Interim Report - Report No 413, March 2026

Case No 3465 (Serbia) - Complaint date: 08-MAY-24 - Active

Allegations: The complainants assert that the Government has failed to provide protection against interference in trade union activities and acts of anti-union discrimination carried out by a state owned enterprise

1. 387. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 8 May 2024, submitted by the Central Union of Aeronautical Stewardesses and Stewards (Jedinstveni sindikat stjuardesai stjuarda vazduhoplova (JSSSV)) of Serbia, the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF).
2. 388. In the complainants’ communication received on 30 August 2024, and the Government’s communication dated 10 October 2024, the parties informed the Committee of their acceptance to refer the dispute to voluntary conciliation at the national level. In communications dated 2 and 15 April 2025, the Government and the complainants informed the Committee regarding the attempts of conciliation: The Government stated that it had engaged with the JSSSV in order to find an adequate solution, but that the conciliation process has not proved fruitful and that the complainants did not accept further mediation. The complainants stated that although a meeting had taken place on 19 March 2025, they were still awaiting any proposal from the Government in follow-up to that meeting. They added that at the end of a six-month postponement for voluntary conciliation between the parties, they considered that the process had been unsuccessful and expressed their desire to refer the matter back to the Committee. The Government provided additional information in a communication dated 9 July 2025.
3. 389. Serbia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainants’ allegations

The alleged absence of bargaining in good faith by the airline company

The alleged interference by the airline company through threats and intimidation to force workers to withdraw from the union

The alleged interference by the airline company in union elections

The alleged acts of anti-union discrimination (transfers and dismissal)

1. 390. In their communication dated 8 May 2024, the complainants assert that the Government has failed to provide protection against interference in trade union activities and acts of anti-union discrimination carried out by Air Serbia, a state owned enterprise (hereinafter: the airline company), thereby failing to comply with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. In their complaint, the complainants also make reference to the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).
2. 391. The complainants submit that the airline company was established in 2013, that the Government increased its share to 82 per cent in 2022, and that the company came under full ownership and control by the Government in November 2023. They add that since its establishment, JSSSV has been the only representative cabin crew union.
3. 392. The complainants allege that the Government-appointed representative on the company’s board of executive directors has been exercising influence and control over the leadership of the union. They state that a collective bargaining agreement existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but that its benefits and protections had worsened with each renegotiation. They allege that in 2020, at the direction of the above-mentioned representative, the union leadership terminated the collective agreement due to the declared state of emergency in the country, and accepted a 25 per cent reduction in their basic salaries, while all pilots and cabin crew remained on the payroll. The complainants add that the company’s profits nevertheless increased and that the airline company expanded its routes (owing in part to less strict pandemic-related travel restrictions in Serbia than in certain central European countries, a substantial Government bailout and a unique route offered by the airline company to Russian citizens which allowed them to travel out of Russia via Belgrade during the Russia–Ukraine war), while a shortage of staff required pilots and cabin crew to fly with minimum rest. Under conditions of overwork, unused leave and rising sick leave, workers continued to receive the reduced wages and remained without a collective agreement. The complainants maintain that these deteriorating conditions motivated workers to organize. In 2021 and 2022, younger members assumed leadership of the three unions representing cabin crew (JSSSV), pilots and air mechanics, formed an alliance, and demanded the right to bargain for safe, fair and sustainable working conditions, particularly adequate staffing, industry-standard annual leave and reduced working hours. The complainants contend that flight activity further intensified during the 2023 season resulting in excessive working hours, insufficient leave and the departure of many experienced pilots and cabin crew. They assert that the airline company did not engage in good faith bargaining with JSSSV, which remained the only organization with negotiation rights: discussions were brief, nearly all demands were rejected and union representatives were subjected to disrespectful and abusive treatment. In January 2023, the company presented a “take it or leave it” agreement, which the union unanimously voted against.
4. 393. The complainants allege that after January 2023, the airline company engaged in tactics to disrupt, weaken and ultimately dismantle the unions.
5. 394. The complainants allege that the airline company engaged in threats, intimidation and retaliation through: (i) the opening and withdrawal of vacancies to pressure workers to withdraw their union membership, (ii) the removal of union members from the list of workers due for promotion, and (iii) pressuring union leaders to resign. The complainants assert that by April 2023, 40 per cent of the JSSSV, and 30 per cent of the pilots’ union had withdrawn their membership, and all three presidents (of the JSSSV, the pilot’s and the air mechanics union) had resigned. The complainants allege that: (a) the former JSSSV leader resigned under pressure following a company campaign spreading news that there would be no improvement in working conditions while she was leading the union; (b) the former president of the air mechanics union branch resigned for the same reasons, being associated with the JSSSV leader; and (c) the former president of the pilot’s union resigned after union members were pressured to sign a petition demanding his resignation and after he had faced threats of dismissal for allegedly spreading misinformation in his labour inspection complaint about unused annual leave. The complainants add that the majority of members withdrew from the air mechanics union, and further allege that the subsequently elected president of the air mechanics union branch also resigned after receiving a dismissal notice (issued for a cumulative lateness of 15 minutes in October 2023), and after being verbally threatened with dismissal unless he stepped down from the union presidency within 24 hours. The complainants assert that this situation continues, with too few members to engage in negotiations, as workers have cause to fear demotion, non-renewal of their contracts and dismissal.
6. 395. The complainants allege that, in May and June 2023, new union elections resulted in the election of pro-company leaders across the worker branches. However, for the JSSSV, Ms Lena Dačić was elected as the cabin crew representative despite management pressure to vote for a late-submission candidate favoured by management. The complainants add that on 28 July 2023, the court imposed a provisional ban preventing Ms Dačić from serving as union president, a decision later upheld on appeal, following an allegedly baseless lawsuit by her opponent over a minor technicality in the union statute concerning the number of members on the board (they add that, at the time of their submission, the annulment proceedings regarding her election were still pending). They also allege that, in a disproportionate response, the union’s bank accounts were frozen, paralysing all union activities.
7. 396. The complainants assert that Ms Dačić subsequently faced discrimination by the airline company, culminating in her dismissal, while she attempted to organize new elections and lift the ban from her role as union president. They allege that, on 28 September 2023, management summoned Ms Dačić to a meeting, pressured her to stop discussing union matters, warned her that the company would severely reprimand anyone spreading “artificial dissatisfaction” among staff, and demanded the closure of the union’s mobile messaging app account. They add that she was asked if she “respects the authorities of this country”, and that her opponent in the union election was also present at the meeting. The complainants assert that, one day after the meeting, the JSSSV Vice-President was transferred from cabin crew to the airline company’s contact centre, and ten days later, the same measure was applied to Ms Dačić and three other union activists. Several of Ms Dačić’s close colleagues were also called to meetings, apparently for similar transfers, but could not attend and have since been on sick leave. They add that meanwhile, more and more members have been withdrawing from the union. The complainants further assert that the company relied on Ms Dačić’s expression of her views on social media to justify her dismissal on 11 November 2023, alleging that she had spread damaging misinformation about the company. The complainants state that Ms Dačić made a request on 30 October to the labour inspection regarding her transfer and that, following her complaint made on 30 November 2023, the labour inspection authorities found no obvious rights violation in relation to her dismissal, as it was based on alleged non compliance with work-related obligations.
8. 397. The complainants state that on 8 November 2023, Ms Dačić and several of her colleagues filed a lawsuit before the High Court claiming that the airline company engaged in acts of anti-union discrimination (in relation to the above-mentioned transfers, Ms Dačić’s dismissal as well as the denial of an anticipated promotion in her favour), which the airline company challenged as unfounded in its submission of 8 December 2023. The complainants argue that, consistent with the burden of proof under national law, the employer must demonstrate the absence of discrimination, and that the complainants argue that there are several indications of the existence of discriminatory intent, namely that: (i) the transfers occurred immediately after the meeting with Ms Dačić regarding her union activities; (ii) only union affiliated employees were affected; (iii) recruitment for cabin crew positions continued, and over 100 temporary cabin crew members with less than six months’ experience were retained (contradicting the airline company’s argument of a surplus); and (iv) the transferred employees were not provided with sufficient workstations to perform their duties and as a result, had not received training one month after their transfer, which the complainants argue demonstrates that there were no vacancies in the contact centre. Finally, although the airline company asserts that transfers came with a higher base salary, the complainants dispute this, noting that the loss of cabin crew allowances resulted in a threefold reduction in income. Concerning Ms Dačić’s dismissal, the complainants argue that her rights to freedom of opinion and expression were violated by the manner of her dismissal, which they consider a direct response to ideas and information she had shared about the company in social media comments. They assert that worker representatives can only fulfil their duties if they are free to publicly criticize company policies that harm the interests of workers. The complainants indicate that the High Court rejected the urgent temporary measures the plaintiffs had sought, holding that there was no preliminary evidence of irreversible damage. They add that as of their submission, no final judicial decision had been issued.
9. 398. The complainants allege that the anti-union discrimination laws and the measures taken by the national authorities have failed to be effective and dissuasive in this case, including as regards the protection of Ms Dačić, who was terminated while effectively serving as the elected leader of the union, notwithstanding a temporary ban from exercising that role. They assert that the response from the labour inspectorate and other bodies empowered to protect the right to be free from discrimination has been inadequate and that the courts have failed to implement provisional measures that would protect workers and have even taken actions that have negatively impacted their circumstances.
10. 399. The complainants assert that the acts described amount to anti-union discrimination and resulted in the effective shutting down of the union. They allege that only one witness in the discrimination case against the airline company remains employed, having been demoted from purser to flight attendant despite having 30 years of experience. They assert that union activists now avoid organizing to prevent further victimization.
11. 400. The complainants refer to the applicable national legislation concerning anti-union discrimination, including section 188(1) of the Labour Code. They criticize that, in terms of remedy, there is no special provision for workers who have suffered acts of anti-union discrimination. They add that only the general compensatory (or reinstatement) measures for unlawful termination of employment relationship in section 191 of the Labour Code apply and argue that this is inadequate where anti-union discrimination falls short of outright dismissal.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 401. The Government indicates that, in an effort to resolve the dispute peacefully, it convened a meeting on 19 March 2025 at the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs with representatives of the JSSSV. The National Coordinator of the ILO in Serbia and representatives of the Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure and the Agency for Peaceful Resolution of Labour Disputes also participated. According to the Government, the JSSSV representatives reiterated the allegations in their complaint and stressed that the court proceedings they had initiated were progressing too slowly.
2. 402. The Government indicates that it sought to identify space for further negotiations and therefore proposed mediation by the Agency for Peaceful Settlement of Labour Disputes, where an independent and impartial arbitrator could have assisted the parties in resolving the dispute, helped restore healthy labour relations and avoided costly court proceedings (which would have been suspended during the mediation). However, the JSSSV representatives declined to suspend the court proceedings, expressing doubt that the airline company would agree to mediation and stating that they preferred to await the outcome of the court proceedings. The Government further maintains that, when asked what measures by the authorities could contribute to resolving the dispute, the JSSSV representatives expressed appreciation for the meeting but stated that they had no specific proposal or request. The Government adds that the labour inspectorate conducted an inspection on 1 November 2023, following a report by the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Belgrade and the Trade Union of Transport and Communications of Belgrade, but found no irregularities concerning the transfer of the four trade union activists – Ms Dačić, Ms Dimitrov, Ms Durić and Ms Vuković – from cabin crew positions to the call centre.
3. 403. The Government emphasizes its commitment to respecting all ratified international labour standards, stating that it remains open to dialogue with the JSSSV and the ILO and that the Government and all national stakeholders will respect any court decision on the matter.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

The alleged absence of bargaining in good faith by the airline company

The alleged threats and intimidation by the airline company to force workers to withdraw from the union

The alleged interference by the airline company in union elections

The alleged acts of anti-union discrimination (transfers and dismissal)

1. 404. The Committee notes that the complainants allege the failure of the Government to provide protection against acts of interference in trade union activities and anti-union discrimination by the airline company, thereby failing to comply with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. It notes that, in their complaint, the complainants also make reference to the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135). While noting that the Government refers to its attempts of voluntary conciliation with the complainants, as well as the conduct of a labour inspection into certain allegations made, and the pending outcome of the anti-union discrimination case before the High Court, the Committee observes that the Government does not provide any response to the specific allegations made by the complainants against the airline company. The Committee will therefore examine the substance of the case without the Government’s response on the matters raised by the complainants, hoping that its conclusions may be useful to ongoing processes in advancing respect for the fundamental principles of freedom of association.
2. 405. The Committee notes the complainants’ following allegations: A collective bargaining agreement existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the union leadership agreed to terminate in 2020 in the context of the declared state of emergency in the country at the direction of the Government appointed representative on the company’s board of directors. Subsequently, the airline company did not engage in good faith bargaining with JSSSV, which remained the only organization with negotiation rights: discussions were brief, nearly all demands were rejected, and union representatives were subjected to disrespectful and abusive treatment. In January 2023, the company presented a “take it or leave it” agreement, which the union unanimously voted against.
3. 406. The Committee understands from the complainants’ submission that, following the termination of the collective agreement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, no collective bargaining agreement has since been concluded that would cover workers at the airline company. It further notes that the Government, in its submission, does not indicate that the management of the airline company was among the representatives present at the voluntary conciliation meeting held between the Government authorities and the JSSSV.
4. 407. At the outset, the Committee wishes to recall that the workers of state-owned commercial or industrial enterprises should have the right to negotiate collective agreements [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1261]. The Committee recalls that it has made clear that both employers and trade unions should bargain in good faith and make every effort to come to an agreement, and satisfactory labour relations depend primarily on the attitudes of the parties towards each other and on their mutual confidence, and that the principle that both employers and trade unions should negotiate in good faith and make efforts to reach an agreement means that any unjustified delay in the holding of negotiations should be avoided [see Compilation, paras 1329 and 1330].
5. 408. Noting that the Government has not provided any response in relation to the allegations made concerning collective bargaining at the airline company, the Committee requests the Government to provide its views and any measures taken in respect of these allegations, including information on the measures taken to foster a climate conducive to voluntary negotiation in good faith with a view to the parties reaching a mutually acceptable collective bargaining agreement.
6. 409. The Committee notes the complainants’ following allegations: The airline company opened and withdrew vacancies to pressure workers to withdraw their union membership, removed union members from the list of workers due for promotion and pressured union leaders to resign. By April 2023, 40 per cent of the JSSSV, and 30 per cent of the pilots’ union had withdrawn their membership, and all three presidents (i.e. those of the JSSSV, the pilot’s and the air mechanics union) had resigned following the exertion of pressure, intimidation and retaliation by the airline company. The majority of members also withdrew from the air mechanics union, and the subsequently elected president of the air mechanics union branch resigned under threat of dismissal. There are now too few members to engage in negotiations, as workers have cause to fear demotion, non-renewal of their contracts and dismissal.
7. 410. While noting that the Government has not provided a response in relation to any of these allegations, the Committee recalls that direct threats and intimidation of members of a workers’ organization and forcing them into committing themselves to sever their ties with the organization under the threat of termination constitutes a denial of these workers’ freedom of association rights [see Compilation, para. 1100].
8. 411. In this respect, the Committee also notes that the complainants indicate that the Labour Act does not contain any explicit provisions against acts of interference of workers’ and employers’ organizations in each other’s establishment, functioning and administration. Noting that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) is already examining this issue, the Committee refers further examination of these legislative aspects to the CEACR.
9. 412. Noting that the Government has not provided any response in relation to the alleged practices at the airline company, and considering the serious nature of these allegations concerning pressure on workers to renounce union membership, the resignation of several union presidents, and a climate perceived as discouraging workers from engaging in trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of all necessary steps taken, including the conduct of investigations by the relevant authorities into these alleged practices, and if these allegations are found to be true, to take the appropriate remedial measures, with a view to promoting an environment conducive to the free exercise of trade union rights within the airline company, without any threats or intimidation.
10. 413. The Committee notes the complainant’s following allegations, in relation to which the Government has not provided a reply: The airline company interfered with union activities by pressuring workers to vote for a late-submission candidate in the elections favoured by management, as well as through the legal action brought by this candidate (over a technicality in the union statute considered to be minor by the complainants) against Ms Dačić who had been elected the cabin crew representative. These proceedings resulted in her provisional ban from serving as union president (at the time of the complainants’ submission, the annulment proceedings regarding her election were still pending). The union’s bank accounts were also frozen, paralysing all union activities.
11. 414. Noting that the Government has not provided a response in relation to any of these allegations, the Committee recalls that “(f)reedom of association implies the right of workers and employers to elect their representatives in full freedom”, and that “(t)he freezing of union bank accounts may constitute serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities” [see Compilation, paras 585 and 707].
12. 415. Noting that the Government has not provided any response in relation to the alleged interference by the airline company in union elections, the Committee requests the Government to inform of all necessary steps taken to address the allegations, including a copy of the relevant court decisions concerning the proceedings to annul the decision confirming Ms Dačić’s election, and to provide information on the legal basis and duration of the alleged freezing of the union’s bank accounts. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to guarantee that any future union elections at the airline company are conducted in full freedom without any undue interference.
13. 416. The Committee notes the complainants’ following allegations: Ms Dačić faced discrimination by the airline company, including through her transfer from cabin crew to the airline’s contact centre and her dismissal, while she attempted to organize new elections and lift the ban from her role as union president. The airline company relied on her social media statements to justify her termination on 11 November 2023, alleging that she had spread damaging misinformation about the company. Following Ms Dačić’s complaint made on 30 November 2023, the labour inspection authorities found no obvious right violation in relation to her dismissal, as it was based on alleged non compliance with work-related obligations. On 8 November 2023, Ms Dačić and several colleagues filed a lawsuit before the High Court against the airline company claiming that the company had engaged in acts of anti-union discrimination (including in relation to the transfers of Ms Dačić and several of her colleagues from cabin crew to the airline’s contact centre and her dismissal), which the airline company challenged as unfounded in its submission of 8 December 2023. The High Court rejected the urgent temporary measures the plaintiffs had sought, holding that there was no preliminary evidence of irreversible damage. The complainants add that, as of their submission, no final judicial decision had been issued, that only one witness in the discrimination case remains employed, having been demoted from purser to flight attendant despite having 30 years of experience, and that union activists now avoid organizing to prevent further victimization.
14. 417. The Committee notes that the complainants allege that the anti-union discrimination laws and the measures taken by the national authorities have failed to be effective and dissuasive in this case. It notes that the Government, on the other hand, while it does not provide any information on the substance of the case, maintains that it had sought to identify space for further negotiations during the voluntary conciliation and had proposed mediation by the Agency for Peaceful Settlement of Labour Disputes, which the JSSSV representatives had declined as it involved the suspension of court proceedings, the outcome of which they preferred to await, and expressing doubt that the employer would agree to mediation. It notes that the Government states that the labour inspection services found no irregularities concerning the transfers of Ms Dačić and the four other trade unionists, and that all national stakeholders would respect the findings of the High Court.
15. 418. The Committee further notes that the complainants refer to the applicable national legislation concerning anti-union discrimination, including section 188(1) of the Labour Code, but allege that, in terms of remedy, there is no special provision for workers who have suffered acts of anti-union discrimination. They add that only the general compensatory (or reinstatement) measures for unlawful termination of employment relationship in section 191 of the Labour Code apply. They argue that this is inadequate where anti-union discrimination falls short of outright dismissal.
16. 419. The Committee understands that, more than two years after the submission of the anti-union discrimination case, the High Court has yet to render its decision. The Committee also notes that, while section 188(1) of the Labour Code prohibits placing employees in a disadvantageous position for representing a trade union or participating in trade union activities, the Labour Code appears to explicitly provide for sanctions and remedies only for anti-union dismissals (see sections 190(1) and 273(6)), and not for other acts of anti-union discrimination falling short of dismissal.
17. 420. Noting that the Government refers to the pending outcome of the anti-union discrimination case concerning Ms Dačić and the other trade unionists, and that the Committee does not have before it certain elements, such as the social-media content posted which the airline company allegedly relied upon for the dismissal, the Committee recalls that anti-union discrimination is one of the most serious violations of freedom of association as it may jeopardize the very existence of trade unions, and that no person should be prejudiced in employment by reason of legitimate trade union activities and cases of anti-union discrimination should be dealt with promptly and effectively by the competent institutions (see Compilation, paras 1072 and 1077]. Moreover, concerning the alleged anti-union transfers, it recalls that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should cover not only hiring and dismissal, but also any discriminatory measures during employment, in particular transfers, downgrading and other acts that are prejudicial to the worker [see Compilation, para. 1087]. In this respect, it also recalls that legislation should lay down explicitly remedies and penalties against acts of anti-union discrimination.
18. 421. Observing that judicial proceedings concerning the allegations of anti-union discrimination and anti-union dismissal by the airline company against Ms Dačić and the other trade unionists are still ongoing, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the relevant court proceedings are completed without delay and that a final decision is rendered as soon as possible. It requests the Government to provide information in this respect and to transmit a copy of the relevant court decision. Recalling that legislation should lay down explicitly remedies and penalties against acts of anti-union discrimination, it also requests the Government to provide information to the CEACR on the measures adopted, in law and in practice, to provide for effective protection against all anti-union discrimination acts falling short of dismissal.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 422. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) Noting that the Government has not provided any response in relation to the allegations made concerning collective bargaining at the airline company, the Committee requests the Government to provide its views and any measures taken in respect of these allegations, including information on the measures taken to foster a climate conducive to voluntary negotiation in good faith with a view to the parties reaching a mutually acceptable collective bargaining agreement.
   • (b) Noting that the Government has not provided any response in relation to the alleged practices at the airline company, and considering the serious nature of these allegations concerning pressure on workers to renounce union membership, the resignation of several union presidents, and a climate perceived as discouraging workers from engaging in trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of all necessary steps taken, including the conduct of investigations by the relevant authorities into these alleged practices, and if these allegations are found to be true, to take the appropriate remedial measures, with a view to promoting an environment conducive to the free exercise of trade union rights within the airline company, without any threats or intimidation.
   • (c) Noting that the Government has not provided any response in relation to the alleged interference by the airline company in union elections, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of all necessary steps taken to address the allegations, including a copy of the relevant court decisions concerning the proceedings to annul the decision confirming Ms Dačić’s election, and to provide information on the legal basis and duration for the alleged freezing the union’s bank accounts. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to guarantee that any future union elections at the airline company are conducted in full freedom without any undue interference.
   • (d) Observing that judicial proceedings concerning the allegations of anti-union discrimination and anti-union dismissal by the airline company against Ms Dačić and the other trade unionists are still ongoing, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the relevant court proceedings are completed without delay and that a final decision is rendered as soon as possible. It requests the Government to provide information in this respect and to transmit a copy of the relevant court decision. Recalling that legislation should lay down explicitly remedies and penalties against acts of anti-union discrimination, it also requests the Government to provide information to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) on the measures adopted, in law and in practice, to provide for effective protection against all anti-union discrimination acts falling short of dismissal.
   • (e) The Committee refers the legislative aspects of this case to the CEACR.