Definitive Report - Report No 230, November 1983

Case No 1174 (Portugal) - Complaint date: 15-DEC-82 - Closed

1. 172. The complaint of the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN) is contained in communications dated 15 December 1982 and 13 January 1983, respectively. The complainant provided further information on this case on 16 May and 18 October 1983. The Government supplied its observations in communications dated 20 April and 3 October 1983.
2. 173. Portugal 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. 174. In its communications of 15 December 1982 and 13 January 1983, the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN) challenges the Orders issued by the public authorities to extend the collective agreements which, according to the complainant, had been concluded by minority organisations in various branches of activity, especially the baking and postal and telecommunications sectors, in spite of the fact that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in its recommendation on Case No. 1087, had hoped that it would be possible to avoid situations of such a nature in future.
2. 175. In its very long communication of 13 January 1983, the CGTP-IN briefly reviews the situation of industrial relations in the baking industry. It explains that in 1975 this industry, which it claims represents the largest sector in the foodstuffs industry, accounting for nearly 60 per cent of the jobs in this branch of activity and employing around 28,000 workers, concluded the first collective agreement after the change in government. However, as no agreement was reached on the schedule of wages, the latter was established by administrative authority by means of an Order regulating work. The agreement, which contained no reference to wages, was negotiated and accepted by the representatives of the new employers' associations, which were in the process of being set up at the time as the former associations had been dissolved after 25 April 1974. However, doubts were raised as to the employers' associations' legal capacity to conclude the agreement and it was published by administrative authority. The complainant explains that this was a de facto agreement, negotiated and concluded as such by the representatives of the parties.
3. 176. As the employers' associations refused to open new discussions in 1976, a new Order regulating work, updating the provisions contained in the previous Order and revising the agreement published by administrative authority, was promulgated at the beginning of 1977. The same procedure was followed in 1978 and 1980 but the new Orders were then restricted to revising wages, since it was impossible to reach negotiated agreements.
4. 177. In short, according to the CGTP-IN, from 25 April 1974 to 1981, working conditions in the baking industry were therefore mostly determined by an agreement published by administrative authority, with the exception of wage questions and particularly schedules of wages which were established by an Order regulating work.
5. 178. Discussions opened in 1981 and, on 22 May 1981, several trade union organisations proposed two draft labour agreements to several employers' organisations. The trade union organisations included the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries, the Federation of Electrical Workers' Unions, the Federation of Road and Urban Transport Unions, the National Federation of Civil Engineers and Woodworkers, as well as the Federation of Metal Trades, Mechanical Engineering and Mining Industries of Portugal. The employers' associations included the Central Association of Baking Manufacturers, the Northern Association of Baking Manufacturers, the Association of Baking Industries of Madeira, the Regional Association of Bakers in Alentejo and the Algarve, the Association of Baking Manufacturers in Upper Alentejo and the Association of Baking Manufacturers in Lisbon. Negotiations were held until 29 October 1981, upon which date a negotiating agreement was signed, providing for a new wording of the provisions to be revised and stipulating that the wording of the remaining provisions should be in line with the instrument regulating work in force in the sector, subject to appropriate adjustments. The final wording of the collective agreement was to be the responsibility of the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries who had to submit a text to the employers' associations, in principle before 6 November 1981. The parties were pleased that a solution had been found to the difficulties encountered during negotiations and that unanimity had been reached on the first collective agreement applicable to the' sector. The complainant points out that discussions were conducted in accordance with the only protocol in the presence of all the employers' associations, apart from the last two meetings which were not attended by one of the employers' organisations. The same employers' association had already failed to attend some meetings during the early stages of the discussions but, explains the complainant Confederation, it had later come to the negotiating table and agreed to the points approved at the meetings held in its absence.
6. 179. At the beginning of November 1981, meetings were held between the trade unions and the employers' association which had been absent during the signing of the agreement. However, this association refused to agree to the minutes of the last two meetings of the negotiations and it was impossible to reach any agreement. According to the complainant, this employers' association intended to recommence discussion of the agreement on the basis of the above-mentioned protocol, in spite of the fact that the negotiations had ended. In other words, it demanded separate negotiations and reconsidered its decision to adhere to the protocol upon which the negotiations had been based. The trade unions then convened all the employers' associations to a meeting on 11 November 1981 to sign the final text, including the text of the agreement concluded on 29 October. However, two employers' associations failed to attend that day and the trade unions were obliged to call a new meeting for the same purpose on 19 November 1981. The summons also served as notice of a request for conciliation. proceedings to the employers' associations which were not present at the meeting and were bound by these proceedings. As several employers' associations once again failed to attend, the meeting was only attended by some employers' associations and the signing of the final text did not take place. The employers' associations at the meeting declared that they would not sign the agreement unless the clause on the check-off of union dues by the employers' associations was removed, although that clause had already been provided for in the labour agreements in force in the sector.
7. 180. On 19 November 1981, the unions accepted to attend the meeting proposed by the employers' associations for 23 November 1981 and added that, if the outcome of this meeting was favourable, the conciliation stage would not be necessary. Under these circumstances, the notice of conciliation no longer represented anything more than a precautionary measure.
8. 181. However, on 21 November 1981, the Official Gazette published an agreement signed by three employers' associations and by the Democratic Union of Baking, Food and Allied Industries, a rival organisation of the complainant Confederation. This organisation, explains the CGTP-IN, emerged as a result of changes made to the field of competence of the Union of Workers in the Baking and Allied Products Industry in the Faro area which incorporated several districts and autonomous regions. It is a rival organisation of the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied industries, affiliated to the CTGP-IN, which carries out its activities in the same occupational sector and in the same geographical area. The agreement had been signed on 2 November and adopted by the employers' association which had not attended the meetings called for on 11 and 19 November with a view to signing the final text.
9. 182. In the same issue of the Official Gazette, notice was given of an Extension Order aimed at extending the provisions of the aforementioned agreement to all the employers' organisations and workers in the economic sectors covered by this agreement.
10. 183. At the same time, the meeting with the employers' associations took place as planned on 23 November 1981 but gave no results as the employers did not change their position. Conciliation proceedings consequently began on the following day.
11. 184. An industry-wide strike took place on 28 November 1981, and on 10 December 1981 the unions lodged an opposition to the Notice of Extension Order issued by the Ministry of Labour. On 15 December 1981, a conciliation meeting was held at the Ministry of Labour and the northern and central employers' associations declared that, since the problem raised by the clause concerning trade union contributions had been settled, they were in agreement with the final text of the unions' proposals. However, the other employers' associations refused to sign the final text. In spite of the conciliation efforts at the Ministry of Labour, a new 48-hour strike was declared on 24 December in Lisbon, Upper and Lower Alentejo, Setubal, Faro and Santaren in an attempt to persuade all the employers' associations to sign the collective agreement and not only those in the north and centre of the country. On 31 December 1981, the unions requested that negotiations should continue; they demanded an interview with the Secretary of State but this was not granted. Conciliation proceedings lasted until the end of January 1982, when, to the surprise of the unions, the representative of the Ministry asked both parties if they would be prepared to negotiate on the basis of the occupational rules adopted by the three employers' associations and the Democratic Union of Baking, Food and Allied Industries, published in the Official Gazette. The employers' associations then withdrew all their former proposals and were only prepared to accept a collective labour agreement in so far as it was identical to the agreement concluded by the complainant's rival organisation, the Democratic Union of Baking, Food and Allied Industries.
12. 185. The unions then accused the employers' associations of not acting in good faith and of attempting to force the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries, as well as the other unions having accepted the trade union proposals, to agree with or adhere to a contract drawn up on their behalf by a union unrepresentative of the sector, which would withdraw rights and advantages granted in the past to the workers; however, the agreement was published on 22 February and the Extension Order concerning this agreement was promulgated on 12 March 1982, extending its provisions to all the workers in the occupational sector in question. On 25 March, the unions demanded a hearing at the Ministry of Labour which took place without any concrete results. On 26 April 1982, a request was made for a further interview at the Ministry of Labour which, according to the complainant Confederation, was not granted.
13. 186. The CTGP-IN also points out that approximately 4,900 workers are members of the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries, an organisation affiliated to the CTGP-IN, representing 50 per cent of the total employees in this sector, apart from the managerial staff; the other workers are not union members or belong to various other unions including the above-mentioned rival minority union.
14. 187. With respect to the case concerning the postal and telecommunications services, the complainant Confederation explains that negotiations were held between the National Federation of Workers in the Postal and Telecommunications Services, representing the SNTCT and the SINTEL, as well as other trade union organisations, and the Administration of Postal and Telecommunications Services, with a view to revising the agreement concluded between these same organisations, published in the Official Gazette on 29 July 1980; during these negotiations, the Administration communicated the contents of the revision of the above-mentioned agreement to an organisation being set up at the time, whose statutes had not yet been published, known at this juncture as SINDETEL and now called SINDETELCO. As the above-mentioned unions, the SNTCT and the SINTEL, demanded that negotiations be continued, the Administration put unwarranted pressure on them to compel them to subscribe to the agreement negotiated with the organisation named SINDETELCO which, according to the complainant, has very few members, this consisted of demanding the extension of the agreement formerly in force to all the workers, even those represented by the signatory trade unions, which was a violation of the law. The Ministry of Labour allegedly approved this stand, announcing that the conciliation proceedings under way had failed and that, according to the legislation, it was its duty to communicate officially to the conflicting parties its intention to comply with the above-mentioned request made by the Administration. As a result, a notice of the Extension Order of the agreement concluded between the Administration, the SINDETELCO and other organisations was published in the Official Gazette on 22 October 1981. In spite of protests from the unions representing the large majority of workers in the postal and telecommunications services and representations made to government bodies, the aforementioned Extension Order was published in the Official Gazette, in blatant violation of Portuguese legislation.
15. 188. According to the complainant, more than 29,000 workers were employed by the Administration of Postal and Telecommunications Services at the time of the dispute. Amongst these, 18,000 employees were represented by the National Union of Post Office and Telecommunications Workers (SNTCT) and 5,980 workers were represented by the National Telecommunications Union (SINTEL). At the same period, the organisation which had subscribed to the agreement covered by the Extension Order represented only 210 workers. The Portuguese Government was perfectly aware of the situation, since in the postal administration, trade union dues are deducted from the workers' wages and in March-April 1981, the Administration of Postal and Telecommunications Services had, in accordance with the law, sent staff tables to the Ministry of Labour. These tables contain information on the trade union affiliation of each worker and, according to the complainant, prove beyond doubt that the trade union organisations supporting this complaint represent the overwhelming majority of workers.
16. 189. In its communication of 16 May 1983, the complainant Confederation further alleges that the Government published Extension Orders concerning collective agreements for the mechanical engineering and metal trades, the graphics industries and the clothing industry, although the agreements in question had apparently been signed by trade union organisations which, as the Government knew fully well, were not representative. On 18 October 1983 the complainant stated that contrary to what had occurred in 1981, in 1983 collective agreements were freely negotiated in the Administration of Postal and Telecommunications Services.

B. The Government's reply

1. 190. With respect to the dispute in the baking industry, the Government states in its communication of 20 April 1983 that it is not exactly true to say that from 25 April 1974 to 1981, working conditions in the baking industry had been mainly determined by collective agreement, even though they had been published by administrative authority, wage matters being an exception, particularly wage schedules, which had been fixed by Orders regulating work. Indeed, between 1975 and 1981, the only time that negotiations had taken place between the parties in the baking industry (manufacturing, distribution and sales sectors), and then only on matters not related to wages, was in 1975; even in this case, the agreement reached was published in the form of an administrative instrument regulating work, because there were doubts as to the parties' legal capacity to sign a collective agreement. Since then, it had not been possible to reach any agreement whatsoever and the working conditions in the industry in question had been successively fixed by administrative authority after long and fruitless negotiations.
2. 191. The Government explains that this situation only changed in November 1981, when three employers' associations in the centre and south of the country - the Association of Baking Industries in Lisbon, the Association of Baking Industries in Upper Alentejo and the Regional Association of Bakers in Lower Alentejo and the Algarve - signed a collective agreement with the Democratic Union of Baking, Food and Allied Industries, affiliated to the central rival trade union of the complainant Confederation, the General Union of Workers (UGT).
3. 192. Finally, it was only in November 1981 that the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries, an association of unions affiliated to the complainant, the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP), succeeded in signing, together with the other trade union associations, its first real collective agreement in this sector with two employers' associations from the north and centre of the country: the Northern Association of Baking Manufacturers and the Central Association of Baking Manufacturers. However, continues the Government, these unions did not manage to get their proposal of negotiations accepted in the southern part of the country and the. Ministry of Labour was first informed of the breakdown in negotiations on 24 November 1981, when the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries asked it to make an attempt at conciliation to overcome the dispute existing in the sector.
4. 193. The Government confirms the complainant's claim that a collective labour agreement concluded between three employers' associations - the Association of Baking Manufacturers in Lisbon, the Association of Baking Manufacturers in Upper Alentejo and the Regional Association of Baking Manufacturers in Lower Alentejo and the Algarve - and the Democratic Union of Baking, Food and Allied Industries were published on 21 November 1981, in accordance with the law. It explains that, if the employers' associations signatory to the agreement had not attended the meetings convened by the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries, and if they had agreed to a clause revoking the former regulations, the Ministry of Labour cannot be held responsible for this because, in Portugal, the social negotiators are entirely free in their choice of partners, the way they conduct negotiations and the subject matter of bargaining. The public authorities therefore have no right to intervene in these fields.
5. 194. The Government also confirms that a Notice was published in the Bulletin of Labour and Employment, announcing that the above-mentioned agreement might be extended and it explains that, as a general rule in Portugal, collective agreements delivered to the Ministry of Labour with a view to their deposit and later publication in the Official Gazette are usually accompanied by a request for extension; this was the case with the agreement in question. Complying with this request, a Notice of the possible extension was worded in the usual terms to enable those concerned to give their opinions on whether it was appropriate and relevant. Furthermore, the Government states that the Ministry of Labour was unaware of any breakdown in negotiations between the associations in Lisbon, Upper Alentejo, Lower Alentejo and the Algarve and the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries. The Government maintains that the Notice announcing the possible extension of the agreement signed between these same associations and the Democratic Union of Baking, Food and Allied Industries was entirely independent from these negotiations and did not aim to solve any collective labour dispute.
6. 195. Furthermore, it confirms that it received a request for conciliation on 24 November 1981 as no agreement could be reached on the signing of the final text. It also states that there was a strike in the baking sector, on 28 November 1981, to try and bring pressure to bear on the employers' association to make them accept to come to the negotiating table; however, this objective failed, as later events proved. The Government acknowledges that on 10 December 1981, the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries opposed the Notice announcing the possible extension of the collective agreement signed with the Democratic Union of Baking, Food and Allied Industries. On this point, it explains that, although the objection had been raised outside the legally prescribed time limits, it had been duly examined by the Ministry of Labour who admitted that there were some grounds for this opposition as the Confederation had pointed out that it was in the process of negotiating a collective agreement which covered the same branch of activity and geographical area as that of the published Notice of Extension Order. According to the Government, it was then decided to wait for the result of the negotiations so as not to interfere in the bargaining process under way.
7. 196. The Government acknowledges that a conciliation meeting was held at the Ministry of Labour on 15 December 1981 and confirms the outcome as described by the complainant. It also confirms the dates of the signing of the collective agreement between the northern and central associations of baking manufacturers and the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries, as well as the request made by the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries on 3 December 1981 to hold a new conciliation meeting; this actually took place on 28 December 1981, as the parties had refused to accept mediation or arbitration proceedings.
8. 197. The Government confirms the publication of the agreement on 22 February and that of the Extension Order on 12 March 1982 and acknowledges the unsuccessful interview held with the unions at the Ministry of Labour on 15 March 1982.
9. 198. The Government states that, in publishing a Notice announcing the possible extension of the collective agreement concluded between various employers' associations and the Democratic Union of Baking, Food and Allied Industries, the Ministry of Labour acted in accordance with national law and practice with respect to the extension of collective agreements. The aim of publishing Extension Orders is to avoid discrepancies between working conditions and labour costs amongst workers and employers, within the scope of a specific collective agreement, because they are not affiliated to the trade union and employers' organisations signatory to the agreement. This is the practice, unless imperative reasons are submitted by the organisations to which the extension will be applied; therefore it is indispensable that the Ministry of Labour should inform them by means of a Notice. The only reason for publishing a Notice announcing the possible extension of a collective agreement is to try and learn the opinions of those concerned on the timeliness and relevance of the intended measure. Consequently, according to the Government, the published Notice in question had nothing to do with the negotiations taking place between the baking manufacturers' associations and the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries, negotiations of which the Ministry of Labour was unaware.
10. 199. Denying the allegations of the complainant, the Government states that Notices announcing the extension of a collective agreement are fairly often published at the same time as the agreement in question; the fact that there was a delay in publishing the Notice of Extension Order concerning the agreements concluded between the northern and central associations of baking manufacturers and the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries was only caused by the need to define the scope of the Extension Order, as there were two agreements in the baking industry, both liable to be extended, whose geographical areas-partially overlapped.
11. 200. Concerning the deposit and publication of the two above-mentioned agreements, the Ministry of Labour admits having asked the signatories, in accordance with the law, to define the functions provided for in one of them, to which the parties responded without raising any objections.
12. 201. The Government points out that, as the complainant acknowledges, the publication of the Notice of Extension Order did not necessarily imply that the Order would be published, hence it gave no grounds for not signing the agreement. Furthermore, four months elapsed between the publication of the Notice and the issuing of the Extension Order, time enough for the parties to have settled their dispute themselves. The Government views the signing of an agreement as a conciliation of differing, even opposing interests, and believes that this conciliation can only be achieved if the conflicting parties prove an equal match to each other. However, according to the Government, it is clearly obvious upon studying this case that the Federation of Industries in the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Industries, in spite of the strikes carried out, did not have sufficient bargaining power to oblige also the employers' associations to sign the collective agreement in question, and the Ministry of Labour cannot be held responsible for this fact.
13. 202. Furthermore, it denies the allegation that, upon publishing the Notice, it had made known from the beginning its intention of publishing an Extension Order as a means of settling an existing dispute since, when it published the Notice, it had no idea there was any dispute. It states that it cannot be a judge of whether or not the parties involved in negotiations on a collective agreement are acting in good faith or not, without violating the principle whereby the parties enjoy freedom and independence in dealing with matters which purely concern them; in addition, under the legislation in force, its only role is to deposit or publish signed collective agreements, to make attempts at conciliation and to regulate working conditions by administrative authority in cases where it is impossible, either de jure or de facto, to arrive at negotiated regulations. In the present case, once it became obvious that the parties involved were incapable of arriving at negotiated regulations, it was essential to publish an Extension Order to standardise and update working conditions in the sector. However, it would have been most unsuitable to publish an Order regulating work since workers in the same undertaking would have found themselves subject to different labour rules, depending upon which union they belonged to, as a result moreover of administrative action.
14. 203. Concerning the representativity of the opposing unions, the Government claims it does not have any facts at its disposal to judge on this matter. The Government has no objections to make if the complainant Confederation provides some information on the representativity of unions affiliated to the Federation of Unions in the Baking, Food and Allied Industries which it has obtained from the National Institute of Statistics (1979); however, with respect to information on this representativity obtained from an assessment of the staff tables carried out in March 1982, it points out that Legislative Decree No. 380/80, of 17 September, stipulates that all undertakings must submit a table of their staff to the Statistical Department of the Ministry of Labour indicating, amongst other things, the union to which each worker belongs.
15. 204. It would therefore seem logical, at first glance, the Government states, that one could conclude from this Legislative Decree that the Ministry of Labour is able to determine strictly the representativity of the unions existing in the various sectors of activity. However, the situation is not so straightforward since Legislative Decree No. 380/80 cannot be interpreted without bearing in mind the provisions of Act No. 57/77, of 5 August, which stipulate that employers cannot deduct trade unions dues from wages unless there is an agreement between the respective trade union and employers' associations and unless the workers concerned authorise them to do so in a formal and individual statement submitted to the trade union and the employer. Undertakings do not, therefore, have exact information on their workers' trade union membership unless they receive a written statement authorising them to check off trade union dues. The Government adds that it can be seen upon examining the staff tables, that the undertakings either do not fill in some of the columns or indicate the trade union membership of their workers in a very imprecise or incomplete way; it is therefore impossible to reach any valid conclusions from the above-mentioned information.
16. 205. With respect to the dispute in the postal and telecommunications services sector, the Ministry of Labour refrains from commenting on the fact that the Administration of Postal and Telecommunications Services in Portugal had signed a works agreement with the Democratic Telecommunications Union - SINDETELCO - and that it had failed to do so with the SNTCT and the SINTEL. This is a matter uniquely concerning the parties involved in which the Ministry of Labour did not interfere. Furthermore, the Government maintains that when the agreement was deposited, that is on 14 September 1981, SINDETEL's statutes had already been duly registered since 29 April 1981.
17. 206. The Government denies the allegation that the Ministry of Labour stopped attempts at conciliation in order to comply with the request allegedly made by the State Administration concerned, for an extension of the agreement signed by SINDETELCO. It explains that, as can be read in the minutes of the last conciliation meeting, "the parties admitted that all the possibilities of settling the dispute by conciliation were exhausted".
18. 207. The Government confirms, however, that the SNTCT and the SINTEL opposed the Notice of Extension Order but it points out that this objection, having been duly examined, was overruled as it was imperative to settle the dispute at once, in view of the fact that the undertaking concerned was the only one 'in Portugal to provide postal and telecommunications services, vital to the life of the country. Therefore, in spite of the objection raised, the Extension Order was published. However, the Government does not consider that this publication infringes ILO Convention Nos. 87 and 98 since it does not prevent, either in law or in practice, unsuccessful negotiations from being resumed at the initiative of one or other of the parties concerned.
19. 208. Furthermore, the Government, alleges that the extended agreement only centred on a wage scale and that the system of working conditions negotiated by the National Federation of Postal and Telecommunications Workers, published in the Labour and Employment Bulletin, remained unchanged.
20. 209. The Government does not contest the representativity of the trade union associations involved in the negotiation proceedings, but it states that this matter of representativity was not raised when the objection was made to the Extension Order, and for this reason it was not taken into consideration.
21. 210. Concerning the more general issue of Extension Orders, the Government recalls that, contrary to the allegations made by the complainant Confederation, it strictly adhered to the recommendation made by the Committee on Freedom of Association on Case No. 1087 and points out that no further Extension Orders were published under the same circumstances as those in the Portuguese textile, baking and postal and telecommunications sectors, all of which were issued before the recommendation in question. Furthermore, it maintains that in recent times, it has made it a principle not to intervene in collective labour disputes by issuing administrative regulations to make up for those which the parties have failed to reach by agreement. It would like the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers to indicate the Extension Orders issued after the Committee's recommendation, which are contrary to the principles contained therein. Moreover, it considers there is no reason to restore legality in the cases in the textile, baking and postal and telecommunications sectors, since no illegality was noted in these cases.
22. 211. The Government maintains that the above arguments demonstrate that in publishing the Extension Orders, which form the subject of this complaint, it acted in accordance with national legislation and ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, ratified by Portugal. The Orders in question were published on 29 November 1981 and 22 March 1982, well before the Committee on Freedom of Association's recommendation was made on Case No. 1087 and approved by the Governing Body at its 220th Session (May-June 1982). Since then, no further Order has been published under the circumstances which gave rise to the dispute. The Portuguese Government cannot be accused of having failed to comply totally with the aforementioned recommendation.
23. 212. The Government concludes by pointing out that after the Extension Orders concerned had been published, collective bargaining proceedings resumed in the baking industry and within the Administration of Postal and Telecommunications Services in Portugal and were attended by the trade union associations affiliated to the complainant Confederation, which proves that the right to bargain collectively was not affected by the Orders in question.
24. 213. In its communication of 3 October 1983, the Government confirms that it published the three Notices of Extension Orders referred to by the complainant in its communication of 16 May 1983 but that, in view of the oppositions submitted by the metallurgy and textile federations, it decided to apply the Extension Orders concerning the collective agreements in these sectors only to workers affiliated to the unions which had concluded then. In other words, the agreements do not cover workers represented by the federations which lodged oppositions or non-unionised workers. The Extension Order concerning the agreement reached for graphics workers was opposed by the Federation of Unions of Graphics Workers which supplied evidence of its representativity (inconclusive in the Government's opinion). No extension was therefore made.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 214. The Committee notes that the present case refers to certain Extension Orders concerning collective agreements allegedly issued by the public authorities, whereas the collective agreements in question had been concluded by minority organisations in the baking and postal and telecommunications sectors.
2. 215. As the Government points out, the Committee has already been called upon to examine a similar case also concerning Portugal, Case No. 1087, dealing with the textile sector. It has therefore already had the opportunity of recalling that before announcing the extension of a collective agreement and faced with the opposition of an organisation - which alleged that it represented the large majority of workers in the sector - to an agreement it regarded as unprogressive, the Government could have carried out an objective appraisal of representativity of the trade union associations in question, since, in the absence of such an appraisal, the extension of an agreement could be imposed on an entire sector of activity contrary to the views of the organisation representing the workers in the category covered by the extended agreement, thus limiting the right of free collective bargaining of that majority organisation. In May 1982, the Governing Body on the Committee's recommendation had expressed the hope that situations of such a nature might be avoided in the future.
3. 216. In the present case, the Committee notes that the Extension Orders were issued in November 1981 and March 1982, in other words before Case No. 1087 had been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in May 1982 and that, since then, the Government has given its assurance that it has not published any further Extension Orders in the circumstances which gave rise to the complaint. The Government also points out that this has been the specific case in the metallurgy, textile and graphics industries.
4. 217. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government points out that after the publication of the Extension Orders in question, collective bargaining proceedings were resumed in the baking industry and in the Administration of Postal and Telecommunications Services and that the trade union associations affiliated to the CGTP-IN attended these meetings.
5. 218. Accordingly, the Committee recalls the importance attached to the principle of non-infringement of the right to free collective bargaining of representative organisations and stresses the need for public authorities, before announcing an Extension Order concerning a disputed collective agreement, to have the necessary ways and means at their disposal to carry out an objective appraisal of representativity of the majority trade union associations. The Committee considers, as the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has always stated, that employers should, for the purpose of collective bargaining, recognise the organisations which are representative of the workers they employ and that, if national legislation establishes machinery for the representation of the occupational interests of a whole category of workers, this representation should normally lie with the organisations which have the largest membership in the category concerned, and the Government should refrain from any intervention which might undermine this principle.
6. 219. In this case, the Committee notes that the Extension Orders concerning the baking sector and the postal and telecommunications sector were published before the recommendation it had made on this subject in a similar case had been adopted, and that new negotiations in the occupational sectors in question are at present being conducted. The Committee also notes with interest that since then the Government has not published any Extension Order extending collective agreements to workers represented by federations which opposed such Orders, nor to workers who do not belong to any union, in the metallurgy, textile and graphics sectors.
7. 220. However, the Committee expresses the firm hope that protective measures will be introduced in the near future whereby it will be possible to prevent conflicting situations from occurring again.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 221. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
   • (a) The Committee recalls the importance of not infringing the right to free collective bargaining of a representative organisation.
   • (b) It considers that the public authorities, before issuing an Extension Order on a disputed collective agreement, should have the necessary ways and means at their disposal to carry out an objective appraisal of the representativity of the trade union associations.
   • (c) In this particular case, the Committee notes that the disputed Extension Orders in the baking sector and the postal and telecommunications sector were published before the recommendation it had already made on the matter in a similar case had been adopted and that new negotiations are at present being conducted in the occupational sectors in question. It also notes with interest that since then the Government has not published any Extension Order against the wish of the workers concerned.
   • (d) However, the Committee expresses the firm hope that protective measures will be introduced in the near future making it possible to prevent conflicting situations from occurring again.