Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2011, Publication: 100th ILC session (2011)

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

A Government representative stated that the examination of the Greek case was a difficult task because it required consideration of complex information related to the reform of the collective bargaining system undertaken in the context of the current economic crisis. Her Government was aware of the sacrifices required from its people to combat the financial crisis, which had first appeared at the end of 2008, emerged in 2009 and escalated into 2010. The Government’s priority had always been and remained the rescue of the national economy, fundamental for the sustainability of the welfare state and social cohesion. While appreciating the concerns raised by the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) regarding the right to organize and collective bargaining, the Government considered that this case, although raising important socio-political issues, was not a case of violation of the Convention.

The Government representative recalled that in 2009, Greece had entered a period of severe financial crisis, characterized by an extremely high deficit: the cost of public borrowing had become excessive, hindering the country’s ability to obtain loans. To rescue the economy, a financial support mechanism had been established at the European level between February and April 2010 and a loan of €110 billion had been provided under the terms agreed upon between Greece and the Troïka (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)). The terms of the loan scheduled the policy measures and the loan instalments in a period of three years. As far as labour law was concerned, the policies introduced in the Memoranda were epitomized on the following: the restriction of the public expenditure resulting in wage cuts, as a necessary component to control public deficit; improvement of the competitiveness of the economy through the decentralization of collective labour agreements; the reform of the wage-setting system; the development of flexible terms of employment; and reform of the social security system. The implementation of these measures had required prompt and effective adoption of new legislation introducing the following reforms. Firstly, regarding the GSEE’s allegation about the reform of the system of collective agreements introducing the possibility of deviation among them, this reform, initiated by Act No. 3845/2010 on “Measures to implement a mechanism to support the Greek economy by the Member States of the Euro area and the IMF”, decentralized the system of collective agreements, by relaxing the principle according to which the collective agreements for the national, general and sector prevailed over collective agreements at the occupational and enterprise levels. Act No. 3819/2010 further provided for special enterprise level collective agreements, which could suspend, for a limited period of time, the implementation of more favourable clauses contained in the sectoral collective agreement applying to a particular enterprise. The national general collective agreement, however, remained in force and no deviation from its terms was possible. These reforms did not touch the principle of free collective bargaining enshrined in the Convention, as unions maintained the right to conclude collective agreements. The GSEE’s allegation that the new legislation dismantled the solid machinery of the collective bargaining system was a socio-political argument but not a legal one. Secondly, regarding the GSEE’s allegation about the exceptions from the minimum wages set by the national collective agreement for children (of 15–18 years) and young workers (of 18–24 years) these measures aimed at promoting young persons’ access to the labour market and helping them to acquire work experience. The subsidization of their social security contributions by the Public Employment Service secured that their real wages remained at the level set by the national general collective agreement. Thirdly, regarding the GSEE’s allegation about permanent pay cuts introduced by Acts Nos 3833/2010 and 3845/2010 for employees in the civil service and all public sector legal entities, the said legislation was accompanied by measures to control and minimize expenses of the general government. Due to the seriousness of the situation, pay cuts had to be prompt, whereas collective bargaining was not time efficient to provide the necessary results. This was a unique and absolutely unprecedented practice in Greece. At the same time, free collective bargaining in the public sector on non-pay issues had not been affected or restricted. In the private sector, no pay cuts had been legislatively implemented and free collective bargaining had not been affected in any way. Under the heavy socio-political climate, a national general collective agreement was signed in July 2010 by the GSEE and employer’s organizations. This collective agreement was of the utmost importance since it set minimum wage standards and other minimum work conditions for all employees in the country. For the first time in the history of collective agreements in Greece, the national general collective agreement had been concluded for a three-year period to provide for the stability of wages for the year 2010 and for increase of wages from 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012, reflecting average Euro inflation of the previous year. Collective agreements signed in the country in 2010 and 2011 had similar clauses.

In 2010, the social partners showed outstanding responsibility in supporting the national effort to overcome the economic crisis, which was accompanied by the increase of unemployment and strong signs of economic recession, threatening social coherence of the country. The Government valued and respected social dialogue. However, the critical economic situation and complicated negotiations at the international level provided no room for consultations with the social partners prior to all legislative reforms. Constructive social dialogue in cases of national economic emergency was an extremely difficult task and required other time frames than those available at the time. The Government had to serve the public interest and put aside its long tradition for the observance of the free collective bargaining process, by introducing unprecedented wage cuts for employees in the public service and accelerating labour law reforms. While these measures had to some extent lowered the existing level of protection in certain labour law regulations, they had not touched upon the core of the fundamental rights set by ILO Conventions and Recommendations or the Greek Constitution. The measures affecting collective bargaining rights were limited in time and covered the years 2010 to 2012. While the Convention and the Constitution prohibited the Government from intervening in collective bargaining, these instruments did not restrict the legislator from taking measures to reform the system of collective agreements. The Government assumed full responsibility for the legislative measures taken to overcome the economic crisis. Its actions were inspired by the need to serve the public interest by saving the national economy. This case had high political sensitivity and concerned measures undertaken under the European policies and implemented under continuous monitoring and evaluation by the Troïka. Such policies may also be implemented in other countries of the European Union facing similar economic crises. While the Government appreciated the EU’s concerns and considered that the discussion of this case enhanced the awareness of the need for social cohesion, from the legal point of view, it considered itself to be in compliance with the core of ILO standards. It is in this spirit that the Government welcomed the Committee of Experts’ suggestion for a high-level mission visit and was already in touch with the Office for the necessary preparations, for the understanding of the economic and legal complexities of the Greek case and the evaluation of ILO standards observance in a developed country under economic crisis.

The Worker members stressed that the case under discussion had been selected because of the Greek trade union movement’s concerns about the legislation that had been or was going to be introduced as part of the country’s economic support measures. The information sent to the Committee of Experts concerned this Convention, but it also touched on related Conventions such as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102). Moreover, it raised some of the issues covered by collective bargaining, such as protection of wages, equal remuneration, discrimination in employment and within occupations, employment policy, minimum age, social security, labour administration and workers with family responsibilities. The Committee of Experts had called on the Government to monitor the impact of the policies adopted under the international support mechanism and to send it a detailed report on the application of the relevant Conventions in 2011, and it would therefore shortly be considering these issues in the light of the very recent adoption of a new three-year budget adjustment programme to follow that of May 2010, which would entail additional austerity measures. The disputed points with respect to the Convention concerned three laws that had been adopted under the first public finance rescue plan that had been negotiated with the countries of the Euro zone and with the IMF: Act No. 3833/2010 on the “Protection of the national economy – Emergency measures to tackle the fiscal crisis”; Act No. 3845/2010 concerning the measures to implement an economic support mechanism set up by the States Members of the Eurozone and by the IMF; and Act No. 3863/2010 on the “New social security system and relevant provisions”. Act No. 3845 completely changed the hierarchy of collective labour agreements that had been established under a 1990 Act by allowing collective agreements at the enterprise or branch level to derogate from national or sectoral agreements, thereby dismantling a robust collective bargaining system that had previously functioned without any problem. It removed children (of 15–18) and young workers of 18–24 years from the scope of collective labour agreements and allowed their wages and working conditions to be determined by decree. It also provided for drastic and permanent wage cuts in the public service, including areas where labour relations were determined by private contracts of employment as part of the collective agreement system. Those measures had been adopted either without the social partners being consulted at all or after a mere show of consulting them on predetermined conclusions. Although the reasons behind the measures were circumstantial, they were in fact structural in nature. The measures were quite disproportionate, and yet no more socially balanced options had been considered. Because of the combined effect of dismissals, wage freezes and the abandonment of minimum wage levels, those three laws would result in a permanent and unjustifiable dilution of workers’ rights, whereas the Committee of Experts had rightly pointed out that any exceptions to existing standards – even though they might be justified in particularly pressing circumstances – must be allowed only in exceptional and temporary circumstances. The experience of the trade union movement showed that governments often took advantage of crises to introduce measures that were designed to restrict workers’ rights rather than to apply carefully thought-out economic adjustment strategies. It was important to understand the real impact and implications of a case such as that of Greece and to realize that the measures that were taken were never temporary and that the ramifications of policies of austerity went far beyond the borders of a single country. As the Committee of Experts had observed in its general survey, “It appears that in some cases the imperative need to achieve fiscal consolidation has not been balanced with sufficient concern for the social and human costs of such rapid austerity measures. Not only social cohesion will be put at risk, but in such conditions the economic recovery may be accompanied by a prolonged ‘human recession’. One should also remember that governing only by financially oriented criteria may lead to an undermining of social justice and equity. Public opinion is much less ready to accept drastic austerity measures if it sees that the efforts requested are not equally distributed and shared by everyone.” There was every reason to worry that blaming too much on the crisis might in the long run invalidate the ILO’s supervisory machinery, since it undermined the very essence of the Organization’s founding principles. Greece must therefore not be allowed to become a laboratory for the radical and permanent revision of fundamental Conventions and a means of dismantling systems of collective labour relations.

The Employer members pointed out that the facts under examination concerned new legislation – austerity legislation enacted in 2010 by the Government and the Parliament to deal with a serious and structural financial and economic crisis. This was the first time that the crisis response had been brought before the Conference Committee but not the first time the Committee of Experts had made comments on the application of this Convention by Greece. Since the ratification of this Convention by Greece in 1962, the Conference Committee had discussed issues regarding its application in Greece only in 1989 and 1991. The Employer members observed that, since the Government had not communicated its reply to the Committee of Experts’ 2010 observation, the Committee of Experts views were based solely on the complainants’ allegations. For this reason, the facts on which the Committee of Experts relied upon were incomplete. Thus, the Conference Committee could not make firm recommendations. While expressing their deep concern at the grave circumstances faced by the Government, employers and workers in the country, the Employer members stressed the need to follow a careful approach in order not to make the matter more divisive or worse by pre-emptive conclusions based on an incomplete picture. The Committee’s task should be limited to discussing issues regarding the Convention. As regards the complainants’ argument concerning multiple levels of minimum wages, this was not exceptional and did not in itself constitute a violation of the Convention. On the first issue raised by the Committee of Experts concerning the need for full and frank consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations before the enactment of emergency legislation altering the machinery for collective bargaining, they pointed out that without the Government’s reply, it was not clear whether that occurred and, if so, how, or if not, why not. As regards the second issue on the potential impact of changes to the collective bargaining machinery on compliance with other ILO Conventions ratified by Greece, they commented that the Committee of Experts was conveying an impression of potential widespread breaches, which may be premature. In the absence of a Government reply, the Employer members expressed caution with regard to the Committee of Experts recommendation that the Government avail itself of technical assistance and that a high-level mission visits the country to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the issues. In this regard, the proper application of the Convention did permit emergency measures to be implemented subject to certain caveats. The terms of Article 4 of the Convention, referring to “measures appropriate to national conditions” could hardly be more relevant than in a case where there was a national economic and financial crisis in a debt laden country. The call for a mission of the type proposed by the Committee of Experts must be approached with great sensitivity at least until the Government’s position was understood, and until the situation had stabilized. Moreover, while the Committee of Experts made this suggestion, paragraph 72 of the Committee of Experts’ Report, which highlighted cases in which technical assistance for member States would be useful, did not mention Greece amongst the listed cases. While noting that legal or political observations by an international body like the ILO could be misinterpreted by outside actors and affect confidence and coherence in the direction of policy from other international actors, the Employer members urged caution in the nature and timing of ILO responses which at the very least would need the cooperation with the Government to have real benefit. Finally, they observed that the Government had indicated that an ILO mission would be welcome and this was encouraging.

The Worker member of Greece stressed that the suggestion for technical assistance was particularly welcome since the measures implemented in Greece were both complex and pervasive. She hoped that a high-level mission would fully clarify these measures and their wide ranging implications on the application of the Convention and other Conventions ratified by Greece. She stressed that not only the legislation invoked in the last comments remained in force, but over the last 12 months, various laws containing more than 100 legal provisions had been adopted, which further deconstructed the basis for collective agreements. The situation was an emergency situation but the measures were permanent, disproportionate and with harmful irreversible effects. Social dialogue degenerated into summary, informative and superficial procedure. Three times over the last year, workers in the public sector, especially public utility companies, saw their wages reduced up to 25 per cent by unilateral and permanent measures in violation of standing collective agreements. Last week, by a new unilateral decision, the Government increased the compulsory unemployment contribution in wages from 0.5 per cent to 3 per cent. A new element of concern was the thrust against sectoral collective agreements in a new law of December 2010, which established the special enterprise-level collective agreement. Under this law, any employer, by threatening with lay-offs, could effectively force a union to consent to standards lower than those of the binding sectoral agreements. Also, she/he could unilaterally or by consent convert full-time work contracts into part-time or into reduced-term rotation work, the worst form of flexible employment. This legislation, that favours potentially unions controlled by the employers, had weakened the workers’ bargaining position in many sectors crucial to the economy, such as tourism. A number of collective agreements which had expired at the beginning of 2010, covering thousands of workers, had been renewed with great delay, but yielded mostly zero wage increase, or their renewal was still pending. Moreover, recent data from the Labour Inspectorate showed a dramatic surge up to 2.725 per cent in just two months in individual contracts, mainly concerning reduced-term rotation work after the adoption of the abovementioned legislation. Individual contracts negated the very concept of negotiation and de facto undermined collective bargaining and the essence of trade unionism potentially rendering trade unions useless. Recalling the European Commission criticism over the Government’s inadequacy in eliminating sectoral agreements and replacing them with enterprise-level contracts, she pointed out that the European Commission and the IMF approach to determine by law the level of bargaining in Greece went directly against the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining embodied in Article 4 of the Convention, according to which, the determination of the bargaining level should essentially be left to the discretion of the parties. She remarked that this case posed a fundamental question regarding the value, the validity and dependability of principles under emergency conditions when they were more needed as a stable frame of reference. She concluded by stating that the qualitative and quantitative regression of the labour market, in spite of the crisis, should not settle into a long-term deep social regression and demolish social cohesion. The situation in Greece had a complex socio-political context, but the case presented by the GSEE was firmly founded on the standards framework and facts. Ratification of Conventions should be taken seriously, not only by Greece but by all parties involved in the loan mechanism. Further evidence and updated data would be presented to the ILO and hopefully to the high-level mission. The added value of this discussion lay in sending a strong message to respect standards, to uphold the autonomy of the social partners and to promote effective social dialogue in which trade unions and workers were part, and not the targets, of the solutions.

The Employer member of Greece wondered whether it was possible to declare discussion of this case inadmissible, given that the Committee of Experts had not had time to formulate observations and that the time allowed to the Government to submit its report had not yet expired for 2011. In addition, a high-level ILO mission was to visit the country just after the end of the current session of the Conference, as the Committee of Experts had also noted in its report. All those factors showed that this case had not yet reached the required maturity for discussion by the Conference Committee, unless the aim was to ensure that, from now on, the Conference Committee was seized with cases before the Committee of Experts had given its view. While taking note of the statement made by the Worker member of Greece, the speaker suggested that the Conference Committee should refrain from drawing any conclusion on the case and should await the results of the high-level mission and the comments of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of France, speaking also on behalf of the Government members of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain, stated that these countries were fully aware that since May 2010, Greece had adopted financial and legal measures with a view to reducing the public deficit and restructuring the labour market, aiming to advance the competitiveness of its economy. These countries believed in the importance of social dialogue, respect for workers’ rights and the autonomy of social partners in collective bargaining, and attached great importance to the upcoming ILO high-level mission to Greece.

The Worker member of Spain stated that the moment had come to examine this case, rather than waiting until the Greek economy had collapsed or workers’ rights no longer existed. Revising the Greek system of collective bargaining had an impact on compliance with other international labour standards and on the European social model. In reality, the crisis was being used as a pretext to dismantle a model founded on economic development and social cohesion so as to benefit financial capital and speculation. The austerity plan drawn up by the European Union using the European Governance Plan and the Pact for the Euro was founded on fiscal austerity and cutting social benefits and salaries and undermining collective bargaining, which would only serve to worsen the social situation in countries, particularly those subject to permanent control of financial markets. It was unacceptable that those who had benefited from financial rescue packages using public resources were requiring workers to make ever more sacrifices. As the Committee on Freedom of Association maintained, in the case of budget adjustments or stabilization policies that entailed restrictions on the free setting of wages, the following requirements should be met: such measures should be exceptional, restricted to those necessary, not exceed a reasonable period of time (the Committee considered three years to be too long), and accompanied by sufficient guarantees to protect workers’ standard of living. None of those requirements had been fulfilled in Greece. It was even more worrying that certain institutions, particularly the IMF, were putting pressure on some countries not to comply with international labour standards.

The Worker member of Germany emphasized that the proposals of the European Commission, Governments of Member States of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the IMF to resolve Greece’s financial difficulties had resulted in the adoption of legal and administrative measures that were undermining the fundamental rights of the social partners, and especially the trade unions. The Greek Government’s restrictions on the right of unions to bargain collectively were quite out of proportion; moreover, on the grounds that urgent measures were called for, it had imposed a wage freeze without setting any clear time frame. The Government’s attempt to occupy what had always been the social partners’ preserve should be categorically condemned, since it ran counter not only to the Convention but also to other standards of the ILO and of the European Union, whose Charter of Fundamental Rights recognized the workers’ right to form trade unions and to negotiate. In May 2011, the European Trade Union Confederation called on the ministries of economy and of finance of the European Union and on the Government of Greece to respect the autonomy of the social partners. Moreover, the fact that the European Court of Justice gave precedence to capital and services over labour rights needed to be corrected, for example by including a social progress clause in the texts governing the European Union. In conclusion, the speaker expressed his unqualified support for the recommendations of the Committee of Experts with respect to the promotion of employment and equal opportunities, decent remuneration, good working conditions and the need to respect the freedom and autonomy of the social partners in negotiating and determining conditions of employment at the enterprise and sectoral levels.

The Worker member of France stated that the Act of 5 May 2010 called into question the precedence of the national general collective agreement since agreements concluded at the sectoral and enterprise levels could deviate from the terms of the sectoral agreements and thus from the national general collective agreement. In shifting the level of bargaining towards the enterprise, the Act under discussion had some negative side effects and favoured discriminatory and exclusionary measures, especially towards young persons, and women. The dismantling of collective bargaining had its first impact in terms of unemployment, affecting four out of ten young persons. Together with Spain, Greece had the highest share of young persons among the unemployed in Europe (40 per cent against 21.4 per cent in Europe). The general unemployment rate was likely to reach 22 per cent by the end of 2011. Young workers found themselves in an unprecedented precarious situation, holding apprenticeship contracts remunerated at 70 or 80 per cent of the minimum basic wage, or holding the so-called “newly hired” contracts. Such a deviation from minimum protection was taking place at the same time as the issue of social protection had been given special importance during this session of the Conference. The fact that such contracts were not in conformity with ILO Conventions had already been recognized. The dismantling of that level of bargaining had also affected equality between men and women as demonstrated by the increased unemployment rate among women, at 18.7 per cent compared to 11.6 per cent for men, in addition to wage inequalities reaching 20 per cent. The categories most affected by such precarious conditions of employment were young women, mothers, older-aged women, and migrant female workers. She emphasized that a charity organization called SOS Village based in Athens and Thessaloniki, had registered an increase of 45 per cent in demands from single mothers only, in one year. The fact that the agreement was called into question engendered unacceptable social consequences and impacted negatively on the strategic objective of employment as reiterated in the ILO Global Jobs Pact as well as in numerous ILO Conventions. The standard-setting framework of the ILO was itself called into question by conditions imposed by the IMF which provoked a problem of coherence in the international decisions. In conclusion, the speaker stressed the need for the Conference to deliver a strong message in order to be able to come out of the economic crisis by guaranteeing protection and social cohesion through a process of democratic and inclusive debate and the respect for fundamental labour rights. She called for the strict application of the Convention.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed support for the workers of Greece in their fight against violations of their right to bargain collectively, as a result of the agreement between the IMF and the European Union. In effect, Greek workers’ rights to stability, social security, decent working hours and collective bargaining, won through struggle and sacrifice, were being undermined in tackling a crisis not of their making. The measures taken would simply lead to greater exploitation of workers to benefit monopolies. The public sector had already seen two rounds of drastic wage cuts in 2010, violating collective agreements in force, while the cost of the family shopping basket, transport and electricity had risen continuously.

The Government representative expressed her deep appreciation for the common statement made by the Governments of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain, and shared their view about the importance of the upcoming ILO high-level mission to Greece. She indicated that her comments would address only issues related to Convention No. 98 but recalled that the Government’s reply, which had already been sent to the Office, contained all necessary information regarding the other Conventions affected, according to the GSEE allegations. She also indicated that additional information would be provided to the Committee of Experts in the context of regular reporting while any further legislative developments would be discussed during the visit of the ILO high-level mission. Her Government acknowledged that current reforms were affecting labour law, but considered that the decentralization of collective agreements that had been introduced did not restrict the freedom of collective bargaining. She further pointed out that the reforms were introducing more flexibility, but as the upcoming ILO high-level mission visit would have the opportunity to attest, did not touch upon the core of ILO standards. She expressed the view that austerity measures affected mainly job opportunities and the quality of wages but these were economic factors. She noted that social dialogue concerning some of the necessary legislative measures could not take place due to the limited time available, while collective bargaining proceeded smoothly except for the question of wage cuts in the public sector. Her Government remained committed to the promotion of social dialogue, collective bargaining, trade union and social rights as fundamental values securing social cohesion. Economic policies, even in times of crisis, required the understanding and involvement of the people themselves. All measures taken by the Government, no matter how painful for the citizens and the country, had been taken, recognizing the need to maintain social cohesion. In the Government’s view, the rescue package of the Greek economy was compatible with international labour standards. The Government representative concluded by stating that the ILO high-level mission would have the opportunity to further examine the situation and appreciate the complexity of the legal and socio-political issues involved. Her Government firmly believed that there had been no violation of ILO core labour standards, and that it would be premature to draw any conclusions at this stage.

The Employer members welcomed the Government’s acceptance of a high-level mission. They noted the statements of the employer and worker members of Greece that conveyed the right spirit with which the Committee ought to deal with matters of significant economic, industrial and social concern. The Employer members felt that steps had been taken and it was important to ensure that these did not offend the principles and provisions of the Convention. They stressed that the Committee’s conclusions needed to be realistic, to convey a thorough understanding of the situation, and to be respectful of the support that was being provided to Greece by European Union Member States and the International Monetary Fund. The Committee had to remain conscious of the broader picture. It needed to express its concern about the circumstances facing, not just the workers and the employers in the country, but also the Government, as it sought to navigate through the crisis. The Employer members expressed the view that based on the discussion and the willingness of the Government to accept further information-gathering, fact-finding and analysis, the foundations were laid for a proper assessment of the Convention.

The Worker members considered it was important for the Committee to send a strong message to international organizations and financial institutions, in view of the present global context in which anti-crisis measures were eroding workers’ rights. The economic policies adopted to overcome the crisis and to achieve economic recovery could not be effective if they did not take into account the need to guarantee social cohesion and the social protection of all citizens. The drastic deregulation of industrial relations which was taking place in Greece would not lead to economic development or maintain the competitiveness of enterprises. In that context, the Government should embark on effective and open tripartite dialogue on the measures which had been adopted in the framework of a rescue plan, without any consultation with the social partners. That dialogue would have the objective of verifying whether the financial rescue measures which had been taken, and which jeopardized the system of industrial relations, were really justified. It would also provide an opportunity for an assessment to be made of whether it was more appropriate to adapt temporarily the Industrial Relations Act, which had up to now guaranteed social peace, rather than undertaking a definitive reform of the Act. Finally, it would show the extent to which the information communicated by the Government representative gave effect to the principles contained in the Convention. The Worker members welcomed the proposal made by the Government to accept a high-level mission and expressed the hope that the mission would address the entirety of the points raised in the discussion and that it would also contact the EU and the IMF.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative concerning the reform of the collective bargaining legal framework due to the current economic crisis. She stressed that the Government’s top priority was, and remains, the rescue of the national economy as a fundamental requirement for the sustainability of the welfare state and maintaining social dialogue. She recalled that the terms of the necessary loan agreement between the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were stipulated in the Memoranda accompanying it. As regards the pay cuts in the civil service and the public sector legal entities, the Government representative stated that, due to the seriousness of the situation, the pay cuts had to be prompt and collective bargaining in these circumstances was not time efficient. While reaffirming the great importance which the Government attached to social dialogue, she emphasized that the critical economic situation and the complicated negotiations at international level provided no room for consultation with the social partners prior to the legislative reforms. The Committee noted that the Committee of Experts had before it numerous allegations from the Greek unions concerning the non-application of the Convention, particularly as regards the promotion of collective bargaining and the autonomy of the bargaining partners.

The Committee welcomed the constructive nature of this discussion on a subject whose consequence went far beyond the particular matter before it. It recalled the importance of the principle that restrictions on collective bargaining as part of a stabilization policy should be imposed only as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and they should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards. It looked forward to having at its disposal full information to enable it to determine whether this principle is being applied. The Committee requested the Government to intensify its efforts and undertake full and frank dialogue with the social partners to review the impact of the austerity measures taken or envisaged with a view to ensuring that the provisions of the Convention are fully taken into account in future action. It welcomed the Government’s indication that it was working on arrangements with the ILO for the visit of the High-Level Mission proposed by the Committee of Experts. It considered that contact with the IMF and the European Union would also assist the Mission in its understanding of the situation. It invited the Government to provide additional detailed information to the Committee of Experts this year on the matters raised under the Convention and on the impact of the abovementioned measures on the application of the Convention.