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

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2025, Publication: 113rd ILC session (2025)

Written information provided by the Government

The amendment to Act No. 103/2007, Collection of Laws on Tripartite Consultations at the National Level and on Amending and Supplementing Certain Acts (the Tripartite Act) was approved with effect from 1 March 2021 and entailed a partial reform of the composition and some aspects of the activities of the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic (hereafter the Tripartite Council), which is an advisory body of the Government where tripartite consultations at the national level between the State and the social partners are held.

Article 1(1) of the Convention states that “In this Convention, the term ’representative organisations‘ means the most representative organisations of employers and workers enjoying the right to freedom of association”.

Article 1 does not specify in detail how to determine national criteria of representativeness, nor does the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152). The Convention does not use the singular but the plural, namely that representative organizations are the most representative organizations. This is a group of organizations that exist within a State, defined on the basis of objective criteria (qualitative, quantitative or a combination of these, for example in relation to the number of members or sectoral activity).

In this regard, the Government states the following:

Plurality of subjects and refutation of the argument about pro-government unions

The Government rejects the statement that it holds that there must be parity between the number of actors on the employers’ side and on the trade union side. This does not result from the law, nor does it result from the current reality or from other entities’ interest in joining the Tripartite Council.

Until 28 February 2021, there were four employers’ entities on the employers’ side in the Tripartite Council and only one on the trade union side. At present, there are two entities on the trade union side. At least three other employers’ entities have sought to join the Tripartite Council in recent years, but none of them met the criteria for joining. Apart from the new member, Joint Trade Unions of Slovakia (SOS) on the trade union side, no other trade union has applied to join the Tripartite Council in recent years.

The Government considers that the Convention does not imply that a ratifying State has to set a quantitative criterion on the number of members/number of employees as a condition for joining the Tripartite Council. Furthermore, it does not result from the Convention that a ratifying State cannot change these criteria in the light of a change in the situation. The only criterion that has to be followed is that the association is the most representative and, therefore, that some selection is made.

From this, the Government deduces, for example, that a ratifying State should not set criteria so that anyone who asks can join the Tripartite Council. In this respect, the legislation of the Slovak Republic provides for a quantitative criterion on the number of members/number of employees. If the number of members on one side is fewer than three, the Tripartite Council is also open to the next entity with the highest number of members/employees. However, the legislation also limits the quantitative number of members of the Tripartite Council.

In the same way, the ratifying State should not set the criteria in such a way that, for example, the Government could hand-pick which of the entities meeting the criteria are to be invited to the Tripartite Council. In this respect, the Slovak Republic has set transparent criteria.

The Government considers that a reasonable degree of pluralism (such as coverage of other relevant actors) is necessary in social dialogue, as indicated by the plural formulation of Article 1 of the Convention. That view guided the 2021 reform, consistent with the Convention‘s plural wording. The Government considers that such pluralism means enriching the views in the debate.

At the same time, such a change was also influenced by changes on the side of social partners – the establishment of the Association of Industrial Unions and Transport (APZD) and the SOS, which are entities that primarily associate employers and workers in the industrial sector (for example automotive), which is one of the most important sectors in the Slovak Republic.

The Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR) suggests that the newly established unions will be controlled by the Government. Such a claim has no basis in fact, nor has it been proven to be true to date. The SOS, which joined the Tripartite Council in 2021, is active in important industrial entities such as Volkswagen Bratislava (where it became the largest worker representative after its creation), Jaguar Land Rover Slovakia, IKEA, DHL, ARRIVA and other relevant entities. It is therefore unjustified to assume that the largest trade union in one of the most important companies in the Slovak Republic, which managed to take on the majority of the members of the original trade union in this company after its establishment in 2017, is a pro-government trade union. This organization is also involved in the conclusion of higher-level collective agreements (sectoral collective agreements).

In this context, it should be added that, since 1990, the workers have been given the opportunity to speak at the Tripartite Council by the KOZ SR (into which the so-called Revolutionary Trade Unions of the pre-1989 era, which were the exclusive trade unions during the socialist period from 1948 onwards, have been transformed). It is understandable that over the course of more than 30 years, new associations may emerge, similar to those on the employers’ side, to represent employees, including at the Tripartite Council level. The fact that a pluralism is also emerging on the trade union side, even at the Tripartite Council level, cannot be seen as an attack on the KOZ SR, and it certainly cannot be seen as the installation of pro-government unions at the Tripartite Council level. Nor has this been demonstrated in the context of the positions that this body has been presenting to the Tripartite Council since 2021, namely that in most cases they have been identical to those of the KOZ SR. Moreover, this organization does not have 1,000 members.

Gradual change of criteria in relation to the change of reality

Until the entry into force of the amendment to the Tripartite Act, in other words until 28 February 2021, the representativeness of trade union associations was based on the fulfilment of the criterion of 100,000 members and, in the case of employers’ associations, 100,000 workers employed.

However, the Government draws attention to the fact that, under the preceding Tripartite Act (No. 106/1999, Collection of Laws on Economic and Social Partnership), the criterion for joining the Tripartite Council was set at a higher value. For worker representatives, it refers to at least 10 per cent organization of members in relation to the total number of employees in the Slovak Republic (the total number of employees in the Slovak Republic is around 2 million, so the criterion was 200,000).

For employers, the criterion refers to employers’ associations who together employ at least 10 per cent of the total number of employees in the economy, therefore also 200,000. At the time, only the KOZ SR and the Federation of Employers’ Associations of the Slovak Republic (AZZZ SR) represented workers and employers, respectively, at the Tripartite Council level.

Due to the formation of another employers’ association, the Republic Union of Employers (RÚZ), at that time (some of its members split from the AZZZ SR), the criteria for joining the Tripartite Council were reconsidered and Act No. 103/2007 lowered this threshold. In 2018, the APZD also joined the Tripartite Council on the employer side in order to better represent the interests of the industry.

Changes to Act No. 103/2007 have been adopted in the past to: (a) ensure that the Tripartite Council as such was maintained; and (b) to ensure that the largest entities remained in it, and not just one entity (that is, at that time, the AZZZ SR on the employers’ side). These changes consisted in the relaxation of the criterion of the number of members/employees in 2007 and were adapted to the reality of the decline in representativeness.

In this respect, Slovak law provides for two situations at present:

• an “unlimited” number of entities above 100,000 members/100,000 employees
  
  (note: there are about 2 million employees in the Slovak Republic, and therefore the criterion set for joining the Tripartite Council – 100,000 members or 100,000 employees – means, in percentage terms, 5 per cent coverage. Already such a criterion of 5 per cent may be considered a low value in some countries, since in some countries, even 80 per cent of employees are associated. Such a criterion must therefore be seen in the national context in relation to national conditions).
• the possibility to add members if the number of entities on one side is less than three (namely the number of entities with up to 100,000 members or up to 100,000 employees is not limited) – the maximum possible addition is only up to three entities. In other words, if fewer than three entities qualify on one side, additional entities below that threshold may join – up to a maximum of three in total.

Considering the first quantitative criterion of representativeness set in this way – 5 per cent coverage (lowered from the original 10 per cent threshold before 2007), it is obvious that there is a problem with representativeness as such in the Slovak Republic, also due to the low union organization on the part of the workers.

The already-mentioned change in the law that came into effect on 1 March 2021 (the second quantitative criterion of representativeness) reflects the reality of unionization in 2021. The original employers’ federation has split into three entities (AZZZ SR, APZD, RÚZ) over the last 20 years, and a competitor to the local government representative, the Association of Towns and Municipalities of Slovakia (ZMOS) has emerged in the form of the Union of Cities and the Association of Municipalities and Self-governing Regions (SK8). In addition to the original trade union, a new trade union, SOS (which also took over the members of the original trade union), was created. On the one hand, this increases the diversity of views of the Tripartite Council members, as the entities have a different structure regarding their members (representing different sectors such as industry and public administration). On the other hand, however, the number of employees employed by the members of the association is also decreasing, and so is the ability of these entities to meet the conditions for joining the Tripartite Council at the level of 100,000 members (100,000 employees). An indication that meeting the original criteria could cause problems for some members is also given by the attitude of the members of the Tripartite Council (except for the KOZ SR) to maintain the status quo, that is, to keep the amended legislation in force as it is.

Given that the law also lays down other conditions for joining the Tripartite Council, for instance, a trade union must bring together trade unions representing workers from several sectors of the economy, it cannot be assumed that a fictitious trade union would join the Tripartite Council. There is also a third traditional trade union at the confederation level in the Slovak Republic, the Independent Christian Trade Unions of Slovakia (NKOS), which was established in 1993, and which has not yet applied to join the Tripartite Council.

Pro rata distribution of seats

In terms of the number of seats on each side of the Tripartite Council, the law states that employers have seven seats, trade unions have seven seats, and the State has seven seats. Each of these seven seats are divided on the basis of the number of declared members (number of declared employees). Thus, it is not the same number of seats for an entity regardless of its “strength”. The minimum representation for an entity that is a member of the Tripartite Council is one seat. Considering the originally declared numbers, the strongest entity in the Tripartite Council is the KOZ SR with six representatives, SOS with one (both KOZ SR and SOS on the trade union side), the AZZZ SR has three, RÚZ has two, the APZD has one and ZMOS has one (all four entities on the employer side). This distribution of forces does not appear to weaken the position of the KOZ SR.

If, hypothetically, an entity that does not have 100,000 members were to join the Tripartite Council on the trade union side, its representation would be at least one representative, but the KOZ SR would still hold five seats and would therefore still be the strongest actor in the Tripartite Council.

The employers’ side and the workers’ side are not obliged to give a unified position

At present, each member of the Tripartite Council presents its own position at the Tripartite Council meetings, and neither a unified position for the employers (AZZZ SR, APZD, RÚZ, ZMOS) nor a unified position for the trade unions (KOZ SR, SOS) is required. The KOZ SR is therefore under no obligation to align its position with another trade union. The existence of pluralism on the trade union side in no way affects the freedom of the KOZ SR to express its own position.

International comparison

In this context, we draw attention, for example, to the situation in France, where the criterion of 8 per cent of the votes in the elections must be met in order to act at the national level, while five entities on the trade union side qualified for such a percentage. In the Slovak Republic, at the national level, there can be a maximum of three entities (if the first and second criteria are combined), whereas, in reality, there are only two entities on the trade union side at the national level.

Reasons for retaining the legislation after the change of Government in 2023

The reasons why the Slovak Republic did not return to the original legislation after the change of Government in 2023 are linked to the situation regarding the development of the membership base of the individual associations and the activities of other associations that are not in the Tripartite Council.

In March 2025, at the initiative of the KOZ SR, a meeting was held at the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic at the level of the State Secretary with representatives of the Tripartite Council regarding the return of the legislation to its original state. All entities except the KOZ SR are in favour of maintaining the status quo, that is, the current situation. The return to the status quo ante is therefore solely the initiative of the KOZ SR. It is therefore not a topic of interest to the majority of the Tripartite Council members. European Union-funded projects are also linked to the Tripartite Council membership, and so there would be problems and questions about the continued funding of these entities in these projects if they ceased to be members of the Tripartite Council.

Impact of the amended legislation on the complainant

There has been no negative impact in the Slovak Republic associated with the change of the legislation in 2021, namely any reduction in social dialogue. First of all, the KOZ SR, with six members in the Tripartite Council, is by far the strongest member of the Tripartite Council. The KOZ SR freely expresses its views on the documents submitted for discussion. There is also, in a large number of cases, agreement between the positions of the KOZ SR and the SOS on the proposals submitted for discussion, including in the case of criticism of the Government. Thus, the SOS does not fulfil the role of a pro-government trade union. Similarly, no third party has entered the Tripartite Council on the trade union side. The Government is currently aware only of requests to join the Tripartite Council from employers’ entities.

The Government, through the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic, contributes by law (section 159 of the Labour Code) to the so-called inspection activities of trade unions in the field of occupational safety and health, namely the activities of trade union inspectors of occupational safety and health. Any trade union at the confederation level can apply for a contribution, regardless of its membership in the Tripartite Council. Since 2021, there has been an overall increase in the contribution from €728,380 to €837,818 in 2024, and for the KOZ SR specifically, an increase from €700,036 to €777,818 in 2024. In comparison, the SOS received a contribution of €40,000 in 2024 and the third entity, NKOS, €20,000.

The Government, through the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic, also supports the analytical capacities of the KOZ SR within the framework of national projects (such as the Alliance of Sectoral Councils – anticipating trends and needs of the labour market: development of professional capacities of social partners; support for the quality of social dialogue; and age management). In recent years, a total of more than €13 million has been allocated to the KOZ SR for the analytical capacities of trade unions and their experts (to put this into context, the average monthly wage in the Slovak Republic in 2024 was €1,524, the average hourly wage of an employee was €8.75, and the cost of employers’ contributions over and above the gross wage was 36.2 per cent, meaning that the total hourly cost of labour was approximately €11.92/hour).

The Government draws attention to the fact that the Slovak Republic is a founding member of the ILO (part of the former Czechoslovakia), a member of the European Union with a high level of protection of social dialogue, a functioning social dialogue and Tripartite Council mechanism (in 2024, it met nine times, in 2025 by 5 May 2025 it had already met five times), and has ratified 76 ILO Conventions.

To date, neither the negative impact of this change on the functioning of the Tripartite Council, nor the claim of pro-government unions has been demonstrated. We view the labelling of a competitor in the field of employee representation – who has also secured positions in major companies in the Slovak Republic – as a non-representative entity, as an unfounded attempt to spread domestic disputes, which stem mainly from problems on the side of one social partner, to the international level. Likewise, we consider it an unjustified accusation that the Government caused the fragmentation of trade unions, while the Government merely reflected the changed reality by adjusting the balance within the Tripartite Council. If the Government had not changed the representativeness criteria over time, for example, in 2007, it is possible that a number of entities would now be in an unrepresentative position from the Government’s point of view, and possibly the Tripartite Council would not even exist. These issues cannot therefore be immutable and must follow developments over time and changing realities in society.

In the context of this reasoning and explanations of the national context, the Government considers that it has not violated the Convention. On the contrary, it has proceeded on the basis of the changed reality of association in the Slovak Republic. In doing so, it has encouraged a greater plurality of views.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – It is my honour to invite the Honourable representative of the Government of Slovakia, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations and the other international organizations in Geneva, to take the floor.

Government representative – Firstly, allow me to congratulate you on behalf of the Slovak Republic on your election as Chairperson of this distinguished Committee and together with our delegation here, we wish you success in your work.

Secondly, we also thank you for the opportunity to brief you on the 2021 amendment to the Tripartite Act and to clarify why – after several years of practical experience and the change of Government – we have chosen to keep the new rules in place.

Why was the amendment needed? Before 2021, the highest tripartite body in our country, the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic, (hereafter the Tripartite Council), was based on rules adopted in 2007. These were adapted from still stricter thresholds set in 1999. This body serves as a crucial platform for trilateral consultations at the national level among the State, employers’ organizations and trade unions – the social partners. Over the last two decades, however, our labour market landscape and the economic environment have changed profoundly. It has led to a pluralization and specialization on the employer side.

One of all-embracing employer federations from the 1990s has gradually divided into three: the Association of Employers‘ Unions and Associations (AZZZ), the Republic Union of Employers (RUZ) and the Association of Industrial Unions and Transport (APZD). This natural development continued into the trade union area. Emerging pluralism and specialization among workers’ bodies followed. For more than 30 years, the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR), had the monopoly as the nationwide trade union confederation.

In 2017, a second actor, the Joint Trade Unions of Slovakia (SOS), appeared and quickly gained a majority in several flagship employers, such as Volkswagen Bratislava and Jaguar Land Rover Slovakia. I will just add to this information that little Slovakia is the largest car producer per capita in the whole world and the automobile is the backbone of the Slovak economy and industry. The creation of the SOS is a natural development of the most prominent industry to gain its specific voice in the Tripartite Council.

The third factor was the interests of the local government, as municipal and regional associations also asked for a stronger voice as large public sector employers.

Against that backdrop, the 2021 amendment pursued two goals: to keep the Tripartite Council “alive” by reflecting real membership trends and to ensure that all significant actors, old or new, could bring their expertise to national social dialogue.

Article 1 of the Convention deliberately uses the plural form, “… the most representative organizations of employers and workers enjoying the right to freedom of association.” It does not impose a single prescribed metric nor does it bar governments from adjusting their metrics as their domestic realities evolve. It requires an objective test of representativeness applied even-handedly so that the Tripartite Council is neither a closed club for previous members nor a revolving door for anyone who merely asks. We base our legislation on such principles.

Regarding pluralism and the pro-government union allegations, some critics claim that the amendment was designed to install so-called “government friendly unions”. Let me address this very squarely and frankly.

Ironically and paradoxically, the KOZ SR has for quite some time been described by the media and other stakeholders in the past as government-friendly or affiliated to a particular political party. This is a highly politicized and unfair claim and label, if you ask me.

Besides, the track record of SOS disproves the “government-friendly” label. In the majority of Tripartite Council votes, the SOS has sided with the KOZ SR, including when both trade unions criticized Government proposals.

Before 2021, four employer entities and one union confederation sat on the Tripartite Council. Today, the balance is four to two; this is hardly a disruption.

The criterion for Tripartite Council entry remains stringent, at a minimum of 100,000 members or employees in each representative workers’ organization. Only in cases where there are fewer than three workers’ organizations on the Council can other trade unions with fewer than 100,000 members or employees ask for membership.

Pluralism and specialization, therefore, is not a partisan manoeuvre. It is an acknowledgment that modern economies are diverse, and the dialogue is richer when more than one voice speaks for each side.

Let me speak about the updated numerical criteria: Slovakia’s workforce is roughly 2 million. The current threshold of 100,000 members or employees equates to 5 per cent coverage, which is half of the 10 per cent level originally applied until 2007. If fewer than three entities qualify on either side, the amended Act opens a narrow “safety valve”. The next largest organizations may join, but the total per side can never exceed three in that case. In other words, we prevent monopolies and proliferation at the same time.

Why not further loosen the threshold? Because the Tripartite Council must remain manageable and credible. A seat should signal genuine constituency strength, not mere registration statistics. By the way, the strength, influence and dynamics of the stakeholders can and is changing in time.

Turning to the pro-rata allocation of seats, each pillar – employers, workers and Government – holds seven seats. They are shared proportionally to the declared membership figures with a minimum of one seat for every admitted entity. Currently, in the trade union side, KOZ SR has six seats, while the SOS has only one. With six representatives, the KOZ SR remains the strongest member of the Tripartite Council on the trade union side. The existence of other trade union entities does not obligate the KOZ SR to align its position with them; they can freely express their views on submitted documents.

Regarding safeguards for genuine dialogue, we do not have block voting. Each seat speaks and votes for its own organization. Neither unions nor employer groups are forced to present a single unified line. Transparent admission criteria are written into the statute. The Government cannot hand-pick favourites.

There is an open door for newcomers. If a third nationwide union ever clears the threshold, it is entitled to apply under exactly the same rules as the old unions had to. These safeguards ensure that pluralism enhances, rather than dilutes, the quality of debate.

My last point is in relation to observed results and the road ahead. At present, we see no evidence of weakened social dialogue. The Tripartite Council met nine times in 2024 and five times in the first five months of this year. It reviewed draft laws, budget proposal and European Union initiatives.

Employers and trade unions co-sponsored four joint opinions, two of which criticized Government drafts. This is clear proof that independence is intact.

Public funding for trade union labour inspection activities rose from €700,000 in 2021 to nearly €800,000 in 2024 for KOZ SR alone. SOS and a non-tripartite confederation (NKOZ) received far, far less: €40,000 and €20,000, respectively.

The decision not to revert to the original legislation after the change of Government in 2023 is linked to the still changed reality concerning the membership base of associations and the activities of entities not currently in the Tripartite Council. It applies especially in the current political situation in Slovakia, where the three-party coalition Government includes two social democratic parties which are historically connected to the trade union movement, including the KOZ SR. All members of the Tripartite Council, with the exception of KOZ SR, are in favour of maintaining the current legislation, especially due to ongoing projects funded by the European Union, which would be threatened by possible recalculation of the membership.

Looking forward, we remain open to evidence-based refinement. If future demographic or economic shifts bring new adjustments, we will return to the Parliament with proposals always guided by the Convention and the principles of objectivity, transparency and freedom of association. If we go back now, not only one trade union but also employers’ organizations can potentially lose their place in the Tripartite Council.

In conclusion, I must say that I am somewhat sorry and embarrassed that we are taking the precious time of this august body for an issue of competition of two Slovak trade unions because, frankly, that is what it is. It is an internal quarrel and attempt to maintain the monopoly.

The essence of social dialogue is balance. Balance between stability and openness, between majority voice and minority insight. Our 2021 amendment seeks that balance. It keeps the door open wide enough for evolving realities, yet closed enough to guarantee that those who sit at the table truly represent significant constituencies.

We therefore insist that the Slovak Republic continues to meet, indeed to embody, its obligations under the Convention. We will keep listening and analysing and, where necessary, keep adjusting, because living democracies never stand still.

Worker members – Throughout our work, we will continue to underscore the need to organize social dialogue in an effective way, in order to understand all the problems that may arise in the implementation of international labour instruments. Social dialogue cuts across all ILO instruments. The Convention directly addresses the need to organize this social dialogue. It has also been acceded to by many ILO Member States, with already 158 ratifications to date.

Let us recall, however, that some years ago the ILO launched a campaign for the ratification of this Convention, with the aim of achieving universal ratification by the Organization’s centenary. This objective was not achieved but it is still there. We take this opportunity to invite those States that have not yet done so to undertake the process to ratify the Convention. Ratification of the Convention is essential, as is its observance in law and practice.

Today we will examine the application of the Convention by Slovakia, which ratified it in 1997. The main issue is the 2021 amendment of Act No. 103/2007 on tripartite consultations at the national level. The legal requirements concerning the representativeness of workers’ organizations with a view to conducting social dialogue at national level have therefore changed. Prior to the adoption of the amendments, only workers’ organizations with at least 100,000 members were considered representative and could therefore be represented on the Tripartite Council. The amendment to the Act on tripartite consultations currently means that, if fewer than three workers’ organizations meet this criteria, other organizations with fewer than 100,000 members may also participate in tripartite consultations at the national level.

The country’s main trade union organization, the KOZ SR, considers that this amendment could lead to the participation of organizations with fewer than 1,000 members. Such a situation raises serious doubts about the representativeness of such workers’ organizations and makes the conditions for participation in social dialogue unequal.

Like the KOZ SR, we cannot help but think that the aim of this amendment is to allow non-representative workers’ organizations to participate in tripartite social dialogue at the national level, and therefore to weaken the most representative workers’ organizations, which in this case is the KOZ SR.

While trade union pluralism is a fundamental element of social dialogue, it must also be ensured that the trade union organizations participating in social dialogue are genuinely free and independent. There is a real risk of having unrepresentative unions emerge.

As the Committee of Experts points out in its report, while the Convention sets out that employers and workers must be represented on an equal footing in any body where consultations are held, it does not necessarily require that the number of representative organizations be equal, as it could be the case that a single organization is the most representative.

The KOZ SR also highlighted in its observations that the deliberate increase in the number of bodies taking part in tripartite social dialogue at the national level threatens its effectiveness. This concern expressed by the KOZ SR is in line with the comment made by the Committee of Experts in its 2012 General Survey, which recalled that the concept of the most representative organization is not contrary to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), since it enables a balance to be struck between trade union monopoly on the one hand, which is contrary to Convention No. 87, and excessive diversity of trade unions on the other. In order that the concept of the most representative trade unions is not contrary to the principle of freedom of association, it must be accompanied by certain conditions. The determination of the most representative organizations must therefore be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria, so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse; and the distinction should be limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights (for example, for such purposes as consultation by the authorities).

The legal framework that was applicable prior to the 2021 reform fully met these requirements. It is the changes introduced in 2021 that no longer meet these requirements. As soon as fewer than three organizations meet the criteria for representativeness, other organizations can be designated outside these objectives, pre-established and precise criteria, in violation of the conditions of validity for the concept of representativeness. It is clear that trade union pluralism must be promoted but not by disregarding the requirements set down by the ILO instruments.

It is also clear that compliance with the Convention requires social dialogue to be organized in such a way that all parties are treated equally. This is no longer the case in Slovakia following amendments to the composition of the Tripartite Council. The Government should revisit the amendments introduced in 2021 to restore a situation in line with the Convention.

Employer members – The Employer members underscore the importance of States’ observance of the Convention. Today is the first time that the Committee is addressing the application by Slovakia of this Convention. Slovakia ratified this governance Convention in 1997. We note that, to date, the Committee of Experts had not yet drafted comments on this Convention.

In Slovakia, since 1 March 2021, an Act stipulates the composition of the Tripartite Council as follows:

• seven seats for the trade unions, seven seats for the employers’ organizations, and seven seats for the Government;
• maximum three organizations representing employees, and maximum three organizations representing employers;
• each representative organization has at least one seat;
• each representative organization (of workers or of employers) must have at least 100,000 workers, but where fewer than three organizations meet these criteria, another organization is admitted even where it has fewer than 100,000 workers (as was the case recently with the SOS), which has put an end to the historical monopoly of the KOZ SR.

The complaint presented by the KOZ SR is based on the following issues:

• the SOS is reportedly not sufficiently representative at the national level to be able to have a seat at the Tripartite Council;
• the SOS is reportedly not independent of the Government.

Given this trade union’s observation, the Committee of Experts requested the Government to provide information on the reasons leading to the amendment of the national legislation in 2021 and to indicate how the new membership of the Tripartite Council effectively strengthened tripartism and social dialogue.

In its written submission of 14 May 2025, and in its spoken intervention this morning, the Government responded to the Committee of Experts’ questions and refuted, in fact and in law, the complainant organization’s arguments. It states that national legislation is in conformity with the Convention, and that the Tripartite Council is competent to perform its advisory role on international labour standards.

Firstly, the Government explains that the 2021 Act was intended to adapt to developments in Slovak society, particularly the decrease in union membership in this country, as well as to the splitting up of certain organizations into several specialized entities. The lowering of the representativeness threshold from 200,000 to 100,000 workers covered by each member organization of the Tripartite Council now means that these organizations can continue to meet these criteria. In addition, this Act means that the Council can be open to other organizations, and the total of the organizations ensures overall representativeness. Since 2023, the new Government has wished to maintain the same criteria, which are in line with the principles of freedom of association. In March 2025, a meeting revealed that all bodies, with the exception of the KOZ SR, were in favour of maintaining the status quo, that is to say the current legal situation.

Secondly, the Government explains how the new composition of the Tripartite Council effectively strengthens tripartism and social dialogue. It draws on several factors to support this: the legal criteria for representativeness are objective and transparent, the representative organizations operate independently (particularly with regard to the authorities), they are fully guaranteed freedom of opinion and expression, and the social partners are treated equally. Moreover, the ILO does not require that a tripartite council have an equal number of employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Third, the Government contests that it would allow non-representative unions to participate in tripartite social dialogue at the national level. The SOS is especially representative in the automobile sector, which affords it unquestionable legitimacy in a country that is “number one” in per capita automobile production. The Government also states that the complainant organization has not suffered in any way and that, on the contrary, the pluralism of the Council’s composition lends itself to social dialogue. The complainant organization loses only one of seven seats under the new Act. It therefore retains six, which is in line with its former position. Each trade union retains its full freedom of opinion, even if on most occasions the two trade unions’ opinions on the facts converge. The complainant organization retains the significant financial benefits to carry out its projects and build its capacities.

The Employer members highlight the importance of the Convention - a governance Convention. This Convention lays down the DNA of ILO's tripartism, by requiring that governments transmit their reports to the social partners, and by promoting tripartite dialogue at the national level on the application of international labour standards. We recall that it was in our very Committee that the possibility of adopting an instrument that dealt specifically with the establishment of national tripartite bodies was suggested for the first time in 1972, in order to further involve the national workers’ and employers’ organizations in the regulatory procedures.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, Slovakia has developed a procedure, criteria for organizations’ representativeness and a tripartite advisory body. These mechanisms ensure effective consultation between the Government and the social partners on issues concerning the ILO’s activities.

In accordance with Article 3, the representatives of employers and workers in the Tripartite Council are freely chosen by their representative organizations, the conditions for the organizations’ representativeness are objective and transparent, and take account of national realities with the aim of guaranteeing overall representation of the employers and workers, thereby supporting pluralism and diversity of position.

The Convention has the advantage of being flexible, allowing the nature and the form of the consultation procedures to be determined in keeping with national practice. Very diverse tripartite consultation procedures or methods can therefore meet the objectives of the Convention.

Worker member, Slovakia – We acknowledge your work in safeguarding the normative system and corpus of the ILO and reminding governments that social dialogue is not only the backbone of a fair and sustainable labour environment, but also a fundamental tool to achieve social justice and hence a lasting peace, which is very core of this Organization.

The KOZ SR is the most representative workers’ organization in Slovakia, bringing together trade unions and employees across all sectors of the economy, including the automobile sector. We are the voice of hundreds of thousands of workers who today face increasing economic and social uncertainty. That is precisely why we consider it essential for the system of social dialogue to be credible, stable and based on fair rules.

In 2021, the Government amended the Act on Tripartite Consultations and we consider this change to be incompatible with the Convention. Firstly, let me briefly explain the legal developments. Until March 2021, Slovak law provided that only trade union confederations representing at least 100,000 employees across multiple sectors could become members of the Tripartite Council. It was a strict but fair and equal standard applied to all. However, the amendment that came into force on 1 March 2021 introduced an exception. If the three seats on the worker side of the Tripartite Council are not fully occupied, even organizations that do not meet these representativeness criteria can be admitted upon request. This change has serious implications and has created a two-tier system.

While our trade union organization meets strict criteria of representativeness, including a minimum membership of 100,000 employees, others may gain access to the Tripartite Council without any verified membership base, structure or track record in negotiations.

The KOZ SR fully respects the principle of pluralism and does not oppose the inclusion of new entities in social dialogue. On the contrary, just as the ILO recognizes, we welcome diversity and we think it enriches social dialogue but only if it is based on equal, fair and transparent rules that ensure the representativeness of all organizations involved. We are ready to discuss criteria for representativeness but they must apply equally to everyone. It is unacceptable for one workers’ organization to meet strict conditions, while another is allowed to bypass them. Such a two-track system undermines trust in tripartite dialogue as a fair and equal partnership mechanism.

From a legal standpoint, this amendment directly contradicts Article 1 of the Convention, which clearly refers to consultations with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, not just with those who are “available” in the moment, and not just with those who merely meet the formal registration requirements tailor-made to fit governmental or political purposes.

Moreover, the amendment was adopted unilaterally without any prior consultation with the social partners. The Government pushed this change through unilaterally, without an exchange of views, without a proper discussion and without expert or public assessment. That is why we consider this amendment a double violation of the Convention, both in terms of its substantive principles and its procedural requirements.

Some Government representatives may argue that this amendment has not yet caused significant problems in practice but the point is not about the current state of affairs. It is about the very purpose and spirit of tripartism. The concern is that this legal framework opens the door to opportunistic, non-representative and potentially abusive entries into the Tripartite Council.

There is a risk that tripartism will become a formal setting for so-called silent players with no real mandate from workers and no democratic legitimacy. At the same time, this amendment creates an incentive for fragmentation. Even small groups now know they can split off and still enter the Tripartite Council without having broad support simply because not all seats are filled. That weakens the unity and strength of the trade union movement.

From our perspective, this change does not strengthen social dialogue. It weakens the voice of the most representative workers’ organizations. To date, the Government has failed to provide any convincing justification for why this amendment was necessary or what positive impact was intended.

The Committee of Experts in its preliminary analysis has already stated that the amendment may lead to a situation in which some organizations meet strict representativeness criteria, while others do not, which could conflict with the objectives of the Convention. We fully share this assessment. This is not a technical matter. It strikes at the core values of social dialogue. It is about whether tripartism will remain a space for truly representative voices of workers and employers or whether it will become a formal framework where representativeness can be circumvented. Tripartism is not merely a meeting of three parties. It is a system that must be based on equality, representativeness and real dialogue.

In conclusion, we respectfully ask the Committee to consider:

• assessing the compatibility of the Act on Tripartite Consultations with the Convention;
• urging the Government to ensure equal, objective and transparent conditions for all social partners; and
• supporting a return to a system in which legitimate representativeness is not just one possible criterion for joining the tripartite dialogue but a fundamental principle for participating in tripartite consultations.

As a delegate for all the workers in Slovakia, I thank you for this opportunity and your interest in defending the core and spirit of the Convention and its full normative and powerful content towards social justice.

Employer member, Slovakia – The employers’ representatives of the Slovak Republic respectfully present this statement in response to the submission made by the KOZ SR regarding the alleged non-compliance with the principles of the Convention.

With full respect for the importance of this Convention and the role of social partners in the system of international labour standards, we wish to state that from the employers’ perspective, the current framework of social dialogue in the Slovak Republic provides an adequate and effective platform for consultation between the Government, and workers’ and employers’ representatives.

We consider current rules on representativeness are fair and provide for the possibility to be a part of the Tripartite Council of the Slovak Republic, as the highest national tripartite body.

We are of the view that the system complies with the spirit and objectives of the Convention. In this context, we do not consider it necessary to carry out legislative changes or to revert the legal framework to its state before the changes were implemented.

Where divergent views may exist regarding the scope or technical aspects of the consultation process, the employers’ representatives strongly believe that such matters are best addressed through constructive dialogue at the national level within the framework of existing institutions and procedures.

The employers’ representatives of the Slovak Republic remain fully committed to continuing an open, fair, substantive and diverse social dialogue, and express their willingness to contribute to its further development in a manner that is consistent with the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect.

Worker member, Finland – It is not a coincidence that this Convention is considered a priority one. With regard to international labour standards, tripartism within the meaning of the Convention goes much further than the involvement and active participation of the most representative organizations, as favoured by the ILO Constitution. Any measures to be taken at the national level with respect to this Convention render a consultation procedure mandatory. The Convention, by definition, requires the Member States to respect and to take action towards the full realization of tripartism.

With respect to the case of Slovakia, as expressed by the Committee of Experts, it is more than evident that the changes introduced in the national legislation and practice impact the manner in which the Convention is implemented.

Quite naturally, there are alternatives as to how tripartite consultations can be established in law and in practice. In terms of national practices, consultation can translate into exchanging communication, active formulation of proposals by tripartite bodies, or by other appropriate means, as long as these are considered appropriate by the parties. While the Tripartite Council could have in principle met the standards prior to March 2021, we must note with regret that the current amendments are a step towards regression rather than realization of genuine tripartism.

First, one cannot emphasize enough the aforementioned principle, that the methods chosen by governments must be considered acceptable and appropriate by the parties involved. As the Committee of Experts has explicitly requested the Government to clarify, how is the legislation expected to effectively promote and strengthen tripartism and social dialogue when the most representative organization of Slovakian workers strongly disagrees with them and considers that the true intention is to allow non-representative workers’ organizations to undermine the role of the most representative one?

It is not difficult to see how these amendments could easily lead to circumstances where the definition of representativeness of workers becomes arbitrary. In the best case, the law would arguably extend the composition of the Tripartite Council and effectively allow consultations of non-representative – but perhaps genuine – workers’ organizations. At worst, however, the rule could allow for artificial workers’ organizations to have an equal footing with the genuine and most representative one, that is, the KOZ SR.

The full realization of tripartism does not allow the Government to dictate who the workers are represented by. Instead, it should be emphasized that the consultation of other parties who may be concerned should not in any case undermine participation of the main recognized social partners, let alone seek to replace it. If this does not amount to undermining genuine representativeness, one could ask then, what does?

Second, it must be underlined that there are also certain requirements that must be met for any consultation to be genuine. The proper application of the principles enshrined by the Convention requires, without exception, that consultations effectively be held prior to making decisions, irrespective of the nature or form of these procedures. As expressed in the Committee of Experts’ report, these amendments, under scrutiny today, have been enacted without any due consideration of the view of the most representative workers’ organization.

Unfortunately, as this case well demonstrates, when inadequacies in consultation are detected, it is usually at the expense of the workers’ organizations. As reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts, the very existence of tripartite consultation cannot be taken for granted. Active promotion and recognition from governments is not at all automatic. In fact, as we have regrettably witnessed far too often, circumstances can deteriorate quickly and thereby endanger the purpose and legitimate aim of the Convention. Simple statements of respect for tripartism mean nothing if the corresponding actions are in fact lacking.

Worker member, Greece – I take the floor in solidarity with our fraternal trade union, KOZ SR, to voice the deep concern of Greek workers about Slovakia’s noncompliance with the Convention. This Convention is not procedural. It is institutional and substantive, and is a priority Convention. It safeguards democratic labour governance by ensuring that the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations can participate in shaping policy. That is why correct implementation is vital.

Yet in Slovakia today, we understand that this core objective is under threat. The Committee of Experts notes rightly how these recent amendments can undermine equal and meaningful representation in national tripartite consultations.

As long as the 100,000-member threshold remains, the amendments – adopted unilaterally without consultations – allow unions with as few as 1,000 members to join the Tripartite Council if seats are vacant. This enables marginal or purposefully created unions to displace KOZ SR, the country’s most representative organization, under opaque conditions.

While the Convention does not set numerical thresholds, the Committee of Experts emphasizes that it requires meaningful and legitimate representation. In other words, allowing undue influence by dubiously “representative” bodies contravenes the Convention’s spirit and wording.

Let us be clear: representativity – determined by objective and transparent criteria – is not a game of numbers. It is a key democratic principle, inextricably linked to freedom of association. I recall Paragraph 1 of the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), which specifies that the most representative organizations of employers and workers are those that enjoy the right of freedom of association.

The two concepts – genuine representativity and freedom of association – are inseparable. To undermine one is to erode the other. The Slovakian example risks turning the principle on its head and contravenes the Declaration of Philadelphia which affirms “freedom of association and of expression are essential to sustained progress.”

The Slovak situation sets a dangerous precedent. The issue here is not, as we have heard, pluralism versus trade union monopolies. It is about preserving objective, democratic and transparent criteria for representativity, and about preventing governments from lowering or redefining representativity arbitrarily and unilaterally, in a manner that jeopardizes the integrity of tripartism. In other words, we should not sacrifice objective representational legitimacy for any other numerical balance or convenience. These are not abstract ideas but rather key principles, backed by rich case law enshrined in ILO jurisprudence. The Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paragraph 1353 states:

… if national legislation establishes machinery for the representation … of workers, this representation should normally lie with the organizations which have the largest membership in the category concerned, and the public authorities should refrain from any intervention that might undermine this principle.

Similarly, paragraph 1355 of the 2018 Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association underlines that recognition of the most representative unions is the very basis for collective bargaining.

As reaffirmed by the ILO Centenary Declaration ILO for the Future of Work (2019), strong and representative social partners are the bedrock of democratic inclusive societies; and tripartism, the ILO Centenary Declaration emphasizes, is not just a method, but a shared value.

We call on the Government to thoughtfully repeal these amendments and restore compliance with the Convention and Recommendation No. 152. We also urge our Committee to issue clear, principled recommendations and findings, and to follow-up as needed in order to protect the credibility of the ILO system, the essence of representativity and the future of meaningful democratic social dialogue.

Worker member, Spain – The workers of Spain support the complaint presented by the KOZ SR for alleged non-compliance with the Convention. This is an important and powerful standards-related and procedural tool since, as the ILO has reminded us on numerous occasions, tripartism is essential for good governance, social peace and sustainable economic development.

Article 1 of the Convention defines what is understood as the most representative organizations but we see that the Government has violated the criteria of representativeness and the flexibility that the Convention itself grants to determine the social partners. By including trade union organizations with very low representativeness, rather than making social dialogue an inclusive and richer space, it divides it and weakens it, and disregards the ILO Recommendation in its action plan for a wider ratification and the effective application of the governance Conventions.

The consequences of the Government’s unilateral decision also run counter to further ILO Recommendations, since the Organization emphasizes that compliance with standards is improved by strengthening, not weakening, tripartite consultation systems. We would add to this that the intention to wear down, discredit and discriminate against the majority confederations, as is the case with the Executive’s legal reform, means ignoring the requirement of Article 1, which requires that the public authorities act in good faith when designating which organizations are the most representative.

As this Committee has noted on numerous occasions, the inclusion of minor unions, lacking real membership, produces a perverse effect: the dilution of the workers’ voice, the lack of consensus and, ultimately, the erosion of trust in the system.

If the Government had really wished to strengthen social dialogue, it could have because both the Convention and Recommendation No. 152 do not prescribe a single model but grant all States the necessary flexibility to adapt procedures to national practices, as long as the principles of independence, representativeness and good faith are respected. However, this Government has not observed the spirit or the content of this Convention when it refuses to, and I quote, “look for compromise solutions that are acceptable to all the parties”, which the ILO indicates is key to an authentic tripartite procedure.

The Government of Spain has done this, in a case that was also examined in this Committee for possible non-compliance with the same Convention, and we are experiencing the benefits of tripartism at a time of global crisis, with an economy that is growing more sustainably than in our neighbouring countries and a labour reform, the results of which have been welcomed by the ILO and on which representatives of employers and majority unions are in constant negotiation. This success is not due to a coincidence but rather to the effective functioning of tripartism in my country, which creates an institutional space, under the principles of good faith established by the Convention and Recommendation No. 152, and which is shown in tangible achievements for millions of workers and enterprises.

This is also what we want for Slovakia, and we therefore call on this Committee to take a firm position that takes into account the requests of the Slovak workers’ delegate, in line with Articles 1 and 5 of the Convention.

Equity, pluralism and respect for democratic principles inspire this Organization. Slovakia’s inclusion in the list of cases to be examined by this Committee presents an opportunity to reaffirm the centrality of social dialogue and tripartism in national governance. The proper functioning of these, as indicated by the Convention, would guarantee legitimacy, social cohesion, distributive justice and strengthening of the economy, as indicated by so many instruments, comments and by the ILO itself.

Government representative – I wish to express on behalf of the Slovak delegation our deepest appreciation for every speaker who has taken the floor during today’s deliberations. Your interventions were analytical, critical or visionary, and have truly enriched our dialogue and reminded us of the collective responsibility we share in safeguarding meaningful, inclusive, tripartite consultation across the globe.

We have listened attentively to the observations of the Committee of Experts and to the clarifications provided by the Office.

We are equally grateful for the thoughtful contributions from the Workers’ and Employers’ groups whose lived experience at enterprise and sectoral level brought our discussion to life. Each point raised today has added real value to our common understanding. Let me assure you that the Slovak Republic takes careful note of every comment and recommendation voiced.

At the same time, we remain firmly convinced that the existing legal framework of the Slovak Republic is fully aligned with the letter of spirit of the Convention.

Our Act on tripartite consultation, together with the procedural rules governing the Tripartite Council, provide clear guarantees for timely, prior and effective dialogue with both workers’ and employers’ representatives on all labour-related legislative and policy proposals. This is not only the firm position of the Government but is also the opinion of five of the six members of the Tripartite Council, representing social partners who prefer the newer legislation to the old one.

In this context, it also has to be said that the new legislation is also valid for the employers, meaning that the limitations and the possibility for pluralization of the tripartite dialogue is not only limited to the trade unions.

I would also like to say that it is quite surprising to hear from the representative of the Slovak trade unions that he is speaking on behalf of and represents all workers in Slovakia. Compliance must never lead to complacency. We therefore reiterate our commitment to continuous improvement. Slovakia is prepared to share its experience, positive as well as instructive, so that other Member States may benefit, just as we learn from their good practices in return.

Allow me once again to thank all delegates for the friendly spirit that has characterized our work today. Your insights will accompany us back to the capital, where we will continue the dialogue with the same openness and respect that have marked our exchanges here in Geneva. Thank you for your attention, and thank you for unwavering commitment to social dialogue, tripartism and enduring values of the ILO.

Employer members – We have duly noted the explanations provided during the session by the Government and the trade unions. The Employers’ group underlines the importance of Member States’ observance of the Convention. Tripartism is one of the pillars of the ILO. It is fundamental that tripartism is effectively implemented at international and national levels.

Governments are free, however, to organize these consultations in the most efficient way, to avoid any bureaucracy, and as long as the requirements of the Convention are respected. I will briefly recall these obligations:

• the consultations must cover all ILO standards and activities, as indicated in Article 5(1);
• under Article 2(1), the consultations must be effective, or in other words organized in such a way that the views of the representative organizations are taken into consideration by the Government before it takes any decisions;
• pursuant to Article 5(2), these tripartite consultations must be held at least once a year

The Employer members recommend that the national authorities take the necessary and appropriate measures to ensure effective and efficient tripartite consultation with the national social partners in application of the Convention. The criteria for representativeness of employers’ and workers’ organizations must be objective and predefined by the legislator. The composition of the Tripartite Council must guarantee a balanced representation between employers’ and workers’ representatives. The respective organizations must be able to freely designate their representatives in this Council. This is indeed the case in Slovakia.

We encourage the Government to pursue tripartite dialogue at the national level, ensuring the representativeness of the organizations, without interfering in the appointment of the Tripartite Council members. We invite the Government to, in the future, provide any information that arises out of national social dialogue in accordance with the Convention.

Worker members – I would like to thank all the speakers, particularly the Government representative, for the written and oral information that was transmitted to our Committee. The Convention is a priority governance Convention. It is essential that the Government spares no effort to ensure the proper application of this Convention and to restore an environment conducive to the dynamics of tripartite social dialogue.

In this context, we consider it essential to re-establish the trust of the organizations that participate in this tripartite social dialogue and that meet the objective, pre-established and precise criteria of representativeness set in the legislation. This trust has been shaken since the change to the composition of the Tripartite Council in 2021, which attributed the same prerogatives as those of representative organizations to organizations that did not meet the objective, pre-established and precise criteria of representativeness. The organizations should be treated equally but this is no longer the case following the legal amendments. All of this undermines the dynamics of tripartite social dialogue that should be set up in accordance with the Convention.

We request the Government to, in consultation with the social partners, reinstate the provisions of Act No. 103/2007 on tripartite consultations at the national level, to ensure that the representativeness of organizations is determined on the basis of objective, pre-established and precise criteria, in accordance with the Convention.

As has been requested, it is important that the Government transmit to the Committee of Experts detailed and updated information on the reasons for the amendments to national legislation. The Government must also indicate how the new composition of the Tripartite Council is intended to effectively promote and strengthen tripartism and social dialogue. We request the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance and to inform the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2025 of the measures taken with a view to implementing the recommendations that our Committee will make.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral and written information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee recalled that tripartite consultation to promote the implementation of international labour standards is of paramount importance.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee called on the Government to:

• engage in constructive tripartite social dialogue about all matters including reasons for any changes to the provisions of Act No. 103/2007 on tripartite consultations at national level, in line with the Convention;
• conduct tripartite consultations with the most representative employer and worker organisations on all ILO standards and activities at the national level;
• ensure that consultations are effective in law and in practice and take place at least once a year and, in that regard, also ensure that, in law and in practice, no exception allows organizations to be granted the same consultation rights as those of representative organizations;
• ensure that organizations are able to exercise their right to freely elect their representatives without any external interference;
• provide information on how the new membership of the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic is expected to function and effectively promote and strengthen tripartism and social dialogue.

The Committee invited the Government to provide information on measures to implement the above recommendations to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2025.

Chairperson – I invite the representative of the Government of Slovakia, the Minister of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. to take the floor.

Government representative – Slovakia would like to thank the Committee for its conclusions on our compliance under the Convention. Slovakia acknowledges and respects the important role of the Committee of Experts and of this Committee within the ILO supervisory system. Ensuring the effective application of international labour standards is crucial and critical for achieving our shared objective of proper tripartite discussions for all stakeholders involved.

I hope the information presented in our verbal and written contribution on the reasoning for the adoption of the 2021 amendment to the Tripartite Act provided reassurance of Slovakia’s commitment to, and compliance with, the Convention. We will of course continue to work with social partners to follow up on the Committee’s conclusions.

Slovakia will act on the words spoken at this session, and I am confident that the Government and social partners will resolve these matters in the spirit of social dialogue.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers’ (IOE), received on 1 September 2025, which reproduce the statements made in June 2025 before the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) by the Employer spokesperson and the national employers’ representative, as well as the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 2 September 2025. The Committee further notes the response from the Government, received on 29 October 2025

Tripartite consultations regarding issues mentioned by the Tripartite Consultations (Activities of the International Labour Organization) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152).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) (Para. 5(c)), the Committee once again invites the Government to indicate the nature and the impact of the measures taken to strengthen the consultations of the social partners in the lawmaking process.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers’ (IOE), received on 1 September 2025, which reproduce the statements made in June 2025 before the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) on the occasion of the examination of the application of the Convention by Slovakia by the Employer spokesperson and the national employers’ representative. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 2 September 2025. The Committee further notes the response from the Government, received on 29 October 2025.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 113th Session, June 2025)

The Committee recalls the discussion that took place in the CAS, at its 113th Session in June 2025, regarding the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the CAS recalled that tripartite consultation to promote the implementation of international labour standards is of paramount importance and requested the Government to: (i) engage in constructive tripartite social dialogue about all matters including reasons for any changes to the provisions of Act No. 103/2017 on tripartite consultations at national level, in line with the Convention; (ii) conduct tripartite consultations with the most representative employer and worker organisations on all ILO standards and activities at the national level; (iii) ensure that consultations are effective in law and in practice and take place at least once a year and, in that regard, also ensure that, in law and in practice, no exception allows organizations to be granted the same consultation rights as those of representative organizations; (iv) ensure that organisations are able to exercise their right to freely elect their representatives without any external interference; and (v) provide information on how the new membership of the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic is expected to function and effectively promote and strengthen tripartism and social dialogue.

The CAS requested the Government to provide information to the Committee on measures to implement the above recommendations by 1 September 2025.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Consultation procedures. Election of representatives of the social partners. The Committee notes that, in its observations, the ITUC expresses concerns regarding legislative changes in Slovakia that may allow the emergence of unrepresentative trade unions in national-level social dialogue. The ITUC highlights that the central issue is the introduction of amendments to Act No. 103/2017 Coll. on Tripartite Consultations at the National Level (the Tripartite Act), with effect from 1 March 2021. The ITUC recalls that, prior to these amendments, only workers’ organizations with at least 100,000 members were considered “representative organizations” and could therefore be represented in the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic (the Council). It emphasizes that Slovakia’s main trade union organization, the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (KOZ SR), considers that the amendments could allow workers’ organizations with as few as 1,000 members to participate, thereby creating doubts about their representativeness and establishing unequal conditions for participation in national tripartite social dialogue. For the ITUC, the purpose of the amendments is to enable non-representative workers’ organizations to join national-level social dialogue, thereby weakening KOZ SR’s role as the most representative workers’ organization. The ITUC argues that, while trade union pluralism is a fundamental element of social dialogue, it is essential to ensure that the trade union organizations participating in social dialogue are genuinely free and independent. It stresses that although the Convention requires employers and workers to be represented on an equal footing in any bodies through which consultations are undertaken, it does not require an equal number of representative organizations, as there may be cases where only one organization is the most representative. The ITUC also refers to the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work in light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008 (2012 General Survey), which affirms that the determination of the most representative organizations must be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria, so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse. The ITUC is of the view that social dialogue in Slovakia is no longer organized in a manner that ensures equal treatment of all parties and that the Government will have to reverse the 2021 amendments to restore compliance with the Convention. It observes that, since the CAS examined the implementation of the Convention in Slovakia, the Government has made no progress toward engaging in tripartite dialogue to adopt measures that would give full effect to the Convention, in line with the CAS conclusions.

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that tripartite consultations are conducted with the most representative organizations of employers’ and workers according to the criteria set out in the Tripartite Act under which representativeness is determined primarily on a quantitative ground, namely a minimum of 100,000 members. Only in cases where there are fewer than three workers’ or employers’ organizations on the Council, can other organizations with less than 100,000 members apply for Council membership. Organizations with the highest number of members/employees are then considered, using transparent criteria. The Government submits that neither Article 1 of the Convention nor the Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152), specify how national representativeness criteria must be defined. The Convention does not require a specific quantitative threshold. However, the Convention refers to the “most representative organizations” in the plural, which in the Government’s view refers to a group of representative organizations defined on the basis of objective qualitative and/or quantitative criteria. For the Government, such plurality enriches and is necessary in the context of social dialogue. The Government reports that, until the entry into force of the 2021 amendments, there was only one organization deemed representative on the workers’ side and up to four organizations deemed representative on the employers’ side. Following the amendments to the Tripartite Act, two workers’ organizations are considered representative. The Government underlines that the trade union Spoločné odbory Slovenska (Joint Trade Unions of Slovakia), which joined the Council as a result of the entry into force of the 2021 amendments, is active in major industrial enterprises, especially in the automotive sector, participates in higher-level collective bargaining, and is the country’s second-largest union. The Government submits that its entry did not affect the functioning of the Council. According to the Government, KOZ SR does not object to the existence of a quantitative criterion as such but claims that the threshold is too low and allows unrepresentative pro-government unions to participate in tripartite consultations. The Government rejects this claim and argues that it is an attempt by KOZ SR to maintain its monopoly on workers’ representation during tripartite consultations. The Government adds that the members of the Council do not share KOZ SR’s view as demonstrated at the March and August 2025 Council meeting, where six of seven representative organizations supported maintaining the existing legal framework. The Government therefore submits that the Tripartite Act complies with the Convention and that no additional measures are required.

Further to its previous comment, the Committee recalls that the term “the most representative organizations of employers and workers” in Article 1 of the Convention does not mean only the largest organisation of employers and the largest organisation of workers. If in a particular country there are two or more organisations of employers or workers which represent a significant body of opinion, even though one of them may be larger than the others, they may all be considered to be “most representative organisations” for the purpose of the Convention. Governments should endeavour to secure an agreement of all the organisations concerned in establishing the consultative procedures provided for by the Convention, but if this is not possible it is in the last resort for governments to decide, in good faith in the light of the national circumstances, which organisations are to be considered as the most representative (2000 General Survey on tripartite consultation international labour standards, para. 34). The Committee nevertheless recalls that the determination of the most representative organizations must be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse. In that regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, since the introduction of amendments to the Tripartite Act, when fewer than three employers’ or workers’ organisations qualify as representative based on having a minimum of 100,000 members, additional entities below that threshold may join the Council – up to a maximum of three in total. The Committee also recalls that Article 3(2), of the Convention, which provides that “employers and workers shall be represented on an equal footing” should not be interpreted as imposing strict numerical equality, but rather, as being intended to ensure substantially equal representation of the respective interests of employers and of workers so that their views are given equal weight. It also recalls that particular categories of employers or of workers can also be represented without infringing the principle of equal representation, particularly where there are many representative organizations (2000 General Survey, paras 46 and 59).

Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information and explain how Act No. 103/2017 Coll. on Tripartite Consultations at the National Level (the Tripartite Act), or any other national text, establishes objective and precise criteria for the determination of the most representative organization(s), and the appointment of their representative(s) to the Economic and Social Council of the Slovak Republic (the Council), in situations where fewer than three employers’ or workers’ organisations qualify as representative on the basis of having a minimum of 100,000 members. Recalling that the principle of representation on an equal footing aims to ensure that the views of employers and workers are given equal weight, rather than imposing strict numerical equality, the Committee further requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the practical application of the amended Tripartite Act, demonstrating how it ensures that the interests of both parties remain balanced in the consultation process. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on how the membership of the Council functions and effectively promotes and strengthens tripartism and social dialogue.

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s general indication that tripartite consultations at the highest level are held on all draft legislation affecting all employees and employers. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that tripartite consultations are held once a month or at an interval agreed by the social partners. The Government reports that nine tripartite meetings were held in 2024, and eight meetings were held by the end of August 2025. Noting that the Government indicates that eight meetings of the Council took place in 2025, without providing information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on the matters referred to in Article 5(1) of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in that regard. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the frequency, content and outcome of any subsequent consultations. 

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

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.