Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Georgia (Ratification: 1999)

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

Written information provided by the Government

The Government appreciates the opportunity to respond to the observations made by the Committee of Experts regarding the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence (the Law), adopted on 28 May 2024 by the Parliament of Georgia, particularly regarding its potential implications for workers’ and employers’ organizations under the Convention.

In response to the Committee’s observations, we would like to offer clarifications concerning the purpose and scope of the Law, while affirming its full compatibility with the Convention in both principle and application. We would also like to emphasize our expectation that the Law – which has unfortunately become artificially exaggerated as a political issue – will not become subject to politically biased discussions within forums that should remain free from such partiality.

The Law primarily aims to ensure the transparency and accountability of non-governmental and media organizations operating in Georgia that receive substantial foreign funding and engage in political activism.

In Georgia, as in all democratic nations, the foreign financing of political processes is prohibited. Regrettably, there have been cases of covert foreign political interference through certain large non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In response, this Law establishes a mechanism to identify and disclose to the public biased political influences within the non-governmental sector that might undermine the country’s political and economic stability.

At the same time, the Law contains no provisions restricting freedom of association, as it does not limit organizations’ operations or their ability to receive funding in any form. This has never been – and under no circumstances could become – the intention or objective of the Government of Georgia.

The Law does not limit in any way the right of any organization, including workers’ or employers’ organizations, to affiliate with international bodies or receive financial support from them. Any suggestion that the Law impedes freedom of association under the Convention is based on a misinterpretation of its scope. The sole purpose of the Law is to prevent covert political interference and ensure transparency. Consequently, it cannot, and will not, impede the legitimate activities of trade unions and employers’ associations.

Under the Law, the registration and reporting obligations of an “organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power” apply exclusively to non-entrepreneurial (non-commercial) legal entities that receive more than 20 per cent of their total income during a calendar year from foreign sources. The financial reporting requirements established by the Law are both proportionate and non-discriminatory. Registered entities are only required to submit their financial declarations electronically once per year – a minimal bureaucratic burden that cannot reasonably hinder an organization’s operations.

Regarding the monitoring process for the enforcement of the Law, it serves to ensure organizational transparency and incorporates only those mechanisms necessary for effective implementation. Penalties apply strictly in cases where an organization deliberately refuses to comply with the Law and declines to transparently report its funding sources and intended uses – a fully legitimate demand that the State is entitled to make.

It should also be emphasized that Georgia’s approach is not unique but rather reflects a broader international concern about the potential for foreign interference in national governance. The Law is based on, and adapted to, well-established legislation and practices in democratic States, including the US Foreign Agents Registration Act; Israel’s NGO Transparency Law, which imposes similar transparency requirements on foreign-funded entities; a draft European Union directive under consideration by the European Parliament aimed at enhancing the transparency of foreign influence; and a draft law adopted by the French National Assembly (lower house of Parliament) introducing stricter oversight of foreign-funded organizations.

Furthermore, the Law is fully consistent with the principles established by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which recognize that States may impose legitimate transparency measures to safeguard democratic processes.

Furthermore, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in its ruling on Hungary’s analogous legislation, explicitly recognized the public’s right to information regarding the funding sources and objectives of NGOs. The primary focus of the Law lies outside labour relations.

Nevertheless, extensive public debates, stakeholder discussions and parliamentary deliberations took place prior to the Law’s adoption, ensuring ample opportunity for input from all interested parties. The legislative process was conducted in full compliance with Georgia’s constitutional and parliamentary procedures.

In conclusion, we reiterate that Georgian society has the same fundamental right to information about foreign funding objectives as citizens of any democratic State. We wish to reaffirm Georgia’s commitment to the principles of the ILO, including the right of workers and employers to freely associate, organize their administration and engage in collective bargaining.

We trust that the Committee will give due consideration to the arguments presented above, which render further individual examination of Georgia’s case at the 113th Session of the International Labour Conference unwarranted.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – It is my honour to welcome the distinguished representative of the Government of Georgia, Acting Head of the Department for Social Protection and Labour Policy.

Government representative – On behalf of the Government of Georgia, I appreciate this opportunity to address the Committee of Experts’ observations regarding the application of the Convention in Georgia. The right to form and join trade unions is guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia for all citizens of the country.

In 2018, the Law on Trade Unions was granted the status of Organic Law. This legislation establishes the legal foundations for the creation of trade unions, their rights and the guarantees of their operations. Since 2019, several amendments have been introduced to the Law of Georgia on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, in line with the commitments undertaken under the Association Agreement between Georgia and the European Union. Specifically, the principle of equal treatment has been extended to include membership in, and activities of, workers’ organizations, employers’ organizations or other associations whose members may belong to professional groups.

Subsequently, within the framework of the 2020 Labour Code reform, the same principle was incorporated into the Labour Code of Georgia. Moreover, as part of this reform, an agreement was reached to lower the minimum number of members required to establish a trade union from 50 to 25. Georgia does not face significant challenges in ensuring the protection of freedom of association as a fundamental labour right. This is supported both in court practice and by data from the International Labour Organization itself. For instance, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator 8.8.2 which, as you know, measures national compliance with fundamental labour rights, particularly freedom of association and collective bargaining, stands as low as 0.1 for Georgia, according to the most recent data from 2023. Moreover, this indicator has shown a declining trend since 2015. We have thoroughly reviewed the Committee of Experts’ concerns regarding the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, adopted on 28 May 2024 by the Parliament of Georgia, particularly regarding its potential implications for workers’ and employers’ organizations. We would like to offer clarification concerning the proposed scope of the Law, while affirming its full compatibility with the Convention in both principle and application. We would also like to emphasize our expectation that the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, which has, unfortunately, become artificially exaggerated as a political issue, will not become subject to politically biased discussions within a forum that should remain free from such partiality. The Law primarily aims to ensure the transparency and accountability of non-governmental and media organizations operating in Georgia that receive substantial foreign funding and engage in political activism.

In Georgia, as in all democratic nations, foreign financing of political processes is prohibited. This Law establishes a mechanism to identify and disclose political influences within the non-governmental sector that might undermine the country’s political and economic stability. At the same time, the Law contains no provisions restricting freedom of association, as it does not limit organizations’ operations or their ability to receive funding in any form. The Law does not limit in any way the right of any organization, including workers’ or employers’ organizations, to affiliate with international bodies or receive financial support from them.

Consequently, it cannot and will not impede the legitimate activities of trade unions and employers’ associations. Under the Law, the registration and reporting obligations apply exclusively to non-commercial legal entities that receive more than 20 per cent of their total income during the calendar year from foreign sources. The financial reporting requirements established by the Law are both proportionate and non-discriminatory.

Registered entities are only required to submit their financial declarations electronically once per year, a minimal bureaucratic burden that cannot reasonably hinder an organization’s operations.

Regarding the monitoring processes for the enforcement of the law, it serves to ensure organizational transparency and incorporates only those mechanisms necessary for effective implementation. Penalties apply strictly in cases where an organization deliberately refuses to comply with this Law and declines to transparently report its funding sources and intended uses, which is a fully legitimate demand that the State is entitled to make. It should also be emphasized that Georgia’s approach is not unique, but rather reflects a broader international concern about the potential for foreign interference in national governance. Furthermore, the Law is fully consistent with the principles established by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which recognize that the State may impose legitimate transparency measures that safeguard democratic processes. The primary focus of the Law lies outside labour relations. In the end, we wish to reaffirm Georgia’s commitment to the principles of the ILO, including the right of workers and employers to freely associate, organize their administration and engage in collective bargaining.

We remain committed to continuing our cooperation with the ILO and our social partners, including through the framework of the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission. This includes our readiness to engage in dialogue with our partners regarding the recently adopted legislative amendments and their potential implications. The above-mentioned Commission, at its most recent meeting in March 2025, played a pivotal role in addressing a labour dispute in one of the municipalities of Georgia, and all parties affirmed the importance of holding quarterly meetings of this Commission. We remain committed to advancing the protection of workers’ rights in Georgia, including through the consideration of the Committee of Experts’ recommendations. We would also welcome technical assistance from the ILO in support of aligning our legislation with international labour standards.

Employer members – We thank the Government of Georgia for the oral and written information on this case, of which we have fully taken note. The Employer members stress the importance of the States’ compliance with the application of this ratified core Convention. The Convention was ratified by Georgia in 1999. Since 2005, the Committee of Experts has issued nine observations, and this case has not been discussed in the Committee before. The Government provided written information, which was published on 19 May 2025. On the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, which was adopted by the Parliament on 28 May 2024, the Employer members would like to highlight three points:

• About the process: The Committee of Experts noted that the Law adopted without prior consultations with the social partners. They referred to the Urgent Opinion of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, which expressed deep concern at the fact that this Law was adopted in a rushed way with no meaningful consultation process. According to the position of the Government, the legislative process was conducted in full compliance with Georgia’s constitutional and parliamentary procedures. The Employer members would like to ask the Government whether the draft legislation was preceded by free and frank consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations.
• About the registration as an organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power: According to sections 2(1)(a) and 4(1), non-commercial legal entities receiving over 20 per cent of their annual income during a calendar year from a foreign source must register as “organizations pursuing the interests of a foreign power”. Except for those non-commercial legal entities which are expressly excluded, this definition potentially encompasses employers’ and workers’ organizations affiliated with international bodies. According to section 1(2), the Law shall not restrict the activities of an entity registered as an organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power. The Government mentioned in its written contribution that the Law does not limit organizations’ operations or their ability to receive funding. Furthermore, they believe that the Law does not limit in any way the right of any organization, including workers’ or employers’ organizations, to affiliate with international bodies or receive financial support from them. However, our group would like to note that the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe considered that, by repeatedly referring to an organization as “pursuing the interests of a foreign power,” the Law could have the effect of stigmatizing. The Employer members doubt that the fact that one fifth of the annual budget is provided by a third party would justify the designation of “pursuing the interests of a foreign power”.
• On additional obligations: Workers’ and employers’ organizations covered by the Law are subject to additional obligations. This includes submitting annual financial declarations and providing requested information immediately during investigations or monitoring. The Law also foresees that all organizations are subject to monitoring. The grounds for initiating monitoring are a decision of a person authorized by the Ministry of Justice, or a written application submitted to the Ministry of Justice, which contains appropriate information related to a specific organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power.

The Committee of Experts observed that this provision is unlimited in scope and that it provides for no precise criteria as to what entities or individuals may submit statements to trigger monitoring, nor does it constrain the discretion of the Government agents.

Furthermore, significant fines in case of non-compliance with the Law are foreseen:

• for failure to register or to submit a financial declaration;
• for failure to fill in the registration statement or to remedy a shortcoming;
• in cases of the continuation of such failures; and
• or failure to provide the information requested by the person authorized by the Ministry.

According to Article 5 of the Convention, workers’ and employers’ organizations have the explicit right to affiliate with international organizations of workers and employers. Article 3 of the Convention grants workers’ and employers’ organizations the right to draw up their own constitutions and rules. It also stipulates that public authorities must refrain from any interference that would restrict this right or impede its lawful exercise. The Employer members believe that the burdens of the Law, for example, the severe sanctions and broad governmental discretion, could interfere with the autonomy of workers’ and employers’ organizations according to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Employer members urge the Government to evaluate a possible amendment to the legislation, in consultation with the social partners, particularly with regard to the issue of excluding employers’ and workers’ organizations from the scope of the legislation. Finally, and to conclude, we recommend that the Government provide information on all measures taken in this respect.

Worker members – This is the first time that the Committee has been called upon to examine the application of the Convention by the Government of Georgia. The Worker members express grave concern about recent legislative developments that pose significant threats to the fundamental freedoms and rights of workers and their organizations, as well as to the broader democratic space in the country.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts raised serious concerns about the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, adopted in May 2024, which requires any non-commercial organization receiving over 20 per cent of its funding from abroad to register as a so-called “organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power”. The definition of “foreign source” includes international trade unions and other associations established under foreign or international law. Organizations labelled as “pursuing the interests of a foreign power” face strict obligations, including annual financial reporting and immediate disclosure of information upon request by the Ministry of Justice. All organizations may be monitored at the Ministry’s discretion or based on third-party complaints. Non-compliance carries significant fines, ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 Georgian lari (up to approximately US$9,200).

In April 2025, the Parliament passed a new Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which reinforces the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence of May 2024. The FARA targets any person (legal or physical) who is deemed to be “under the control of, or acting at the direction of, a foreign power and acting in the interests of that foreign power”, but remains vague as to its scope. Failure to comply with the FARA is punishable by up to five years of imprisonment, a fine of up to 10,000 lari (approximately US$3,600), or both.

The Worker members are deeply concerned by the broad scope and potentially far-reaching consequences of these laws, which remain vague in both intent and application. Sweeping definitions, vague criteria, and expansive monitoring powers pose a serious threat to the rights of workers and trade unions guaranteed under the Convention, particularly the right to organize, to administer their own affairs and activities freely, and to affiliate with international organizations, as enshrined in Articles 2, 3, and 5. We also echo the concerns of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe regarding the Law’s potentially stigmatizing language, which risks delegitimizing organizations that receive international funding. We emphasize that the FARA has the same deterrent effect for individuals.

In line with the Committee of Experts’ request, we urge the Government to amend the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence and the FARA, in consultation with the social partners, so as to explicitly exclude trade union activities and trade unions from their scope of application.

Turning to the amendments to the Law on Public Service adopted in December 2024, the Worker members express serious concern over the significant deterioration of employment conditions for public servants, which negatively impacts their ability to exercise their rights and freedoms under the Convention. The Law effectively abolishes employment security by replacing stable contracts with one-year temporary contracts, which may be terminated at any time with only one month’s notice and compensation equivalent to one month’s salary. Additionally, civil servants are now subject to annual performance evaluations by their immediate supervisors, in which a single unsatisfactory rating results in a 20 per cent salary reduction, and a second such rating leads to dismissal.

This reform creates unprecedented job insecurity and weakens the labour protections of civil servants against arbitrary dismissal. Such conditions severely undermine the environment necessary for civil servants to freely exercise their trade union rights, raising serious concerns in relation to the Convention and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), which Georgia ratified in 2003.

It is deeply regrettable that none of these legislative changes were preceded by meaningful consultation with the social partners. Effective social dialogue is not only a cornerstone of democratic governance and sound labour relations, it is also a legal obligation under international standards. The absence of such dialogue seriously undermines the legitimacy of both the legislative process and its outcomes. The Government of Georgia has a clear responsibility to engage with workers’ representative organizations in the development and implementation of legislation affecting their rights and interests. We therefore urge the Government to review the recent amendments to the Law on Public Service through a genuine process of consultation with workers’ representative organizations. This is essential to restore key labour protections, ensure employment security in the public sector, and safeguard the ability of civil servants to freely exercise their rights to organize and bargain collectively.

We express grave concern over the legislative initiatives being advanced by the Government, including the expedited adoption of amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences, the Criminal Code, and the Law on Assemblies and Manifestations. Of particular alarm are the measures aimed at criminalizing peaceful protests, such as the imposition of heavy fines for roadblocks and the introduction of preventive detention based solely on suspicion.

In the context of widespread public demonstrations and social tensions, these measures severely constrict democratic space and infringe upon the fundamental civil liberties of workers.

The Worker members urge the Government of Georgia to immediately repeal these punitive legislative measures, to fully respect the right to peaceful assembly and protest, and to engage in meaningful dialogue with workers’ organizations to ensure that fundamental civil liberties and democratic rights are guaranteed, in line with the Convention

Worker member, Georgia – It is an honour for me to speak on behalf of the Georgia Trade Unions Confederation (GTUC). We should note that the draft Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence was criticized by the GTUC during the discussion stage of the initiative, as it hinders democracy, European Union integration and the protection of human rights in the country, although it was ultimately adopted last year without consultations with social partners.

Moreover, the adoption of legislation inconsistent with fundamental labour standards continued, including in the field of labour, such as amendments to the Law on Public Service. The GTUC believes that amendments to the Law on Public Service, introduced at the end of last year, have significantly worsened the guarantees of protection for public servants and, as a result, contradict international labour standards, the Association Agreement with the European Union, the Constitution of Georgia, and the well-established practice of the Constitutional court and common courts of Georgia.

The involvement of the most representative workers’ organization in the country, the GTUC, was ignored in the process of preparation of the draft law, thus violating the fundamental standards of the International Labour Organization, which oblige Member States to ensure effective consultations with employers’ associations and trade unions on labour issues.

Although we criticized the amendments at the initial stage and demanded their withdrawal, the draft law deteriorated sharply during the parliamentary hearings, and, as a result, we ended up in a worse situation than we had with the Labour Code adopted in 2006, which, based on our reports, had been the object of sharp criticisms by the International Labour Organization for years.

It took us many years of struggle to use international mechanisms and the direct involvement of the International Labour Organization to change the neoliberal, one-sided labour legislation adopted with complete disregard for employees’ rights.

We believe that amendments supported by Parliament have undermined the progress achieved to date in the labour legislation regulating the public service.

We have approached the International Labour Organization for an expert opinion on the adopted amendments, which are in complete disregard of international and national standards, and we are preparing the case for the Constitutional court as well.

The heads of the primary structural unit of a public institution and their deputies are no longer considered as public servants, but as persons employed under administrative contract. The term of validity of the contracts of such persons shall not exceed the term of office of the head of the relevant public institution. The termination of the authority of the head of the institution shall result in the termination of their authority. The heads of the primary structural unit and their deputies may terminate their contract at any time with one month’s notice and shall receive only one month’s compensation.

The specified regulation effectively leaves those employed in very important positions in the public service vulnerable, which also affects public servants.

All public servants are evaluated every six months instead of once a year. In the event that a public servant receives an unsatisfactory evaluation, 20 per cent of his or her official salary will be withheld until the results of his or her next evaluation, a measure which did not exist before. If he or she is assessed unsatisfactory twice, he or she will be dismissed from service. The head of the public institution is authorized to change the evaluation prepared by the public servant’s immediate supervisor within one month of this evaluation.

The mobility rule no longer applies in cases of reorganization, although mobility is an important instrument for maintaining jobs in the civil service system in general. Appealing dismissal decisions does not suspend the adopted acts, and a favourable court ruling on behalf of a person dismissed from service on the grounds of reorganization does not lead to the reinstatement of the illegally dismissed person. Even in the event of winning the dispute, the dismissed public servant will receive compensation in the amount of three months of official salary.

Under the above-mentioned regulation, public servants who are members of trade unions are at particular risk. In the event of dismissal from service on the grounds of trade union membership in the context of reorganization, or possibly under other legal grounds, they will not be able to restore their rights. This will have a significantly negative impact on trade union members, causing them to leave trade union organizations out of fear, especially when no single collective agreement has been signed in the sector concerned.

We demand that public servants, through social dialogue formats, receive legislative guarantees so that their job stability and fundamental rights, including freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, are not put at risk.

As the Government representative already mentioned, we do have a national tripartite framework at the national level, which is the framework in which we should consider and discuss all issues related to employment. We already have an action plan, which was adopted a few months ago and now needs to be implemented.

We do consider that this time, as has happened before in the history of Georgia, the recommendations of the Committee will be sufficient to ensure better protection of workers’ rights – in this case, public servants’ rights in Georgia.

Government member, Poland – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The candidate countries Montenegro, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, and the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights. We promote universal ratification and effective implementation of fundamental ILO Conventions and support the ILO in developing and promoting international labour standards and supervising their application.

Georgia was given a European perspective on 23 June 2022. In December 2023, the European Council granted Georgia candidate status on the understanding that the relevant nine steps set out in the Commission recommendation of 8 November 2023 were taken. Since 2016, an association agreement between the EU and Georgia has been in force, and together we have been deepening political association and economic integration with the EU, including through a commitment to respect and implement the internationally recognized core labour standards, as embodied in the fundamental ILO Conventions.

We express our serious concern with the latest observation by the Committee of Experts regarding the adoption of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence in May 2024. The Law creates obligations for all non-commercial legal persons, including trade unions and employers’ organizations, receiving more than 20 per cent of their income from foreign sources, to register as “organizations pursuing the interests of a foreign power”. We underline that this Law has been adopted without proper consultations with the social partners, violating established principles of social dialogue, and without prior consultation on legislation impacting workers’ and employers’ organizations.

We recall the Urgent Opinion of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, which strongly recommended repealing the Law and expressed its deep concern about the fact that the Law was adopted in a rushed way and without a meaningful consultation process. The Commission also considered that the Law sets restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and privacy, and has serious implications, as it undermines both the financial stability and credibility of the organizations targeted, as well as their operations.

We concur with the Committee of Experts’ consideration that the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence restricts the right of trade unions and employers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities protected by Article 3 of the Convention, by imposing excessive obligations on those deemed as “pursuing the interests of a foreign power”. This includes mandatory registration, excessive administrative and financial control, as well as heavy financial penalties for non-compliance. We also underline that the Law raises the risk of arbitrary intervention in the unions’ activities, as it lacks clear limitations on the discretionary power of authorities.

We recall the Committee of Experts’ observation that this legislation infringes the principles concerning the right to affiliate with international organizations laid down in Article 5 of the Convention. We concur with the conclusion of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) that international trade union solidarity constitutes one of the fundamental objectives of any trade union movement and underlies the principle that any organization, federation or confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international organizations of workers and employers. Accepting financial assistance from international workers’ and employers’ organizations is a legitimate right which stems from this affiliation.

In line with the Committee of Experts’ recommendation, we urge the Government of Georgia to immediately take steps to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention in consultation with social partners, and to provide information on progress and on all measures taken in this regard.

We took note of the Government’s written submission on the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence. Recently adopted legislation represents further aggressive action by the Georgian authorities to suppress dissent, restrict freedoms, and shrink the space for activists, civil society, and independent media. This includes the Foreign Agents Registration Act and amendments to the Law on Grants, which mark a further restrictive step from the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, among others, by introducing criminal liability. These laws unduly restrict fundamental freedoms and human rights, and erode democratic decisionmaking.

In its conclusions from June, October and December 2024, the European Council found that the authorities’ course of action jeopardizes Georgia’s EU path. We note that the accession process is currently de facto halted and shall remain so, as long as the authorities fail to take credible steps to reverse democratic backsliding.

We reiterate our support to the Georgian people’s European aspirations. The EU and its Member States stand ready to support Georgia with the aim to address the issues raised and in meeting its obligations under the ratified Conventions.

Worker member, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – I speak on behalf of the workers of the United Kingdom and also those of France and Germany. Noting the Committee of Experts’ recollection in this year’s observation that “the introduction of any draft legislation affecting the rights and interests of workers and employers should be preceded by free and frank consultations with their most representative organizations”, we note the Urgent Opinion of the Venice Commission issued on 3 March this year, following changes to the law governing demonstrations and potentially harsh sanctions for those that fall foul of them.

We note that, as the Venice Commission points out, the Government of Georgia did not engage with the social partners in any discussion on laws affecting their rights and interests. As workers in the United Kingdom know all too well, laws drafted on trade union rights or rights essential for the proper exercise of trade union freedoms, that are not preceded by proper discussion with trade unions tend to have serious problems. It is therefore no surprise that the Venice Commission calls the changes “fundamentally flawed”.

Peaceful protest is a crucial tool available to trade unions to protect the interests of their members and therefore falls under the Committee of Experts’ exhortation for free and frank consultation. Of course, like some of the bad legislation aimed at United Kingdom workers between 2016 and 2023, which we are very glad to see being dismantled by our current Government, not all those flaws might be a product of clumsiness or ignorance. The other issues being raised in this case give us cause to question the good faith of the Georgian Government. But whatever the motive, the overly broad prohibitions, coupled with just as overly severe sanctions on perfectly peaceful activities, are of great concern. For example, the law prohibits the use of “pyrotechnics” but does not define what it means by that.

Of greater concern are two clauses governing what peaceful demonstrators may wear.

First, the law bans covering the face, and I quote, “with a mask or any other means”. Even allowing for the fact that there is no reason why peaceful protesters should not be able to cover their face, this law, through misstep or design, is damagingly vague.

The Venice Commission notes that the prohibition is so broad as to potentially cause confusion for both protesters and those enforcing the law as to what is allowed and what is prohibited. Does it include medical face coverings which many vulnerable people still wear as a precaution when in close proximity to large crowds? How much of the face must be uncovered? Can I wear a scarf on a cold day? Should I be worried about my facial hair? Again, it is hard to imagine that such a poorly drafted law would have survived a meaningful consultation with the trade unions.

The law further outlaws wearing clothes “similar to police uniforms”. Once again, it does not say how similar clothes can be – does it mean high-vis elements or uniform-style hats, or just wearing dark blue with grey? And who decides?

Given increased penalties for non-compliance with the lawful order of a law enforcement officer, even in the context of a completely peaceful demonstration, it is even more important that both parties can judge the limits of what such an order could lawfully be.

Of course, our concern is not only about the disproportionate power this gives the police to interpret these laws as they see fit, though they could have a chilling effect on the exercise of free political expression, but also that the law directly and negatively affects the interests of trade unions without there having been any effort to consult the most representative social partners as very clearly called for in the Committee of Experts’ comments. The result is a hasty, ill-thought-out piece of legislation that creates potential bear traps for completely peaceful protesters and could be exploited as a means to suppress free expression of issues core to the defence of the interests of trade union members.

As the Venice Commission notes, these laws “introduce numerous restrictions on freedom of assembly and other fundamental rights which appear to be incompatible with the principles of lawfulness, necessity and proportionality”.

We, therefore, call on the Government to, as a matter of urgency, commit to a review of both the Assemblies Law and the Code of Administrative Offences, and to carry it out in full consultation with the social partners with a view of clarifying the provisions of the law and removing obstacles to free expression through peaceful protest.

Worker member, Finland – I am speaking on behalf of the Nordic Trade Unions. While it may sound self-evident, and perhaps one day will no longer need to be said, the Convention contains in essence the foundations upon which the ILO is built. Yet the need to reaffirm and protect these fundamental principles remains pressing. Today, we are confronted with the case of Georgia, a case that brings into sharp focus the continuing challenges surrounding the Convention’s proper application.

As has been repeatedly emphasized by the ILO’s supervisory bodies over the decades, the Convention exists to protect the autonomy and independence of workers’ and employers’ organizations in their establishment, their functioning and in their dissolution, and crucially, in their relationship with the public authorities.

One of the most essential components of this protection is the obligation to ensure that any legislative initiative affecting the rights to organize, to bargain collectively or to influence the terms and conditions of employment must be preceded by full and frank consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. This is not merely good practice, it is a necessary condition for legitimacy and sustainability.

Yet in the case before us, the Government of Georgia has enacted legislation in a rushed and unilateral manner without meaningful dialogue or prior consultation with the social partners. The facts are deeply concerning. Legislation adopted within an extremely short time frame in a process devoid of transparency and inclusive participation. This course of action stands in clear contradiction to both the letter and spirit of the Convention. It undermines the fundamental notion that legislation affecting the rights and interests of workers and employers must be developed not only for them, but with them.

The Committee of Experts has rightly echoed the Urgent Opinion of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. The mere fact that the Government proceeded in this manner should raise serious alarm among all members of this Committee.

Tripartite consultation is not merely a formality. It is the very foundation of genuine social dialogue and democratic governance in the world of work. It must take place before legislation is introduced, not after it has been drafted behind closed doors. It must be open, timely and inclusive, and it must extend beyond technical labour law to the broader realm of public policy that affects working people’s lives, including labour, social and economic matters.

Equally important is also the quality of consultation. It must be effective, not symbolic. The supervisory bodies of the ILO have consistently underlined the need for consultation to be full and frank. This also means timely notice. This means access to draft texts well in advance of adoption. And above all, this means a genuine willingness to listen, to engage and to take into account the views of social partners.

Consultation is not an end in itself. It is a means to foster stability, trust and mutual respect in industrial relations. Harmonious labour relations cannot be decreed from above. They must be built on the foundation of participation, dialogue and institutional trust between the government, workers and employers.

Freedom of association, the very core of this Organization, cannot be realized in an atmosphere of repression. Workers’ and employers’ organizations must be able to operate free from interference, harassment, threats and efforts to discredit their leaders. Intimidation, whether overt or subtle, undermines democratic trade union activity and is fundamentally incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. This incompatibility, sadly, is what we are witnessing in Georgia today, where undermining social dialogue continues. The most recent amendments in labour law were enacted last December, and again without proper involvement of the social partners.

It is not enough to proclaim respect for international obligations. These obligations must be lived in practice. Political will, or lack thereof, does not absolve any Member State of its duties under the ILO Conventions it has ratified.

The situation in Georgia is not just about a single law or a single movement. It is about whether the fundamental principles of freedom of association and tripartism, the pillars of our shared commitment, are upheld or eroded. Trade unions are not actors, I quote, “pursuing the interests of a foreign power”, they are an integral part of civil society and genuine social dialogue.

We urge the Government of Georgia to bring its actions into line with the obligations it has freely accepted. We call for the full restoration of meaningful dialogue with representative social partners in a climate of trust and in accordance with the Convention.

Government member, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – The United Kingdom is closely monitoring the situation in Georgia. We have repeatedly registered our deep concern about the Georgian Dream Government’s antidemocratic actions. This includes the introduction of repressive legislation such as the Law on Transparency of Foreign Agents (2024) and its successor, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (2025), and recent moves by the Georgian Dream Government to restrict freedom of expression and freedom of association, including through the use of excessive force in response to legitimate protests. We have repeatedly made clear that a vibrant civil society is a key part of a thriving democratic Georgia.

We support the observations of the Committee of Experts that recent legislation imposes excessive bureaucratic requirements in contravention of the right to organize freely and to affiliate with international organizations which is set out in Article 5 of the Convention. We further share the Committee of Experts’ concern that the legislation was adopted in a rushed way without meaningful consultation with those affected, including workers’ and employers’ rights organizations, as well as many other groups across Georgian society.

The United Kingdom calls on the Georgian Dream Government to take swift action to reverse its democratic backsliding and ensure the fundamental rights of all citizens are upheld. This should include the withdrawal of repressive legislation such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and accountability for those implicated in excessive use of force against protesters, journalists and politicians, and in doing so, once again pursue a Euro-Atlantic trajectory.

Worker member, Poland –I am speaking on behalf of Solidarność (NSZZ). We note the adoption on 28 May of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence. The bureaucratic burdens it imposes on trade unions or employers’ organizations receiving financial assistance from abroad, including from an international trade union or employers’ organization to which they are affiliated, as well as the various hefty penalties that can be imposed on organizations, are not in conformity with the Convention.

We noted that the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence has been adopted without prior consultation with the social partners, in a rushed way, with no meaningful consultation process.

We noted that the amendment of the Law on Public Service was adopted on 9 December 2024, four days after the announcement of the draft by the Government. We noted with concern that the Law on Public Service was adopted in a rush, without prior consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations.

We noted that the amendment creates serious risks to the basic labour rights of public service workers, including protection against unfair and arbitrary dismissal, with negative implications for freedom of association and collective bargaining.

The new Law changes the status of the heads of primary structural units for public institutions and their deputies from civil servants to staff members employed under administrative contract, under conditions deprived of employment security and allowing for unjustified discretionary dismissals and other discretionary sanctions. We share the concern that the Law on Public Service may create the risk of negative impact on the exercise of trade union rights. Job insecurity makes workers more vulnerable and susceptible to anti-union discrimination, as well as bullying and harassment. It has a chilling effect and restricts the take-up and exercise of freedom of association rights. We are deeply concerned by the failure of the Government of Georgia to engage in meaningful negotiations with trade unions concerning the new amendments.

We recall that the introduction of any draft legislation affecting the rights and interests of workers and employers should be preceded by free and frank consultations with the most representative organizations. We observe with concern the rushed adoption of amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences, the Criminal Code and the Law on Assemblies and Manifestations, which have a far-reaching effect on Georgian society. We recall that Governments should hold consultations with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations before submitting drafts to the Legislative Assembly.

We recall the importance that the CFA attaches to holding consultations with sufficient advance notice and, in particular, to ensuring that the drafts of laws or decrees are submitted to these organizations for consultations well before the adoption by the Government, as a prerequisite for consideration by Parliament.

We encourage the Government of Georgia to take without delay all necessary measures in consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, including withdrawal of the latest amendments to the Law on Public Service and the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, to guarantee that the above provisions do not impede the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the interests of their members.

We encourage the Government of Georgia to hold consultations with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations with sufficient advance notice before submitting drafts affecting the rights and interests of workers and employers to the Legislative Assembly.

Observer, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) – In relation to the case under consideration, we wish to express our deep concern regarding recent actions by the Georgian administration and law enforcement authorities, which interfere with the structure and functioning of the Georgian Agriculture, Commercial and Industry Workers’ Trade Union, also known in the country as “Labor”. The Labor trade union has been affiliated with IUF for over a decade. It is one of Georgia’s most active organizations, and has led or supported nearly 20 campaigns in recent years. The campaigns resulted in improving working conditions and pay level in the food and allied industries. The union also plays a visible role in peaceful public demonstrations organized by the democratic movement in the country. On 24 April, officers from the investigation service of the Ministry of Finance conducted the search of the Labor trade union’s office.

Additional searches were carried out at three other locations: the union’s former office, the home apartment of the union’s chairman, Giorgi Diasamidze, and the venue where the union’s recent congress was held. These searches were reportedly authorized by a ruling from the Tbilisi City Court, in connection with a criminal investigation under two articles of Georgia’s Criminal Code – one carrying penalties of fines or up to three years’ imprisonment, and the other carrying a potential sentence of 7 to 11 years of prison. Neither the prosecutor’s motion nor the court ruling clearly specify the grounds for conducting these searches. It remains unclear what items were sought, why these particular locations were targeted or how the searches met the threshold of reasonable suspicion required by law. The legal basis for restricting property and privacy rights in this case is highly questionable. The search resulted in the seizure of documents belonging to the union, along with a computer processor. This contained the personal data of union members, confidential information related to collective labour disputes and details of cooperation with foreign partners. The confiscation of this material significantly hinders activities of the trade union and has a deterrent effect on both current and potential members.

Moreover, these investigative actions, marked by significant procedural violations, lack a sound legal foundation and represent an escalation of the pressure previously exerted on the union. This includes prior discreditation campaigns in the media, threats to individual activists and restrictions on access to the State register of organizations. These developments must be viewed in the broader context of systemic repression against independent civil society actors in Georgia, including the media and non-governmental organizations. The targeting of trade unions marks a particularly dangerous phase aimed at suppressing freedom of association and undermining the protection of workers’ rights. We urge the Government of Georgia to immediately return the seized property; immediately cease the harassment and persecution of the Labor trade union and its leadership, first of all the union president, Giorgi Diasamidze; conduct an effective independent and impartial investigation into the legality of the searches and related actions; uphold both constitutional and international commitments to safeguard freedom of association and the right to organize independent trade unions free from State interference; and strengthen juridical oversight of investigative actions and ensure effective remedies against their abuse.

Observer, Public Services International (PSI) – Public Services International is particularly concerned at the recent legislative process relating to the draft amendments to the Law on Public Service. I must therefore repeat some of the matters raised by other speakers.

Firstly, regarding the process, this draft was submitted to Parliament on 9 December 2024, processed very quickly and, just four days later, on 13 December, adopted at its third reading. The amendments then came into force on 29 December. The Committee of Experts has yet to issue an opinion on whether these changes comply with Georgia’s obligations under the ILO Conventions. The country’s most representative trade union organization, however, expressed grave concerns from the outset. It warned, for example, that the amendments diminish guarantees for public officials, contradict international labour standards and also go against national legislation and the jurisprudence of the courts.

We also regret the exclusion of that trade union from the process. We wish to recall that the ILO supervisory bodies often request that such processes take place in consultation with the social partners.

We are also deeply concerned that between December 2024 and April 2025, around 700 public officials were dismissed, supposedly for criticizing the Government.

At the same time, coincidentally, certain legislative changes were made that weakened labour protections for public employees, particularly in the Ministry of Defence and Tbilisi City Council. These facts seem, a priori, to constitute acts of reprisals and could violate freedom of expression.

In this context, we would like to recall that freedom of expression is a basic right and is essential if persons and organizations are to be able to defend their rights, including labour rights. At its 54th Session in 1970, the Conference adopted a resolution that makes that relationship very clear. The resolution gives particular importance, and I quote, to “freedom of opinion and expression and in particular the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”, and it also highlights the importance of the right to assembly.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Government takes these concerns into consideration.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union – I am speaking on behalf of Building and Woodworkers International (BWI) and IndustriALL Global Union. It is a matter of deep concern and disapproval that the Government has recently undermined the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association by imposing limitations through the adoption of the amendment to the Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations of February of 2025 without consulting the social partners on holding demonstrations and administering excessive financial sanctions on workers and union leaders for minor violations. This is also an attack on freedom of speech.

Moreover, we also find the adoption of the amendments to the Law on Public Service from December of 2024 unacceptable, as they came into force without being drafted in consultation with the social partners. The unilateral adoption of legislation that may directly or indirectly affect trade unions without any form of consultation opens the door to further restrictions on the rights of workers and their organizations. It creates an environment in which the Government could potentially introduce additional measures limiting union activities, curtailing freedom of association or imposing administrative burdens under the guise of transparency or national security. Concerning the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, which was adopted in May 2024 without prior consultations with the social partners, we call on the Government to clarify its scope of application and confirm in writing that it does not apply to trade unions.

The Committee of Experts has consistently recalled that meaningful consultations must precede the introduction of any legislation that affects the rights and interests of workers and employers. This obligation derives not only from good governance principles, but also from the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), which Georgia has ratified. The absence of consultation represents a serious breach of these international obligations and raises significant concerns about the future of social dialogue in the country. We call on the Government of Georgia to seek technical assistance from the ILO to assist the Government in putting in place a robust system of tripartite consultation and adopting legislation that is in full respect of the Convention.

Government representative – As we mentioned, the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence primarily aims to ensure transparency and the accountability of non-governmental and media organizations operating in Georgia, as they receive substantial foreign funding and engage in political activities.

The Law does not limit in any way the right of any organization, including workers’ or employers’ organizations, to affiliate with international bodies or receive financial support from them. Any suggestion that the Law impedes freedom of association under the Convention is based on a misinterpretation of its goal. The sole purpose of the Law is to prevent covert political interference and ensure transparency. It is also noteworthy that, even a year after the Law’s adoption, there has been no recorded instance of any organization encountering problems with its activities.

As for the Foreign Agents Registration Act, this Law was modelled on the United States’ Foreign Agents Registration Act and has been adopted as an educational measure to help effectively mitigate external interference in the functioning of State institutions.

It is also important to emphasize that exactly seven days have passed since the Law entered into force, making it premature to assess its potential impact on the freedom of association for employers’ or workers’ organizations. However, as the Law is implemented in practice, it is expected to demonstrate that it does not hinder the activities of such organizations or infringe upon the principles of freedom of association. On the contrary, its scope, its sole purpose, is to reinforce national security and safeguard the country’s sovereignty.

As for the recent amendments to the Law on Public Service, it should be mentioned that under the 2025–28 Government Programme, a comprehensive reform is planned in the public service sector. In particular, a public service development strategy will be developed. The strategy will establish a unified vision focused on creating an attractive public service, introducing modern management standards, strengthening human capital within the public sector, promoting professionalism, supporting the effective operation of strong and accountable public institutions, and defining appropriate responsibilities at the political level to ensure the coordinated implementation of the reform.

The Law regulates matters concerning the appointment of civil servants to vacant positions through competitive selection, the performance evaluation of civil servants by their direct supervisors, and processes related to institutional reorganization. The Law was adopted following consultations with the heads of public institutions, and several recommendations from the Public Defender were also taken into consideration.

The amendments introduced by the Law do not restrict the freedom of association for employees, as they do not involve any direct or indirect changes regarding the right of association on professional grounds. Furthermore, since the enactment of the Law on 13 December 2024, the Minister of Labour has received ten notifications requesting the appointment of a mediator in collective labour disputes.

In all ten cases, a mediator was appointed and in seven of these cases, mediation took place within State institutions, specifically legal entities under public law. Notably, in one of these institutions, mediation requests were submitted from two separate employee associations.

The nature of the disputes is diverse and concerns not only remuneration, but also various employment conditions, including the conclusion of collective agreements. This demonstrates that, rather than restricting freedom of association, employees in public institutions are actively organizing, forming independent trade unions and working to enhance their labour rights.

In conclusion, we remain firmly committed to advancing labour rights in Georgia and to ensuring the effective implementation of the Convention. We are prepared to engage in constructive dialogue with our social partners regarding the recently adopted legislative amendments and their potential implications.

Worker members – We thank all the speakers who participated in this discussion. The Worker members reiterate their profound concerns regarding the legislative developments in Georgia that threaten fundamental workers’ rights and the democratic space within the country. We emphasize once again the grave implications of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence and the Foreign Agents Registration Act. These laws impose sweeping registration requirements, vague definitions and expensive monitoring powers on organizations receiving foreign funding, which could negatively impact trade unions and trade union activities. The risk of stigmatization and undue interference is real and alarming. We strongly support the Committee of Experts’ call for the Government to amend this legislation, explicitly excluding trade unions and trade union activities from its scope in full respect of the Convention.

As regards the amendments to the Law on Public Service, we note with concern the drastic erosion of employment security for civil servants now subjected to precarious one-year contracts and punitive evaluation regimes that threaten their livelihoods and ability to freely organize. Such regressive reforms contravene Georgia’s obligations under the Convention and undermine the very conditions necessary for the full exercise of freedom of association rights.

We recall that legislative changes were adopted without any prior consultation or meaningful engagement with workers’ organizations. This lack of social dialogue not only undermines democratic principles, but also violates Georgia’s obligations under international labour standards. Meaningful and timely consultations with trade unions are essential to ensure that the rights and interests of workers are duly taken into account in legislative reforms. We recall that Georgia has an established forum for dialogue with the social partners, the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission. We urge the Government to engage meaningfully with this body on any legislative reforms affecting the rights of workers and their organizations.

Moreover, we express deep concern regarding the legislative changes that further restrict democratic freedoms, including the criminalization of peaceful protests through excessive fines and preventive detention measures. These actions constrict democratic space and curtail civil liberties crucial for workers to enjoy and to exercise their rights.

In light of these concerns, the Workers’ group calls on the Government of Georgia to amend the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence and the Foreign Agents Registration Act to ensure that trade unions and trade union activities are excluded from their scope; review and revise, in consultation with workers’ representative organizations in the sector, the Law on Public Service amendments to restore secure employment and protect trade union rights in the public sector; repeal all the provisions that criminalize peaceful assembly and protests; and engage in meaningful and timely dialogue and consultations with the social partners on all relevant legislative initiatives affecting the social partners.

We urge the Government to reactivate and strengthen the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission, ensuring it functions as a meaningful and effective forum for dialogue and consultation. And we call on the Government of Georgia to accept a direct contacts mission.

Employer members – The Employer members thank the various speakers who took the floor for the interventions and the information provided, of which we have fully taken note. We reiterate that the Convention is a fundamental Convention and that we strongly condemn noncompliance relating to the application of this Convention.

In light of today’s discussion, the Employer members would like to recommend the following. First, we ask the Government to provide further information on the legislative process concerning the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, including past engagement and planned future involvement of workers’ and employers' organizations. Second, the Government should consider amending the legislation, in consultation with the social partners, particularly with regard to the issue of excluding employers’ and workers’ organizations from the scope of the legislation. Third, we recommend that the Government provide information on the progress and all measures taken in this respect.

To conclude, we count on the collaboration of the Government regarding meaningful engagement with social partners and the implementation of these recommendations.

Conclusions of the Committee

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

The Committee recalled that the introduction of any draft legislation affecting social partners should be preceded by consultations and that the right to accept financial assistance from an international organization should be guaranteed based on the right to affiliate with international organizations set out in the Convention.

Taking the discussion into account, the Committee urged the Government:

• in consultation with the social partners, to amend the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence and the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Law on Public Service, in line with the Convention; and
• engage in meaningful and timely dialogue and consultations with the social partners on relevant legislative initiatives affecting the social partners, and on the functioning of the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission, as an effective forum for tripartite consultation.

The Committee requested the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Committee also requested the Government to submit a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to implement the above recommendations by 1 September 2025.

Chairperson – I invite the distinguished representative of the Government of Georgia to take the floor.

Another Government representative – I would like to express our appreciation and respect to the Committee for the opportunity to discuss Georgia’s case, and for the recommendations provided. As previously stated by our delegation, we believe that the legislation recently adopted in Georgia is aligned with the Convention. These laws are designed to enhance transparency and the accountability of non-governmental and media organizations operating in our country, without imposing restrictions on freedom of association – on any organization. It is important to note that they do not hinder organizations’ operations, their ability to receive funding, or their affiliation with international organizations.

Regarding the Committee’s conclusion on the Georgian Law on Public Service, we find the reference to the Convention somewhat unclear, as this Law does not regulate the activities of workers’ or employers’ organizations. Consequently, it cannot – and does not – restrict their affiliation with international organizations or their access to funding. The amendment introduced in the Law does not limit workers’ freedom of association, as it does not entail changes concerning the right to associate on professional grounds.

We are committed to constructive engagement with the ILO, focusing specifically on the application of the Convention, rather than broader legislative matters unrelated to workers’ and employers’ interests. Once again, we remain committed to constructive dialogue with our social partners within the tripartite social partnership framework to address any legislative initiatives affecting the social partners.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) received on 29 August 2025, which contain serious allegations of arbitrary searches and confiscation of property as well as of other repressive measures conducted against the IUF’s affiliate, the Georgian Agriculture, Commercial and Industry Workers’ Trade Union, including its President, Mr Giorgi Diasamidze. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2025, reiterating the comments made in the discussion held in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (Conference Committee) in June 2025 on the application of the Convention. The Committee further notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 2 September 2025, expressing grave concerns about the legislative developments in Georgia that, according to the ITUC, pose significant threats to the fundamental freedoms and rights of workers and their organizations as well as to the broader democratic space within the country, notably the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence (LTFI), the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and the amendments to the Law on Public Service (LPS). The Committee takes note of the observations of the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) received on 24 September 2024, alleging insufficient legislative protection of the right to strike, and observations received on 30 September 2025. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the IUF, ITUC and GTUC observations.

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

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee in June 2025 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee recalled that the introduction of any draft legislation affecting social partners should be preceded by consultations and that the right to accept financial assistance from an international organization should be guaranteed based on the right to affiliate with international organizations set out in the Convention. The Conference Committee urged the Government: (1) in consultation with the social partners, to amend the LTFI, the FARA, and the LPS, in line with the Convention; and (2) engage in meaningful and timely dialogue and consultations with the social partners on relevant legislative initiatives affecting the social partners and on the functioning of the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission as an effective forum for tripartite consultation. The Conference Committee requested the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance and to submit a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to implement the above recommendations by 1 September 2025.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a tripartite meeting was held on 5 August 2025 with the participation of the social partners – the GTUC and the Georgian Employers’ Association (GEA) – and an ILO representative to discuss the impact of the LTFI, the FARA, and LPS and their possible amendment on the interests of employers and workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the work on these issues will continue, including under the auspices of the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission. The Committee welcomes these tripartite discussions and expects that they will address the following pending legislative issues.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of public servants to establish and join organizations without distinction whatsoever. The Law on Public Service. The Committee notes the adoption of amendments to the LPS in December 2024. While observing that pursuant to sections 6 and 67 of the LPS, which were not amended, public servants have the right to form and join trade unions, the Committee notes the ITUC allegation that absence of consultations with the social partners undermined the legitimacy of both the legislative process and its outcomes and that the amendments to the LPS severely undermine the environment necessary for civil servants to freely exercise their trade union rights. The Committee notes the Government’s acknowledgement that due to the accelerated timetable of the parliamentary process, the amendments to the LPS were not preceded by consultations with the social partners. The Committee recalls that the introduction of any draft legislation affecting the rights and interests of workers and employers should be preceded by free and frank consultations with their most representative organizations. Noting that tripartite discussions on the application of the LPS are ongoing and will be presented to the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission for further consideration, and with reference to the Conference Committee conclusions, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of all developments in this regard.

Articles 3 and 5. The right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration, to affiliate with international organizations of workers and employers, and to receive financial assistance therefrom. The Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence and the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The Committee recalls that it urged the Government to amend the LTFI (2024), in consultation with the social partners, so as to explicitly exclude the organizations of employers and trade unions from its scope of application. The Committee recalls that the definition of a “foreign power” under section 3(d) of the LTFI potentially encompasses international employers’ or workers’ organizations, which would oblige an organization of employers or a trade union to register as an organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power and to fulfil a number of additional reporting obligations if it is affiliated with an international employers’ or workers’ organization and receives financial assistance equivalent to over 20 per cent of its yearly income therefrom.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the LTFI primarily aims to ensure openness and accountability of non-governmental and media organizations that operate in Georgia while receiving substantial foreign funding and engaging in political activism and that the primary focus of the LTFI lies outside labour relations. The Committee further observes the Government’s assertion that, while the LTFI establishes a mechanism to identify and disclose political influences within the non-governmental sector that might undermine the country’s political and economic stability in accordance with the statutory prohibition of foreign financing of political processes, the LTFI contains no provisions restricting freedom of association as it does not limit the right of any organization, including workers’ or employers’ organizations, to affiliate with international bodies or receive financial support therefrom. According to the Government, the financial reporting requirements for non-entrepreneurial (non-commercial) legal entities that receive more than 20 per cent of its total income during a calendar year from a foreign power, provided for in sections 2(1)(a) and 4(1) of the LTFI, are neither disproportionate nor discriminatory and constitute a minimal bureaucratic burden that cannot reasonably hinder an organization’s operations. The Committee further notes the Government’s argument that the monitoring process aimed at enforcing the LTFI, provided for in section 8, ensures organizational transparency and incorporates only those mechanisms necessary for an effective implementation, providing for penalties exclusively in cases where an organization deliberately refuses to comply with the LTFI’s provisions. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that during the 5 August 2025 tripartite meeting, the GTUC indicated that while it was not subject to the LTFI, as its foreign funding accounted for less than 20 per cent of its income, it nevertheless suggested to exclude from the scope of the LTFI social partners and financial support received from international organizations of which Georgia is a member. According to the Government, the GEA indicated that it was duly registered in accordance with the LTFI and, although the registration did not constitute a technical difficulty for the organization, the registration requirements might carry a certain stigmatizing effect. Accordingly, the GEA suggested that employers’ associations be considered for exclusion from the scope of the LTFI, considering their role as social partners for the Government of Georgia. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the Venice Commission had previously considered that by repeatedly referring to organizations as “pursuing the interest of a foreign power”, the LTFI had an effect of stigmatizing and undermining an organization receiving funds from abroad. The Committee reiterates that it is difficult to reconcile the additional bureaucratic burdens imposed on trade unions or employers’ organizations receiving financial assistance from abroad (including from an international trade union or employers’ organization to which they are affiliated), as well as various hefty penalties that can be imposed on these organizations, with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration, to freely organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee also recalls that the control exercised by the public authorities over finances of workers’ and employers’ organizations should not normally exceed the obligation to submit periodic reports and that the discretionary right of the authorities to conduct an investigation and request information at any time entails a danger of interference in the internal administration of such organizations. The Committee finally reiterates that legislation that seriously hampers activities of a trade union or an employers’ organization on the grounds that they accept financial assistance from an international organization of workers or employers to which they are affiliated infringes the principles concerning the right to affiliate with international organizations set out in Article 5 of the Convention. With reference to the conclusions of the Conference Committee, the Committee urges to the Government to amend the LTFIin consultation with the social partners so as to explicitly exclude the organizations of employers and trade unions from its scope of application. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all progress made to that end.

The Committee notes the adoption of the FARA on 1 April 2025. The Committee observes that under section 1(c) of the FARA, an “agent of a foreign principal” includes “any other person acting at the direction, request, instruction or control of a foreign principal” and “whose activities are wholly or substantially supervised, managed, controlled, financed or subsidized by the foreign principal, directly or indirectly”, if the said person meets, among others, one of the following conditions: he/she participates in political activities in Georgia, directly or through another person, for the benefit of a foreign principal or in his/her interest; he/she represents the interests of a foreign principal in Georgia before any state institution or official. In this regard, section 1(m) defines “political activity” as “any activity carried out or to be carried out by a person with the belief or intention of exerting any influence on the Government of Georgia, state institutions or any part of society, which will be directed towards the formation, adoption or change of the domestic or foreign policy of Georgia ...”. The Committee also notes that, pursuant to section 1(a) of the FARA, a “person” could be a natural person, group of partners, association, corporation, organization or any other association of natural persons, while under section 1(b), a “foreign principal” of such a person could be any association of individuals whose activities are regulated by the law of a foreign country or whose principal place of business is in the territory of a foreign country. The Committee considers that the terms of section 1 of the FARA are vague and susceptible to arbitrary interpretation, particularly the definition of “political activity”, and that an organization of employers or a trade union and/or leaders of organizations of employers and trade unions could be potentially obliged to register as agents of a foreign principal if they are: (i) affiliated with an international employers’ or workers’ organization; (ii) substantially supervised, financed or subsidized by the foreign principal, directly or indirectly; and (iii) participate in political activities in Georgia, directly or through another person, in the interest of an international employers’ or workers’ organization and/or represent the latter’s interests in Georgia before any state institution or official. The Committee further notes that agents of a foreign principal are subject to stringent registration and reporting requirements vis-à-vis the Anti-Corruption Bureau. At the registration stage, a foreign agent must disclose, among other things, information on the origin and amount of income, donations, money or material value that the applicant has received in any form from the foreign principal in the past 60 days (section 2(1)(e), (f) and (j)). The Committee further observes that an agent of a foreign principal must submit to the Anti-Corruption Bureau every six months “such information as the Anti-Corruption Bureau deems necessary in the interests of national security and public interest” (section 2(2)) and that the Anti-Corruption Bureau “may require that information on all or specific issues be included in the additional documents attached to the registration application more frequently”. Furthermore, section 5 obliges agents of a foreign principal to keep all financial reports and other records related to its activities, the submission of which is mandatory in accordance with the FARA. The Committee also observes that section 4(2) and (4) of the FARA restricts the dissemination of information containing “political propaganda” by agents of a foreign principal while providing no definition of “political propaganda”. The Committee finally observes that the penalties for non-compliance with the FARA’s requirements include a fine not exceeding 10,000 GEL (approximately US$3700) and/or imprisonment for a term of up to five years.

The Committee notes that the Government’s indication that at the above-mentioned tripartite meeting, the GTUC indicated that it was not subject to the FARA due to the non-political nature of its activities. The Committee further takes note of the Government’s indication that it is prepared to assist in arranging a meeting with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which is best positioned for providing clarifications on the interpretation and application of both the LTFI and the FARA. With reference to its considerations in respect of the LTFI, applicable mutatis mutandis to the FARA, and the conclusions of the Conference Committee, the Committee requests the Government to continue its consultations with the social partners with a view to amending the FARAso as to explicitly exclude the organizations of employers and trade unions from its scope of application. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all developments in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) received on 24 September 2024.

Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration, to affiliate with international organizations of workers and employers, and to receive financial assistance therefrom. The Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence (the Law). The Committee notes the adoption of the Law on 28 May 2024. The Committee observes that by virtue of its sections 2(1)(a) and 4(1), a non-entrepreneurial (non-commercial) legal person (except for those that are expressly excluded) must apply to the National Public Registry Agency for registration as an “organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power” if the source of more than 20 per cent of its total income during a calendar year is a foreign power. The definition of the latter comprises “an organisational entity (including a foundation, an association, a corporation or a union) or other form of association of persons, which has been established under the law of a foreign state and/or international law” (section 3). The Committee thus observes that an organization of employers or a trade union could be obliged to register as an organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power if it is affiliated with an international employers’ or workers’ organization and receives financial assistance equivalent to over 20 per cent of its income therefrom. The Committee notes that the Law imposes additional obligations on workers’ and employers’ organizations recognized as organizations pursuing the interests of a foreign power, namely: (i) the obligation to submit an annual financial declaration (section 6(1)); and (ii) the obligation to provide immediately the necessary information to the person authorized by the Ministry of Justice within the framework of examination and inquiry of the registration statement or financial declarations, as well as within the framework of the monitoring process (sections 6(1) and 8(3) and (4)). The Committee further notes that pursuant to section 8 of the Law, all organizations are subject to monitoring with a view to identifying whether they pursue the interests of a foreign power and that the grounds for initiating monitoring are: (i) decision of a person authorized by the Ministry of Justice; or (ii) a written application submitted to the Ministry of Justice, which contains appropriate information related to a specific organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power. The Committee observes that this provision appears to be unlimited in scope as it provides for no precise criteria as to what entities or individuals may submit statements to trigger monitoring, nor does it constrain the discretion of the Government agents. The Committee also notes the fines provided for in section 9 in case of non-compliance with the Law, namely: (i) 25,000 Georgian lari (about US$9,200) for failure to register or to submit a financial declaration; (ii) 10,000 lari for failure to fill in the registration statement or to remedy a shortcoming, as well as 20,000 lari in case of continuation of such failure; and (iii) 5,000 lari for failure to provide the information requested by the person authorized by the Ministry.

While noting that section 1(2) states that the Law shall not restrict the activities of an entity registered as an organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power, the Committee considers that it is difficult to reconcile the additional bureaucratic burdens imposed on trade unions or employers’ organizations receiving financial assistance from abroad (including from an international trade union or employers’ organization to which they are affiliated), as well as various hefty penalties that can be imposed on organizations, with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration, to freely organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that the control exercised by the public authorities over finances of workers’ and employer’s organizations should not normally exceed the obligation to submit periodic reports and that the discretionary right of the authorities to conduct an investigation and request information at any time entails a danger of interference in the internal administration of such organizations. The Committee recalls that legislation which seriously hampers activities of a trade union or an employers’ organization on the grounds that they accept financial assistance from an international organization of workers or employers to which they are affiliated infringes the principles concerning the right to affiliate with international organizations set out in Article 5 of the Convention.

The Committee understands that the Law has been adopted without prior consultations with the social partners and notes, in this respect, the Urgent Opinion of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, which expressed its deep concern at the fact that this Law was adopted in a rushed way with no meaningful consultation process. The Committee recalls that the introduction of any draft legislation affecting the rights and interests of workers and employers should be preceded by free and frank consultations with their most representative organizations. The Committee also observes that the Venice Commission considered that by repeatedly referring to organizations as “pursuing the interest of a foreign power”, the Law had an effect of stigmatizing and undermining an organization receiving funds from abroad. In light of the above, the Committee urges the Government to amend the legislation, in consultation with the social partners, so as to explicitly exclude the organizations of employers and trade unions from its scope of application. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on progress in response to its concern, including all measures taken in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee takes note of the observations of the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) received on 20 September 2021 referring to the certain matters addressed by the Committee below and raising other concerns examined under the observation pertaining to the application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) .

Article 2 of the Convention. Minimum membership requirement. In its previous comments, the Committee, while welcoming the amendment of section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions, which lowered the minimum membership requirement for establishing a trade union from 100 to 50, expressed the hope that the Government would pursue, in consultation with the social partners, efforts to assess the law’s impact and would take the necessary measures to amend the law if it was found that the new minimum number required still hindered the establishment of trade unions in small and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee notes with satisfaction the Government’s indication that section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions was amended on 29 September 2020 so as to further lower the minimum membership requirement for establishing a trade union to 25. The Committee notes with interest the GTUC indication that trade unions participated in the reform.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to freely organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 51(2) of the Labour Code according to which, the right to strike was prohibited in services connected with the safety of human life and health or if the activity “cannot be suspended due to the type of technological process”, as well as Order No. 01-43/N of 6 December 2013, which determined the list of services connected with the life, safety and health (pursuant to section 51(2) of the Code) and included services which did not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (radio, television, municipal cleaning services, oil and gas extraction, production, oil refining and gas processing). The Committee notes with satisfaction that following the 2020 amendment of the Labour Code and adoption, on 7 September 2021, of the Order on Approval of the List of Essential Services, which replaced the Order of 2013, employees working for essential service providers may exercise the right to strike if they ensure that a minimum service is provided to meet the users’ basic needs and ensure that the service in question operates safely and without interruption (section 66 of the Labour Code, replacing the regulation of essential services formerly contained in section 51(2)). The Committee notes that services listed in the new Order are either essential services in the strict sense of the term or services of fundament importance in relation to which a minimum service may be established. The Committee notes that according to the new Order, the organization of the minimum service and related subjects (including the minimum number of workers providing the service) should be negotiated and agreed between the subjects of collective labour dispute and that any disagreement should be settled by the court. The Committee further notes that pursuant to section 66 of the Labour Code, the limits of a minimum service shall be determined by the Minister after consulting social partners and that in determining the limits of a minimum service, the Minister shall only take into account the work processes that are necessary for the protection of the life, personal safety, or health of society-at-large or a certain part of society.

The Committee had also previously requested the Government to review section 50(1) of the Labour Code according to which courts could postpone or suspend a strike for no more than 30 days if there existed a danger to the life or health of people, environmental safety or a third party’s property as well as to activities of vital importance, and to indicate any use of this provision as relates to the suspension of a strike due to a danger to third-party property. The Committee notes with satisfaction that as a result of the amendments introduced in 2020, the reference to a third party’s property has been deleted (section 65 of the Labour Code).

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to freely organize their activities and formulate their programmes. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether strikes can be legally carried out on grounds not explicitly listed in section 47(3) of the Labour Code, which sets the grounds that give rise to labour disputes with respect to: (i) violation of human rights and freedoms stipulated in the Georgian legislation; (ii) violation of an individual employment contract or a collective agreement; and (iii) disagreement between the employer and the employee regarding the essential terms of the individual employment contract and/or the conditions of a collective agreement. The Committee had further requested the Government to indicate whether strikes not directly resulting from a dispute between the employer and his/her employees, such as general strikes related to the country’s economic and social policy, could be legally carried out. The Committee understands from the Government’s report that organisations can carry out any action not prohibited by the law, including any action not expressly provided for by the law. It further notes the Government’s indication that it is for the courts to determine the legality of a strike action. The Government transmits a copy of a case where, according to the Government, the court has considered that the solidarity strike was legal. The Committee takes due note of this information.

The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 51(2) of the Labour Code according to which, the right to strike is prohibited in services connected with the safety of human life and health or if the activity “cannot be suspended due to the type of technological process”, as well as Order No. 01-43/N of 6 December 2013, which determines the list of services connected with the life, safety and health (pursuant to section 51(2) of the Code) and includes some services which do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (radio and television (under point (e) of the Order), municipal cleaning services (point (i) of the Order), oil and gas extraction, production, oil refining and gas processing (point (l) of the Order)). In this respect, the Committee considered that in such services, as well as in services which cannot be interrupted due to the technological process, minimum services could be appropriate as a possible alternative to the prohibition of strike action in order to ensure that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption. The Committee had also requested the Government to specify services that cannot be suspended due to technological processes. The Committee had further requested the Government to review section 50(1) of the Labour Code according to which courts can postpone or suspend a strike for no more than 30 days if there exists a danger to the life or health of people, environment safety or a third party’s property as well as to the activities of vital importance, and to indicate any use of this provision as relates to the suspension of a strike due to a danger to third-party property. The Committee takes note of the copy of a 2016 Tbilisi civil court ruling which, according to the Government, deals with the postponement of a strike. The Committee will examine it once the translation thereof is available. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the feasibility of amendments to sections 50(1) and 51(2) of the Labour Code and to Order No. 01-43/N is being discussed with the relevant State institutions and social partners, and that results of the discussions will be submitted to the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission for decision. The Committee trusts that the Government will pursue its efforts in this regard, in consultation with the social partners, and hopes that the amendments to sections 50(1) and 51(2) of the Labour Code and to Order No. 01-43/N will be adopted in the near future. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all developments in this regard.

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

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s reply to the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Education International (EI), the Educators Scientists Free Trade Union of Georgia (ESFTUG) and the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) received respectively on 1, 17 and 29 September 2014 and referring to the issues raised by the Committee below. The Committee further takes note of the observations of the ITUC and the GTUC received on 4 September 2017 referring to the alleged use of force by the authorities during a peaceful protest and the Government’s reply thereon.

Article 2 of the Convention. Minimum membership requirement. In its previous comments, the Committee had welcomed the amendment of section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions so as to lower the minimum membership requirement for establishing a trade union from 100 to 50. The Committee had requested the Government to review, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, the impact of the amendment in practice and to take steps for its amendment if it is found that the new minimum number required still hinders the establishment of trade unions in small and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the consultations concerning section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions have started and the result of it will be transmitted to the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission for decision, which will be then transmitted to the Committee. The Committee hopes that the Government will pursue, in consultation with the social partners, its efforts in assessing the impact of the amendment of section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions and will take the necessary measures for its amendment in the near future if it is found that the new minimum number required still hinders the establishment of trade unions in small and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on all progress made in this respect.

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to freely organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that section 47(3) of the Labour Code sets the grounds that give rise to labour disputes – either individual or collective with respect to: (i) violation of human rights and freedoms stipulated in the Georgian legislation; (ii) violation of an individual employment contract or a collective agreement; and (iii) disagreement between the employer and the employee regarding the essential terms of the individual employment contract and/or the conditions of a collective agreement. The Committee notes that the Georgian Trade Unions Confederation (GTUC) alleges that the (restrictive) definition of the grounds for collective labour disputes contained in section 47(3) of the Code directly restricts the right to strike since, according to the Code, strikes are a result of a collective dispute. The GTUC adds that under section 47(3), general strikes, sympathy strikes or strikes related to occupational health and safety issues would be considered illegal. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether strikes can be legally carried out on grounds not explicitly listed in section 47(3) and whether strikes not directly resulting from a dispute between the employer and his/her employees, such as general strikes related to the country’s economic and social policy, can be legally carried out.

The Committee notes section 51(2) of the Labour Code according to which, the right to strike is prohibited in services connected with the safety of human life and health or if the activity “cannot be suspended due to the type of technological process”. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a list of services connected with the life safety and health is determined by Order No. 01-43/N of 6 December 2013. The Committee notes that the list, provided by the Government, includes some services which do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). In this respect, the Committee considers that in services which cannot be interrupted due to the technological process, as well as in services such as radio and television (under point (e) of the Order), municipal cleaning services (point (i) of the Order), oil and gas extraction, production, oil refining and gas processing (point (l) of the Order), which do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, minimum services could be appropriate as a possible alternative to the prohibition of strike action in order to ensure that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 51(2) of the Labour Code and the abovementioned Order accordingly and to indicate all measures taken in this respect. The Committee further requests the Government to specify what services cannot be suspended due to the technological processes under the terms of section 51(2) of the Code.

The Committee notes the GTUC’s observations regarding section 50(1) of the Labour Code according to which courts can postpone or suspend a strike for no more than 30 days if there exists a danger to a human being’s life or health, environment safety or a third party’s property as well as to the activities of vital importance. The GTUC states that this provision is potentially very restrictive as any strike may have an impact on third-party companies having business relationships with the company where the strike is taking place. Recalling that apart from the armed forces and the police, the members of which may be excluded from the scope of the Convention in general, other restrictions on the right to strike may relate to: (i) public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (ii) essential services in the strict sense of the term; and (iii) situations of acute national or local crisis, the Committee requests the Government to review section 50(1) of the Labour Code accordingly and to indicate any use of this provision as relates to the suspension of a strike due to a danger to third-party property.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2014. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), of Education International (EI) and the Educators and Scientists Free Trade Union of Georgia (ESFTUG) and of the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) received respectively on 1, 17 and 29 September 2014. While noting the Government’s reply to the 2013 GTUC observations, the Committee requests it to provide detailed comments on the 2014 trade union observations mentioned above.

Article 2 of the Convention. Minimum number of affiliates to establish a workers’ organization. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions so as to lower the minimum membership requirement for establishing a trade union set at 100. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the mentioned provision was amended on 22 June 2012 with the effect of lowering to 50 persons the mentioned requirement. While welcoming this positive step, the Committee recalls that although the requirement of a minimum number of affiliates is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee therefore requests the Government to review, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, the impact of this change in practice and to take steps for its amendment if it is found that the new minimum number required still hinders the establishment of trade unions in small and medium-sized enterprises.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to freely organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that the amendments to the Labour Code adopted on 12 June 2013 develop a new mechanism for collective labour dispute resolutions and take into consideration the Committee’s comments. As a result of the revision of the Labour Code, the Committee notes with satisfaction: (i) the abrogation of former section 48(5) that allowed any party to submit a dispute to the court or to arbitration if an agreement had not been reached within 14 days and the adoption of new section 48(8) according to which parties can jointly agree at any stage to refer the dispute to arbitration; (ii) the lifting of the limits on strike duration that were imposed by former section 49(8) of the Code; and (iii) the elimination of section 51(4) and (5) of the Code that deemed illegal the strikes carried out by employees informed about termination of their contract before the dispute had arisen as well as the strikes carried out by time-based contract workers after the expiration of the term of their contract.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in communications dated 3 September 2010 and 4 August 2011, respectively, concerning restrictions on the right to strike and other matters examined by the Committee below. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments of the ITUC.

Law on Trade Unions. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 2(9) of the Law so as to lower the minimum trade union membership requirement set at 100 and to indicate the impact of this provision on the establishment of trade unions at the branch or sectoral levels, including information on the number of such trade unions and their respective membership. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government indicates that the Law on Trade Unions was adopted in 1997, prior to the ratification of the Convention; thus, by virtue of article 6 of the Constitution, according to which, ratified international conventions are part of national legislation and prevail over other legal acts, Convention No. 87 prevails over the Law on Trade Unions. The Government further indicates that according to the Civil Code, trade unions are non-commercial organizations and there are no restrictions as to the number of their members for the purpose of registration. According to the Government, in practice, there are numerous trade unions with the membership of lower than 100 persons. The Government lists in this respect the following examples: Ministry of Culture, Monument Protection and Sport – 80 trade union members, Ministry of Economic Development – 80 trade union members, and JSC Bank of Georgia – 80 trade union members. The Government further asserts that in practice, there are no cases of refusals to register a trade union by the National Registry Agency. Finally, the Government argues that it is not aware of any ILO document which sets up a minimum trade union membership requirement. The Committee recalls that a high minimum membership requirement restricts the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization and is incompatible with Article 2 of the Convention. It further recalls that it had always considered that the minimum requirement of 100 workers to establish unions by branch of activity, occupation or for various occupations is too high and should be reduced. While taking note of the examples provided by the Government, the Committee understands that they appear to refer not to the number of members of a particular trade union, but rather to a number of trade unions members at a particular entity (organization or undertaking). Furthermore, while taking due note of the Government’s indication that the Convention prevails over the Law on Trade Unions, the Committee stresses that it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure the application of the Convention in law and in practice. It therefore trusts that the Government’s next report will contain information on the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions so as to lower the minimum trade union membership requirement.

Labour Code. The Committee had previously noted section 49(5) of the Code providing that, after the warning strike, the parties shall participate in the amicable settlement procedures pursuant to the Labour Code. The Committee had noted, however, that the Labour Code did not provide for such a procedure and requested the Government to give consideration to appropriate mechanisms of conciliation, mediation or voluntary arbitration instead. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that amicable settlement procedures are regulated by section 48 of the Code in sufficient detail. The Committee once again notes that, under this section, such procedures involve: (1) a written notice of commencement of the amicable procedure reflecting the grounds of dispute and claims by one party; (2) a review of the notice by the other party and its reply; and (3) written decision by the representatives of the parties, which would become a part of the existing contract of employment. Furthermore, if no agreement has been reached within 14 days, the “other party is entitled to apply to court or arbitration” (section 48(5)). The Committee understands that this section, while describes the process, does not provide for a specific mechanism (procedure) to facilitate dispute settlement between the parties. The Committee recalls that dispute settlement procedure usually involves a neutral and independent third party, in whom the parties have confidence, and who could facilitate breaking a stalemate which the parties are unable to resolve themselves. The Committee notes that the Government, on the one hand, recognizes the need to develop mechanisms of conciliation and mediation to help reduce the incidence of disputes and, on the other, indicates that a special tripartite Working Group of the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission is empowered to mediate labour disputes. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the work of the tripartite Working Group as to the dispute mediation, including on the number of labour disputes it had conciliated and/or mediated. It recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in respect of the developing and strengthening collective labour disputes conciliation and mediation mechanisms if it so wishes.

With regard to section 48(5) of the Code, according to which, if an agreement is not reached within 14 days, one of the parties is entitled to submit the dispute to the court or arbitration, the Committee had recalled that a provision which permitted either party unilaterally to submit the dispute for compulsory arbitration effectively undermined the right of workers to call a strike. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision so as to ensure that recourse to arbitration is limited only to situations where the right to strike can be restricted or banned, that is in: (1) essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population); (2) the public services only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; or (3) in the event of an acute national or local emergency. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that recourse to the arbitration is not compulsory and that a strike can be declared regardless of whether an appeal to court or arbitration had been filed. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that parties can refer the dispute to the arbitration only upon mutual consent and that an arbitration decision is final only if there is a preliminary consent of both parties to this effect. At the same time, the Government explains that pursuant to section 48(5), if in the course of the dispute, an agreement has not been reached within 14 days or if a party has avoided to participate in the amicable settlement, the other party is entitled to apply to court or arbitration and/or continue to exercise the right to strike. The Committee notes that the latter explanation of the Government appears to confirm that one of the parties can submit the dispute to the court or arbitration if the conditions set forth by section 48(5), as mentioned above, are satisfied. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request and asks the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged to amend section 48(5) of the Code so as to ensure that recourse to arbitration by one party to the dispute is limited to the abovementioned cases.

The Committee had previously requested the Government to repeal section 49(8) of the Code, which provides that a strike could not continue for more than 90 calendar days. The Committee notes that in the Government’s opinion, this provision is in conformity with the Convention, as the latter does not prohibit limitations on the duration of the strike. While noting the Government’s indication that after the expiration of 90 days, another strike can be declared by the union with regard to the same issue, the Committee considers that a legislation limiting duration of the strike to 90 days seriously undermines one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests. The Committee considers that the right to strike should not be restricted through predetermined limitation on the duration imposed by the legislation and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal this provision.

The Committee had further requested the Government to amend section 51(2) of the Code, which prohibits strikes in sectors where “work is impossible to suspend due to the technological mode of work”. Instead of prohibition of strikes in such services, the Committee suggested establishing a system of minimum services. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that section 51(2) sets the minimum services requirement. The Committee points out, however, that this provision refers to the prohibition of strikes, without any reference to the system of minimum services and conditions thereof. The Committee notes, nevertheless, the Government’s indication that it will discuss the possibility of amending this section in the framework of the Tripartite Social Partnership Commission. The Committee trusts that the Government’s next report will contain information on the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 51(2) of the Code.

Finally, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 51(4) and (5) of the Code providing that a strike by employees informed about termination of their contract before the dispute arises is illegal and that, if the right to strike arises before the termination of the time-based contract, the strike is considered illegal after the expiration of the term of the contract. The Committee notes that the Government while indicating that strike shall not serve as a ground for termination of labour relations (section 49(10) of the Labour Code), confirms that after the termination of the labour contract the strike is indeed considered illegal. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend section 51(4) and (5) of the Code and to indicate measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the comments made by the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) in a communication dated 27 August 2008, the observations made thereon by the Georgian Employers’ Association (GEA), as well as the Government’s reply. The Committee also notes that the GTUC submitted allegations referring to the same matters to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the Law on trade unions and the Labour Code of 2006. It notes that, in its report, the Government indicates that a memorandum was signed between the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Affairs (MoHLSA), the GTUC and the GEA with a view to institutionalizing social dialogue in the country. Since then, the social partners have been regularly holding sessions to discuss issues concerning the labour legislation with an emphasis on the issues of compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The Committee further notes with interest that, in line with the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, over the course of 2009, the ILO has been providing technical support to the tripartite constituents to advance the process of dialogue and the review of the labour legislation. The Committee further notes with interest the holding in October 2009 of an ILO tripartite round table in Tbilisi which discussed the current status of national labour legislation, application of Convention No. 87 and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and promotion of tripartism in Georgia. The Committee also notes with interest Decree No. 335 of 12 November 2009 issued by the Prime Minister of Georgia, which formalized and institutionalized the National Social Dialogue Commission, as well as the creation of a tripartite working group to review and analyse the conformity of the national legislation with the findings and recommendations of the Committee and to propose the necessary amendments. The Committee hopes that any proposed amendments will take into account its comments and requests the Government to provide information on the developments in this regard.

Law on trade unions. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 2(9) of the Law on trade unions so as to lower the minimum trade union membership requirement set at 100. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this requirement concerns establishment of trade union confederations and not of primary trade unions. The Government provides examples of primary trade unions with a membership below 100 persons. The Committee notes that, according to section 2(3) of the Law, trade unions can be established at any enterprise, institution, organization and other places of work, and that, according to section 2(6), “a trade union should be formed on a sectoral, territorial and other basis of the occupational nature”. According to section 2(7), “trade unions are entitled to form primary trade unions at the enterprises, institutions and other places of work”, and “nation-wide trade union organizations and associations (federations) … regional, district, town trade union organizations and associations, as well as trade union organizations and associations and the enterprises and institutions”. The Committee understands that section 2(9) refers to trade unions and not primary trade unions, which are regulated under section 3(9) and indeed require 15 members for their establishment. The Committee further notes that section 2(9) refers expressly to “trade unions”, that is trade unions established on a sectoral, industrial, occupational and other levels pursuant to section 2(6) and not to “confederations of trade unions”. The Committee considers that the minimum requirement of 100 workers to establish unions by branch of activity, occupation or for various occupations is too high and should be reduced. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information with its next report on the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 2(9) of the Law on trade unions so as to lower the minimum trade union membership requirement and, in the meantime, to indicate the impact of this provision on the establishment of trade unions at the branch or sectoral levels, including information on the number of such trade unions and their respective membership.

Labour Code. The Committee had previously noted section 49(5) of the Code providing that, after the warning strike, the parties shall participate in the amicable settlement procedures pursuant to the Labour Code. The Committee had noted, however, that the Labour Code did not provide for such a procedure and requested the Government to give consideration to appropriate mechanisms of conciliation, mediation or voluntary arbitration instead. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, amicable settlement procedures are provided for in section 48 of the Code. The Committee notes that, under this section, such procedures involve: (1) a written notice of commencement of the amicable procedure reflecting the grounds of dispute and claims by one party; (2) a review of the notice by the other party and its reply; and (3) written decision by the representatives of the parties, which would become a part of the existing contract of employment. If no agreement has been reached within 14 days, the “other party is entitled to apply to court or arbitration” (section 48(5)). The Committee considers that the legislation could establish specific mechanisms to facilitate dispute settlement between the parties. Such procedures could involve a neutral and independent third party, in whom the parties have confidence, and who could facilitate breaking a stalemate which the parties are unable to resolve themselves. Noting that in its report the Government recognizes the need to develop mechanisms of conciliation and mediation to help reduce the incidence of disputes, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the concrete measures taken to that end.

With regard to section 48(5) of the Code, according to which, if an agreement is not reached within 14 days, one of the parties is entitled to submit the dispute to the court or arbitration, the Committee had recalled that a provision which permitted either party unilaterally to submit the dispute for compulsory arbitration effectively undermined the right of workers to call a strike. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision so as to ensure that recourse to arbitration is limited only to situations where the right to strike can be restricted or banned, that is in: (1) essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population); (2) the public services only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; or (3) in the event of an acute national emergency. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that recourse to the court of arbitration is not compulsory and an employee can declare a strike regardless of whether an appeal was filed or not. The Committee understands that, under section 48(5), the results of the arbitration (or court) procedure are compulsory and would therefore render meaningless the right to strike. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request and asks the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged to amend section 48(5) of the Code.

The Committee had also noted section 49(8) of the Code, which provided that a strike could not continue for more than 90 calendar days. The Committee notes that, in the Government’s opinion, this provision is in conformity with the Convention, as the latter does not provide for the right to hold strikes of unlimited duration. With regard to the duration of the strike, the Committee considers that a legislation limiting duration of the strike to 90 days seriously undermines one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests. The Committee considers that the right to strike should not be restricted though predetermined limitation on the duration imposed by the legislation and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal this provision. The Government may wish to consider, however, establishing a system of negotiated minimum services when dealing with a strike in non-essential services, which due to its extent and duration endangers the normal living conditions of the population.

The Committee had further requested the Government to amend section 51(2) of the Code, which prohibited strikes in sectors where “work is impossible to suspend due to the technological mode of work”. Instead of prohibition of strikes in such services, the Committee suggested establishing a system of minimum services. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 51(2) sets the minimum services requirement. The Committee points out, however, that this provision refers to the prohibition of strikes, without any reference to the system of minimum services and conditions thereof. With regard to the minimum service, the Committee recalls that such a service should meet at least two requirements. Firstly, and this aspect is paramount, it must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear. Secondly, since this system restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. It would be highly desirable for negotiations on the definition and organization of the minimum service not to be held during a labour dispute, so that all parties can examine the matter with the necessary objectivity and detachment. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to amend section 51(2) of the Code taking into account the above principle and to indicate measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Finally, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 51(4) and (5) of the Code providing that a strike by employees informed about termination of their contract before the dispute arises is illegal and that, if the right to strike arises before the termination of the time-based contract, the strike is considered illegal after the expiration of the term of the contract. The Committee notes that the Government confirms that after the termination of the labour contract the strike is considered illegal and indicates that there is no need for an amendment of the Code in this regard. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the situations (mentioned above) when the right to strike can be restricted or prohibited. It notes furthermore that the prohibition imposed on workers in section 51(4) and (5) would run counter to the workers’ right to go on sympathy and protest strikes, which, according to the Government’s indication, are legal under the national legislation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend section 51(4) and (5) so as to bring it in line with the above principle and to indicate measures taken or envisaged n this respect.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Labour Code (2006). The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the new Labour Code and raised in its respect the following points.

The Committee had noted section 46(1) of the Code, which provides that an employee’s rights may be limited by the labour contract and requested the Government to indicate how this section is used in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no information on the use of this provision in practice. The Committee once again expresses its concern over the impact this section might have on the exercise of the legitimate trade union rights. It requests the Government to consider amending this section so as to explicitly state that fundamental rights and freedoms at work could not be limited by a labour contract and to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee had requested the Government to clarify the scope of sections 49(1) of the Code, as to indicate whether workers could go on strike regarding interests, disputes or in respect of a violation of conditions of work contained in an existing collective agreement. It further requested the Government to indicate whether recourse to sympathy strikes and to protest strikes was permitted under the new legislation. Finally, in respect of the same section, it requested the Government to specify categories of workers not authorized to participate in the strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that workers may go on strike in respect of a violation of conditions of work contained in an existing collective agreement. The Committee recalls that organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living. Moreover, workers should be able to take a sympathy strike action (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 165 and 168). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to review section 49(1) of the Code in light of the above and the basic notion that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their socio-economic interests. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that strike action is prohibited in Georgian intelligence services, public security services, Office of the Public Prosecutor, special service of the state security and police.

The Committee had noted section 49(8) of the Code, which provided that a strike could not continue for more than 90 calendar days, and requested the Government to give consideration to appropriate mechanisms of conciliation, mediation or voluntary arbitration instead. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the tradition of using such methods of dispute resolution is not developed in the country, therefore, providing for such mechanisms in detail in the legislation would be ineffective at the present stage. The Committee notes in this respect that section 49(5) provides that, after the warning strike, the parties shall participate in the amicable settlement procedures pursuant to the Labour Code. The Committee notes, however, that the Code does not provide for such procedure. The Committee considers that no arbitrary periods of limitations should be placed on the right to strike and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal this provision. It further once again suggests to the Government to give consideration to mechanisms of conciliation, mediation or voluntary arbitration instead.

The Committee had requested the Government to amend section 51(2) of the Code, which prohibits strikes in sectors where “work is impossible to suspend due to the technological mode of work”. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that this provision is of a general nature and is not used in practice. The Committee once again recalls that the only possible exceptions to the right to strike are those which may be imposed for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and in the event of an acute national emergency. The authorities may, however, establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes. The minimum services could be appropriate in situations in which a substantial restriction or a total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 160 and 162). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to amend section 51(2) of the Code accordingly to the above principle and to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee had requested the Government to amend section 51(4) and (5) of the Code, providing that the strike of employees, informed about termination of the contract before the dispute arises, is illegal and that if the right to strike arises before the termination of the time-based contract, the strike is considered illegal after the expiration of the term of the contract. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the issue of amending these provisions is being discussed. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

The Committee notes that according to section 48(5) of the Code, if, in the course of a dispute, an agreement is not reached in 14 days, one of the parties is entitled to submit the dispute to the court of arbitration. The Committee recalls that a provision which permits either party unilaterally to submit the dispute for compulsory arbitration effectively undermines the right of workers to call a strike. The Committee recalls that recourse to arbitration should be possible only at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or in cases where strikes may be restricted or banned, i.e. in essential services in the strict sense of the term, in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the event of an acute national emergency. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 48(5) so as to ensure that recourse to arbitration is limited to the abovementioned situations and to keep it informed in this respect.

Criminal Code. The Committee also notes that according to section 358 of the Criminal Code, violation of strike procedures by an organizer of the strike is punishable by imprisonment for a period of up to two years, if the violation caused grave results by negligence. The Committee considers that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Even in such cases, both excessive recourse to the courts in labour relations and the existence of heavy sanctions for strike action may well create more problems than they resolve. Since the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all, they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 177). In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 358 of the Criminal Code by repealing the reference to imprisonment so as to ensure that sanctions for participation or organization of an illegal strike are not disproportionate. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Law on Trade Unions. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that while section 5(2) of the Law on Trade Unions forbids trade unions to belong to a political party, it does not prohibit them to express their opinions and criticism on economical and social policies of the Government.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report as well as its reply to the 2005 and 2006 comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – International Trade Union Confederation).

It further notes the comments of the ITUC and of the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) dated 28 and 31 August 2007, respectively, referring to the issues previously raised by the ICFTU and the Committee.

Labour Code (2006). The Committee had previously noted the adoption in 2006 of the new Labour Code. In this respect, the Committee had noted that while the new Labour Code repealed the Law on collective contracts and agreements and the Law on collective labour disputes, it did not regulate all aspects of freedom of association and that it appeared that by repealing the abovementioned legislation, there were numerous aspects of freedom of association that would not be sufficiently protected in law. The Committee had asked the Government to indicate whether it intended to adopt additional legislation to this end. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Chapter X of the Labour Code regulates the matters in connection with collective agreements and Chapter XII – labour disputes. It further notes the Government’s statement that the Constitution and the Law on trade unions provide for protection of trade union rights. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs has prepared draft amendments to the Labour Code so as to bring it into closer conformity with international labour standards. The draft amendments shall be submitted to Parliament pursuant to the procedure provided for in the national legislation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the developments in this regard.

Law on trade unions. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 2(9) of the Law on trade unions so as to lower the minimum trade union membership requirement set at 100. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this requirement concerns establishment of trade union confederations (associations) and that the legislation does not provide for a minimum membership requirement for establishing a trade union, while 15 members are required to establish a primary trade union. While noting the Government’s statement, the Committee notes that section 2(9) of the Law on trade unions refers expressly to “trade union” and not to “confederation of trade unions”, while section 3(9) refers to the “primary trade union” and to the minimum requirement of 15 members. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 2(9) so as to lower the minimum trade union membership requirement and to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Furthermore, the Committee had asked the Government to indicate whether federations of trade unions may call a strike action in defence of their members’ interests. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the legislation does not limit the right to strike of trade union confederations (associations).

Finally, the Committee recalls that it had previously noted the ICFTU’s comments with regard to the dispute over trade union property and urged the Government to engage in consultations with trade union organizations in order to settle the question of the assignment of property. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the property dispute, previously referred to by the ICFTU, had been resolved.

With regard to the specific provisions of the Labour Code, the Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government.

 

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

The Committee notes the recently adopted Labour Code and wishes to raise in this respect the following points.

–         According to section 49(1), strike is a temporary and voluntary refusal by an employee to partially or fully fulfil his/her obligations under the labour contract with the purpose of regulating subsequent relations within the framework of a labour dispute (defined, under section 47(3), as a dispute connected with the violation of human rights and freedom envisaged by the Georgian legislation – dispute of rights and with a violation of the contract and/or labour conditions – contractual dispute). It is therefore not clear whether workers may go on strike regarding interests, disputes or in respect of a violation of conditions of work contained in an existing collective agreement. It is further unclear whether recourse to sympathy strikes and to protest strikes is permitted. The Committee requests the Government to provide the information clarifying these matters.

–         According to section 51(4) and (5), the strike of employees who are informed about termination of the contract before the dispute arises, shall be considered illegal and if the right to strike arises before the termination of the time-based contract, the strike shall be considered illegal after the expiration of the term of the contract. While bearing in mind the ban on dismissing workers during a strike set out in sections 36(6), 49(10) and 52(1), the Committee considers that limitations on strike action related to termination of contracts could totally restrict any protest action taken by workers relating to what they might consider to be unjustifiable terminations. The Committee requests the Government to repeal provisions contained in section 51(4) and (5) and to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

–         Section 49(1) stipulates that “persons specified in the Georgian legislation do not have the right to participate in strikes”. The Committee requests the Government to provide a list of persons who do not have a right to strike along with the relevant legislation.

–         Section 51(2) prohibits strikes in sectors where “work is impossible to suspend due to the technological mode of work”. The Committee recalls that the only possible exceptions to the right to strike are those which may be imposed for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and in the event of an acute national emergency. The authorities may however establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes. The minimum services could be appropriate in situations in which a substantial restriction or a total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 160 and 162). The Committee requests the Government to amend section 51(2) accordingly to the above principle and to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

–         Section 49(8) provides that a strike cannot continue for more than 90 calendar days. The Committee considers that no such arbitrary periods of limitations should be placed on the right to strike and advises the Government to give consideration to appropriate mechanisms of conciliation, mediation or voluntary arbitration instead.

–         Section 49(5) provides that, after the warning strike, the parties shall participate in the work of the conciliatory commission pursuant to the Labour Code. The Committee notes, however, that the Code does not seem to provide for any rules or procedure of such a commission. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the functioning, the mandate and the effect of this commission.

–         According to section 46(1) and (2), an employee’s rights may be limited by the labour contract due to the importance of the production process and if it may cause direct damage to the interests of the employer. The Committee expresses its concern over the impact this section might have on the exercise of the legitimate trade union rights and requests the Government to indicate how this section is used in practice.

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

The Committee takes note of the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 10 August 2006 referring to the issues previously raised by the Committee and alleging that the draft Labour Code was prepared without prior consultation with trade unions. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee notes that the draft Labour Code referred to by the ICFTU was recently adopted. It appears that, with the adoption of the Labour Code, the Law on Trade Unions will remain in force, and the Law on Collective Contracts and Agreements of 1997 and the Law on Collective Labour Disputes of 1998 will be repealed. Noting that the Labour Code contains no sections concerning the freedom of association generally and that the Law on Trade Unions does not regulate all aspects of freedom of association, it appears that by repealing the abovementioned legislation, there are numerous aspects of freedom of association that will not be sufficiently protected in law (such as the right of workers and employers to establish and join organizations, the rights of such organizations, the procedure for calling a strike and other strike-related issues). The Committee recalls that Article 1 of the Convention provides that “Each Member of the International Labour Organization for which this Convention is in force undertakes to give effect to [its] provisions”. It therefore requests the Government to indicate whether it has an intention to adopt additional legislation to this end. With regard to the specific provisions of the Labour Code, the Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government.

The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report the information on the pending questions addressed in the Committee’s previous observation (see 2005 observation, 76th Session) and direct request (see 2005 direct request, 76th Session), which the Committee will examine under the regular reporting cycle in 2007.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes that according to section 5(2) of the Law on Trade Unions, trade unions were forbidden from association with any political party (association). The Committee believes that the development of the trade union movement and the increasing recognition of its role as a social partner in its own right mean that workers’ organizations must be able to voice their opinion on political issues in the broad sense of the term and, in particular, to express their views publicly on a government’s economic and social policy. The Committee is of the view that legislative provisions which prohibit all political activities for trade unions give rise to serious difficulties with regard to the principles of the Convention. Some degree of flexibility in legislation is desirable, so that a reasonable balance can be achieved between legitimate interests of organizations in expressing their point of view on matters of economic or social policy affecting their members and workers in general, on the one hand, and the separation of political activities in the strict sense of the term and trade union activities, on the other (see General Survey of 1994, paragraphs 131 and 133). The Committee requests that the Government indicate the types of activities prohibited by this provision.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report, which for the most part repeats the information previously submitted by the Government. The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 31 August 2005 concerning the application of the Convention in practice and relating to the on-going disputes over trade union property. The Committee requests that the Government provide its observations thereon.

The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will provide full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had previously noted that section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions provided that a trade union could be formed on the initiative of not less than 100 persons (15 members are required to establish a primary trade union). The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that it is outside of the Government’s competence to make any changes in respect of this requirement. The Committee recalls that when a State ratifies a Convention, it undertakes a commitment to respect fully its provisions and principles. With regard to the minimum membership requirement, the Committee once again recalls that, while the existence of such a requirement is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 81). The Committee points out that the minimum 100 members requirement is too high. The Committee asks the Government to take necessary measures to amend section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions so as to lower the minimum trade union membership requirement and to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed.

The Committee once again requests that the Government indicate the applicable procedure for registration of trade unions and provide the relevant legislative texts.

Article 3. The Committee notes the comments made by the ICFTU with regard to the ongoing dispute over trade union property and also concerning Case No. 2387 examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association. This case concerned the seizure of trade union assets and the use of various means of pressure: intimidating statements addressed to the Georgian Trade Union Amalgamation (GTUA); arrests of the GTUA leaders; illegal audits of the GTUA financial activities; threats and overall refusal of the Government to have a constructive dialogue with the GTUA. The Committee condemns the anti-union tactics, pressure and intimidation the Government chose to use in dealing with this issue and regrets that the Government has so far refused all dialogue with the GTUA. The Committee therefore urges the Government to engage in consultations with the trade union organizations concerned in order to settle the question of the assignment of property and to keep it informed in this respect.

The Committee notes that under section 12(2) of the Law on the Procedure for the Settlement of Collective Disputes, a strike can be called further to a vote requiring a 75 per cent quorum and a majority of those voting. Considering that the quorum set out for a strike is too high and may potentially impede recourse to strike action, particularly in large enterprises, the Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to lower the quorum required for a strike ballot and to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee further notes that, according to section 12(5)(b) of the Law, the duration of the strike should be indicated in an advance notice. The Committee recalls that the supervisory bodies have already indicated that forcing workers and their organizations to specify the length of a strike would restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee therefore asks the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that no legal obligation to indicate the duration of a strike action is imposed on workers’ organizations and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee also notes that, according to section 12(5)(d), a proposal of minimum services should be indicated in an advance notice. Section 14(4) further provides that in the case of failure to reach an agreement, minimum services are established by the bodies of executive authority, local self-governing and administrative bodies. In the view of the Committee, the authorities may establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes. The minimum services could be appropriate in situations in which a substantial restriction or a total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 160 and 162). The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the establishment of minimum services is a requirement applicable to all categories of workers and, if so, it requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that the requirement to establish minimum services is limited to the abovementioned cases. As regards the provision that any disagreement concerning the establishment of minimum services should be settled by the authorities, the Committee requests that the Government amend its legislation so as to ensure that any such disagreement is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all the parties to the dispute and not the executive or administrative authority and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Moreover, the Committee notes that according to section 15(2) and (9) of the Law on the Settlement of Collective Disputes, some workers appear to be excluded from exercising the right to strike and it is the President of Georgia who makes the decision on the settlement of a collective labour dispute for these workers. However, this section does not specify the category of workers excluded. The Committee recalls that the only possible exceptions to the right to strike are those which may be imposed for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and in the event of an acute national emergency. If the right to strike is subject to restriction or a prohibition, workers who are deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned. It is essential that the latter be able to participate in determining and implementing the procedures, which should furthermore provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity (see General Survey, op. cit., 1994, paragraph 164). The Committee asks the Government to list any categories of workers which may be excluded by relevant legislation from exercising their right to strike and to provide copies of these laws. It further requests that the Government review its legislation so as to ensure that in the event of a labour dispute, workers who are deprived of the right to strike are afforded compensatory guarantees for the settlement of the dispute by an impartial and independent body and not by the President. The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee notes section 18 of the Law, which provides that persons engaging in an illegal strike bear responsibility in accordance with the legislation of Georgia. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government, participation in an illegal strike is punishable by a fine, or by corrective labour for up to one year, or by imprisonment of up to two years (section 165 of the Penal Code). Furthermore, in cases where failure to comply with the established strike procedure leads to grave consequences, the strike organizers are liable to the same sanctions (section 167 of the Penal Code). The Committee considers that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Even in such cases, the existence of heavy sanctions for strike action may well create more problems than they resolve. Since the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations, the Committee emphasizes that any sanction should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177 and 178). The Committee therefore asks the Government to amend sections 165 and 167 of the Penal Code and, in particular, to repeal the reference to corrective labour and imprisonment so as to ensure that sanctions for participation or organization of an illegal strike are not disproportionate.

Article 6. Rights of federations and confederations. The Committee notes that section 13 of the Law on Trade Unions, which provides for the right to participate in the settling of collective labour disputes, including strike action, does not mention expressly that this right is also afforded to federations. The Committee requests that the Government indicate whether federations of trade unions may also call for a strike action in defence of their members’ interests.

The Committee asks the Government to forward a copy of the Law of Georgia on Employers of 28 October 1994 with its next report.

The Committee is also addressing a request on another point directly to the Government.

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

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 previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions provides that a trade union can be formed on the initiative of not less than 100 persons. The Committee recalls that, although a minimum membership requirement is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 81). The Committee considers that the minimum 100 members requirement is too high when the trade union in question is a trade union at the enterprise level and which is not a primary trade union. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether independent trade unions formed at the enterprise level must indeed have 100 members and, if so, to take necessary measures to amend this requirement so as to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed at the enterprise level.

The Committee further notes that section 7(2) of the Law provides for the obligation to register the statutes of a trade union or a federation of trade unions, their amendments and supplement "in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation". However, the law does not provide for such a procedure. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any applicable procedure for registration of trade unions.

Article 3. The Committee notes that according to section 5(2) of the Law on Trade Unions, trade unions are forbidden from association with any political party (association). The Committee believes that the development of the trade union movement and the increasing recognition of its role as a social partner in its own right mean that workers’ organizations must be able to voice their opinion on political issues in the broad sense of the term and, in particular, to express their views publicly on a government’s economic and social policy. The Committee is of the view that legislative provisions which prohibit all political activities for trade unions give rise to serious difficulties with regard to the principles of the Convention. Some degree of flexibility in legislation is desirable, so that a reasonable balance can be achieved between legitimate interests of organizations in expressing their point of view on matters of economic or social policy affecting their members and workers in general, on the one hand, and the separation of political activities in the strict sense of the term and trade union activities, on the other (see General Survey, 1994, paragraphs 131 and 133). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the types of activities prohibited by this provision.

The Committee notes that under section 12(2) of the Law on the Procedure for the Settlement of Collective Disputes, a strike can be called further to a vote requiring a 75 per cent quorum and a majority of those voting. The Committee considers that this quorum set out for a strike could prevent recourse to strike action, particularly in big enterprises and that the quorum requirement should be set at a reasonable level. The Committee further notes that, according to section 12(5)(b) of the Law, the duration of the strike should be indicated in an advance notice. The Committee recalls that the supervisory bodies have already indicated that forcing workers and their organizations to specify the length of a strike would restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that no legal obligation to indicate duration of a strike action is imposed on workers’ organizations and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee also notes that according to section 12(5)(d) a proposal of minimum services should be indicated in an advance notice. Section 14(4) further provides that in the case of failure to reach an agreement, minimum required services are established by the bodies of executive authority, local self-governing and administrative bodies. In the view of the Committee, the authorities may establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes. The minimum services could be appropriate in situations in which a substantial restriction or a total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption (see General Survey, 1994, paragraphs 160 and 162). The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the establishment of minimum services is a requirement applicable to all categories of workers and, if so, it requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that the requirement to establish minimum services is limited to abovementioned cases. As regards the provision that any disagreement concerning the establishment of minimum services should be settled by the authorities, the Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that any such disagreement is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all the parties to the dispute and not the executive or administrative authority and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Moreover, the Committee notes that according to section 15(2) and (9) of the Law on the Settlement of Collective Disputes, some workers appear to be excluded from exercising the right to strike and it is the President of Georgia who makes the decision on the settlement of a collective labour dispute for these workers. However, this section does not specify the category of workers excluded. The Committee recalls that the only possible exceptions to the right to strike are those which may be imposed for public servants, workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and in the event of an acute national emergency. If the right to strike is subject to restriction or a prohibition, workers who are deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned. It is essential that the latter be able to participate in determining and implementing the procedures, which should furthermore provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 164). The Committee requests the Government to indicate any categories of workers which might be excluded by relevant legislation from exercising their right to strike and to provide copies of these laws. It further requests the Government to review its legislation so as to ensure that in the event of a labour dispute, workers who are deprived of the right to strike are afforded with compensatory guarantees for the settlement of the dispute by an impartial and independent body and not by the President. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Lastly, the Committee notes section 18 of the Law, which provides that persons holding an illegal strike bear responsibility in accordance with the legislation of Georgia. In respect to the right to strike, the Committee considers that any sanction should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 178). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions relevant to the sanctioning of illegal strike action.

Article 6. Rights of federations and confederations. The Committee notes with interest that most of the provisions of the Law on Trade Unions concerning rights of trade unions expressly afford the same rights to federations of trade unions. However, section 13, which provides for the right to participate in settling of collective labour dispute, including strike action, does not mention expressly that this right is also afforded to federations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether federations of trade unions may also call for a strike action in defence of their member interests.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Law of Georgia on Employers of 28 October 1994 furthermore ensures the provisions of the Convention. It requests the Government to forward a copy of this legislation with its next report.

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

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:

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions provides that a trade union can be formed on the initiative of not less than 100 persons. The Committee recalls that, although a minimum membership requirement is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 81). The Committee considers that the minimum 100 members requirement is too high when the trade union in question is a trade union at the enterprise level and which is not a primary trade union. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether independent trade unions formed at the enterprise level must indeed have 100 members and, if so, to take necessary measures to amend this requirement so as to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed at the enterprise level.

The Committee further notes that section 7(2) of the Law provides for the obligation to register the statutes of a trade union or a federation of trade unions, their amendments and supplement "in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation". However, the law does not provide for such a procedure. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any applicable procedure for registration of trade unions.

Article 3. The Committee notes that according to section 5(2) of the Law on Trade Unions, trade unions are forbidden from association with any political party (association). The Committee believes that the development of the trade union movement and the increasing recognition of its role as a social partner in its own right mean that workers’ organizations must be able to voice their opinion on political issues in the broad sense of the term and, in particular, to express their views publicly on a government’s economic and social policy. The Committee is of the view that legislative provisions which prohibit all political activities for trade unions give rise to serious difficulties with regard to the principles of the Convention. Some degree of flexibility in legislation is desirable, so that a reasonable balance can be achieved between legitimate interests of organizations in expressing their point of view on matters of economic or social policy affecting their members and workers in general, on the one hand, and the separation of political activities in the strict sense of the term and trade union activities, on the other (see General Survey, 1994, paragraphs 131 and 133). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the types of activities prohibited by this provision.

The Committee notes that under section 12(2) of the Law on the Procedure for the Settlement of Collective Disputes, a strike can be called further to a vote requiring a 75 per cent quorum and a majority of those voting. The Committee considers that this quorum set out for a strike could prevent recourse to strike action, particularly in big enterprises and that the quorum requirement should be set at a reasonable level. The Committee further notes that, according to section 12(5)(b) of the Law, the duration of the strike should be indicated in an advance notice. The Committee recalls that the supervisory bodies have already indicated that forcing workers and their organizations to specify the length of a strike would restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that no legal obligation to indicate duration of a strike action is imposed on workers’ organizations and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee also notes that according to section 12(5)(d) a proposal of minimum services should be indicated in an advance notice. Section 14(4) further provides that in the case of failure to reach an agreement, minimum required services are established by the bodies of executive authority, local self-governing and administrative bodies. In the view of the Committee, the authorities may establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes. The minimum services could be appropriate in situations in which a substantial restriction or a total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption (see General Survey, 1994, paragraphs 160 and 162). The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the establishment of minimum services is a requirement applicable to all categories of workers and, if so, it requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that the requirement to establish minimum services is limited to abovementioned cases. As regards the provision that any disagreement concerning the establishment of minimum services should be settled by the authorities, the Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that any such disagreement is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all the parties to the dispute and not the executive or administrative authority and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Moreover, the Committee notes that according to section 15(2) and (9) of the Law on the Settlement of Collective Disputes, some workers appear to be excluded from exercising the right to strike and it is the President of Georgia who makes the decision on the settlement of a collective labour dispute for these workers. However, this section does not specify the category of workers excluded. The Committee recalls that the only possible exceptions to the right to strike are those which may be imposed for public servants, workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and in the event of an acute national emergency. If the right to strike is subject to restriction or a prohibition, workers who are deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned. It is essential that the latter be able to participate in determining and implementing the procedures, which should furthermore provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 164). The Committee requests the Government to indicate any categories of workers which might be excluded by relevant legislation from exercising their right to strike and to provide copies of these laws. It further requests the Government to review its legislation so as to ensure that in the event of a labour dispute, workers who are deprived of the right to strike are afforded with compensatory guarantees for the settlement of the dispute by an impartial and independent body and not by the President. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Lastly, the Committee notes section 18 of the Law, which provides that persons holding an illegal strike bear responsibility in accordance with the legislation of Georgia. In respect to the right to strike, the Committee considers that any sanction should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 178). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions relevant to the sanctioning of illegal strike action.

Article 6. Rights of federations and confederations. The Committee notes with interest that most of the provisions of the Law on Trade Unions concerning rights of trade unions expressly afford the same rights to federations of trade unions. However, section 13, which provides for the right to participate in settling of collective labour dispute, including strike action, does not mention expressly that this right is also afforded to federations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether federations of trade unions may also call for a strike action in defence of their member interests.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Law of Georgia on Employers of 28 October 1994 furthermore ensures the provisions of the Convention. It requests the Government to forward a copy of this legislation with its next report.

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

The Committee notes with interest the information contained in the Government’s first report. It wishes to raise a certain number of points concerning the application of the following Articles of the Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that section 2(9) of the Law on Trade Unions provides that a trade union can be formed on the initiative of not less than 100 persons. The Committee recalls that, although a minimum membership requirement is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 81). The Committee considers that the minimum 100 members requirement is too high when the trade union in question is a trade union at the enterprise level and which is not a primary trade union. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether independent trade unions formed at the enterprise level must indeed have 100 members and, if so, to take necessary measures to amend this requirement so as to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed at the enterprise level.

The Committee further notes that section 7(2) of the Law provides for the obligation to register the statutes of a trade union or a federation of trade unions, their amendments and supplement "in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation". However, the law does not provide for such a procedure. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any applicable procedure for registration of trade unions.

Article 3. The Committee notes that according to section 5(2) of the Law on Trade Unions, trade unions are forbidden from association with any political party (association). The Committee believes that the development of the trade union movement and the increasing recognition of its role as a social partner in its own right mean that workers’ organizations must be able to voice their opinion on political issues in the broad sense of the term and, in particular, to express their views publicly on a government’s economic and social policy. The Committee is of the view that legislative provisions which prohibit all political activities for trade unions give rise to serious difficulties with regard to the principles of the Convention. Some degree of flexibility in legislation is desirable, so that a reasonable balance can be achieved between legitimate interests of organizations in expressing their point of view on matters of economic or social policy affecting their members and workers in general, on the one hand, and the separation of political activities in the strict sense of the term and trade union activities, on the other (see General Survey, 1994, paragraphs 131 and 133). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the types of activities prohibited by this provision.

The Committee notes that under section 12(2) of the Law on the Procedure for the Settlement of Collective Disputes, a strike can be called further to a vote requiring a 75 per cent quorum and a majority of those voting. The Committee considers that this quorum set out for a strike could prevent recourse to strike action, particularly in big enterprises and that the quorum requirement should be set at a reasonable level. The Committee further notes that, according to section 12(5)(b) of the Law, the duration of the strike should be indicated in an advance notice. The Committee recalls that the supervisory bodies have already indicated that forcing workers and their organizations to specify the length of a strike would restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that no legal obligation to indicate duration of a strike action is imposed on workers’ organizations and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee also notes that according to section 12(5)(d) a proposal of minimum services should be indicated in an advance notice. Section 14(4) further provides that in the case of failure to reach an agreement, minimum required services are established by the bodies of executive authority, local self-governing and administrative bodies. In the view of the Committee, the authorities may establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes. The minimum services could be appropriate in situations in which a substantial restriction or a total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption (see General Survey, 1994, paragraphs 160 and 162). The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the establishment of minimum services is a requirement applicable to all categories of workers and, if so, it requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that the requirement to establish minimum services is limited to abovementioned cases. As regards the provision that any disagreement concerning the establishment of minimum services should be settled by the authorities, the Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that any such disagreement is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all the parties to the dispute and not the executive or administrative authority and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Moreover, the Committee notes that according to section 15(2) and (9) of the Law on the Settlement of Collective Disputes, some workers appear to be excluded from exercising the right to strike and it is the President of Georgia who makes the decision on the settlement of a collective labour dispute for these workers. However, this section does not specify the category of workers excluded. The Committee recalls that the only possible exceptions to the right to strike are those which may be imposed for public servants, workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and in the event of an acute national emergency. If the right to strike is subject to restriction or a prohibition, workers who are deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned. It is essential that the latter be able to participate in determining and implementing the procedures, which should furthermore provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 164). The Committee requests the Government to indicate any categories of workers which might be excluded by relevant legislation from exercising their right to strike and to provide copies of these laws. It further requests the Government to review its legislation so as to ensure that in the event of a labour dispute, workers who are deprived of the right to strike are afforded with compensatory guarantees for the settlement of the dispute by an impartial and independent body and not by the President. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Lastly, the Committee notes section 18 of the Law, which provides that persons holding an illegal strike bear responsibility in accordance with the legislation of Georgia. In respect to the right to strike, the Committee considers that any sanction should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 178). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions relevant to the sanctioning of illegal strike action.

Article 6. Rights of federations and confederations. The Committee notes with interest that most of the provisions of the Law on Trade Unions concerning rights of trade unions expressly afford the same rights to federations of trade unions. However, section 13, which provides for the right to participate in settling of collective labour dispute, including strike action, does not mention expressly that this right is also afforded to federations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether federations of trade unions may also call for a strike action in defence of their member interests.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Law of Georgia on Employers of 28 October 1994 furthermore ensures the provisions of the Convention. It requests the Government to forward a copy of this legislation with its next report.