Definitive Report - Report No 81, 1965

Case No 426 (Greece) - Complaint date: 29-DEC-64 - Closed

1. 37. The complaint of the International Federation of Petroleum and Chemical Workers is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 29 December 1964. It was transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 4 January 1965. The Government furnished its observations on the complaint by a communication dated 9 February 1965.
2. 38. Greece has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 39. The complainants allege that, following a strike called in the Athens refinery by members of the Panhellenic Federation of Petroleum Workers and Employees, the whole administration of that organisation was arrested.
2. 40. In its reply the Government states that the only limitation placed on the exercise of the right to strike in practice is that resulting from section 18 of Law No. 3239 of 1955, which regulates collective agreements. According to that section, when a dispute is brought before the administrative arbitration tribunal of first instance after attempts at conciliation have failed, the calling of a strike or lockout is prohibited for a period of 45 days from the day of recourse to arbitration or 60 days in the event of an appeal before the higher arbitration tribunal. The prohibition of the strike ceases when the tribunal has made its arbitral award. Consequently, continues the Government, any strike called in violation of these provisions is regarded as constituting an unfair practice and entails penalties for those who have organised the strike.
3. 41. Towards the end of November 1964, states the Government, a dispute broke out between the employer and the trade union representing the workers of the petroleum refineries with respect to their pay and other conditions of work. After the failure of conciliation attempts made by the competent organs of the Ministry of Labour the dispute was referred, in accordance with law, to the arbitration tribunal of first instance, which handed down its decision after a few days. However, the trade union did not find this decision satisfactory. Nevertheless, instead of bringing the matter before the higher arbitration tribunal, the workers went on strike without respecting the waiting period prescribed by law.
4. 42. As the law had been violated the Public Prosecutor intervened in the matter ex officio and ordered the prosecution of those who were presumed to have incited the workers to call an illegal strike. In this way four members of the trade union in question were brought before the Prosecutor, who summoned them to appear before the competent magistrate's court. Shortly afterwards the court acquitted the trade unionists in question as their guilt had not been proved. The persons concerned were not at any time deprived of their liberty.
5. 43. According to the detailed explanations furnished by the Government it would appear that, contrary to the allegations formulated by the complainants in a brief telegram, the trade unionists concerned in this matter were never arrested. The Government also indicated that they were prosecuted solely because they were suspected of having infringed existing legislative provisions relating to strikes. Finally it appears from the reply of the Government that the persons concerned were acquitted by the competent court as their guilt had not been proved.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 44. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.