Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 160, Mars 1977

Cas no 829 (Italie) - Date de la plainte: 14-OCT. -75 - Clos

1. 69. The complaint of the National Association of Commercial Airline Pilots (ANPAC) was contained in a letter of 14 October 1975. ANPAC transmitted supplementary information by letters of 20 December 1975 and 5 January and 21 April 1976. In a communication of 3 May 1976 the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) supported ANPAC's complaint. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 4 February and 26 May 1976.
2. 70. Italy 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations made by the complainants
  71. 71 In their communication of 14 October 1975 the complainants stated that there were about 1,700 airline pilots in Italy, 1,500 of whom were members of ANPAC. Of the remaining 200, 150 were spread among three unions or general Confederations of workers, while about 50 pilots, who were directors of aviation companies, did not belong to any union. When ANPAC was set up in 1952 it drew its membership mainly from Alitalia pilots: its actual membership now included many pilots from domestic airlines which did not operate regular flights. The complainants stated that they had always kept aloof from political affairs and that the Association's activities had always been confined to the occupational field. ANPAC was a full member of the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations and a founder member of Europilote and the Federation of Independent Associations of Civil Aviation Personnel.
  72. 72 The complainants added that in Italy there were four major central union organisations or Confederations, all with strong political leanings ranging from one extreme to the other. The three most important organisations (the CGIL, which was mainly Communist, the CISL, which was mainly Christian Democrat, and the third, UIL, a smaller organisation, which was Socialist and Social Democrat) had merged to set up a federation whose structure would not be restrictive. In the view of ANPAC it was not certain that this regrouping would be successful.
  73. 73 Since 1952, ANPAC continued, it had negotiated all labour agreements applicable to its members. In 1972, however, two smaller pilots' unions, represented by the major organisations which had not yet merged (SIPAC-CISL and SIPAC-CGIL-UIL) attended, for the first time, the negotiations on behalf of their members, but took only a minor part in the discussions and did not sign the national agreement, which was once again negotiated by ANPAC. When this agreement expired on 31 December 1974 ANPAC sought to open discussions with Intersind, the organisation which represents the managements of state-sponsored or state-owned companies in industrial negotiations, and also managements of privately-owned companies. At this stage, stated ANPAC, it became aware that the United Federation of Air Transport Workers (FULAT) - which from 29 January 1975 had regrouped in one union the workers of the CGIL-UIL-CISL Confederation - intended to negotiate a single agreement applicable to all aviation workers including pilots, and that consequently ANPAC could not renew the agreement covering pilots.
  74. 74 The complainants also alleged that the Minister of Labour set up a commission ostensibly to resolve the differences between ANPAC and FULAT but in practice designed principally to force ANPAC to accept a single agreement for aviation workers. ANPAC was offered the facility of appending protocols or addenda to this general agreement, but refused to do so as it considered that its interests would be completely overlooked because of the manner in which the negotiations had been conducted. The complainants added that the question remained unresolved and that it had initiated a programme of action to preserve its autonomy and its competence as the sole representative of Italian pilots in professional and safety matters. In support of its statement ANPAC referred to the various formal proposals made by the Ministry of Labour at the various meetings held before and after the preparation of a formal document by the Commission. ANPAC considered that the trade union organisations had acted as they did in order to create a monolithic body representing all aviation workers (some 25,000 workers, of whom only 5,000 to 6,000 were at that time members of FULAT) which would in turn be incorporated into a still larger group of unions. With the absorption of groups like ANPAC, the complainants saw the prime aim as being the creation of a gigantic political pressure group.
  75. 75 The complainants pointed out that the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations had already lodged protests with the Italian Government and the European Economic Community. ANPAC also appealed to the Committee on Freedom of Association against the violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, referring to the principles according to which workers have the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing and the unification of a trade union movement must not be imposed but must result from a decision freely taken by the workers. Although Italian legislation, far from imposing a system of trade union monopoly, expressly allows freedom of association, autonomy and pluralism of workers' unions, the complainants believed that the Italian State was allowing such a monopoly to develop by failing to preserve the right of ANPAC to remain a separate and autonomous trade union with the right to negotiate collective agreements on behalf of its members. The complainants requested the Committee to take these facts into consideration and to adopt appropriate measures in defence of the basic principles at issue.
  76. 76 The complainants attached voluminous documentation to its communications of 2 December 1975 and 5 January 1976 and recalled that during the meetings held at the Ministry of Labour the Minister had proposed a single collective agreement covering all aviation workers, notwithstanding ANPAC's position. The complainants pointed out that the Vice-President of the Italian Government also proposed a single agreement on 29 December 1975, part of which would be applicable to all workers and another part of which would contain special provisions for pilots.
  77. 77 In their communication of 21 April 1976 the complainants indicated that on 15 April 1976 the Minister of Labour proposed an agreement, which was attached to the letter, freezing the collective agreement until September 1977 against the wishes of ANPAC, and providing only a small increase in pay. ANPAC also mentioned that this agreement had been accepted by Intersind (the employers' organisation) and by FULAT which did not represent pilots.
• The Government's replies
  78. 78 In its communication dated 4 February 1976, the Government stated that the collective labour agreements for flight and ground personnel in airlines with mixed state and private participation had expired on 31 December 1974, as did that applicable to workers in the undertakings managing airports or airport auxiliary services. FULAT (which is affiliated to the CGIL-CISL-UIL Confederation) requested that a single collective agreement should be adopted for all air transport workers. In the case of the pilots, ANPAC, to which most of them belong, submitted an independent set of claims with a view to the renewal of the national collective agreement applicable to the pilots of airlines with mixed state and private participation. After the negotiations at the union headquarters had broken down, many meetings were held at the Ministry and all parties concerned were invited.
  79. 79 According to the Government, the position of the parties was as follows. FULAT maintained its stand as regards a single agreement for all workers in the sector so as to put an end to tension between the categories concerned. ANPAC, on the other hand, had stated that it wished to renew only the agreement applicable to pilots on the basis of the claim which it had submitted. The managements concerned - Intersind for Alitalia, ATI and SAM, and the private airlines Itavia and Alisarda - had no preconceptions regarding the respective merits of the views expressed by the unions, but considered that a preliminary clarification of the number of agreements to be concluded was necessary. The Ministry of Labour, followed by the Office of the President of the Council, continued their mediations at the request of the parties concerned in order to find a solution acceptable to both the workers' organisations and the companies. A solution was envisaged whereby matters would be settled on a unified basis where this was feasible; in other cases a separate settlement would be made to safeguard the special interests of the pilots. This solution, in the Government's view, took account of the different standpoints of the parties concerned, which all enjoy in equal degree the rights of organisation and negotiation guaranteed by the Italian Constitution and International Labour Conventions.
  80. 80 In addition, the Government considered that ANPAC's letter was irreceivable by the Committee on the following grounds:
      • (a) it took the form of a "communication" and not of a "complaint", being merely an enumeration of facts and a description of the behaviour of the Government or of trade unions, without legal effect;
      • (b) the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 which were alleged to have been violated had not been specified, and ANPAC had merely expressed judgments of a general and extra judicial nature regarding the intentions ascribed to the Government in its mediation;
      • (c) negotiations were still in progress, with the consent of ANPAC, which on 6 January 1976 had indicated its willingness to undertake fresh negotiations on the basis of the proposed mediation.
  81. 81 On the basis of decisions adopted in similar cases, the Government took the view that International Labour standards did not impose a separate contractual settlement for each category of workers organised in a union; such a settlement, if freely negotiated, could be contained either in a single over-all agreement or in separate individual agreements. The choice of instrument, added the Government, depended on different factors, which were evaluated when the agreements were renewed. The Government went on to state that its proposal, formulated following the breakdown of negotiations at the union's headquarters and in the light of the standpoints adopted by the different parties, appeared to fully respect such principles, since it recognised the specificity of certain aspects of the situation of one category of air transport workers and for this purpose provided for a separate settlement of these specific aspects of the labour relationship of the pilots and for separate negotiations. The various contracting parties could, argued the Government, exercise to the full their right to bargain independently by agreeing on a uniform settlement of matters common to all the workers in the sector, while specific problems, such as the labour relationship of the pilots, would be dealt with under separate provisions within the same regulatory framework.
  82. 82 Moreover, stated the Government, it could not be affirmed that the form of the negotiations could alter the status of the pilots which had its origin in air navigation standards, since collectively negotiated provisions could not modify imperative legal standards. Once this limitation - which depended on the principles of public law governing air navigation - had been recognised, the structure of the agreement was of no consequence: whether it was unified or made up of separate and independent elements, the contracting parties could not interfere in an area which was the province of the law.
  83. 83 The Government concluded that the settlement of the dispute which had arisen in a production sector between the contractual policy of the unions affiliated to the CGIL-CISL-UIL Confederation (conclusion of a single collective agreement) and the policy of one or a number of independent organisations (maintenance of separate agreements for each category of workers) depended exclusively on the relative strength of the organisations and thus created a problem of a basically political nature. Given this context, added the Government, the Ministry's mediation was designed to safeguard the general interests of the country by proposing to the unions a means of facilitating an orderly programming of the activity of undertakings in this important public service. This mediation, continued the Government, did not infringe the principle of freedom of association either from the point of view of the right to organise or from that of negotiation, since the Government had called together and consulted all the organisations concerned and had proposed solutions which these organisations were free to accept or to reject. In conclusion, the Government again requested that ANPAC's communication should be considered as irreceivable and that examination of the case should be adjourned since the association concerned had agreed to pursue negotiations on the basis of the Ministry's proposal.
  84. 84 In its communication of 26 May 1976 the Government stated that an agreement had been concluded at the Ministry of Labour on 15 April 1976 to settle the dispute concerning air transport personnel. The Government stated that this agreement included the proposals already made by the Ministry and that ANPAC did not participate in its drafting.
  85. 85 The Government also mentioned a statement of ANPAC which, in the Government's view, was contrary to the Association's previous position. In this statement ANPAC had noted with satisfaction the contractual structure adopted, which was in line with the views it had upheld since the beginning of the dispute, namely the establishment of five separate agreements per category, three of which were for flight personnel.
• Latest communications from the complainants and from the Government
  86. 86 Immediately prior to the meeting of the Committee, the office received a new communication from ANPAC dated 3 November 1976 in which it stated that on 15 September 1976 it signed a collective agreement with Intersind which prorogates the present collective contract to 30 September 1977 and grants small salary adjustments. It is not yet clear, states ANPAC, whether the Government will, by 30 September 1977, decide to fulfil the obligations deriving from the ratification of the ILO Conventions on freedom of association, or whether it will persist in its previous attitude. For this reason the complainants request that the examination of the case be temporarily suspended, pending the outcome of events. In. a communication dated 10 November 1976 the Government confirmed that an agreement had been signed and stated that there was no longer any basis for the complaint presented by ANPAC.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Conclusions of the Committee
  87. 87 As regards the request made by ANPAC in its latest communication, the Committee considers that the reasons put forward by the complainant organisation are insufficient to justify the suspension of the examination of the case since they do not affect the basic question involved. The Committee, accordingly, proposes to formulate its conclusions on the problems raised in the case.
  88. 88 The Committee will recall that it has on various occasions emphasised the importance it attaches to the principle that employers, including the public authorities acting as employers, should recognise for collective bargaining purposes the organisations representative of the workers employed by them, In the present case, the complainant organisation, which represents the majority of pilots, participated in the negotiations with a view to the renewal of the collective agreements for the whole of the aviation sector jointly with FULAT (which is affiliated to the single Confederation recently formed by the amalgamation of the three main Italian trade union organisations). The present case bears essentially on the dispute between the two organisations regarding the methods of negotiation and structure of the agreement or agreements to be concluded, FULAT demanding a single agreement for all aviation workers and ANPAC preferring a separate agreement for pilots. The Government intervened as a mediator and proposed a single agreement for all questions concerning the workers of the sector as a whole and a separate agreement on the specific aspects of the labour relationship of pilots. An agreement taking account of the proposals made by the Ministry was concluded on 15 April 1976 between the employers' organisation and FULAT. ANPAC did not sign this agreement.

89. The Committee is of the opinion that questions such as the one before it should be dealt with by collective bargaining and that, since ANPAC took part in all stages of the discussions, there are no grounds for believing that the Government failed to respect the principles of freedom of association, including the principles set forth in the foregoing paragraphs. This being so, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case calls for no further examination.