Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2013, Publication: 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

A Government representative welcomed the acknowledgement by the Committee of Experts of the grave and exceptional circumstances experienced in Greece. Her Government also welcomed the recognition by the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) of the exceptional and particularly dire conditions brought about by the financial fiscal crisis in Greece, and of the continuous efforts made by all the parties, the Government and the social partners, to address them. In June 2011, this Committee had had the opportunity to discuss this case and had recommended in its conclusions, that an ILO high-level mission visit Greece in order to explore the complexity of the issues involved. The Government representative reiterated that the bailout plan for the Greek economy envisaged the implementation of measures that would enhance labour market flexibility and ensure, at the same time, both the protection of workers and the competitiveness of the Greek economy. Measures had been adopted to restructure the system of free collective bargaining, in compliance with the principles set in the Convention. These measures had reformed the collective bargaining system by establishing decentralization in the implementation of collective agreements, placing emphasis on the enterprise level in order to facilitate the adjustment of wages to the economic potential of enterprises. Furthermore, the statutory minimum wages complemented the wage-setting system, filling the gaps between the collective agreements, as the statutory extension of collective agreements had been suspended since November 2011 by Act No. 4024/2011, together with the application of the favourability principle in case of conflict between collective agreements concluded at different levels. These reforms had been outlined in the updated Memoranda attached to the revised economic adjustment plans of the international loan agreements, signed between the Government of Greece and the Troika (the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)). However, despite the provisions included in the Memoranda for social dialogue on all issues related to labour market reforms, political conditions and timetables had hindered such a process.

In light of the above, and in particular with regard to comments of the Committee of Experts on the development of a comprehensive vision for labour relations, she stated that the Minister of Labour, Social Security and Welfare had initiated, since July 2012, a new round of consultations with the representatives of the social partners, in the belief that social dialogue, on the one hand, would contribute to the restoration of balance in the labour market and, on the other, would enhance its efficiency and smooth operation. With regard to the importance of a space for social dialogue and the role of social partners in reviewing the measures already taken, the speaker indicated that in relation to setting minimum wages, a new system for fixing the statutory minimum wage had been introduced in December 2012 by Act No. 4093/2012. The Act stipulated that by virtue of a Ministerial Cabinet Decree, the statutory minimum wage-fixing process would be defined taking into account the state and prospects of the economy and of the labour market (especially in terms of employment and unemployment rates). Consultations between the Government and representatives of the social partners, as well as specialized scientific, research and other bodies would be held in this process. Meanwhile, Act No. 4093/2012 determined the statutory minimum daily and monthly wages as provided for by Ministerial Cabinet Decree No. 6/2012. The minimum wage served as a safety threshold for all workers in the country, which meant that all types of collective agreements, including the National General Collective Agreement (NGCA), might establish wages higher than the statutory minimum wages. The NGCA remained the cornerstone of the collective bargaining system due to the general implementation of its non-wage clauses, whereas wage clauses of the NGCA applied only to employees working for employers represented by the signatory employers’ organizations. On 14 May 2013, a new NGCA had been signed, demonstrating the consensus of the signatory parties to reinforce bipartite social dialogue. Moreover, since July 2012, successful collective bargaining had taken place at the sectoral level, resulting in the conclusion of collective agreements in major sectors of the Greek economy, such as tourism, commerce, private health services and the banking sector. With regard to collective bargaining at the enterprise level, 976 collective agreements had been signed in 2012 compared to 179 in 2011. These collective agreements had been signed either by trade unions or associations of persons. The association of persons gave a collective voice to employees at the enterprise level and was legally qualified as a trade union, according to Act No. 1264/1982. Furthermore, by virtue of Act No. 4024/2011, it was possible to establish an association of persons in small firms of less than 20 employees. These associations of persons ensured high union density due to a participation requirement of three-fifths of the employees in the enterprise, and they acquired the right to sign a collective agreement only if there were no enterprise trade unions. The speaker observed that the requirement for the establishment of a trade union, was at least 20 members, and the union was nullified when its members were less than ten. She emphasized that the above clarifications demonstrated the compliance of all reforms with the provisions of the Convention. While ensuring the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining, the Conference did not imply a certain system to be applicable and did not prohibit the reform of a national system, provided that the core of these rights was respected. Regarding the funding of the Organization for Mediation and Arbitration (OMED), the “Special Fund for the Implementation of Social Policies” (ELEKP) had been established in 2013, by virtue of Act No. 4144. The operation of this fund lay within the competence of the Manpower Employment Organization (OAED), which had assumed the responsibilities of the Workers’ Social Fund (OEE), including the funding of OMED.

The report of the ILO high-level mission had already provided valuable insight into the positions shared by the Government, the social partners and the international bodies involved in the international loan agreement, namely the Troika. In light of the above, the Government welcomed the cooperation with the ILO. The Government representative indicated that she was looking forward to the national seminar in the framework of the initiative “Promoting a balanced and inclusive recovery from the crisis in Europe through sound industrial relations and social dialogue” organized jointly by the ILO and the European Commission in Greece at the end of June 2013. The Government expected that this seminar could initiate the re‑engagement in social dialogue to implement policies enhancing economic growth, combating unemployment and protecting workers’ living standards.

The Employer members observed that this case raised a variety of issues relating to the recent financial and economic crisis in the country, and it was important to focus only on the issues relating to the Government’s application of the Convention. The CFA had recently reviewed substantially similar allegations concerning the Government’s application of the Convention. Although it was not always appropriate to refer to the conclusions of the CFA, due to that Committee’s specific mandate, the context of the case it had examined was similar to that of the present discussion. In this regard, qualifying the context of the country as grave and exceptional, the CFA had in its conclusions, called for the promotion and strengthening of social dialogue, as had the Committee of Experts. Likewise, when the Conference Committee had reviewed this case during its 2011 session, it had also concluded that the Government needed to make a better effort to engage in social dialogue. In addition, the Convention allowed for emergency measures to be implemented subject to certain caveats. Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention expressly referred to taking measures appropriate to national conditions. This was incredibly relevant in this context, as the country was debt-laden and experiencing a financial and economic crisis.

The Worker members recalled that the case raised the issue of the relevance of the austerity policies pursued within the European Union, particularly the Eurozone. According to the Government itself, the harsh measures adopted had been practically dictated by the Troika in exchange for the provision of loans which the country urgently needed. The report of the ILO high-level mission was largely supportive of the Government. Nevertheless, the Government remained ultimately responsible for the policies that it was implementing. The conclusions of the Ninth European Regional Meeting held in Oslo in 2013 reaffirmed the desire of the tripartite constituents to pursue an upward course out of the crisis. In the present case there was a visible need to increase the coherence of policies with international and regional organizations and institutions on macroeconomic, labour market, employment and social protection issues, as underlined by the Oslo Declaration in 2013. The Worker members endorsed the Committee of Experts’ request for the creation of a space in which the social partners would be able to participate fully in the determination of any subsequent amendments to the agreements with the Troika, relating to aspects that represented the very core of industrial relations, social dialogue and social peace. With a view to enabling a job-rich recovery, consultations needed to be held between the Government and the social partners regarding: the protection of wages and their purchasing power; the formulation and implementation of labour market policy measures; the means of tackling pay inequality issues, including collective bargaining; the future of social security; the reform of the labour administration system; and collective bargaining in the public service. The Worker members echoed the concerns of the Committee of Experts regarding the measures taken under the law of 12 February 2012, concerning the approval of the plan for credit facilitation agreements in the context of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). That law aggravated the situation by imposing the abolition or renegotiation of collective labour agreements, which had been converted into agreements of indefinite duration. In particular, it enabled collective agreements to be concluded, on the workers’ side, not by representative trade unions but by “associations of persons” which did not offer the guarantees of independence corresponding to workers’ representatives. Finally, the Government had unilaterally imposed various flexibility measures, which gave employers numerous possibilities for making unilateral changes to key conditions in employment contracts. Voicing their deep concern for the Greek workers, the Worker members endorsed the declaration in the report of the ILO high-level mission to the effect that the ILO should have the capacity to assist the social partners in discussions regarding a model for social dialogue and collective bargaining, enabling them to preserve their role especially in collective bargaining at sectoral level.

The Worker member of Greece expressed the view that social dialogue and collective bargaining had been used as leverage tools for the negotiations of the loan mechanism and that authoritarian unilateralism had replaced democratic tripartism, thus making the social partners redundant. In February 2012, the social partners in Greece had been engaged in talks on a broad agenda, including the freezing of the national minimum wage for the next two or three years. The social partners had been renegotiating an agreement that was to expire after a year. However, this round of collective bargaining had never been concluded: the Government, under pressure from the Troika, had, despite its pledges to respect social dialogue outcomes, unilaterally legislated a 22 per cent slash in the national minimum wage, thereby bringing wages to below subsistence levels. This interference by the Government had given the final blow to labour institutions. Moreover, the Government had virtually abolished collective bargaining outcomes, as set out in the NGCA; had wiped out jointly agreed-upon minimum standards of work; had pushed huge groups of workers below the poverty thresholds, as social security contributions and taxes had been included in the gross amount of the wages; and had automatically reduced minimum welfare benefits that were directly linked by law to the minimum wage. She declared that since 2010, there had been a steady disintegration of a once functioning industrial relations system. While the IMF and the European Commission had described government interventions to reduce the scope of collective bargaining rights and diminish the wage-setting powers of trade unions as “employment friendly” policies, this was a sorely tested fallacy: spiralling unemployment, poverty, relentless recession, bankrupt businesses and households, and a gravely disinvested economy confirmed their wholesale failure. The IMF itself had recently admitted this failure.

Referring to the Committee of Experts, she stressed that weakening collective bargaining had hurt recovery; that collective bargaining was key for constructive processes that linked crisis responses to the real economy; and that social dialogue was vital in crisis situations. Moreover, the speaker pointed out that workers had been doubly disempowered: serious economic disempowerment was compounded by a critical loss of institutional capability to survive in an increasingly hostile labour market. She emphasized the need for intensive, frank, constructive and meaningful social dialogue, which was key for a comprehensive vision of labour relations. One starting point for such a vision was the NGCA and the notion that the wage-setting mechanism should fully conform to international labour standards, which means that it should be governed by collective bargaining. Taking into account the recommendations made by the ILO on various occasions, the speaker argued that overt intervention in lawful wage-setting mechanisms violated the core of the Convention, expressed grave concern with regard to the impact of the situation on collective bargaining processes, and expressed the hope that the Committee would deliver a strong message on the imperative need to respect labour rights as fundamental human rights, while implementing fiscal and social strategy measures. Lastly, she emphasized that the argument that social dialogue was an unaffordable luxury in times of crisis and that it was better for the State to simply intervene, was unwise and politically hazardous, as it ignored the political and economic added value of social dialogue for the operation of the system and for social cohesion. Social dialogue was not an idle discussion between opposing parties but a fundamental political and social process which, when destroyed, led to the vices of undemocratic decision-making.

The Employer member of Greece stated that, in the report of the Committee of Experts, five points of alleged non-conformity of the national legislation with the Convention could be identified. With regard to the first two points, the Committee had said that there had been no violation of the Convention considering that the legal imposition of a maximum three-year period for collective agreements was not contrary to the Convention, provided that the parties were free to agree on a different duration. The same applied to the abolition of unilateral recourse to compulsory arbitration under Act No. 4046 of 2012 and Act No. 6 of 28 February 2012 of the Council of Ministers. Currently, recourse to arbitration was only possible with the consent of all the interested parties. Furthermore, the CFA had adopted the same position regarding the abolition of compulsory arbitration in Greece. The legislation was thus in conformity with the provisions of Article 6 of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), Voluntary Conciliation and Arbitration Recommendation, 1951 (No. 92), and Collective Bargaining Recommendation, 1981 (No. 163). The speaker considered that the most difficult issue concerned the third point relating to interventions by the legislature regarding the content of the NGCA, which in fact played the role of an inter-occupational collective agreement. For decades, this collective agreement had determined wages and other minimum conditions of work applicable to all employers and all workers in the country, regardless of their trade union affiliation. However, the legislative intervention had had the effect of significantly reducing the minimum wages fixed by the 2010 inter-occupational collective agreement. This intervention had also suspended wage increases and the payment of seniority bonuses provided for in collective agreements at all levels. Furthermore, she specified that the levels of wages and all other forms of remuneration provided for in an inter-occupational collective agreement would only be compulsory for employers affiliated to signatory organizations. As regards other questions (for example, additional paid holidays), the inter-occupational collective agreement would apply to all employers and workers in the country. Minimum wages would from now on be determined through administrative means, after consultation of, inter alia, the social partners. In that context, the legal reduction of minimum wages laid down in the inter-occupational collective agreement was certainly contrary to Article 4 of the Convention, as was the suspension of the clauses relating to wage increases on the basis of seniority. However, the same did not apply to the future fixing of wages by administrative means, to which the Convention was not opposed. It should be noted that all interference in the content of collective agreements, whether or not justified by the gravity and exceptional nature of the economic crisis in the country, concerned the collective agreements in force at the time of publication of the respective laws. Currently, the contracting parties were not subject to any restriction regarding the content of collective agreements. However, in the current absence of a NGCA, it was up to the former signatory parties to find the means to emerge from the impasse. Referring to the definition of “collective agreements” in the Collective Agreements Recommendation, 1951 (No. 91), the speaker indicated that, to facilitate the conclusion of a collective agreement in an enterprise which did not have any enterprise union, Act No. 4024/2011 allowed workers to be represented to that effect by a “association of persons”. The association of persons actually belonged to the category of primary-level trade unions which had been recognized since 1982 by the basic law on trade unions. It had always enjoyed the right to strike without any concerns being raised in this regard. The recognition of the association of persons as a social partner actually represented a logical and even necessary development, since it constituted no more than a supplementary form of trade union organization. However, these associations had to account for at least 60 per cent of the workers of the enterprise, whereas enterprise trade unions were authorized to conclude a collective agreement regardless of the size of its membership. The last point concerned the relationship between enterprise collective agreements and branch collective agreements. Initially, in the event of a conflict between these two types of collective agreements, the agreement most favourable to the employees prevailed. Nowadays, enterprise collective agreements, even the least advantageous to the employees, always prevailed over branch collective agreements. The favourability principle had therefore given way to the “speciality” principle, inasmuch as the agreement closest to the employment relationship to be regulated applied. Since there did not appear to be any international rule establishing a hierarchy among the various levels of collective agreements, the legislative reform would enable enterprises to adjust their wage bill to their own economic situation, in such a manner as to preserve jobs.

In conclusion, the speaker recognized that collective bargaining was currently going through a difficult phase; the change in the legal context having somewhat disrupted collective labour relations. Hence the issues in question were not legal ones but rather of a political and economic nature. Lastly, the speaker indicated that the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises and Industries (SEV), as the most representative employers’ organization, had several times expressed its commitment to social dialogue and collective bargaining, and had declared its willingness to participate, with the workers’ confederation and the Government, in any joint platform at the appropriate level with a view to finding adequate solutions to the current situation, with the assistance of the Office.

The Government member of France, speaking also on behalf of the Government members of Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain, considered that social dialogue was a privileged instrument for government action, in particular through the consultation of the social partners in the process of economic reform. Greece was currently facing an unprecedented crisis the effects of which had been particularly severe for the country. In such a difficult context, due note should be taken of the Government’s undertaking vis-à-vis the Committee to respect the principles of the Convention and of its intention to protect workers’ living standards. The Government could only be encouraged to continue along those lines.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom stated that the application of the Convention was a fundamental building block in enhancing social protection and strengthening social dialogue. Greece had established well-developed machinery and institutions for collective bargaining, which were now experiencing wide interference, with profound effects on the lives of workers, their families and communities. The measures of the Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies were dismantling almost every aspect of the collective bargaining system. The NGCA had been abolished. Ninty per cent of the workforce in small enterprises could not join a union. With pay cuts and slashed pensions, poverty in Greece was soaring. More than one third of the population had an income of less than the poverty line set at just over €7,000 per year per person in 2012, and almost 44 per cent of children lived below the poverty line. There was little social assistance and few received unemployment benefits. It was estimated that at least 40,000 people were homeless. There had been an explosive growth in soup kitchens and a sharp drop in access to medicine and health services. She considered that this Committee must demand that the Convention be respected, that social dialogue be reinstated, and that workers and their organizations be able to participate in decisions about labour market and living standards. The fact of an economic crisis made these demands even more critical, not less.

The Worker member of France observed that, for three years, Greek workers had suffered from unusually brutal and widespread austerity measures, which had plunged the country into deep recession and seriously restricted the economic and social rights of employees and pensioners. The most vulnerable sectors of society had been particularly affected by the measures that the Government had implemented in an effort to apply the policies imposed by the European Union and the IMF. In that regard, the Government had passed several laws since 2010; on 5 March 2010, an austerity law (No. 3833/2010) had imposed severe wage and paid leave cuts in the public and private sectors, which had already been cut, once again, under a subsequent law. The right to collective bargaining was controlled by the Government, which prohibited the conclusion of collective agreements that might lead to a wage increase. The favourability principle that had guaranteed that collective agreements at company or local levels could not derogate from the provisions of national or sectoral conventions, but could improve or supplement them, had been discontinued. The situation was made worse by the prohibition against forming trade unions in small and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee of Experts had rightly considered that the Government should allow the exercise of freedom of association in small and medium-sized enterprises with 20 workers or fewer in order to guarantee that trade union organizations could exercise the right to collective bargaining and maintain the favourability principle, as enshrined in Recommendation No. 91. The Government had also taken measures deregulating the labour market and making it more flexible, and had reduced the amount of welfare benefits. All those restrictive and socially regressive measured openly violated Greece’s international commitments. Nonetheless, on 5 May 2013, a national collective agreement had been signed by the majority of employers’ organizations and the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE), in an effort to maintain for the future the existence of this general private sector agreement, which demonstrated the fact that the main social partners remained committed to the principle of independent collective bargaining. There was no doubt that there were serious, ongoing violations of the Convention. The 2012 report of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the 2011 report of the ILO high-level mission and the more recent report of the CFA, all corroborated the opinion of the Committee of Experts that there had been serious violations of fundamental workers’ rights. If emergency measures had been necessary, they should have been the subject of prior consultations and negotiations should have been in force for a very limited time. However, the Government had chosen to deny all social rights as well as the established jurisprudence. The violations of the Convention observed by the supervisory bodies were the result of deliberate political decisions which affected trade unions’ right to organize and the right to collective bargaining, thus hugely and needlessly reducing workers’ and pensioners’ standards of living, instead of planning to restructure the debt over the longer term, or taking other measures that would not ruin the economy. The Committee should strongly denounce that situation and require the Government to fully respect freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, and to put an end to socially regressive policies.

The Worker member of Italy stated that the labour market restructuring and austerity measures had had a very high cost for Greek society, hitting harder the most vulnerable: children, the elderly and migrants, especially women in those groups. As a consequence, the right to work had been severely compromised, which set a dangerous precedent for the European social model and governance. Unemployment was today more than double the Eurozone average rate, registering a 95 per cent increase in three years (2009–11) and reaching 27 per cent in February 2013. Austerity measures widened inequality and the gender gap in employment: unemployment for women was much higher than that of men, and women were more affected by legislation promoting flexibility in the labour market. The Greek Ombudsperson had reported a steady increase of complaints concerning unfair dismissals due to pregnancy or maternity leave or sexual harassment. The blind attack led against collective bargaining systems had entailed the deliberate dismantling of the welfare state on one side and a growing black market for labour on another side. Decentralization of the labour market was indeed the central objective of the Troika. The UN Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt, had noted, on his recent mission to Greece, that the prospects of a significant part of the population to access the job market and secure an adequate standard of living in line with international human rights standards had been compromised. The most highly educated workers were leaving the country, posing a threat to the national potential. These facts proved that austerity policies were only worsening the situation.

An observer representing Public Services International (PSI) stated that successive “rescue” packages were presented as an extreme remedy to save Greece from bankruptcy. Their provisions were summarily incorporated into Greek legislation and implemented instead of using collective bargaining as a means of achieving greater efficiency and better management of enterprises and public institutions. Moreover, the Troika had been pressuring the Government since February 2012 to cut 150,000 public sector jobs by 2015, which would have a wide impact on living standards and the potential for employment of future and current generations. She pointed out that quality public services were the foundation of democratic societies and successful economies. The driving force of the privatization of these services was the maximization of corporate profits rather than public interest. One of the key demands of the Troika was that the Government undertake massive privatizations to raise funds (€50 billion) so as to reduce the public debt. Among the enterprises targeted for privatization were public utilities which provided essential public services such as water and sanitation and energy. Moreover, public health systems had become increasingly inaccessible, in particular for poor citizens and marginalized groups, due to increased fees and co-payments, closure of hospitals and health care centres, and more and more people losing public health insurance cover, mainly due to prolonged unemployment. She recalled that the Convention applied to public service workers, with the only possible exception of the police and armed forces, and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, and demanded that public sector workers’ rights to collective bargaining be respected and that the current crisis should not be used as an excuse for dismantling social dialogue mechanisms in Greece. The austerity programme was being implemented in the context of a social protection system, which was characterized by protection gaps and which, in its current form, was not able to absorb the shock of unemployment, reductions of salaries and tax increases. Instead of strengthening the social safety net and making it more comprehensive, priority appeared to have been accorded to fiscal consolidation at the expense of the welfare of the Greek people. She called on the Government to engage in meaningful collective bargaining as one of the main instruments of getting out of this crisis and re-building democratic structures.

The Government representative assured that her Government would take serious note of all comments, and expressed particular appreciation for the common statement made by the Government members of Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain, sharing their belief in the importance of social dialogue in the process of economic reforms. With respect to the points raised by the Employer and Worker members, she observed that the joint declarations by the social partners on issues referring to the collective bargaining system had failed to address all the key issues of the reforms with consensus and did not constitute social dialogue per se. The reform of the collective bargaining system was a political issue which did not touch upon the legal aspects of the Convention. The rationale behind the reform was to increase flexibility of the wage-setting system and swiftly adjust wages to the conditions of the Greek economy. In particular, the NGCA wage cuts were temporary, since they could be modified through collective bargaining process. The restrictions of the scope of application of the NGCA had been introduced in relation to the establishment of the statutory minimum wage system. This reform was a political issue to be addressed only by consensus of the social partners, mainly by expanding the applicability of the NGCA through increasing the participation of the signatory employers’ organizations, and by setting minimum wages different from the statutory minimum wage. Unfortunately, the NGCA of 14 May 2013 had not set minimum wages, which demonstrated the difficulties of the bipartite social dialogue and the necessity of the statutory minimum wages. The duration of collective agreements, albeit, determined by law at a maximum of three years, did not hinder the signatory parties to agree otherwise and reaffirm by exercising their right to collective bargaining, the continuation of the collective agreements. This practice was widespread in the ethics of collective bargaining in Greece since 60 years, as the signatory parties used to update by amendments their long standing collective agreements. Despite the abolition of the unilateral recourse to arbitration, the restricted mandate of the arbitrators to issue awards only upon basic wages, did not prevent the signatory parties to agree upon a different system of collective dispute resolution that would provide a wide mandate to the arbitrators for all issues of common concern. This possibility was established in section 14 of Act 1876/1990 and, if included in the NGCA, could be binding for all employers and employees in the country. Lastly, she pointed out that the abovementioned issues demonstrated the need for a comprehensive social dialogue at all levels which had to be embraced by the social partners. To this end, the Government looked forward to the active engagement of the ILO to help build solid and effective social dialogue to overcome the economic crisis.

The Employer members expressed their appreciation for the robust discussion on this case. While hearing a lot of serious concern expressed by various speakers in their contributions, they pointed out that many statements related to the economic upheaval in Greece and not to its compliance with the Convention. They referred to the massive changes taking place in Greece and underlined that it took time to adapt to change. In this regard, the Convention did not require a specific system of collective bargaining. Therefore, and recalling that the CFA had referred to the situation in Greece as grave and exceptional, the Employer members expressed the hope that the conclusions, while focusing on the application of the Convention, would be realistic given the context. Lastly, they noted that there had been some consensus on increasing social dialogue, and also called for measures to this end.

The Worker members expressed their firm support for the Committee of Experts’ request for the creation of a space for the social partners that would enable them to be fully involved in the determination of any further alterations within the framework of the agreements with the Troika, that touched upon matters that went to the heart of labour relations, social dialogue and social peace. They echoed the Committee of Experts’ call on the Government to review within that forum, in conjunction with the social partners, all the measures that had been discussed before the Conference Committee, with a view to limiting their impact and duration and to ensuring proper guarantees to protect workers’ living standards. The Worker members strongly urged the Government to ensure that the social partners could play an active role in any wage-setting mechanism. The Worker members strongly urged the Government, within the framework of the follow-up to the 2011 high-level mission, to accept, as a matter of urgency, a programme of technical assistance and cooperation for itself and the social partners to help create a space for social dialogue, taking as a starting point the NGCA and aiming at the implementation of the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Government should submit a report to the Committee of Experts at its next meeting to enable it to assess the progress achieved.

Conclusions

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

The Committee observed that the outstanding issues in this case concerned numerous interventions in collective agreements and allegations that, within the context of austerity measures imposed by loan agreements between the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund and the Greek Government in a context characterized as grave and exceptional, collective bargaining was seriously weakened and the autonomy of the bargaining partners violated.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative concerning the reform of the collective bargaining legal framework through the establishment of decentralization in the implementation of collective agreements due to the economic crisis. She further provided information on the Special Fund for the Implementation of Social Policies (ELEKP) that had been established in 2013 and was being operated by the Manpower Employment Organization (OAED), which had assumed responsibility for the Workers’ Social Fund, including the funding of the Organization for Mediation and Arbitration (OMED). She stated, however, that the statutory minimum wage fixing process which would be established by ministerial decree would be defined in consultation with the social partners. She reiterated 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. She observed that the national seminar on promoting a balanced and inclusive recovery through sound industrial relations and social dialogue, jointly organized by the ILO and the European Commission on 25 and 26 June, would provide an important opportunity to capitalize on ILO experience to reinforce trust on common goals and confidence between social partners and the Government. She expressed her expectation that this event would initiate the re-engagement in social dialogue to implement policies enhancing economic growth, combating unemployment and protecting workers’ living standards.

The Committee recalled that the interference in collective agreements as part of a stabilization policy should only be imposed as an exceptional measure, limited in time and degree, and accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards. Mindful of the importance of full and frank dialogue with the social partners concerned to review the impact of austerity measures and the measures to be taken in times of crisis, the Committee requested the Government to intensify its efforts, with ILO technical assistance, to establish a functioning model of social dialogue on all issues of concern with a view to promoting collective bargaining, social cohesion and social peace in full conformity with the Convention. The Committee urged the Government to take steps to create a space for the social partners that would enable them to be fully involved in the determination of any further alterations that touched upon aspects going to the heart of labour relations and social dialogue. It invited the Government to provide additional detailed information to the Committee of Experts this year on the matters raised and on the impact of the abovementioned measures on the application of the Convention.