ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

Other comments on C098

DISPLAYINFrench - SpanishAlle anzeigen

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010 and the Government’s reply thereon. The Committee further notes the comments made by the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS) concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon in its next report.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee’s previous observation concerned measures taken to increase the efficiency of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference and to address the alleged slowness of the procedures. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that there have been no changes in this regard, and that there are statutory safeguards against acts of trade union discrimination which include, inter alia, the possibility for alleged victims to refer the abuses to labour inspection bodies, courts, as well as to the Ministry of Interior. The Committee also notes that the ITUC indicates that while the 2009 anti-discrimination law provides for equal treatment with regard to trade union membership and activities, it does not sufficiently protect workers against anti-union discrimination. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government according to which the labour inspection has not found proved anti-union discrimination acts. The Committee recalls that general legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination shall be accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice. Furthermore the Committee recalls that legislation should not only prohibit all acts of interference, but also make express provisions for rapid appeals procedures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts, in order to ensure the application in practice of Article 2 (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 214, 223 and 232). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide in its next report an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the system of protection against anti-union discrimination and interference, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, including data on the number of complaints brought to the labour inspection and the courts in the last years, as well as the duration of proceedings and their outcome.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee takes due note of the decision of the Constitutional Court of 14 April 2008, repealing certain provisions of the Labour Code (Act No. 262/2006) concerning collective bargaining agreements. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report, that section 24(2) of the Labour Code stipulates that, in the case where a collective agreement has to be concluded within a single employer enterprise, when the enterprise involves more than one trade union, and when the trade unions concerned cannot act jointly and in mutual consent, the employer may enter into a collective agreement effective for all employees, with the one or more trade union organizations with the largest membership. The Committee notes that the Constitutional Court repealed this provision of the Labour Code, considering that it infringed the constitutional principle of equality of trade union organizations which prevents any preferential treatment of any trade union organization, within an enterprise or a sector. The Committee recalls that systems of collective bargaining with exclusive rights for the most representative trade union and those which enable the participation of all the trade unions concerned in the conclusion of a collective agreement or which allow for the existence of various collective agreements are all compatible with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee notes that the constitutional court has rendered a sentence (No. 116/2008 Coll) which repealed certain provisions of the Labour Code. More particularly, the provisions that afforded the right of trade unions to supervise the compliance with the legislation and collective agreements have been repealed. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report if the trade unions still have the right to denounce to the authorities cases of non‑compliance with the legislation and collective agreements.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the comments made by the ITUC concerning the little scope for negotiations on pay in the public sector and obstacles to collective bargaining in the healthcare service. The Committee also notes that according to the information provided by labour inspection bodies, in some cases employers, by their inactivity, complicate collective bargaining. Noting that the Government did not provide any information in this regard in its reply to the ITUC, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report its observations about these ITUC comments and to provide further information on the findings of the labour inspection bodies.

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

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer