 observations of the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (ČMKOS) and of the Confederation of Industry and Transport (the latter are addressed by the Committee in its observations regarding the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981, No. 154) communicated with the Government’s report and the Government’s comments thereon.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination.  In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, according to the ČMKOS, the notification requirement under section 286(4) of the Labour Code implied that a trade union may be required to provide the names of trade union members and leaders to the employer, creating a risk of anti union dismissal during the period of time between the notification to the employer about the establishment of a trade union and the day when the union’s entitlements vis à vis the employer take effect. In its reply, the Government had: (i) clarified that the notification to the employer did not require the prior submission of information on persons entitled to act in the name of the trade union; and (ii) indicated that, while it had no information about any cases of dismissals under these circumstances, the conduct denounced would be characterized as an illegal circumvention of the law, and that it was prepared to consider a legislative change based on an assessment of the practical application of the Labour Code in this regard. The Committee duly notes that the Government indicates that: (i) the Constitutional Court examined the matter in its ruling Pl. ÚS. 10/12 issued on 23 May 2017, and concluded that protection against possible abuse was sufficiently ensured by judicial review of the validity of the notice of termination; and (ii) it has not encountered the problems described by the ČMKOS and is therefore of the opinion that the existing regulation is sufficient.  The Committee invites the Government to continue monitoring the practical application of the Labour Code in this regard.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining.  In its previous comments the Committee had noted that, according to the ČMKOS, the Register of Contracts Act required employers listed in the Act to disclose in a public register their company collective agreement, and its section 6(1) subjected its effectiveness to publication, contrary to section 26(2) of the Labour Code which provides that the effectiveness of a collective agreement begins on the first day of the period for which the collective agreement has been concluded, unless the period of effectiveness of certain rights or duties is stipulated differently in the collective agreement. The ČMKOS considered that the Act thus restricted freedom to negotiate and would lead to a substantial reduction in the number of company collective agreements. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the Register of Contracts Act was amended by Act No. 249/2017 and collective agreements were explicitly added among the categories of agreements excluded from the obligation of publication in the Register of Contracts.

The Committee further notes that in its 2019 and 2020 observations the ČMKOS affirms that, following the decision of the Constitutional Court to repeal the provision in section 24(2) of the Labour Code (providing that the employer must negotiate with all unions but that, in case of disagreement among unions, the employer may conclude a collective agreement with one or more trade unions which have the largest number of members) and due to legislative inaction, minority unions have been given a veto power that may thwart the right to collective bargaining of the vast majority of employees. The ČMKOS alludes to concrete examples of minority unions having blocked negotiation processes given the current state of the legislation, and notes that it submitted a proposal to amend section 24(2) in order to address this challenge. The ČMKOS indicates that its proposal to amend the aforementioned provision was not adopted due to the opposition of a minority union. Given the negative effects that section 24(2) of the Labour Code has on the adoption of enterprise-level collective agreements, the ČMKOS calls for the adoption of legislation to create procedural preconditions for the successful conduct of collective bargaining and the adoption of enterprise-level collective agreements.

The Committee notes that the Government: (i) recalls that the original provision, which established significantly unequal conditions between larger and smaller trade unions, was rejected by the Constitutional Court and it is therefore not possible to return to it; (ii) considers that the proposal submitted by the ČMKOS dos not comply with the constitutional ruling; (iii) rejects the claims of inaction, noting that the issue was repeatedly discussed with the social partners, already in 2016–17 and in 2018–19 during the discussion of amendments to the Labour Code; (iv) notes that at the March 2019 session of the Council of Economic and Social Agreement this issue was removed from this draft bill that is currently being prepared due to the fundamental disagreements among various representatives of workers; (v) considers that the implementation of a specific solution would be very difficult without the consensus of all representative social partners on its wording ; and (vi) indicates that its proposed solution to undertake mandatory consultations between social partners has been repeatedly rejected by the ČMKOS. Recognizing the need to address the issue raised by ČMKOS, the Government indicates that as of 2021, the impact of the legislation in the conclusion of collective agreements will be evaluated through the Information on Working Conditions Survey (annual survey carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs which analyzes collective agreements and provides an overview of trends in collective bargaining). Duly noting this information, the Committee recalls that both systems of collective bargaining which grant exclusive rights to the most representative union, and systems under which several or all unions in an enterprise or a bargaining unit may participate in the negotiation of collective agreements, are compatible with the Convention.  The Committee continues to encourage the Government to keep on discussing the matter with the social partners with a view to preparing legislative amendments and any other pertinent measures to ensure that the current situation does not hinder the conclusion of collective bargaining agreements. Recalling that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office, the Committee requests the Government to inform of any evolution in this respect.

Application of the Convention in practice.  The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on collective bargaining in the country, in particular that: (i) since there is no obligation in the Czech Republic to place collective agreements in the Register of Contracts or any other register, the Government lacks complete records; (ii) the number of employees covered by higher-level collective agreements whose application is extended cannot be determined as the extension is made to an indeterminate number of employers; (iii) every year the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs conducts inquiries into the terms and conditions of collective agreements, but, since the Information on Working Conditions Survey is voluntary, it is not possible to determine the percentage of contracts collected and analysed out of the total number of contracts, nor the exact percentage of employees covered by collective agreements; (iv) in 2017, the survey analysed selected data on wage and working conditions from 1,737 enterprise collective agreements from 27 trade unions across all sectors, covering more than 899,000 employees, as well as 19 higher-level collective agreements concluded that year; (v) in 2018, data was collected in relation to 1,705 enterprise collective agreements from 27 trade unions, representing almost 871,000 employees, as well as the 20 higher-level collective agreements concluded that year, and (vi) in 2019, the survey gathered information with respect to 1,584 enterprise collective agreements from 27 trade unions, across all sectors, covering 788,000 employees as well as 20 higher-level collective agreements. The Government further indicates that, with a view to promoting social dialogue and collective bargaining at national and regional levels, it approved a subsidy of 37,000,000 Czech Republic koruna on 7 September 2020 aimed at financing social partners’ activities. Duly noting the information provided, and encouraging the development of additional mechanisms to collect information on collective bargaining in the country, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements, as well as on any additional measures undertaken to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (ČMKOS) and of the Confederation of Industry and Transport (seconded by the Confederation of Employers’ and Entrepreneurs’ Associations and the Czech Confederation of Commerce and Tourism) communicated with the Government’s report and the Government’s comments thereon.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, according to the ČMKOS, the notification requirement under section 286(4) of the Labour Code implied that a trade union may be required to provide the names of trade union members and leaders to the employer, creating a risk of anti union dismissal during the period of time between the notification to the employer about the establishment of a trade union and the day when the union’s entitlements vis à vis the employer take effect. In its reply, the Government had: (i) clarified that the notification to the employer did not require the prior submission of information on persons entitled to act in the name of the trade union; and (ii) indicated that, while it had no information about any cases of dismissals under these circumstances, the conduct denounced would be characterized as an illegal circumvention of the law, and that it was prepared to consider a legislative change based on an assessment of the practical application of the Labour Code in this regard. The Committee duly notes that the Government indicates that: (i) the Constitutional Court examined the matter in its ruling Pl. ÚS. 10/12 issued on 23 May 2017, and concluded that protection against possible abuse was sufficiently ensured by judicial review of the validity of the notice of termination; and (ii) it has not encountered the problems described by the ČMKOS and is therefore of the opinion that the existing regulation is sufficient. The Committee invites the Government to continue monitoring the practical application of the Labour Code in this regard.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments the Committee had noted that, according to the ČMKOS, the Register of Contracts Act required employers listed in the Act to disclose in a public register their company collective agreement, and its section 6(1) subjected its effectiveness to publication, contrary to section 26(2) of the Labour Code which provides that the effectiveness of a collective agreement begins on the first day of the period for which the collective agreement has been concluded, unless the period of effectiveness of certain rights or duties is stipulated differently in the collective agreement. The ČMKOS considered that the Act thus restricted freedom to negotiate and would lead to a substantial reduction in the number of company collective agreements. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the Register of Contracts Act was amended by Act No. 249/2017 and collective agreements were explicitly added among the categories of agreements excluded from the obligation of publication in the Register of Contracts.

The Committee further notes that in its observations the ČMKOS affirms that, following the decision of the Constitutional Court to repeal the provision in section 24(2) of the Labour Code (providing that, in case of disagreement among unions, the conclusion of an agreement with one or more trade unions with the largest number of members) and due to legislative inaction, minority unions have been given a veto power that may thwart the right to collective bargaining of the vast majority of employees. The ČMKOS alludes to concrete examples of minority unions having blocked negotiation processes given the current state of the legislation, and notes that it submitted a proposal to amend section 24(2) in order to address this challenge. The Committee notes that the Government: (i) recalls that the original provision, which established significantly unequal conditions between larger and smaller trade unions, was rejected by the Constitutional Court and it is therefore not possible to return to it; (ii) considers that the proposal submitted by the ČMKOS dos not comply with the constitutional ruling; (iii) rejects the claims of inaction, noting that the issue was repeatedly discussed with the social partners, already in 2016–17 and in 2018–19 during the discussion of amendments to the Labour Code; (iv) notes that at the March 2019 session of the Council of Economic and Social Agreement this issue was removed from this draft bill that is currently being prepared due to the fundamental disagreements among various representatives of workers; and (v) considers that the implementation of a specific solution would be very difficult without the consensus of all representative social partners on its wording. Duly noting this information, the Committee recalls that both systems of collective bargaining which grant exclusive rights to the most representative union, and systems under which several or all unions in an enterprise or a bargaining unit may participate in the negotiation of collective agreements, are compatible with the Convention. The Committee encourages the Government to continue discussing the matter with the social partners with a view to preparing legislative amendments and any other pertinent measures to ensure that the current situation does not hinder the conclusion of collective bargaining agreements. Recalling that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office, the Committee requests the Government to inform of any evolution in this respect.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on collective bargaining in the country, in particular that: (i) since there is no obligation in the Czech Republic to place collective agreements in the Register of Contracts or any other register, the Government lacks complete records; (ii) the number of employees covered by higher-level collective agreements whose application is extended cannot be determined as the extension is made to an indeterminate number of employers; (iii) every year the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs conducts inquiries into the terms and conditions of collective agreements, but, since the survey is voluntary, it is not possible to determine the percentage of contracts collected and analysed out of the total number of contracts, nor the exact percentage of employees covered by collective agreements; (iv) in 2017, the survey analysed selected data on wage and working conditions from 1,737 enterprise collective agreements from 27 trade unions across all sectors, covering more than 899,000 employees, as well as 19 higher-level collective agreements concluded that year; and (v) in 2018, data was collected in relation to 1,705 enterprise collective agreements from 27 trade unions, representing almost 871,000 employees, as well as the 20 higher-level collective agreements concluded that year. Duly noting the information provided, and encouraging the development of additional mechanisms to collect information on collective bargaining in the country, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements, as well as on any additional measures undertaken to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee takes note of the observations of the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (ČMKOS) relating to matters examined by the Committee in its present observation and the Government’s comments thereon.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that ČMKOS indicates that under section 286(4) of the Labour Code, a trade union acquires its rights vis-à-vis the employer on the day following the notification to the employer about the trade union’s fulfilment of the conditions for functioning. According to the ČMKOS, the notification requirement implies that a trade union may be required to provide the names of trade union members and leaders, creating a risk of anti-union dismissal during the period of time between the notification to the employer about the establishment of a trade union and the day when the union’s entitlements vis-à-vis the employer take effect. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that this provision aims at regulating the moment as of which a trade union may act in an enterprise and acquires its rights, as it had previously been observed that in some cases, employers had learned about the existence of trade unions only after substantial delays. The Committee observes in this regard, that when it had addressed the issue of the beginning of the protection against anti-union dismissal in relation to the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), the Government had indicated that the notification to the employer did not require the prior submission of information on persons entitled to act in the name of the trade union. The Government had also indicated that, while it had no information about any cases of dismissals under these circumstances, the conduct denounced would be characterized as an illegal circumvention of the law, and that it was prepared to consider a legislative change based on an assessment of the practical application of the Labour Code in this regard. The Committee thus invites the Government to provide information on the assessment of the practical application of the Labour Code in this regard, as well as on any developments in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The ČMKOS also denounces that the Act No. 340/2015 Sb. on the special conditions for the effectiveness of certain contracts, the disclosure of these contracts and the register of contracts (Register of Contracts Act) requires employers listed in the Act to disclose in a public register their company collective agreement, and section 6(1) subjects its effectiveness to publication, contrary to section 26(2) of the Labour Code which provides that the effectiveness of a collective agreement begins on the first day of the period for which the collective agreement has been concluded, unless the period of effectiveness of certain rights or duties is stipulated differently in the collective agreement. According to the ČMKOS, the Act thus restricts freedom to negotiate and will lead to a substantial reduction in the number of company collective agreements. The Committee notes that in responding to these observations, the Government acknowledges possible discrepancies between the Act, which subjects the effectiveness of collective agreements to their publication, and the applicable provisions of the Labour Code, but states that an amendment, which aims at excluding collective agreements from the scope of the Register of Contracts Act, has already been submitted to Parliament. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide available statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded, the sectors to which they apply and the number of workers covered.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s report and, in particular, the statistics it provides, which demonstrate that trade unions can submit complaints to the labour inspection office in cases of violation of trade union rights.

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

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 August 2011 and by the Czech–Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS) on the application of the Convention, as well as the Government’s reply thereon. Moreover, the Committee notes that, in response to previous comments made by the ITUC concerning negotiations on pay in the public sector and collective bargaining in the health-care service, the Government indicates that intensive collective bargaining takes place before finalizing the draft state budget; the Government also provides information on the results of labour inspections which have been conducted in 2010, including in the health-care sector.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to provide an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the State Labour Inspection Office and its eight regional labour inspectorates employ a total of 333 inspectors. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that from 1 September 2009 to 20 June 2011, labour inspection did not register any provable case of anti-union discrimination. The Committee would first observe that the absence of proven cases of anti-union discrimination does not necessarily imply that such acts do not actually occur. Moreover, given the divergence between the information provided by the Government and the comments made by workers’ organizations alleging anti-union discrimination, the Committee reiterates its request that the Government provides in its next report an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, including data on the number of complaints brought to the labour inspection and the courts, as well as the duration of proceedings and their outcome.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. In its previous observation, noting that the Constitutional Court had rendered a sentence (No. 116/2008 Coll) which repealed certain provisions of the Labour Code, more particularly, provisions that afforded the right of trade unions to supervise the compliance with the legislation and collective agreements, the Committee requested the Government to indicate if the trade unions still had the right to denounce to the authorities cases of non compliance with the legislation and collective agreements. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the Constitutional Court did not touch upon the right of trade unions to carry out inspections of the state of occupational safety and health in the enterprise. The Committee further notes that the Government indicates that trade unions can still make suggestions to labour inspection authorities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether trade unions have the right to denounce to the labour inspection authorities cases of non-compliance with the legislation.

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

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010 and the Government’s reply thereon. The Committee further notes the comments made by the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS) concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon in its next report.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee’s previous observation concerned measures taken to increase the efficiency of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference and to address the alleged slowness of the procedures. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that there have been no changes in this regard, and that there are statutory safeguards against acts of trade union discrimination which include, inter alia, the possibility for alleged victims to refer the abuses to labour inspection bodies, courts, as well as to the Ministry of Interior. The Committee also notes that the ITUC indicates that while the 2009 anti-discrimination law provides for equal treatment with regard to trade union membership and activities, it does not sufficiently protect workers against anti-union discrimination. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government according to which the labour inspection has not found proved anti-union discrimination acts. The Committee recalls that general legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination shall be accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice. Furthermore the Committee recalls that legislation should not only prohibit all acts of interference, but also make express provisions for rapid appeals procedures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts, in order to ensure the application in practice of Article 2 (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 214, 223 and 232). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide in its next report an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, including data on the number of complaints brought to the labour inspection and the courts in the last years, as well as the duration of proceedings and their outcome.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee takes due note of the decision of the Constitutional Court of 14 April 2008, repealing certain provisions of the Labour Code (Act No. 262/2006) concerning collective bargaining agreements. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report, that section 24(2) of the Labour Code stipulates that, in the case where a collective agreement has to be concluded within a single employer enterprise, when the enterprise involves more than one trade union, and when the trade unions concerned cannot act jointly and in mutual consent, the employer may enter into a collective agreement effective for all employees, with the one or more trade union organizations with the largest membership. The Committee notes that the Constitutional Court repealed this provision of the Labour Code, considering that it infringed the constitutional principle of equality of trade union organizations which prevents any preferential treatment of any trade union organization, within an enterprise or a sector. The Committee recalls that systems of collective bargaining with exclusive rights for the most representative trade union and those which enable the participation of all the trade unions concerned in the conclusion of a collective agreement or which allow for the existence of various collective agreements are all compatible with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee notes that the constitutional court has rendered a sentence (No. 116/2008 Coll) which repealed certain provisions of the Labour Code. More particularly, the provisions that afforded the right of trade unions to supervise the compliance with the legislation and collective agreements have been repealed. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report if the trade unions still have the right to denounce to the authorities cases of non‑compliance with the legislation and collective agreements.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the comments made by the ITUC concerning the little scope for negotiations on pay in the public sector and obstacles to collective bargaining in the healthcare service. The Committee also notes that according to the information provided by labour inspection bodies, in some cases employers, by their inactivity, complicate collective bargaining. Noting that the Government did not provide any information in this regard in its reply to the ITUC, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report its observations about these ITUC comments and to provide further information on the findings of the labour inspection bodies.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and by the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS).

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee’s previous comments concerned measures taken to increase the efficiency of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide in its next report an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, including data on the number of complaints brought to the labour inspection and the courts, as well as the duration of proceedings and their outcome.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and its reply to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – the International Trade Union Confederation) in 2006 and by the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS). The Committee also notes the comments of the ITUC dated 28 August 2007, with regard to alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

The Committee notes the recent adoption of the new Labour Code (Act No. 262/2006), with a view to a better application of the Convention. The Committee notes that according to the latest comments by the ITUC, the new Labour Code opens up new opportunities for collective bargaining both in the public and private sectors.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee’s previous comments concerned measures taken to increase the efficiency of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee had taken note in this context of the adoption of Act No. 251/2005 on labour inspection and the possibility of out-of-court settlement of labour law disputes set up through third (neutral) party mediation.

The Committee notes that the ICFTU and the CMKOS refer to frequent cases of violations of trade union rights, such as anti-union practices that clearly undermine freedom of association, especially in newly established companies.

The Committee notes from the Government’s reply to these comments, that the labour inspection has not registered any proven case of anti-union discrimination (which is prohibited in the Labour Code) since the entry into force of the Labour Inspection Act No. 251/2005 and that there are only two allegations of anti-union discrimination which are currently under investigation.

Given the divergence between the information provided by the Government and the comments made by workers’ organizations, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, including data on the number of complaints brought to the labour inspection and the courts, as well as the duration of proceedings and their outcome.

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

1. The Committee notes the Government’s observations to the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 31 August 2005, indicating that the information provided by the ICFTU on limitations regarding collective bargaining in the public sector is basically correct but misunderstands the national situation. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Government confirms the factual information provided by the ICFTU about four cases of violations in 2004 concerning anti-union discrimination and indicates that, while one of the cases was resolved satisfactorily without the need of intervention from responsible inspection bodies, other companies mentioned remain under close supervision of the labour inspectorate, with extraordinary controls scheduled to ensure the compliance with national labour legislation.

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the ICFTU of 10 August 2006, mainly concerning issues already raised, as well as the observations of the Government. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments to the 2006 observations of the ICFTU and to keep it informed on the developments concerning the proposal of a new Labour Code.

2. The Committee will examine these issues, as well as those raised in its 2005 observation next year, in the context of the regular reporting cycle.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report as well as its reply to the comments made by the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

1. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee’s previous comments concerned measures taken to increase the efficiency of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee had asked the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning draft legislation on labour inspection and on the extra judicial settlement of disputes, as well as a review of measures adopted to speed up civil law litigation.

The Committee notes in this respect that, in their recent comments, the CMKOS and the ICFTU make reference to several acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, adding that, despite the existing legal guarantees against anti-union discrimination, there are many violations of the right to organize in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on these comments.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that: (1) Act No. 251/2005 on labour inspection entered into force on 1 July 2005. Its provisions regulate offences and misconducts in the context of cooperation between the employer and the body acting on behalf of employees as well as breaches of equal treatment, including on the basis of trade union membership and activities. For these offences, a penalty can be imposed in the range stipulated by the law; and (2) with regard to the issue of out-of-court settlement of labour law disputes, the Ministry of Justice decided that the best option was to set up third (neutral) party mediation instead of arbitration commissions which had caused many delays in the past. A special Steering Committee established in 2004 (with the participation of representatives from the Ministry of Justice, Probation and Mediation Service, the Judges Union, the Czech Bar Association and other organizations) proposed the adoption of a special law in the field of mediation including on labour law matters. The Steering Committee also drafted proposals on the mediators’ training and education system. Preparations of draft proposals concerning education, mediation and cooperation with courts are under way. These proposals should be tested in practice within a pilot project to be launched on 1 January 2007.

The Committee takes note of this information with interest. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any observed improvements in the protection afforded against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference in practice, pursuant to the entry into force of Act No. 251/2005 on labour inspection. It also requests the Government to keep it informed of progress made in the establishment of a pilot project on mediation with regard to labour relations. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the review of measures taken to speed up civil law litigation.

2. Article 4 of the Convention. Collective bargaining rights of civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Labour Code (Act No. 65/1965 as amended) applies to employees in the public sector who may engage in collective bargaining so as to negotiate their working conditions in the framework set up by the Labour Code (section 20).

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report as well as its reply to the comments made by the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS), dated 25 October 2004.

1. Taking into account allegations of slowness of a certain number of judicial procedures, the Committee had requested the Government to send additional information on the judicial procedure in case of anti-union discrimination or interference and, in particular, to indicate precisely the average duration of the procedure. The Committee had also requested the Government to transmit the text of the draft law on the civil service, which according to the Government makes it possible to collectively bargain in the public service. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, according to which: (1) not all legal possibilities are always sufficiently utilized; (2) it is often difficult to prove acts of discrimination and a draft law on labour inspection has been submitted to Parliament in June 2004; the methodological rules for inspection will be checked before the adoption of the law in order to improve the situation; (3) draft legislation on extra-judicial settlement of disputes will be submitted to Parliament as well as a review of measures adopted to speed up civil-law litigation.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning these matters.

2. The Committee notes that Act No. 218/2002 amending certain provisions of the Public Service Act has not yet entered into force. The Committee is not in a position to establish from the Government’s report whether the trade unions representing public servants not engaged in the administration of the State can negotiate or can only benefit from consultations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the collective bargaining procedures in place for the negotiation of the terms and conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State and to transmit any relevant legislative texts.

3. The Committee takes note of the comments made by CMKOS on the current trend of replacing collective agreements with internal regulations and individual employer-employee relations and requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the report of the Government and its response to the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

The Committee requests the Government to send additional information on the judicial procedure in case of anti-union discrimination or interference and, in particular, to indicate more precisely the average duration of the procedure.

The Committee requests the Government to transmit the text of the draft law on the civil service which, according to the Government, makes it possible to collectively bargain in the public service.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2004.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee takes note of the observation of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 5 October 2001, and the comments thereon made by the Government.

Practical application: The Committee notes the comments communicated by the ICFTU to the effect that while trade union rights are generally protected by law, in practice there remains anti-union discrimination, acts of interference by certain employers, and acts aimed to obstruct collective bargaining, including in the free trade zones of the country. The ICFTU further holds that while there is legal recourse for victims of anti-union discrimination, the court procedure is generally slow.

The Committee notes that in its comments the Government states that trade unions have recently filed several complaints. Criminal proceedings have been instituted in one case which is monitored by the tripartite partners and the OECD National Contact Point. In addition, the Government informs the Committee that the Council for Economical and Social Agreement (RHSD), which is the highest tripartite body, discussed these matters especially in connection with the enforcement of the law through the supervisory activities of labour offices. As a result of the above, the labour offices pay much more attention to the proper application of the provisions of the labour law on anti-union discrimination.

The Committee notes that the Government has not provided specific comments on the question of the slowness of the proceedings in case of anti-union discrimination or interference and invites it to send such comments in its next report. The Committee wishes to stress the need for specific measures to provide protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, including expeditious proceedings and sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions, and asks the Government to provide details on these matters.

Public sector employees: The Committee notes that according to the comments communicated by the ICFTU, the draft Civil Service Act bars public sector employees from collective bargaining. These workers and their unions are offered instead the possibility to sign agreements with the public sector employer concerning some elements of their contract - excluding wages, working conditions and working time - but these agreements are not legally binding.

The Committee notes the Government’s comments which admit that while the current legislation in force (Act No. 2/1991) provides for collective bargaining within the public bodies (section 3 subsection 2), the draft Civil Service Act which is currently under discussion in the Czech Parliament and on which ILO experts were consulted, does not guarantee the right to collective bargaining for civil servants (employed in the administration of the State) and provides only for the right of consultation on topics concerning the employment relationship and working conditions of civil servants. According to the Government, the draft Act is justified by the exception stipulated in Article 6 of the Convention concerning public servants.

The Committee recalls that Article 6 of the Convention allows to exclude from its scope only public servants engaged in the administration of the State and that the exclusion from the protection offered by the Convention of large categories of workers employed by the State merely on the grounds that they are formally assimilated to public officials engaged in the administration of the State should be avoided. In this respect, a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report the text of the draft Act and clarifications concerning the scope of collective bargaining and the categories of public servants who do not enjoy this right.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, including Act No. 155/2000 amending the Labour Code (Act No. 65/1965).

Article 1 of the Convention. The Government indicates that the Labour Code, as amended, now explicitly prohibits discrimination of workers based on, inter alia, membership and activity in trade union organizations, and that the relevant labour offices can impose penalties on employers who engage in such acts. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the nature of these penalties and the forms of compensation provided for in the legislation to protect workers against such acts.

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

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on 5 October 2001 and requests the Government to send its observations thereon.