Texts of pending comments

Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention. Formulation and application of a policy designed to promote the granting of paid educational leave. Participation of the social partners. The Committee recalls that, for nine years, it has been requesting the Government to provide information on the development and implementation of a policy and the measures taken or envisaged – in consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations – to promote the granting of paid educational leave for the purposes envisaged in Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee has also repeatedly requested the Government to provide extracts of the relevant collective agreements together with extracts of reports, studies or inquiries relating to the practical application of the Convention, and available statistics on the number of workers to whom paid educational leave was granted. The Committee observes that the Government does not provide information in relation to the development and implementation of a policy, or any measures taken or envisaged to promote the granting of paid educational leave. The Committee recalls that the Convention requires the Government to formulate and apply a policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice and by stages as necessary, the granting of paid educational leave for the purpose of occupational training at any level, general, social and civil education and trade union education (Article 2) in consultation with the social partners (Article 6). Moreover, in response to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government once again indicates that it does not have any statistics or data on the implementation of the Convention in practice. It adds that there is no information available on the number of employees who were granted paid educational leave, or in relation to the nature of the paid educational leave granted. The Government indicates that there is no system in place for the registration or storing of collective agreements which would enable data on this point to be extracted. It explains that this is mainly due to the private nature of collective agreements, where at the company level these are obligations agreed between the employer and the employees’ representatives. The Government indicates that providing information on provisions concerning paid educational leave in collective bargaining agreements would give rise to a significant administrative and financial burden. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the monitoring of collective agreements takes place through special surveys on earning and working conditions, particularly the Average Earnings Information System (ISPV) and the independent survey under the Information Scheme on Working Conditions (IPP). However, neither of the two surveys collect data on paid educational leave. Noting that the collection of information is necessary to enable it to assess the manner in which effect is given to the Convention, the Committee encourages the Government to consider including one or more questions in the above-mentioned special surveys in relation to the nature and availability of paid educational leave for the purposes set out in Article 2 of the Convention. Moreover, as there is no information in the Government’s report indicating the manner in which Article 2 of the Convention is implemented, the Committee requests the Government to communicate the texts, including government statements, declarations and other documents, in which the policy on promoting paid educational leave is expressed. The Committee also reiterates its request that the Government provide detailed updated information on the manner in which the Convention is applied, including, for instance, extracts from reports, studies and inquiries, and statistics on the number of workers granted paid educational leave (Part V of the report form). In view of the concerns expressed by the Government regarding the collection of such information, the Committee recalls that the Government can avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard.

Article 8. Discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that all workers enjoy equal access to paid educational leave. The Government refers once again to the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination established in section 16(2) of the Labour Code, which prohibits all forms of discrimination in labour relationships. The Government reports that the inspections carried out by the labour inspection authority during the reporting period did not reveal any violations in this regard, nor have workers made specific suggestions to carry out any inspection proceedings on the issue of paid educational leave. The Government indicates that it can therefore be assumed that cases of unequal treatment and discrimination in relation to access to paid educational leave do not occur in practice. The Committee nevertheless notes that the absence of disaggregated data on the number of workers to whom paid educational leave was granted renders it impossible to assess the implementation in practice of this Article of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its request that the Government provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that all workers, particularly those belonging to disadvantaged groups, enjoy equal access to paid educational leave.

Article 5(1) of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the outcome of tripartite consultations held pursuant to the Convention. In this respect, it notes with interest the Government’s ratification of the Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No. 183) on 3 July 2017 and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154) on 6 December 2017, following tripartite consultations. With respect to tripartite consultations held to re-examine unratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(c)), the Government indicates that no agreement was reached between the social partners on the setting of an objective mechanism for raising the minimum wage. It therefore decided not to submit a proposal for ratification of the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131), taking into account the importance of having tripartite consensus on this issue. It adds that an analysis of the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156) is being elaborated, but has not yet been the topic of a tripartite discussion. The Government also reports that a meeting of the Working Team of the Council for Economic and Social Agreement for Cooperation with the ILO was held on 10 May 2019 to discuss the comments of the Committee on the application by Czechia of certain ratified Conventions. The Committee welcomes the information provided and requests the Government to continue to provide information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on all of the matters concerning international labour standards covered by the Convention, including with respect to Conventions identified for possible ratification.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government and the social partners this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes the 2019 and 2020 observations of the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (ČMKOS) and of the Confederation of Industry and Transport (the latter are addressed by the Committee in its observations regarding the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981, No. 154) communicated with the Government’s report and the Government’s comments thereon.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, according to the ČMKOS, the notification requirement under section 286(4) of the Labour Code implied that a trade union may be required to provide the names of trade union members and leaders to the employer, creating a risk of anti union dismissal during the period of time between the notification to the employer about the establishment of a trade union and the day when the union’s entitlements vis à vis the employer take effect. In its reply, the Government had: (i) clarified that the notification to the employer did not require the prior submission of information on persons entitled to act in the name of the trade union; and (ii) indicated that, while it had no information about any cases of dismissals under these circumstances, the conduct denounced would be characterized as an illegal circumvention of the law, and that it was prepared to consider a legislative change based on an assessment of the practical application of the Labour Code in this regard. The Committee duly notes that the Government indicates that: (i) the Constitutional Court examined the matter in its ruling Pl. ÚS. 10/12 issued on 23 May 2017, and concluded that protection against possible abuse was sufficiently ensured by judicial review of the validity of the notice of termination; and (ii) it has not encountered the problems described by the ČMKOS and is therefore of the opinion that the existing regulation is sufficient. The Committee invites the Government to continue monitoring the practical application of the Labour Code in this regard.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments the Committee had noted that, according to the ČMKOS, the Register of Contracts Act required employers listed in the Act to disclose in a public register their company collective agreement, and its section 6(1) subjected its effectiveness to publication, contrary to section 26(2) of the Labour Code which provides that the effectiveness of a collective agreement begins on the first day of the period for which the collective agreement has been concluded, unless the period of effectiveness of certain rights or duties is stipulated differently in the collective agreement. The ČMKOS considered that the Act thus restricted freedom to negotiate and would lead to a substantial reduction in the number of company collective agreements. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the Register of Contracts Act was amended by Act No. 249/2017 and collective agreements were explicitly added among the categories of agreements excluded from the obligation of publication in the Register of Contracts.

The Committee further notes that in its 2019 and 2020 observations the ČMKOS affirms that, following the decision of the Constitutional Court to repeal the provision in section 24(2) of the Labour Code (providing that the employer must negotiate with all unions but that, in case of disagreement among unions, the employer may conclude a collective agreement with one or more trade unions which have the largest number of members) and due to legislative inaction, minority unions have been given a veto power that may thwart the right to collective bargaining of the vast majority of employees. The ČMKOS alludes to concrete examples of minority unions having blocked negotiation processes given the current state of the legislation, and notes that it submitted a proposal to amend section 24(2) in order to address this challenge. The ČMKOS indicates that its proposal to amend the aforementioned provision was not adopted due to the opposition of a minority union. Given the negative effects that section 24(2) of the Labour Code has on the adoption of enterprise-level collective agreements, the ČMKOS calls for the adoption of legislation to create procedural preconditions for the successful conduct of collective bargaining and the adoption of enterprise-level collective agreements.

The Committee notes that the Government: (i) recalls that the original provision, which established significantly unequal conditions between larger and smaller trade unions, was rejected by the Constitutional Court and it is therefore not possible to return to it; (ii) considers that the proposal submitted by the ČMKOS dos not comply with the constitutional ruling; (iii) rejects the claims of inaction, noting that the issue was repeatedly discussed with the social partners, already in 2016–17 and in 2018–19 during the discussion of amendments to the Labour Code; (iv) notes that at the March 2019 session of the Council of Economic and Social Agreement this issue was removed from this draft bill that is currently being prepared due to the fundamental disagreements among various representatives of workers; (v) considers that the implementation of a specific solution would be very difficult without the consensus of all representative social partners on its wording ; and (vi) indicates that its proposed solution to undertake mandatory consultations between social partners has been repeatedly rejected by the ČMKOS. Recognizing the need to address the issue raised by ČMKOS, the Government indicates that as of 2021, the impact of the legislation in the conclusion of collective agreements will be evaluated through the Information on Working Conditions Survey (annual survey carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs which analyzes collective agreements and provides an overview of trends in collective bargaining). Duly noting this information, the Committee recalls that both systems of collective bargaining which grant exclusive rights to the most representative union, and systems under which several or all unions in an enterprise or a bargaining unit may participate in the negotiation of collective agreements, are compatible with the Convention. The Committee continues to encourage the Government to keep on discussing the matter with the social partners with a view to preparing legislative amendments and any other pertinent measures to ensure that the current situation does not hinder the conclusion of collective bargaining agreements. Recalling that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office, the Committee requests the Government to inform of any evolution in this respect.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on collective bargaining in the country, in particular that: (i) since there is no obligation in the Czech Republic to place collective agreements in the Register of Contracts or any other register, the Government lacks complete records; (ii) the number of employees covered by higher-level collective agreements whose application is extended cannot be determined as the extension is made to an indeterminate number of employers; (iii) every year the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs conducts inquiries into the terms and conditions of collective agreements, but, since the Information on Working Conditions Survey is voluntary, it is not possible to determine the percentage of contracts collected and analysed out of the total number of contracts, nor the exact percentage of employees covered by collective agreements; (iv) in 2017, the survey analysed selected data on wage and working conditions from 1,737 enterprise collective agreements from 27 trade unions across all sectors, covering more than 899,000 employees, as well as 19 higher-level collective agreements concluded that year; (v) in 2018, data was collected in relation to 1,705 enterprise collective agreements from 27 trade unions, representing almost 871,000 employees, as well as the 20 higher-level collective agreements concluded that year, and (vi) in 2019, the survey gathered information with respect to 1,584 enterprise collective agreements from 27 trade unions, across all sectors, covering 788,000 employees as well as 20 higher-level collective agreements. The Government further indicates that, with a view to promoting social dialogue and collective bargaining at national and regional levels, it approved a subsidy of 37,000,000 Czech Republic koruna on 7 September 2020 aimed at financing social partners’ activities. Duly noting the information provided, and encouraging the development of additional mechanisms to collect information on collective bargaining in the country, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements, as well as on any additional measures undertaken to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government and the social partners this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee takes notes of the 2020 Confederation of Industry and Transport (SP ČR) additional observations, communicated with the Government’s report, as well as the Government’s comments thereon. The Committee had also taken note of the 2019 observations of the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions, and of the SPČR – seconded by the Confederation of Employers’ and Entrepreneurs’ Associations (KZPS) and the Czech Confederation of Commerce and Tourism (SOCR) – communicated with the Government’s 2019 report, as well as the Government’s comments thereon.

Article 1(3) of the Convention. Collective bargaining in the public service. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that workers in all sectors of economic activity can participate in collective bargaining through trade unions, and that the Civil Service Act regulates in its section 143 the procedure for concluding a collective agreement applicable to public servants. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the public service, the sectors concerned, and the number of workers covered by these agreements.

Article 7. Higher-level collective bargaining. In its previous comment, noting the diverging views expressed by the employers’ organisations and the Government regarding the binding effect of higher-level collective agreements to all members of the signatory employer’s organizations (section 25(2)(a) of the Labour Code), the Committee had encouraged the Government and the social partners to discuss this matter. The Committee notes that in its 2020 observations the SP ČR reiterates that section 25 (2)(a) of the Labour Code: (i) violates the principle of voluntariness of collective bargaining, given that higher-collective agreements apply to employers who have explicitly expressed their disagreement with its content; and (ii) results in a decline of higher-level collective agreements, in particular sectoral agreements, and weakens social dialogue. The Committee notes that in its response to the above observations, the Government indicates that: (i) the current legislation does not prevent collective bargaining but rather offers broad possibilities for it; (ii) under the definition of collective agreement provided in section 23 (3) (a) of the Labour Code it is possible for collective agreements to apply only to some of the members in the employers’ organization; and (iii) the adoption of the proposal made by SP ČR would result in a new subtype of higher collective agreement and would pose difficulties regarding the subsequent extension procedure, given the unclear verification of representativeness of the parties to the agreement. Having duly noted the position expressed by both the Government and SP ČR, and recalling once again that under Article 7 of the Convention measures taken by public authorities to encourage and promote the development of collective bargaining shall be the subject of prior consultations and, whenever possible, agreements between public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organisations, the Committee encourages the Government to continue engaging in discussions on this matter with the social partners and to provide information on any development in this regard.

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Czechia

ADOPTED_BY_THE_CEACR_IN 2022

C140 - CMNT_TITLE

ADOPTED_BY_THE_CEACR_IN 2021

C144 - CMNT_TITLE

ADOPTED_BY_THE_CEACR_IN 2020

C098 - CMNT_TITLE

C154 - CMNT_TITLE