Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 199, Marzo 1980

Caso núm. 939 (Grecia) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 08-JUL-79 - Cerrado

1. 138. By telegram of 8 July 1979 the Association of Employees of the Industrial Undertaking Pitsos SA presented a complaint of violation of trade union rights in Greece. The complainant organisation sent additional information in support of its complaint in communications of 27 July, 17 August and 15 September 1979. The Government sent its observations by letter of 7 December 1979.
2. 139. 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. Allegations of the complainant

1. 140. The complaint refers to the dismissals of the members of the managing Committee of the Association of Employees of the Industrial Undertaking Pitsos SA and of many trade unionists in that undertaking.
2. 141. In its letter of 27 July 1979 the -complainant organisation explains that its membership consists of all the workers employed in the Pitsos SA undertaking. Under an agreement concluded between the union and the employer, no dismissals may be decided on if it is possible to find other means of coping with a reduction in the workload. Thus, in October 1978, when production had considerably slowed down in the undertaking, it was decided to reduce working hours for the entire staff and to grant compensation of 60,000 drachmas to workers who were willing to leave the undertaking voluntarily. In all, 110 persons gave notice on these terms, and there was no dispute between the workers and the employer. In the view of the complainant organisation this experience proved that problems could be solved by negotiations between the union and the employer.
3. 142. The dispute arose in April 1979 when 11 workers of the undertaking resumed their employment on completion of their military service. The employer decided to dismiss these workers and offered them financial compensation of 130,000 drachmas. Eight of them accepted this offer and three rejected it. In this connection the complainant organisation remarks that under Greek legislation the employer must re-employ a worker for at least a year following his return from military service.
4. 143. During discussions with the union, the employer stated that he was faced with the problem of reducing staff. The union then proposed the re-engagement of the three workers concerned and the granting of 60,000 drachmas compensation to workers leaving the undertaking voluntarily, as in October 1978. This solution would have enabled the employer to reduce the staff by three workers and to save over 200,000 drachmas. This offer was, however, rejected, and the employer added that it was not his intention to re-employ the 40 or 50 workers of the undertaking who were still doing their military service.
5. 144. After the negotiations had broken down the union decided to resort to strike action, by daily work stoppages of two hours notified to the employer. The purpose of these notifications was to limit the duration of the action and to enable the undertaking to open negotiations at any time. Faced with the intransigence of the employer, the union intensified its struggle and increased the length of the work stoppages to three and later four hours a day. The strike lasted four weeks.
6. 145. The employer then decided, without previous consultation, to pay the workers only one hour's wages a day, on the pretext that productivity had dropped. The union took the case to court and the employer was ordered to pay the staff the hours which they had worked. Following this court decision the undertaking resorted to a lock-out on 15 May 1979, in agreement with the Association of Greek Industries. This lock-out lasted until 30 June 1979, without the employer being able to force the workers to yield and without a settlement to the dispute.
7. 146. On 2 July 1979 an extraordinary general meeting of the staff decided to resume daily three-hour work stoppages. On 5 July the employer began dismissing workers. A total of 90 workers thus lost their jobs, including the entire managing Committee of the trade union (7 persons), the control Committee (3 persons), the substitute advisers (2 persons), the workers' delegates of the factory (10 persons), the strike Committee (25 persons) and other trade union militants. Sixty of those dismissed received no compensation. According to the complainant organisation all these dismissals were in contravention of Greek legislation, which prohibits dismissals for trade union activities. Moreover, dismissals of the president, vice-presidents, secretary and treasurer of a trade union may be pronounced only following a decision of a special Committee of a court of first instance. The employer also decided to bring an action against the workers for violation of the Penal Code. The workers, for their part, brought 60 actions against the undertaking.
8. 147. On 14 July 1979 the trade union appealed to the Minister of Labour, who pronounced the dismissals of the trade unionists of the Pitsos undertaking illegal. On the same day the employer dismissed 15 other workers, and 30 more some time later. On 18 July a tripartite meeting was organised between the representatives of the trade union and those of the undertaking and the Ministry. The employers' representatives stated on this occasion that there would be further dismissals and that the undertaking was not prepared to work with the trade union.
9. 148. The complainant organisation next describes the situation in the factory. It states that transport of personnel has been stopped, the canteen closed and the water supply cut off, and that the factory has been transformed into a ghetto continually watched by the police.
10. 149. In its communication of 17 August 1979 the complainant organisation recalls that at the outset of the crisis the employer claimed that it was his intention to abolish 45 jobs, without designating the persons affected beforehand. In reality, continues the complainant organisation, there were 250 dismissals of workers who had been carefully chosen from among the most active trade union militants.
11. 150. In its letter of 15 September 1979 the complainant organisation writes that the management convened a meeting of shareholders in order to decide on the stoppage of production and the closure of the factory. The Ministry of Labour did not, however, authorise the employer to dismiss the staff en masse but only 4 per cent of them. The management then lodged large-scale and unfounded complaints against the strikers. The complainant organisation cites cases in which flagrant errors occurred (persons dismissed for obstructing freedom to work when they were on sick leave).

B. Reply of the Government

1. 151. In its reply the Government explains that, following cutbacks in its production and sales programme, the undertaking Pitsos SA decided in January 1979 to dismiss about 150 workers by progressive stages, unless this number was reached by voluntary departures in return for payment of compensation. The trade union was informed of this decision.
2. 152. As there had been no voluntary departures by 23 March 1979, the undertaking decided to dismiss the workers with the fewest social obligations. It thus preferred to dismiss workers returning from military service and offered to pay them a sum equivalent to six months' wages in addition to the statutory compensation. In this respect the Government remarks that the legislation does not forbid the termination of the employment contract of a worker returning from military service, but it obliges the employer to pay additional compensation of six months' wages in the event of dismissal within the year following the return from military service.
3. 153. The Government next describes the events which took place in the undertaking: daily work stoppages, lock-out, resumption of activities followed by further strikes. The Government observes that the three or four-hour work stoppages upset the entire day's schedule and that production was almost nil. The undertaking then lodged complaints against the trade union officials and dismissed them without compensation. The dismissed persons in their turn brought actions for illegal dismissal and interference by the undertaking in the operation of the trade union. One of the complaints lodged by the dismissed persons was examined on 20 July 1979, following which the representatives of the undertaking were acquitted; the complaint of the undertaking was examined on 21 September 1979. The strike was pronounced unlawful and the trade union officials were sentenced to two months' imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 drachmas. The persons concerned appealed against this judgement and were released.
4. 154. After refuting the allegations of the complainant as regards the conditions in the undertaking, the Government states that the strike at the Pitsos enterprise is a classic example of what has been called the abuse of the right to strike. The Government also remarks that the Greek Constitution protects the right to strike as well as the right to work of persons wishing to do so. As regards the allegations that it has been violating Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 the Government points out that, once they have been ratified, international Conventions are an integral part of Greek national law. Consequently, it continues, the complainant organisation would have been able to appeal to the courts, which it did not do.

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 155. The Committee notes that the present case concerns the workers of an undertaking which had to make staff reductions for economic reasons. The breakdown of the negotiations between the trade union and the employer aimed at coping with this situation led to a collective dispute with daily work stoppages, followed by a lock-out. As the dispute had still not been settled when the undertaking reopened, the work stoppages were resumed.
2. 156. A first wave of collective dismissals then took place. Ninety workers were affected, almost 50 of whom exercised trade union responsibilities or otherwise represented the workers. According to the complainant, the total number of those dismissed was 250, including the most active trade union militants. These cases subsequently came before the courts, which acquitted the representatives of the undertaking, declared the strikes illegal and sentenced the trade union officials. The latter lodged an appeal against this judgement. The reply of the Government does not, however, indicate what grounds were adduced by the court for declaring the strike illegal and sentencing the trade unionists.
3. 157. The Committee feels obliged to recall, in the first place, that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment and that such protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to carry out their trade union functions, they must have the assurance that they will not be victimised by virtue of their trade union office. One way of ensuring the protection of trade union officials is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter except, of course, for serious misconduct.
4. 158. However, these principles do not necessarily imply that the fact that a person olds a trade union office confers on him immunity against dismissal irrespective of circumstances. In the present case the workers lost their jobs under a programme of dismissals on economic grounds. The Committee must, however, remark on the large numbers of trade union militants among the dismissed workers and the fact that these measures were taken following strikes to protect the jobs of workers who were threatened with dismissal. The Committee therefore wishes to draw the attention of the Government to the principles set forth in the preceding paragraph regarding the protection of trade union officials.
5. 159. In this respect the Committee wishes to recall an earlier case in which it examined Act No. 330/76 respecting occupational associations and federations and the protection of freedom of association. On that occasion it considered that measures should be envisaged to ensure fuller protection for leaders, delegates and members of trade unions against discriminatory action.
6. 160. The Committee also notes that, in a report supplied under article 22 of the ILO Constitution regarding the application of Convention No. 98, the Government stated that it envisaged the future possibility of improving the provisions for the protection of trade unionists in responsible positions in the light of the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will shortly take measures along these lines.
7. 161. Finally, the Committee notes that the members of the managing Committee of the union have been sentenced to two months' imprisonment. The appeal against the sentence is at present before the courts. In this respect the Committee feels obliged to point out that, in order to promote the development of industrial relations in a climate of mutual confidence, it would be advisable not to resort to severe penal sanctions for strike action.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 162. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to draw the Government's attention to the principles set forth in paragraph 157 above as regards protection against acts of anti-union discrimination;
   • (b) to express the hope that, in accordance with its own statements, the Government will shortly take steps to improve the legislative provisions respecting the protection of trade unionists in responsible positions;
   • (c) to draw the Government's attention to the considerations set forth in paragraph 161 above regarding the application of severe sanctions for strike action.