Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) - Slovakia (Ratification: 1997)

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

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s general indication that tripartite consultations were held during the reporting period on each of the matters related to international labour standards covered by Article 5(1) of the Convention: (i) responses to the questionnaires on the 2017 and 2019 Conference agenda items related to the prevention of forced or compulsory labour, victim protection and access to remedies as well as to the abrogation of Conventions Nos 21, 50, 64, 65, 86 and 104 and the withdrawal of Recommendations Nos 7, 61 and 62 (Article 5(1)(a)); (ii) submission to the competent authority of instruments adopted by Conference (Article 5(1)(b)); (iii) the re-examination of unratified Conventions and Recommendations to which effect has not yet been given (Article 5(1)(c)); (iv) reports on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(d)); and (v) proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(e)). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide further detailed updated information on the frequency, the content and the outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all matters concerning international labour standards covered by Article 5(1) of the Convention.

Tripartite consultations regarding issues mentioned by the Tripartite Consultations (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152). The Committee notes that, in its observations, the Association of Industrial Unions (AIU) claims that no effective tripartite consultations were held within the Council on several amendments to the national labour legislation adopted between 2017 and 2019, including the Labour Code (Paragraph 5(c) of Recommendation No. 152). The AIU argues that tripartite consultations were only held formally, as the submitters of the legislative proposals were not willing to accept any comments or suggestions of the social partners. The Government indicates that the pointed-out proposals were submitted to the social partners within the Council prior to its submission to the Parliament. Stressing the importance of social dialogue and consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations in the context of the preparation and development of labour legislation as envisaged by the Tripartite Consultations Recommendation (No. 152) (Paragraph 5(c)), the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the nature and the impact of the measures taken to strengthen the consultations of the social partners in the law-making process.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Association of Industrial Unions (AIU), received on 16 April 2020, as well as the Government’s reply to these observations, received on 10 November 2020. It further notes the observations of the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR), received on 18 March 2021, and the Government’s reply thereto, received on 5 November 2021.

Articles 2(1) and 3(1) of the Convention. Consultation procedures. Election of representatives of the social partners. The Committee notes that, in its observations, KOZ SR argues that, following the introduction of amendments to Act No. 103/2017 Coll. on Tripartite Consultations at the National Level (hereinafter the Tripartite Act) – with effect from 1 March 2021 – the Government changed the legal requirements regarding representativeness of workers’ organizations with the intent to lead social dialogue at the national level. KOZ SR claims that the new requirement establishing representativeness of workers’ organizations is in violation of the present Convention. In this respect, KOZ SR indicates that, prior to the adoption of the new amendments, workers’ organizations must have at least 100,000 members to be considered as “representative organizations”. KOZ SR points out that, following the adoption of the amendment to the Tripartite Act (section 3(3)(b)), if the number of workers’ organizations meeting this requirement is less than three, workers’ organizations with less than 100,000 members can also be granted participation in tripartite consultations at the national level. KOZ SR maintains that the latter could lead to the participation of, by way of example, workers’ organizations with only 1,000 members, which creates a justified doubt on the representativeness of such workers’ organizations and establishes unequal conditions for participating in national tripartite social dialogue. KOZ SR argues that the Government adopted this new amendment with the purpose of allowing non-representative workers’ organizations to join the national tripartite social dialogue and thus weakening KOZ SR’s role as the most representative workers’ organization. KOZ SR stresses that a purpose-built expansion of the number of entities participating in the national tripartite social dialogue endangers its efficiency. It adds that the higher the number of entities, the bigger the potential for contradictory opinions, which makes it more difficult to reach a consensus. Lastly, KOZ SR alleges that, as a result of the amendment, new workers’ organizations will be established with the single purpose of being controlled by the Government.

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the objective of section 3(3)(b) of the amended Tripartite Act providing that at least three entities may be members of the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter the Council) on employees’ and employers’ sides is to strengthen the representativeness and to ensure the Council’s functioning. The Government further indicates that each representative organization of workers with more than 100,000 members, shall automatically become a member of the Council, provided it complies with section 3(3)(a) of the Tripartite Act. Only in cases where there are fewer than three workers’ organizations on the Council, can other trade unions with fewer than 100,000 members apply for Council membership. In case of a disagreement, an arbitrator shall decide and if a conclusion cannot be reached, a court shall decide. The Government adds that, while the provision also applies to employers’ organizations, at present, there are already three representative employers’ organizations being members of the Council. Therefore, other employers’ organizations with less than 100,000 members cannot become members of the Council. The Government indicates that, before the amendment, three employers’ organizations and one workers’ organization (KOZ SR) were holding membership to the Council. Lastly, the Government indicates that the aim of the amendment is to ensure equality on the side of workers as well as employers and the Council’s functionality even in case an organization could not reach 100,000 employees, while at the same time keeping the maximum number of members on both sides at three. In reply to the KOZ SR’s argument that the amendment is discriminatory towards this organization and that it aims to “weaken” KOZ SR, the Government indicates that the amendment’s objective is to strengthen the protection of all workers’ rights by allowing more workers’ organizations to hold membership in the Council.

The Committee notes that the change introduced in the national legislation and practice described above impacts the manner in which the Convention is implemented. It observes that while the Convention requires that employers and workers need to be represented on an equal footing on any bodies through which consultations are undertaken, it does not necessarily require that there be equality in the number of representative organizations since there may be cases where only a single organization is the most representative. The Committee understands that, as suggested by the KOZ SR, when put in practice, the amendment could result in situations where an organization of workers or employers could be considered as “most representative” in order to reach numerical equality between workers’ and employers’ representation in the Council while in effect its membership could be much inferior to those of the other most representative organizations. The Committee hence requests the Government to provide detailed updated information on the reasons leading to the change in the national legislation. It also requests the Government to indicate how the new membership of the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic is expected to effectively promote and strengthen tripartism and social dialogue, taking into account that the most representative organization of workers in the country strongly disagrees with them and considers their purpose to be to allow non-representative workers’ organizations to join the national tripartite social dialogue and weaken the role of the most representative workers’ organization.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report. The Government indicates that tripartite consultations at the national level among the State and the social partners in the field of economic and social development and development of employment are supported by Act No. 103/2007, Coll. on Tripartite Consultations at the National Level and on Amending and Supplementing Certain Acts (the Tripartite Act). The Government indicates that the matters related to international labour standards covered under Article 5 of the Convention are addressed within the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic, a consulting and coordinating body of the Government and of the social partners at the national level. Furthermore, the Government indicates that the draft reports on ratified and unratified conventions and recommendations prepared by the Government are sent to the social partners who can send proposals for amendments to the Government before these are submitted to the ILO. The Government adds that, as needed, the representatives of the Government and the social partners also meet in an ad hoc working group which discusses various ILO-related issues at the national level. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no information in reply to its previous comments requesting that the Government provide further information on the consultations held on the matters relating to international labour standards covered by the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its request that the Government provide detailed information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all matters concerning international labour standards covered by the Convention and other matters concerning the activities of the ILO, particularly relating to the questionnaires on the Conference agenda items (Article 5(1)(a)); the submission of instruments adopted by the Conference to Parliament (Article 5(1)(b)); the re-examination at appropriate intervals of unratified Conventions and Recommendations to which effect has not yet been given (Article 5(1)(c)); reports to be presented on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(d)); and proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(e)).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in August 2014 indicating that the reports on ratified Conventions were elaborated after consultation with social partners as required by Article 5(1)(d) of the Convention. The Committee invites the Government to submit further information on the effective consultations held on all the matters related to international labour standards covered by the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. In its 2009 observation, the Committee noted the social partners’ proposals and the steps taken by the Government to achieve ratifications of Conventions. The Committee notes that the proposals to ratify were the subject of consultation with the social partners in the Economic and Social Councils and notes with interest the registration of the ratification of Conventions Nos 81, 129, 135 and 154 in September 2009, and of Conventions Nos 151, 158, 181 and 187 in February 2010. The Committee welcomes this progress and invites the Government to continue to report on the content and scope of the tripartite consultations held in the Economic and Social Council on the matters set out in the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government reported in November 2008 that the Economic and Social Council was established in 2007 as a body for consultations and consensus building amongst the social partners at the national level. The Government further indicates that matters covered by the Convention fall within the competence of the Economic and Social Council. The Committee notes with interest that the proposal of the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic to ratify Conventions Nos 135 and 154 as well as Conventions Nos 81 and 129, were accepted by the Government by virtue of Resolution No. 1092 of 19 December 2007 and that the legislative procedure is being followed towards achieving the process of ratification (Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention). The Government also provided information on the tripartite consultations held on the other matters covered by the Convention. The Committee hopes it will continue to receive information on the content and outcome of the consultations held on matters related to international labour standards set forth in the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. Article 2 of the Convention. Strengthening tripartism and social dialogue. In relation to the 2005 observation, the Committee notes the Government’s report received in January 2007, and the texts of the Tripartite Act (Act No. 103/2007 of 9 February 2007) and of the Standing Orders of the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic forwarded by the Government in April 2007. The Committee also notes the observations of the National Union of Employers (RUZ) received in June 2007, on the failure of the Government to properly consult with its social partners while amending the sectoral bargaining mechanism and the Government’s reply received in September 2007. The Committee notes that the new established Economic and Social Council aims to promote social dialogue as a democratic means to achieve economic and social development, employment creation and securing social peace. The Committee hopes that the Economic and Social Council will promote and reinforce tripartism and social dialogue in the country and that the Government will also specify in its next report how the Economic and Social Council has been involved in the consultations required by the Convention. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the consultative procedures must be effective, that is, they must provide employers’ and workers’ organizations with an opportunity to express their views usefully on all the matters covered by the Convention.

2. Article 5, paragraph 1. Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. The Committee notes that the denunciation of Convention No. 34 was registered on 25 July 2007. It further notes that the Government indicates that the proposals of the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR) to ratify Conventions Nos 135, 150, 151, 154, 158 and 181 will be reconsidered in relation to the national legislation of the Slovak Republic. The Committee asks the Government to include in its next report detailed information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on each of the matters covered by Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention and in particular on the perspectives of ratifying the abovementioned Conventions  (Article 5, paragraph 1(c)).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its 2005 observation, which read as follows:

1. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s report received in January 2005, which contains replies to the comments formulated by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR) in October 2004. In its comments, KOZ SR had expressed its concern with shortcomings in social dialogue in 2003-04. In July 2003, KOZ SR requested the ratification of Conventions Nos. 135, 150, 151, 154, 158 and 181, but the tripartite working group that was established only met once, and has not resumed its activities since. It also observed that the Government had reduced the tripartite delegation to the Conference in 2003 and 2004, without prior consultation with the social partners. KOZ SR indicated that, in 2004, the Government stopped submitting draft acts and amendments to the Council of Economic and Social Agreement (CESA) and approved new regulations concerning public health service reform, law on family and other social laws, without prior consultations with the social partners. In the view of KOZ SR, the new rules place social partners in the role of statistic partners, with no tools and opportunities to influence efficiently the Government’s policy with regard to the decision-making process in the matters of economic and social development.

2. In its reply, the Government indicates that the procedure for ratification of ILO Conventions was interrupted because amendments to national legislation were required. The delegation to the Conference was reduced for budgetary reasons. The Government also indicates that amendments to the law of 1999 on social dialogue were approved by Parliament on 21 October 2004. The CESA terminated its activities on 30 November 2004 and the Council of Economic Partnership and Social Partnership was established on 1 December 2004 as the new advisory and consultative body of the Government. The Government expects that, as a result of this legal adjustment, the dialogue with the social partners will improve. The Committee notes the statute of the Council of Economic and Social Partnership of the Slovak Republic, which entered into force on 1 December 2004, attached to the report.

3. The Committee further notes that the Government included in its report extracts of the Memorandum to the Government of the Slovak Republic on a draft law to amend the act on competence and the Act on Collective Bargaining, prepared by the International Labour Office in July 2004 – which was also sent to the social partners in August 2004. The Office recommended that the Government consult the social partners before preparing its regulation defining the composition, the rules and the mandate of the new Council for the Economic and Social Partnership of the Slovak Republic. The Office further recommended that particular consideration be given to creating within this Council a subcommittee dealing with international labour standards and ILO matters in general, within which tripartite consultation over international labour standards could take place between the Government and the social partners, which is common practice in a number of European Union countries. In light of the above, the Committee again invites the Government and the social partners to promote and reinforce tripartism and social dialogue on the matters covered by the Convention. It also asks the Government to indicate in its next report if the subcommittee dealing with international labour standards within the new Council has been established. Please also report on the progress made in the establishment of effective tripartite consultations on all the matters covered by Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention during the period covered by the next report.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s report received in January 2005, which contains replies to the comments formulated by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR) in October 2004. In its comments, KOZ SR had expressed its concern with shortcomings in social dialogue in 2003-04. In July 2003, KOZ SR requested the ratification of Conventions Nos. 135, 150, 151, 154, 158 and 181, but the tripartite working group that was established only met once, and has not resumed its activities since. It also observed that the Government had reduced the tripartite delegation to the Conference in 2003 and 2004, without prior consultation with the social partners. KOZ SR indicated that, in 2004, the Government stopped submitting draft acts and amendments to the Council of Economic and Social Agreement (CESA) and approved new regulations concerning public health service reform, law on family and other social laws, without prior consultations with the social partners. In the view of KOZ SR, the new rules place social partners in the role of statistic partners, with no tools and opportunities to influence efficiently the Government’s policy with regard to the decision-making process in the matters of economic and social development.

2. In its reply, the Government indicates that the procedure for ratification of ILO Conventions was interrupted because amendments to national legislation were required. The delegation to the Conference was reduced for budgetary reasons. The Government also indicates that amendments to the law of 1999 on social dialogue were approved by Parliament on 21 October 2004. The CESA terminated its activities on 30 November 2004 and the Council of Economic Partnership and Social Partnership was established on 1 December 2004 as the new advisory and consultative body of the Government. The Government expects that, as a result of this legal adjustment, the dialogue with the social partners will improve. The Committee notes the statute of the Council of Economic and Social Partnership of the Slovak Republic, which entered into force on 1 December 2004, attached to the report.

3. The Committee further notes that the Government included in its report extracts of the Memorandum to the Government of the Slovak Republic on a draft law to amend the act on competence and the Act on Collective Bargaining, prepared by the International Labour Office in July 2004 - which was also sent to the social partners in August 2004. The Office recommended that the Government consult the social partners before preparing its regulation defining the composition, the rules and the mandate of the new Council for the Economic and Social Partnership of the Slovak Republic. The Office further recommended that particular consideration be given to creating within this Council a subcommittee dealing with international labour standards and ILO matters in general, within which tripartite consultation over international labour standards could take place between the Government and the social partners, which is common practice in a number of European Union countries. In light of the above, the Committee again invites the Government and the social partners to promote and reinforce tripartism and social dialogue on the matters covered by the Convention. It also asks the Government to indicate in its next report if the subcommittee dealing with international labour standards within the new Council has been established. Please also report on the progress made in the establishment of effective tripartite consultations on all the matters covered by Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention during the period covered by the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

1. The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. With reference to its observation of 2003, in which it noted that in reply to the comments made by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR), which emphasized the absence of consultations on draft laws before their submission to Parliament, the Government stated that it did not agree with the facts as indicated which, in its view, did not fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee recalled in this respect that the fundamental obligation of Convention No. 144 is contained in Article 2, paragraph 1, according to which the State Party "undertakes to operate procedures which ensure effective consultations (…) between representatives of the Government, of employers and of workers". As indicated by the Committee of Experts in its General Survey of 2000, for the consultations to be meaningful, they should not be merely a token gesture, but should be given serious consideration by the competent authorities so that they can inform the final decision. In this respect, the Committee noted that "the outcome of the consultations should not be regarded as binding" and that "the ultimate decisions must rest with the Government or legislator, as the case may be". It also recalled the resolution on tripartism and social dialogue, adopted by the Conference at its 90th Session (June 2002), which called for governments and the organizations of employers and workers to promote and reinforce tripartism and social dialogue, which "have proved to be a valuable and democratic means to address social concerns, build consensus, help elaborate international labour standards and examine a wide range of labour issues on which the social partners play a direct, legitimate and irreplaceable role". The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the progress made in the establishment of effective tripartite consultations on the matters covered by Article 5, paragraph 1, and particularly on the consultations held in relation to the legislative amendments submitted to Parliament.

2. As the Office forwarded to the Government in October 2004 the new comments made by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR) on the application of Convention No. 144, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide its comments in its next report in reply to the matters raised by the KOZ SR.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2005.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

1. The Committee takes note of the Government’s report, received in October 2003, which provides detailed information on consultations held on each of the points set out in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. As regards Article 6 of the Convention, the Government states that social partners do not consider it appropriate to issue an annual report on the working of the procedures provided for in the Convention, because they are recorded in the scope of general activities of the Council of Economic and Social Agreement (CESA).

2. The Committee notes that the Government has attached to its report the observations of the Confederation of Trade Union Status Report (KOZ SR) on social dialogue in the Slovak Republic. According to the KOZ SR, by the end of 2002, the Government submitted to Parliament draft amendments of 22 Acts without prior discussion in the CESA. A similar situation happened when the Labour Code was amended in 2003. KOZ SR states that the relationship between the social partners has not yet improved and that the Government ignores social partners in submitting to the Parliament draft Acts which have not been discussed with them. The Government states that it does not agree with the facts as stated by the KOZ SR and that these facts do not fall under the scope of the Convention.

3. The Committee recalls that the fundamental obligation under the terms of Convention No. 144 is contained in Article 2, paragraph 1. According to that provision, the State party "undertakes to operate procedures which ensure effective consultations, … between representatives of the Government, of employers and workers". As the Committee of Experts stated in its General Survey of 2000:

The consultations required under the terms of the Convention are intended, rather than leading to an agreement, to assist the competent authority in taking a decision. For the consultations to be meaningful, they should not be merely a token gesture but should be given serious consideration by the competent authority. Although the public authorities must undertake consultations in good faith, they are not bound by any of the opinions expressed and remain entirely responsible for the final decision.

The Committee notes that it is a basic principle of Convention No. 144 that "the outcome of the consultations should not be regarded as binding" and that "the ultimate decision must rest with the government or legislature, as the case may be".

4. The Committee also recalls the resolution on tripartism and social dialogue, adopted by the Conference at its 90th Session (June 2002), which emphasizes that "social dialogue and tripartism have proved to be a valuable and democratic means to address social concerns, build consensus, help elaborate international labour standards and examine a wide range of labour issues on which the social partners play a direct, legitimate and irreplaceable role". The resolution also invites governments and organizations of employers and workers to promote and reinforce tripartism and social dialogue.

5. In view of the importance of tripartite consultations on international labour standards, the Committee trusts that the Government will provide in its next report information on progress made in holding consultations on the matters covered by the Convention, including details on the consultations held in relation to the legislative amendments submitted to Parliament (Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its direct request of 2000, which read as follows:

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s first report on the application of the Convention and the detailed information on the effect given to each of its Articles. It notes in particular that consultations on the issues specified in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention are carried out in a permanent working group of the Council of Economic and Social Concertation. It asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information in its future reports on the consultations held in this group and to send, if appropriate, the annual report on the execution of the procedures specified in the Convention, which it plans to produce.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s first report on the application of the Convention and the detailed information on the effect given to each of its Articles. It notes in particular that consultations on the issues specified in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention are carried out in a permanent working group of the Council of Economic and Social Concertation. It asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information in its future reports on the consultations held in this group and to send, if appropriate, the annual report on the execution of the procedures specified in the Convention, which it plans to produce.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s first report on the application of the Convention and the detailed information on the effect given to each of its Articles. It notes in particular that consultations on the issues specified in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention are carried out in a permanent working group of the Council of Economic and Social Concertation. It asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information in its future reports on the consultations held in this group and to send, if appropriate, the annual report on the execution of the procedures specified in the Convention, which it plans to produce.