Definitive Report - Report No 214, March 1982

Case No 1058 (Greece) - Complaint date: 17-JUN-81 - Closed

1. 127. In a communication dated 17 June 1981, the Labour Centre of Elefsina, Aspropirgos and Vicinity presented a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in Greece. The Government, for its part, supplied its observations in a communication dated 15 October 1981.
2. 128. Greece has ratified 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 129. The complaint of the Labour Centre of Elefsina, Aspropirgos and Vicinity (CTEA) refers to the dismissal of numerous trade unionists at the Elefsina shipyards managed by the Government and the Petrola Helles Company as well as dismissals at the Helliniki Chalivourgie Steel Works of Greece.
2. 130. The complainant recalls that it has previously had to denounce government and employer interference in trade union activities in its area. More precisely, according to the complainant, the shipyards refused to take back the workers dismissed in 1978 on the eve of elections to the union's executive Committee, even though those dismissals had been annulled by the Greek courts as unlawful and abusive.
3. 131. More recently, the complainant adds, two candidates for trade union elections on 25 May 1981, Mr. Pantelis Papagiannopoulos and Mr. Nikolas Pippis, and two other candidates, Mr. Basilis Plexidas and Mr. Ector Foukis, the organisation's secretary-general and treasurer, respectively, were also dismissed on the eve of elections. The complainant denounces that measure as being particularly serious since the trade union leaders in question should have enjoyed legal protection as candidates standing for election. It adds that the persons concerned were in fact elected to the executive Committee even though they had been dismissed by the management, and that after the elections the management proceeded to dismiss other substitute members of the executive Committee in order to take control of the trade union.
4. 132. The complainant also recalls that in 1978 the management of the Helliniki Chalivourgie Steel Works of Greece had dismissed 27 trade union officers belonging to the strike Committees. Those dismissals were annulled by the courts, but the management refused to re-engage the workers on the pretext that they had disturbed relations between the employer and the workers.
5. 133. The complainant states that this time, on the pretext of a decrease in production, the management carried out 300 dismissals between May 1980 and May 1981 and plans another 800. The complainant specifies that the members of the works Committee and the trade union officers dismissed this time are Dimos Koumbouris, Bassilos Kaltsides and Dimitrios Fanis and the members of the strikes Committee are Christos Katsoulis and Heracles Patalas.
6. 134. The complainant also denounces the dismissal of trade union leaders at the Latsi refineries, in particular Ioannis Panayotides, Savas Ioannides and Dimitrios Tjoumas, candidates for trade union office, as well as Emmanouil Kakariaris, a trade unionist dismissed on the pretext of a series of slanderous accusations.
7. 135. Lastly, the complainant alleges that protective measures for guaranteeing trade union activities are insufficient.

B. The Government's reply

1. 136. In a communication dated 15 October 1981, the minister of Labour of the Government in office at the time when the complaint was submitted, replies to the various grievances raised in this case.
2. 137. Regarding the dismissals at the Elefsina shipyards and the refusal to re-engage the workers dismissed in 1978, the Minister recalls that he took steps in vain to obtain the reinstatement of the dismissed trade unionists, who were thus obliged to take legal proceedings. Compensation was awarded to one of them, who left the enterprise, while another, after having won the case in the court of first instance, lost it in the court of appeal. The court of first instance admitted the claim of the other workers, but an appeal was lodged against the court's decision and the cases are still pending, the Minister explains.
3. 138. In connection with the recent dismissals of Mr. Pantelis Papagiannopoulos and Mr. Nikolas Pippis, the Minister states that the ministerial services initiated the relevant procedure for settling disputes in May 1981. At that time, the employer claimed that he had not been aware that these persons were standing for trade union elections and had dismissed them on the grounds of unjustified absences and unsuitable behaviour. They received statutory compensation as well as an additional six months' compensation in accordance with Act No. 3514/1928 respecting the situation of private sector employees called up for military service, since they had just completed that service. The Minister's efforts to obtain their reinstatement proved vain and the Government has advised them to take legal proceedings.
4. 139. Concerning the dismissal of Mr. B. Plexidas and Mr. E. Foukis, the secretary-general and treasurer of the shipyard workers' union, the Minister explains that the procedure for settling disputes was also initiated within the ministry in May 1981. At that time, the employer stated "that the dismissals had been made pursuant to Act No. 64 of 1974 respecting the individual and family status of civil servants". The workers, on the other hand, alleged that anti-union dismissals had taken place three days before the elections. The Ministry's efforts again were in vain and, the Minister states, on 29 May 1981 the union's complaint alleging that sections 5 and 26 of Act No. 330 of 1976 had been violated was transmitted by the Ministry's services to the public prosecutor. The Minister adds that, where the employer carried out dismissals on grounds of inaptitude or economic reasons, the Government also initiated the above-mentioned procedure and it was only after its efforts to obtain the reinstatement of the workers had failed that it advised the persons concerned to appeal to the courts.
5. 140. Regarding the dismissal of the workers of the Helliniki Chalivourgie Steel Works in 1979, the Minister states that, after approaching the enterprise in vain, he advised the workers to take legal proceedings. Some of them were re-engaged, while others, after having won their case in court, were awarded compensation. The enterprise still refuses to reinstate one trade unionist, an ex-serviceman, on the ground that the case must be decided by the courts.
6. 141. Concerning the 151 dismissals made between January and May 1981, the minister states that these were apparently due to economic reasons, namely a drop in exports and the closing down of two blast furnaces. The complainant alleges that some of the dismissals were due to the strike movement and were intended to weaken its union. The Ministry's efforts to obtain the workers, reinstatement have also been fruitless.
7. 142. As regards the specific cases mentioned in the complaint, the Minister states that Mr. Saves Ioannides, who was dismissed because of his candidature for the executive Committee of the Petrola Latsis trade union, won his case before the court. Following conciliation with the enterprise, he was awarded 130,000 drachmas as compensation and resigned from his job. Mr. I. Panayotides and Mr. D. Tjoumas, who were dismissed as a result of the strike called on 10 November 1980 by the General Confederation of Labour and the Labour Centre of Elefsina, appealed to the courts on the Ministry's advice. The Minister states that the employer claims to have dismissed these workers for failure to observe their working hours. The case is now being heard. As regards Mr. E. Kakariaris, this trade unionist was employed at the iron manufacturing enterprise of Mr. E. Ioannides. During a strike held at the factory in. November 1980, Mr. Kakariaris is said to have used improper language in speaking to the employer and his representatives, which prompted the employer to take action against him under Act No. 1803 of 1951. According to the Minister the employer won the case.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 143. The Committee notes that the present case concerns dismissals of trade union leaders and militants. It observes in particular that allegations concerning dismissals on the eve of trade union elections or following collective labour disputes have been referred to it previously, especially in the undertakings mentioned by the complainant.
2. 144. When the Committee has before it allegations of this nature, it must recall first of all, as it has done on several occasions in cases relating to Greece, the great importance it attaches to the principle that workers should enjoy adequate protection against any acts of anti-union discrimination. Such protection is particularly desirable in the case of candidates for trade union office and trade union leaders since, in order to assume executive duties and to carry out trade union functions, they must have the assurance that they will not be victimised on account of the trade union office which they hold or wish to hold. One way of ensuring the protection of trade unionists is to provide that they may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter, except for serious misconduct.
3. 145. In this case the Committee notes that, in the sectors concerned, mainly the shipyards and the steel works, some of the workers dismissed were made redundant on economic grounds. However, it emerges from the information supplied by both the complainant and the Government that the management of these undertakings, far from trying to maintain the trade union leaders and candidates for trade union office in their employ, proceeded on the contrary to dismiss them and at times even refused to reinstate them in compliance with court decisions on their cases or repeated requests by the Government to do so. In these circumstances, the Committee, while noting with appreciation the efforts made by the Government, can only draw attention to the principles set forth in the preceding paragraph concerning the protection of trade union leaders and candidates for trade union office.
4. 146. Furthermore, the Committee, in several cases relating to Greece, has expressed the hope that measures would be considered for amending the relevant legislation, in particular Act No. 330/76 respecting occupational associations and federations, in order to ensure that trade union leaders and militants as well as candidates for trade union office enjoy, within the enterprise where they are employed, fuller protection against act of anti-union discrimination. As the Committee has noted previously, although section 26 of this Act prohibits the dismissal of trade union leaders except for serious cause, in actual fact the extent of this protection varies according to the size of the membership of the organisation.
5. 147. The Committee trusts that the Government will be able to improve the provisions for protecting workers in general, and trade union officers and candidates for trade union office in particular, in order to ensure observance of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 and of Article 1 of Convention No. 98, both of which have been ratified by Greece. In this respect, the Government may wish to set up machinery for preventing and protecting workers against anti-union dismissals. A further means of ensuring effective protection for workers would be to make it compulsory for each employer to prove that the motive for his intention to dismiss a worker has no connection with the worker's union activities. The Committee considers it useful to bring this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 148. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the following conclusions:
   • (a) Regarding the alleged anti-union dismissals, the Committee observes that the information supplied by both the complainants and the Government indicates that the management of the undertakings in question, far from trying to maintain the trade union leaders and candidates for trade union office in their employ, proceeded to dismiss them and at times even refused to reinstate them in compliance with court decisions and repeated requests of the Government. The Committee, while noting with appreciation the efforts made by the Government, can only draw attention to the importance which it attaches to the protection of workers against any acts of anti-union discrimination.
   • (b) As regards the insufficient protection for guaranteeing trade union activities, the Committee again expresses the hope that measures will be taken to improve the legislative provisions for the protection of trade union officers and candidates for trade union office, and considers it useful to bring this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.