Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Hungary (Ratification: 1957)

The Committee notes the observations of the Democratic League of Independent Trade Unions (LIGA) included in the Government’s report, which relate to issues examined by the Committee below, and the Government’s comments thereon. The Committee also recalls that the application of the Convention was examined by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (hereinafter the Conference Committee) in June 2022. In its conclusions, the Conference Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to address significant gaps in the application of the Convention in law and in practice and to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its last comment, the Committee noted with satisfaction that the definition of employee representatives in the Labour Code now covers trade union officials, enabling them to request their reinstatement in case of unlawful dismissal. It also noted that for trade union members other than officials, the Labour Code provides, through judicial procedure, for compensation in case of unlawful dismissal and reinstatement in case of dismissal violating the principle of equal treatment (sections 82 and 83(1)(a) of the Labour Code) and that an aggrieved trade union member may demand compensation under section 166(1) of the Labour Code for damage caused by the employer in connection with the employment relationship. Regarding the Committee’s request for information on the legal provisions under which anti-union discriminatory acts, other than dismissal, can be remedied and the way these provisions are applied, the Government indicates that: (1) sections 12, 231, 271 and 273 of the Labour Code, and section 2:43(3) of the Civil Code prohibit anti-union discrimination, with such discrimination constituting a violation of personality rights; and (2) section 21(g) of the Equal Treatment Act offers protection against indirect or direct discrimination, with section 12 prescribing that claims should be redressed through actions for the enforcement of personality rights, in which case a grievance award may be claimed under section 2:52 of the Civil Code. The Committee notes in this respect LIGA’s allegations that the national legislation lacks sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee observes in this regard that the provisions referred to by the Government do not establish a minimum amount of compensation in case of their violation and that the Government’s information does not refer to specific instances where these provisions were applied to anti-union discrimination cases. In this respect, the Committee notes that it has not received the detailed information requested on the recourse to judicial or quasi-judicial mechanisms applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee therefore once again recalls that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice and if the sanctions provided for are not effective and sufficiently dissuasive (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 190 and 193). The Committee is once again bound to request the Government to: (i) provide comprehensive information on the average duration of both judicial proceedings and proceedings before the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights concerning allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination, together with details on remedies provided, the number of claims rejected and the grounds for any such rejections; and (ii) carry out, in consultation with the social partners, a comprehensive examination of the effectiveness of the existing protection mechanisms against anti-union discrimination, including anti-union discriminatory acts other than dismissal. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take steps to adopt specific legislative provisions prohibiting acts of interference by the employer and making express provision for rapid appeal procedures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (1) section 231 of the Labour Code and section 3 of the Act CLXXV of 2011 on the Right of Association implement Article 2 of the Convention; and (2) reiterates its previous position that all state bodies, including the Constitutional Court and other courts, are obliged to interpret national legislation in a manner that is consistent with the Convention in general and with its Article 2 in particular. The Committee observes that the provisions cited above recognize freedom of association and trade union rights in general terms without specifically addressing the issue of interference. The Committee recalls that in order to ensure that effect is given to Article 2 of the Convention in practice, the legislation must make express provision for sufficiently dissuasive remedies and sanctions against acts of interference by employers against workers and their organizations, including against measures that are intended to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee expects the Government to take the necessary measures, after consultation with social partners, to incorporate into the legislation explicit provisions that ensure effective protection against acts of interference by the employer, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Representativeness requirements. In its previous comments, having noted that a uniform 10 per cent threshold for the conclusion of collective agreements was established by legislation, the Committee requested the Government to examine the possibility of allowing for the coalition of trade unions at workplaces where no trade union reaches the required representativity threshold. Noting the absence of specific information from theGovernment on the steps taken or envisioned in this regard, the Committee reiterates its previous request.

Negotiation with works councils. The Committee previously requested the Government, in consultation with the representative social partners, to review section 268(1) of the Labour Code which entitles an employer to conclude a collective agreement with a works council (except on remuneration), when no trade union meets the representativeness threshold for collective bargaining. The Committee notes that, while the Government indicates that there was no initiative from representatives of the employers and workers who are signatories of the Permanent Tripartite Dialogue Agreement (VKF agreement) to review this provision, LIGA alleges a lack of adequate Government response to their observations in this respect. The Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention refers to collective bargaining between employers or employers’ organizations on the one hand and workers’ organizations on the other hand, and that it considers that, in order to ensure an effective promotion of the negotiating capacities of workers’ organizations, negotiations with non-union actors should only be possible in the absence of trade unions at the respective level. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government, in consultation with the representative social partners, to review section 268(1) of the Labour Code to remove the possibility of works councils concluding works agreements when there is a union presence in the bargaining unit concerned.

Collective bargaining at levels higher than the enterprise. The Committee recalls that in its previous comment it noted the position of the workers’ group of the ILO National Council (NILOC) according to which: (1) there was a significant decline in the operation of Sectoral Dialogue Committees, partially due to the decrease in governmental support to their operation; and (2) recent amendments to provisions on the extension of collective agreements further complicated and increased the bureaucracy of the option of extension. The Committee also noted the existence of three extended sectoral collective agreements in the country (construction, tourism and hospitality, and the electricity industry). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) section 17(2) of Act LXXIV of 2009 on Sectoral Dialogue Committees was amended so that the conditions for the extension of collective agreements are the same for collective agreements concluded within or outside a Sectoral Dialogue Committee; and (2) an examination is under way to identify the manner in which the regulation of the Act on Sectoral Dialogue Committees can effectively promote the right to conclude collective agreements, with a comparative legal study being prepared by a research institute that will analyse model regulations for a possible revision of the legislation. The Committee finally notes that the Government has not replied to its previous request for statistical information on the number, nature, and scope of collective agreements in force. Recalling that, under the terms of Article 4 of the Convention, collective bargaining should be possible and promoted at all levels, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, for the effective promotion of collective bargaining at all levels, including at levels higher than the enterprise level and to provide information on any progress in this respect; (ii) provide information on any developments with regard to the ongoing examination of the extension mechanism for collective agreements; and (iii) provide up to date statistical information on the number of collective agreements signed, the sectors concerned and the share of the workforce covered by collective agreements and, also, to provide the same statistics, where available, for works agreements.

Material scope of collective bargaining in publicly-owned entities. In its previous comments, both under this Convention and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), the Committee requested the Government to initiate discussions with the social partners to revise the restrictions imposed on the material scope of collective bargaining in publicly-owned entities. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the information it had previously provided, that sections 204–208 of the Labour Code set out cogent and mandatory rules on employment at publicly-owned entities which cannot be derogated by an individual or a collective agreement (section 213(f) of the Labour Code). The Government also reiterates that such rules are necessitated by the special “legal status” and economic role of the employer in publicly-owned entities to ensure efficient management and prevent abuse of State assets, further adding that the rules prevent abuse and improve public perception regarding companies in public ownership. The Committee once again recalls that workers of state-owned commercial or industrial enterprises are fully covered by the Convention. While the special characteristics of the public service may allow for some flexibility, legislative measures taken unilaterally by the authorities to restrict the scope of negotiable issues are often incompatible with the Convention, and tripartite discussions are a particularly appropriate method of resolving these difficulties. While taking note of the justification reiterated by the Government, the Committee, also recalling the Conference Committee’s conclusions in this respect, reiterates that it considers that the exclusions prescribed by sections 205–206 of the Labour Code on collective bargaining at publicly-owned entities go beyond the restrictions that are compatible with the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take all the necessary steps, in consultation with the social partners, torevise the restrictions on the material scope of collective bargaining in publicly-owned entities, and to ensure that the above-mentioned provisions of the Labour Code do not impede the rights to collective bargaining guaranteed under the Convention.

The Committee recalls that the Conference Committee requested the Government to avail itself of the Office’s technical assistance and that the Government informed it of initial contacts in this regard. The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of the Office’s technical assistance in order to fully implement, in law and in practice, the various provisions of the Convention.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.