Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1991, Publication: 78th ILC session (1991)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Greece (Ratification: 1962)

A Government representative indicated that a new Act No. 1876 respecting free collective bargaining was adopted in 1990 and replaced an old Act No. 3239 of 1955 on collective bargaining, which was the subject of comments by the supervisory bodies. This new Act was an improvement on the previous situation, as had been noted by the Committee of Experts. The speaker explained that the delay in sending by the Government of its comments concerning the communications of certain trade union organisations was due to administrative difficulties, but that such comments had been already supplied to the ILO. According to the allegations made by the trade union organisations, the Government had acted arbitrarily to reduce wage increases provided for in the national labour agreement, with the result that the workers had lost 13 per cent of their purchasing power. The speaker stated that in its reply to these allegations the Government confirmed its firm hope for the establishment of free collective bargaining and indicated that the adoption of Act No. 1876 of 1990 was to reinforce this institution. He indicated that the most representative organisations of the country, namely the League of Greek Industries and the Greek General Confederation of Labour, had signed, as a result of free collective bargaining, a new national collective agreement for two years. The Greek workers, being aware of the difficult economic situation in the country, accepted the reduced wage increases as compared to the consumer price index increase during the period of 1991-92.

Concerning the allegations made by the trade union organisations with regard to the abolition of the automatic wage indexation in the private sector, the speaker indicated that the system introduced by Act No. 1884 of 1990 affected only workers and employees of the public sector during the four months period (May-August 1990) and was absolutely necessary, taking into account the negative evolution of almost all variable components of the national economy, such as the enormous deficit in the public sector. The introduction of such a system was necessary within the framework of the modernisation process undertaken by the Government for the sake of the national economy which experienced a difficult period of its evolution.

Those measures did not affect the private sector by virtue of section 21 of Act No. 1884 of 1990, which provided that wages for workers in this sector for the period May to August 1990 had to be determined by a supplementary national general collective agreement. That agreement had not been yet concluded. The speaker added that since the entry into force of Act No. 1884 of 1990, numerous collective agreements concerning wages had been negotiated and signed, without any intervention on the part of the Government. He pointed out that neither Act No. 1884 nor any other subsequent Act could affect the validity of the provisions of the collective agreements.

The Workers' members indicated that Act No. 1876 of 1990 might be considered as progress, since it provided for the possibility to bargain collectively at the branch and at the sector levels, and for the obligation to bargain collectively. However, in spite of the existence of this Act, the Government continued to intervene into free collective bargaining. They recalled the Committee of Experts' comments concerning the principles of free collective bargaining, and that the autonomy of the social partners constituted a fundamental aspect of the freedom of association. Any limitations should be applied only on an exceptional basis and should not exceed a reasonable period and should be accompanied by the appropriate guarantees with a view to protect the workers' level of life. The Government should reply to the comments by the Committee of Experts and communicate more detailed information on the application of the Act and the circumstances in which the Government intervenes in free collective bargaining.

The Employers' members noted that Act No. 1876 of 1990 was an improvement in the field of free collective bargaining. With reference to two interventions of the Government in 1990, they pointed out that the Convention was aiming at the "promotion" of the free collective bargaining, which did not exclude certain intervention in the case of the force majeure under the conditions determined by the Committee of Experts. They noted that these restrictive measures should not exceed a reasonable period; one could, of course, ask what constituted a reasonable period. A period of four months may be considered a limited period, according to the employers.

As regards the indexation of wages, the Employers' members considered that such indexation imposed by the law could not be in conformity with the notion of the free collective bargaining.

They stated that the explanations given by the Government representative allowed to make a conclusion that there was the intention to eliminate certain restrictions imposed on the collective bargaining and that it would certainly be possible to pursue a dialogue in the future.

The Workers' member of Greece stated that the solutions to the economic problems of his country might be found only through a real tripartite dialogue, but, in practice, the Government's policy was more and more authoritarian and arrogant. In May 1990 a law was adopted to abolish a fundamental part of the national collective agreement; in September 1990 the Government arbitrarily reduced wage increases by 50% and submitted a draft law on social security which did not provide for the tripartite participation and cancelled the increase in pensions and minimum wages from collective agreements. Thus, the road to the privatisation of the social security scheme was clear. Facing the Government's refusal to sign a national agreement on the social security, a series of strikes took place in all the important branches of the economy.

The speaker referred to provisions of Act No. 1915 of 1990, on the protection of the trade union rights, which allowed to terminate the employment of workers participating in strikes recognised as "illegal and abusive" by the court. The terminative is effective 24 hours after the judgement is pronounced and if one take into account the regularity with which tribunals judge almost all strikes to be "illegal and abusive", it can be concluded that the exercice of the right to strike has been drastically limited by judicial means. Besides, according to the new law, only the employer could fix the number and the list of workers who constituted a minimum personnel, as well as the works and services which must be guaranteed during the strikes.

The speaker pointed out that the Government abolished the financial assistance to the trade union organisations and strangled financially the trade union movement. He explained that currently the State did not participate in payments to the body called "the Workers' House" responsible for financing the administrative costs of union organisations which came exclusively from the automatic check-off of 0.25 per cent of the workers' salary together with the same sum from the employer. This body was administered by the State which intervened in an unacceptable way in the orientation and use of these receipts. It was thus financially strangling the trade union movement and, at the same time, interfered in the collection and distribution of trade union dues.

In April 1991 a national collective agreement had been signed by the GSEE and three representative employers' organisations, and in May 1991 a law had been adopted which excluded from the scope of the national collective agreement workers of the public sector having private law contracts. This was a new authoritative intervention which partly repealed the national collective agreement concluded as a result of free collective bargaining. The same law suppressed the application of a fundamental provision of No. 1876/1990 and reintroduced compulsory arbitration of social conflicts by the administrative committees provided for in Act No. 3239 of 1955, which was characterised by unacceptable interventionism of the State into the collective bargaining. He referred to the case of Mr. Stelios Koletsis, Chairman of the Workers' Federation in the Hotel and Tourism Sector and member of the executive committee of the GSEE, who had been dismissed for having attempted to defend the workers' interests in his sector, as well as to the case of Mr. Grigores Felonis, member of the regional unit excutive committee.

The speaker concluded requesting the Government representative to take up an obligation to repeal all the legislation which was not in conformity with the Convention.

The Employers' member of Greece stated that the automatic indexation of wages had existed in the country since 1982 with the consent of workers, but contrary to the employers' wish. That system was legalised in 1990, but the Government decided to abolish it for four months for purely economic reasons. At the same time it invited the social partners to find solutions through free collective bargaining. Thus, the Federation of Greek Industries, together with other employers' organisations, asked the Greek General Confederation of Labour to conclude an agreement on salaries at the national level for that period. As it was not concluded, agreements were finally concluded at the branch level and 60 per cent of workers of the private sector used them during 1990. The same results were achieved in the collective agreements for 1991 and 1992.

The Government representative, in reply to the question put by the Workers' member of Greece, pointed out that his Government could not repeal provisions referred to by the Workers' member and expressed the opinion that the social partners and the Government would have the opportunity to examine the question. He took note of the concern expressed in the Committee.

The Committee noted the observations of the Committee of Experts and of the information communicated by the Government concerning the new Act of March 1990 on collective bargaining. The Committee noted that this new legislation constituted progress as compared to the previous situation, since it provided for the right and the obligation to negotiate and made it possible to negotiate at all levels. The Committee noted that on at least two occasions the Government had intervened in wage negotiations. The Committee recalled, with reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts, the importance of the principle of the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements. The Committee expressed the hope that the dialogue between the Government and the representatives of workers and employers would lead to a better application of the Convention, as it was true that any policy of economic stabilisation must be a result of consultation and not constraint. The Committee wished to see real progress in this area in the near future.