Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2000, publiée 89ème session CIT (2001)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Croatie (Ratification: 1991)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

Referring to its previous comments in which it had requested the Government to amend the Croatian Railways Act of 1994 to ensure that minimum services to be maintained during a strike are limited to operations that are strictly necessary to avoid endangering the life or normal living conditions of the whole or part of the population, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the Act amending the Croatian Railways Act (Official Gazette, No. 162/99) sets out, in its article 16(a), the manner for determining minimum rail services during a strike. Article 16(a) provides that, inter alia, with regard to passenger traffic, the management shall, in consultation with trade unions, specify in annual timetables which trains for transportation of passengers and goods must operate during a strike. If the trade union does not accept the management’s decision, it may file a complaint to a special arbitration board.

Article 2 of the Convention.  The Committee had noted that article 165 of the new Labour Act provides that a minimum of ten individuals of full age is necessary to establish an employers’ association. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that it has initiated a procedure aimed at amending article 165(2) of the Act which would now provide that an employers’ association can be established by at least three legal or physical persons. The Committee takes note with interest of this information and requests the Government to send it a copy of the proposed amendment once it has been adopted.

Article 3.  The Committee had noted that the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia had criticized the Law on Associations, particularly as regards its provisions concerning the property and the transfer of the assets of social organizations. In this respect, the Committee had noted the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1938 (see 309th Report, paragraph 185, and 310th Report, paragraph 17) in which it requested the Government to determine the criteria for the division of immovable assets formerly owned by the trade unions in consultation with the trade unions concerned should they be unable to reach an agreement among themselves, and fix a clear and reasonable time frame for the completion of the division of the property once the period of negotiation has passed. In its latest report, the Government indicates that it has not proposed to the Parliament the criteria for division for trade union property since the trade unions have informed it that an agreement was reached among trade union confederations for the solution of the problem without the Government’s interference. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

Articles 3 and 10.  Finally, the Committee had requested the Government to comment on the observations made by the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia and the Croatian Associations of Unions concerning two decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia of 15 May 1996 and 11 July 1996. In these decisions, the Court, referring to article 209 of the Labour Act, declared that strikes for the purpose of protesting against unpaid salaries were unlawful. The Court stated that such strikes did not meet the prerequisites for a strike to be legitimate as regards its purpose. In its latest report, the Government indicates that in the two decisions referred above, the Supreme Court had to consider whether the strike to be carried out was really motivated by the reasons stated in article 210 of the Labour Act and it was for it to determine when an employee’s individual labour dispute on non-payment of salaries represented an action to protect economic and social interests of trade union members. Nevertheless, the Government indicates that it has assessed that the provisions of article 210 are not sufficiently clear and has therefore proposed that this article be amended by adding an explicit provision stating that "non-payment of wage or sickness benefit within 30 days of it being due is a legitimate reason for a strike". The Committee takes note with interest of this information and requests the Government to send it a copy of the proposed amendment once it has been adopted.