CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010, concerning the application of the Convention, and the Government’s reply thereon.

Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that Act No. 361/2003 concerning the service relations of members of the security corps stipulates in section 13(1)(h) that only a citizen who is not a member of a trade union may be accepted in the intelligence service. The Committee recalls that it has always taken the view that the armed forces and the police were the only categories of workers which, in accordance with the Convention, may be excluded from the guarantees provided therein, and that civilian employees of the intelligence service did not come within the scope of this exemption. The Committee takes note that the Government indicates in its report that Act 154/1994 Coll. on the Security Information Service, as amended, pursuant to the Security Information Service is an armed intelligence service and its tasks are executed by members of the Security Information Service (sections 1 and 2(1)) and therefore, the Act does not, in this sense, apply to civil employees, if any.

Article 3. The Committee’s previous comments concerned the need to ensure that balloting for industrial action only takes account of the votes cast and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level. The Committee noted that as a result of amendments, section 17 of the Act on Collective Bargaining (Act 2/1991), which deals with the right to strike, established a majority requirement of two-thirds of the votes cast, subject to a quorum requirement of 50 per cent of the employees concerned by the agreement. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that it considers the condition of consent of a least two-thirds of the voters to be reasonable since a strike is a serious and ultimate measure, and adds that it is necessary to prevent a strike to be declared by a small number of workers which would imply that the majority of workers – who would prefer to continue the negotiations – is submitted to the decision of a minority, given the serious economic consequences and impact on workers a strike can have. While taking due note of the point of view expressed by the Government, the Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests, and that these interests not only have to do with better working conditions and pursuing collective demands of an occupational nature, but also with seeking solutions to economic and social policy questions and to labour problems of any kind which are of direct concern to the workers. In this sense, the Committee recalls that although the requirement of a strike ballot does not, in principle, raise problems of compatibility with the Convention, the ballot method, the quorum and the majority should not be such that the exercise of the right to strike becomes very difficult, or even impossible in practice. If a member State deems it appropriate to establish in its legislation provisions which require a vote by workers before a strike can be held, it should ensure that the required majority is fixed at a reasonable level (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 147 and 170). Accordingly, the Committee considers that the requirement of a two-thirds majority, as provided by section 17 of the Act on Collective Bargaining, exceeds such a reasonable level. In these circumstances, the Committee hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures to amend the legislation taking into account the abovementioned principles, and requests it to provide in its next report information on any measures adopted in this respect.