Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 325, June 2001

Case No 2110 (Cyprus) - Complaint date: 01-DEC-00 - Closed

Allegations: Refusal to engage in good-faith consultations

and collective bargaining with public employees

1. 238. In a communication dated 1 December 2000, the Pancyprian Public Employees Trade Union (PASYDY) presented a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Cyprus.
2. 239. The Government furnished its observations in a communication dated 23 March 2001.
3. 240. Cyprus has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), as well as Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 241. In its complaint, PASYDY alleges that the Government submitted to the Legislature for enactment into law a Bill concerning the introduction of a National Health Scheme (NHS) without adequate prior consultation and/or negotiation with PASYDY – which represents the overwhelming majority of the Cyprus public servants – and contrary to the procedures provided by the existing industrial relations code in the public service. In this connection, PASYDY emphasizes that the Bill would affect directly the social and economic rights and interests of more than 4,000 public servants and their families. It asserts that this action by the Government constitutes a flagrant violation of trade union rights and liberties, and seriously undermines free collective bargaining and industrial peace and stability in the country.
2. 242. PASYDY then proceeds to explain the background to its complaint. It points out that successive governments of Cyprus have been toying with the idea of introducing a NHS since the birth of the Republic in 1960. The intent of these governments to introduce such a scheme has taken the form, over the years, of occasional general discussions, seminars, public meetings and reports by technical committees and consultants; but never the form of serious, good-faith, intensive and exhaustive negotiations in the Joint Staff Committee – the official body for collective bargaining and the determination of salaries and conditions of employment in the Cyprus Civil Service.
3. 243. According to PASYDY, the truth of this allegation is demonstrated in the most conclusive and convincing manner by the Government itself which chose to publicize its intent to introduce a NHS on 17 April 1991. This took place nearly eight years before the Joint Staff Committee (JSC) was convened, under persistent pressure by PASYDY, to discuss the industrial relations problems which would inevitably be created for the state medical and paramedical personnel should a NHS be introduced in Cyprus. PASYDY asserts that the minutes of the only two meetings of the JSC (on 3 and 9 February 1999), which scratched but the surface of industrial relations, provide ample evidence that the Government failed to understand then, as it still fails to understand to this date, the basic substance of the dispute, despite repeated efforts by PASYDY to explain it to the people concerned.
4. 244. More specifically, PASYDY contends that it clarified consistently that the question at issue was not just the merits or demerits of the proposed NHS and/or PASYDY’s support or opposition to the Scheme. Rather, and mainly, it was the failure by the Government to conduct with PASYDY a serious dialogue concerning the possible effects from the introduction of the Scheme on such issues as: (a) the violation of the right of civil servants to free medical treatment by the state services; (b) employment status; (c) security of employment; (d) career prospects; and (e) terms and conditions of work of 4,000 state medical and paramedical employees, members of PASYDY.
5. 245. PASYDY stresses that it raised these issues with the Government as early as 1994 and received written assurances from the former Minister of Finance that “the views and the suggestions of PASYDY … will be studied with the proper attention”, and that “… Government will not disregard PASYDY … with which it will engage in the necessary discussions within the existing institutional organs”. To emphasize the importance it attaches to the respect of the existing institutions, machineries and procedures for joint consultations and collective bargaining, PASYDY reminded the official side at the meeting of the JSC of 3 February 1999 of the assurances of the Minister of Finance. It also expressed its strong opposition to the tactics adopted by the Ministry of Health to bypass, repeatedly, the JSC so as to avoid discussion of the repercussions of the proposed Scheme upon industrial relations practices and procedures in the Cyprus Civil Service.
6. 246. Seven days later, at the JSC meeting of 9 February 1999, PASYDY elaborated fully its position on the subject:
   • (a) it condemned the violation by the Government of both the letter and the spirit of the JSC;
   • (b) it expressed the view that dialogue concerning the Scheme had just begun;
   • (c) it warned that it would not accept the referral of the dispute to the Committee of Ministers, unless exhaustive negotiations in the JSC were conducted with a view to reaching acceptable and agreed solutions to the points at issue; and
   • (d) it advised the Government that the proposed Bill did not safeguard adequately the rights and interests of its members, and that these matters should be thrashed thoroughly within the existing machineries, before the Bill was submitted to the House of Representatives.
7. 247. PASYDY points out that after only two abortive meetings which barely touched the surface of the main issues of the dispute the official side of the JSC concluded that “… as there are serious differences on questions of principle, there is no other alternative to submitting the matter to the Committee of Ministers”, and it turned around to accuse PASYDY for its refusal to accept the proposed “alternative”. Furthermore, the official side stopped the JSC procedure short – by failing to refer the dispute for settlement to arbitration as provided for the by JSC regulations and proceeded arbitrarily and unilaterally to submit the Bill to the House of Representatives, with the lame justification that “… pending differences could well be discussed after the enactment of the Bill into law”, or before its enactment within the framework of the appropriate House committee.
8. 248. PASYDY explains that Cyprus industrial relations practice respects the principle that no dispute is referred either to mediation or to arbitration unless the parties directly concerned exhaust every means for its settlement in direct negotiations. Unfortunately, in the case in point, the Government chose to violate this principle, thus setting a bad example not only for the public sector but also for the semi-public and private sectors.
9. 249. It is evident from this behaviour that the Government had long decided to introduce a NHS; that it promoted, in PASYDY’s view, popular support for it; and that it is determined to steamroll its implementation – without regard to the rights and interests of its employees who are directly affected by it. Still, despite this unwarranted provocation, PASYDY reacted with considerable restraint and sought the solution of the dispute through the established practices and procedures – it appealed in writing to the President of the House of Representatives to convene, even at this late stage, the Tripartite Liaison Committee (Executive, Legislature, PASYDY) to discuss the issue with a view to reaching an amicable solution. (The Liaison Committee was established a few years ago on the recommendation of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the ILO so as to minimize possibilities for conflict in the Cyprus Civil Service.)
10. 250. Unfortunately, despite repeated reminders and direct contacts both with members of the legislative and the executive authorities, PASYDY’s appeals remain unanswered up to this moment. In the light of these events and developments, PASYDY has come to the conclusion that personal commitments and prestige and/or political party considerations and expediencies prevent the Government from reversing its position on the dispute and that the House is trapped into enacting the Bill before it into law by popular – but uninformed – pressure groups which demand “action” in this field.
11. 251. Consequently, PASYDY earnestly requests the Committee to mobilize, as a matter of urgency, every means at its disposal to suspend the enactment of the NHS Bill and to promote its reconsideration within the existing industrial relations machinery in the Cyprus public service for the benefit of the civil servants concerned and the system of industrial relations in Cyprus as a whole.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 252. In its reply, the Government refutes the allegation that the Bill for the introduction of a NHS was submitted to the Legislature without adequate consultation and/or negotiation with PASYDY. This Bill, introducing a major reform in the health care sector, was submitted to the House of Representatives after extensive consultations and discussions with the social partners during the last eight years. PASYDY and the other unions of public sector employees were involved in this process right from the beginning, including the conceptual stage, and were given every opportunity to express their views on the proposed Scheme and put forward their claims on aspects which were of direct concern to them.
2. 253. According to the Government, between 17 April 1991 and 9 February 1999, PASYDY took part in the following meetings and/or seminars, either alone or together with other interested organizations, during which the principles and the provisions of the Scheme were analysed and discussed:
3. (a) 17 April 1991. The General-Secretary of PASYDY and other members of the secretariat of PASYDY had a meeting with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health and the members of the Technical Committee the object of which was the examination of the Government’s proposals for the introduction of a NHS.
4. (b) 16-17 January 1994. A two-day seminar was held in Paphos during which the basic principles regarding the financing and the organization of medical care under the proposed NHS were explained and discussed. Participants in this seminar were all trade unions, including PASYDY, the employers’ organizations, the organizations of health professionals, political parties and members of the Parliamentary Committees for Health and Economics.
5. (c) 28 February 1994. The organizations of the social partners, including PASYDY were invited to a meeting at the Ledra Hotel and expressed their positions on the Government’s proposals for the NHS.
   • (d) October 1994 and March 1995. Two meetings were held with the social partners’ organizations including PASYDY. At these meetings the social partners’ organizations were briefed on the developments and exchanged views about future action for the introduction of the NHS.
   • (e) November 1995. A new round of consultations on the NHS was held in the form of separate meetings of the Minister of Health with each organization concerned. PASYDY met with the Minister on 21 November 1995.
6. (f) 10 July 1997. The organizations of the social partners, including PASYDY, were invited to a meeting during which the consultants of the project analysed the findings of the surveys carried out for updating the costing of the NHS.
7. (g) 28 December 1998. The Bill, in its final form, was discussed at a special meeting of the National Advisory Committee for Health. PASYDY, which is a member of the Committee, was represented at the meeting by its General Secretary. Unlike other organizations, PASYDY refused to express any views on the Scheme as a whole and instead demanded from the Government the suspension of any action towards the introduction of the Scheme, until the issues in which public employees were directly interested were discussed and resolved.
   • The same stand was taken by PASYDY at a meeting with the Minister of Health on 18 January 1999.
8. 254. The Government explains that it rejected the demand of PASYDY but agreed to follow the established procedures for examination of the terms and conditions of employment of public employees. The two issues, identified as being of direct concern to public sector employees, namely:
   • (a) the existing right of public employees to medical care and their contribution to the NHS; and
   • (b) the safeguarding of the conditions of employment of existing employees of the state health services,
     • were thus referred to the JSC.
   • 255. The Government points out that the Constitution and Rules of the JSC provide that a binding agreement requires the consensus of both sides. Such agreements usually take the form of recommendations to the Council of Ministers which are subsequently promoted to implementation in accordance with the existing procedure. If consensus is not reached on any issue, the conflicting views are recorded and referred to the Ministerial Committee for further consideration and submission to the Council of Ministers. (A translated copy of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and Rules of the JSC is attached to the Government’s reply.) In accordance with the above procedure, the issue of the introduction of a new NHS was discussed in two meetings of the JSC (3 and 9 February 1999) where, unfortunately, the two parties failed to bridge their differences. Moreover, PASYDY reiterated its position that the time was not ripe for the reform of the health care sector in Cyprus. Following this development, the Chairman of the JSC decided to submit the matter to the Ministerial Committee, as provided by the rules of the JSC. The Ministerial Committee was convened for 17 February 1999, but PASYDY and other organizations of public sector employees refused to attend contrary to the rules and practice of the JSC. At the same time, PASYDY declared its intention to proceed to industrial action. According to the Government, industrial action was prematurely declared before a labour dispute had been officially proclaimed.
9. 256. In view of the above development and bearing in mind the pressure from the trade unions of private sector employees and other interested organizations, the Ministerial Committee decided to recommend to the Council of Ministers to proceed with the discussion of the relevant Bill. The Council of Ministers, considering that the rights of existing employees were sufficiently protected by section 65 of the Bill, proceeded with the approval of the Bill. Section 65 of the Bill reads as follows:
10. 65. The operation of this Law shall in no manner prejudice the rights of civil servants employed in the medical services, the public health services, the pharmaceutical and other services of the Ministry of Health, who will be serving on the date of enactment of this Law by the House of Representatives.
    • The Bill was submitted to the House of Representatives on 25 February 1999.
11. 257. With reference to the allegations of PASYDY that the Government failed to refer the dispute to the Disputes Examination Board, the Government indicates the following. Firstly, this Board is appointed only in cases where “… all procedures provided are exhausted in the examination of an issue and no agreement is reached, a deadlock is declared and a labour dispute proclaimed …”. As shown by the previous arguments, not all procedures were exhausted and this is attributed to the persistent refusal of PASYDY to follow the procedure provided for by the Constitution and Rules of the JSC. It should also be noted that for the appointment of this Board, the consent of both parties is required. Furthermore, the terms of reference of this Board must again be co-decided. Secondly, the Government stresses that the official side had on several occasions suggested the appointment of such a Board for the final determination of matters of dispute; nevertheless PASYDY demonstrated repeatedly a clear unwillingness to commit itself to such a procedure. Furthermore, on the sole occasion when the Board was convened, PASYDY refused to comply with its recommendations. As a result of the negative approach of PASYDY, these provisions have become inapplicable.
12. 258. Regarding the allegation of PASYDY that the issue was not discussed at the Tripartite Liaison Committee (Executive, Legislature and PASYDY), the Government states that had such a meeting been convened, the official side would have had no objection to attending it and expressing its views. In any event both sides have already been invited by the competent Parliamentary Health Committee to express their views.
13. 259. From the above, it is clear that the Government has acted in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution and Rules of the JSC thus fulfilling its obligations under Convention No. 151. In the Government’s view, it has acted in a most responsible manner taking into account the public interest and the pressure for the reform of the health care sector.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 260. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern the lack of adequate prior consultation and negotiation with the complainant (PASYDY) prior to the submission to Parliament of a Bill concerning the introduction of a National Health Scheme (NHS) which affects the social and economic interests of more than 4,000 public servants.
2. 261. The Government contends for its part that this Bill was submitted to the House of Representatives after extensive consultations and discussions with the social partners during the last eight years. It then describes a number of meetings and/or seminars in which PASYDY took part between 1991 and 1999 during which the principles and provisions of the proposed Scheme were analysed and discussed. The Committee notes that the complainant does not deny that such seminars or meetings took place over the years on the introduction of such a scheme. However, the complainant insists that the Government refused to conduct serious and good-faith negotiations on this matter in the Joint Staff Committee (JSC), the official body responsible for the examination of terms and conditions of employment of public sector employees.
3. 262. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that in accordance with the established procedures for examination of the terms and conditions of employment of public employees, the issue of the introduction of a new NHS was first discussed in the JSC on 3 February 1999. Hence, the Committee notes that the appropriate forum for discussion on the introduction of a new NHS was the JSC. The Committee further notes that under the terms of the Constitution and Rules of the JSC furnished by the Government that “The Joint Staff Committee is the recognized official consultative body in the Public Service”, and that “The field of competence of the Joint Staff Committee comprises joint consultations on the following: (iv) Proposed legislation or amendment of existing legislation in so far as such legislation affects conditions of employment of the public servants” (see annex).
4. 263. In this respect, the Committee would stress that where a government seeks to alter bargaining structures in which it acts directly or indirectly as employer, it is particularly important to follow an adequate consultation process, whereby all objectives perceived as being in the overall national interest can be discussed by all parties concerned, in keeping with the principles established in the Consultation (Industrial and National Levels) Recommendation, 1960 (No. 113). In accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Recommendation, such consultation should aim at ensuring that the public authorities seek the views, advice and assistance of these organizations, particularly in the preparation and implementation of laws and regulations affecting their interests [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 856 and 928]. Finally, such consultations imply that they be undertaken in good faith and that both partners have all the information necessary to make an informed decision [see Digest, op. cit., para. 941]. As regards the situation at hand, the Committee notes that while meetings and/or seminars were held on the introduction of a new NHS as far back as 1991, the issue was discussed in the JSC only twice. The Committee considers that more effective and meaningful consultations, in line with the principles enunciated above, could have been promoted within the framework of the JSC, the official organ for collective consultations between the Government and PASYDY for determining general conditions of service (see annex). The Committee trusts that in future the Government will follow an adequate consultation procedure when it seeks to alter bargaining structures in which it acts actually or indirectly as employer.
5. 264. Turning to the allegation that the Government violated the collective bargaining rights of 4,000 state medical and paramedical employees, members of PASYDY, the Committee notes that the Bill respecting the NHS was referred to the Ministerial Committee on 17 February 1999. PASYDY contends that this was done after two abortive meetings within the JSC on 3 and 9 February 1999, whereas it had demanded that exhaustive negotiations be conducted in the JSC on the proposed Bill before its referral to the Ministerial Committee. The Government for its part indicates that, following the failure by the two parties to bridge their differences on the issue of the introduction of a new NHS in two meetings of the JSC (3 and 9 February 1999), the matter was submitted to the Ministerial Committee which then decided to recommend to the Council of Ministers to proceed with the discussion of the relevant Bill. Finally, the Council of Ministers, considering that the rights of existing employees were sufficiently protected by section 65 of the Bill, proceeded with the approval of the Bill which was submitted to the House of Representatives on 25 February 1999.
6. 265. In this respect, the Committee is bound to remind the Government that public service workers other than those engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy collective bargaining rights, and priority should be given to collective bargaining as the means to settle disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service [see Digest, op. cit., para. 793]. The Committee has also considered it important that both employers and trade unions bargain in good faith and make every effort to reach an agreement; moreover, genuine and constructive negotiations are a necessary component to establish and maintain a relationship of confidence between the parties [see Digest, op. cit., para. 815]. The Committee fails to see how the above conditions could have been fulfilled during the course of two meetings held within the space of one week (3 and 9 February 1999), over an issue as important as the introduction of a National Health Scheme affecting the employment conditions of 4,000 employees of the state health services. The Committee further notes with concern that the Bill respecting the NHS was submitted to the House of Representatives by the Council of Ministers on 25 February 1999, barely three weeks after negotiations on the issue began in the JSC. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that in submitting the Bill for the introduction of a National Health Scheme to the House of Representatives, the Government violated the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in Article 4 of Convention No. 98.
7. 266. In view of the foregoing, the Committee regrets that the Government did not give priority to collective bargaining as a means of determining the employment conditions of its public servants, and that it did not attempt to reach consensus with the complainant before submitting the Bill for the introduction of a National Health Scheme to the House of Representatives. The Committee expects that the Government will refrain from taking such measures in the future.
8. 267. Finally, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, it had requested that the Tripartite Liaison Committee (composed of the Executive, Legislature and PASYDY) be convened to discuss the issue with a view to reaching an amicable solution but to no avail. The Government indicates that had such a meeting been convened, it would have had no objection to attending it. Noting that the Tripartite Liaison Committee was established a few years ago on the recommendation of the Committee of Experts so as to minimize possibilities for conflict in the public service, the Committee would urge the Government to ensure that this body is convened so that serious and meaningful discussions are held between the parties concerned with a view to reaching a solution in respect of the NHS Bill. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments thereof.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 268. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee trusts that in future the Government will follow an adequate consultation procedure when it seeks to alter bargaining structures in which it acts directly or indirectly as employer.
   • (b) The Committee regrets that the Government did not give priority to collective bargaining as a means of determining the employment conditions of its public servants, and that it did not attempt to reach consensus with the complainant before submitting the Bill for the introduction of a National Health Scheme (NHS) to the House of Representatives. The Committee expects that the Government will refrain from taking such measures in the future.
   • (c) The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the Tripartite Liaison Committee is convened so that serious and meaningful discussions are held between the parties concerned with a view to reaching a solution in respect of the NHS Bill. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments thereof.

Z. Annex

• Constitution and rules of the Joint Staff
• Committee (main provisions)
• The Joint Staff Committee is the official organ for collective consultation between the Government, on the employer’s side, and the whole of the public servants, on the staff side, for determining general conditions of employment in the public service. The staff side is represented by the union of the public servants, PASYDY.
• Objectives and jurisdiction
• The general objectives of the Joint Staff Committee are to safeguard maximum cooperation on matters affecting the public service between the Government of the Republic, in its capacity as employer, and the public service as a whole with a view to achieving increased efficiency in the public service in conjunction with the welfare of the employees, and the provision of mechanisms for examination of representations by the union of the public servants, and for gathering experiences by its members for the common interest of the two parties and the public in general.
• The Joint Staff Committee is the recognized official consultative body in the public service. It has jurisdiction to discuss the terms of employment of the public servants and submit proposals on such affairs to Government for consideration and approval.
• The field of competence of the Joint Staff Committee comprises joint consultations on the following:
  • (i) General principles on:
• n appointments
• n working hours
• n promotions
• n leave of absence
• n medical and pharmaceutical treatment
• n discipline
• n emoluments for isolated posts, grouping of posts or the public service as a whole
• n retirement benefits
• n any other subjects affecting the terms of employment and conditions of service regarding any post or grouping of posts, or the public service as a whole.
  • (ii) Training and educational projects for public servants.
  • (iii) Ways and means for utilization of the ideas and experiences of public servants.
  • (iv) Proposed legislation or amendment of existing legislation in so far as such legislation affects conditions of employment of the public servants.
  • (v) Matters connected with the welfare of public servants.
• Joint Departmental Committees
• Special subjects not affecting general principles and without any effect on other services may be discussed in the relevant joint departmental staff committees provided that their findings are submitted to the JSC plenary for final decision.
• The subjects discussed at the departmental joint staff committees are first submitted to the JSC in the usual procedure and the JSC decides whether to refer them to the departmental committee for consideration at that level in the first instance. (For more details on Departmental JSC’s see Appendix B.)
• Composition of JSC
• The Joint Staff Committee comprises official and staff sides:
  • (a) The members of the official side are:
• The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance;
• The Director of the Public Administration and Personnel Service.
  • (b) The staff side comprises two representatives of the Public Servants Trade Union) PASYDY). These are appointed by the General Council of the Union and may be either elected or permanent appointed officials.
• The secretary
• The secretary of the Joint Staff Committee is a public servant and is posted to this office by the official side, and the duties of the post are his/her main duties.
• The duties of the secretary are:
• n to prepare the agenda in consultation with the Chairman;
• n to keep correct minutes of discussions at every meeting of the Committee;
• n to convene the meetings of the Committee in consultation with the Chairman and to issue the necessary notices to its members;
• n to submit draft minutes to the Chairman for approval;
• n to provide to both sides statistical and other data necessary of the objective examination of any item on the agenda;
• n to ensure implementation of the decisions of the Committee and its subcommittees.
• The official side also makes available to the JSC any necessary additional staff to help the secretary in fulfilling his/her duties.
• Subcommittees
• A standing subcommittee, chaired by the Director of the Public Administration and Personnel Service, was set up to deal with all matters under the jurisdiction of the Joint Staff Committee, for facilitating its tasks. It operates under similar rules and in case of disagreement between the two parties, the matter is submitted to the JSC plenary for decision.
• The Joint Staff Committee may also appoint subcommittees for examination of any item and submission of its findings to the plenary. Persons not on the Committee may be called upon to serve on any of the subcommittees.
• Advisers and experts
• Either side may invite any person to attend any meeting as adviser, provided that the number of such advisers or experts does not exceed three on each side.
• Meetings
• The JSC is a standing committee.
• It meets regularly on the last working Friday of every month for regular meetings. When the last Friday of the month coincides with a public holiday the meeting is fixed for the following Friday.
• The Committee may be convened on any date for an emergency or extraordinary meeting, by the Chairman at his own initiative or at the request of PASYDY.
• Two members of the Committee with at least one from each side form a quorum.
• The representatives of PASYDY are given all necessary facilities to attend the meetings of the JSC and to fulfil effectively their duties as trade union cadres. Such facilities cover time both within and outside normal office hours.
• Procedure of JSC
  15. A 15-day notice is required for submission of any item for discussion by the Committee. The notice is given in writing to the secretary by either side. This is accompanied by a memorandum in which the reasons are stated with details of the proposal.
• The secretary includes in the agenda all items in respect of which due notice has been given. Items fully discussed in the Committee cannot be raised again for discussion within the next 12 months from such discussion unless both sides are agreed on this.
• The secretary notifies the agenda of the meeting to the members at least seven days prior to such a meeting.
• The examination of any item on the agenda of a meeting is not put off to the next meeting for discussion without the agreement of all parties represented. The Chairman may allow discussion of urgent affairs which are not on the agenda.
• Minutes
• The Committee keeps minutes for every meeting and these are confidential. Following every meeting the secretary sends a copy of the draft minutes to each side who in seven days from receipt of the draft returns this to the secretary with any comments. The secretary then submits the draft to the Chairman for approval. The secretary sends copies of the approved minutes to all members. Following the circulation of the minutes the Chairman proceeds to any action required or arising from the minutes.
• The minutes of every meeting are ratified at the following meeting.
• Recommendations
• The decisions and findings of the Committee are set out, following a consensus of the two sides, in the form of recommendations to the Council of Ministers and are promoted to implementation in accordance with existing procedure. The recommendations are normally binding for each side but this in no way is interpreted as violating the inalienable authority of the Council of Ministers to reach final decisions contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Committee when the Council of Ministers deems this necessary or expedient.
• If a consensus is not reached on any one item, the conflicting views are recorded and referred to a ministerial committee (see below) for further consideration and submission to the Council of Ministers.
• Unanimous decisions of the JSC are submitted to the Council of Ministers by the Minister of Finance, provided that before such submission to the Council the views of the JSC Ministerial Committee may also be asked.
• The decision of the Council of Ministers on any matter dealt with at the Joint Staff Committee is notified to the public service by the Public Administration and Personnel Service of the Ministry of Finance in a circular which is official and binding for the Government.
• In case of disagreement of the Council of Ministers with any recommendation of the JSC the latter is informed of this and if it consents, the procedure mentioned above is followed regarding notification of the decision to the public service. If the JSC sticks to its original stand and the disagreement persists the matter is referred to a Disputes Examination Board as provided in the rules for the JSC.
• The Committee of Ministers
• The JSC Committee of Ministers comprises the Ministers of Finance, Labour and Social Insurance and a third ad hoc member named by the Council of Ministers. The Committee of Ministers acts as liaison between the JSC and the Council of Ministers with a view to speeding up and facilitating the consideration by the cabinet of any topic previously dealt with at the Joint Staff Committee.
• The Minister of Finance presides over the meetings of the Committee of Ministers.
• During the examination of any matter referred to the Committee of Ministers, the Chairman of the JSC and two of the members of the staff side are invited to take part.
• The Committee of Ministers may be authorized by the Council of Ministers to proceed within specified terms of reference to a binding agreement on any subject:
• n not involving additional government expenditure;
• n likely to cause additional government expenditure provided that such expenditure will be within limits set by the Council of Ministers.
• Settlement of disputes
• In cases where all procedures provided are exhausted in the examination of an issue and no agreement is reached a deadlock is declared and a labour dispute proclaimed which is referred to a Disputes Examination Board (see below).
• General
  • (a) After every meeting the JSC decides unanimously as to the subjects about which a communiqué will be issued or not.
  • (b) The rules of the Joint Staff Committee may be amended with the unanimous consent of the Committee. The amendments decided are submitted for final approval to the Council of Ministers. The application of any particular rule of procedure may be waived if the circumstances so require provided the Committee unanimously decides for this.
  • (c) Service in connection with the meetings and other requirements of the JSC is deemed as official duty for all purposes.
• Disputes Examination Board
• A Disputes Examination Board is established for the settlement of disputes arising between the official and the staff side of the JSC, as provided by the rules of the Committee.
• The Board is set up ad hoc and comprises one to three members. The members of the Board must be independent and impartial persons and must enjoy the trust of both sides of the JSC. They are appointed to serve on the Board with the unanimous consent of both sides. The Board is appointed by the Minister of Finance and the document of appointment also sets out the terms of reference which are decided jointly by the two sides of the JSC.
• The members of the Board must necessarily be persons with thorough knowledge and experience in labour relations and with a broad conception of matters connected with the dispute in question.
• A labour dispute is declared when all processes are exhausted and the discussions end in disagreement or deadlock, in accordance with the rules of the JSC.
• The dispute is referred to the Board within 15 days from the recording of the dispute between the two sides of the JSC.
• For each dispute referred to the Board, a joint report is prepared by the two sides setting out the background of the issue, the details in the deliberations for the JSC and the points of difference. The Board, after considering the report, invites the representatives of the two sides, either separately or jointly, to further expound their views. The Board, after completing the consideration of the issue and after taking into account all factors connected with the dispute, issues its own independent verdict. The verdict must be fully documented and includes the views of the Board for settlement of the dispute, which are not binding. The verdict is placed before the two sides which make a final effort to resolve their differences.
• The Board may at any stage during the deliberations, if it deems this expedient, exert efforts for compromise and agreement between the two sides.
• The whole procedure for the examination of a dispute referred to the Board is completed within 30 days at the latest from the date it is referred to it. The verdicts and decisions of the Board are published within 45 days from such a date, at the latest.
• The consultations and discussions in the Board are confidential. But the final verdict of the Board is made public through publication.
• In case of need for further data or for finding out all necessary information on the case under consideration the abovementioned time limits are extended by 15 days. A further extension may be given following consultation between the two sides.
• No strike action is resorted to while a labour dispute is before a Board as well as during the 15 days after the publication of the verdict.
• The expenses for the operation of the Board are borne by the Government.