Definitive Report - REPORT_NO251, June 1987

1. 161. The complaints of the above-mentioned organisations appear in the following communications: that of the International Federation of Transport Workers in a communication of 13 June 1986; that of the European Organisation of Airline Pilots Associations in a communication of 8 September 1986; that of the Hellenic Airline Pilots Association in a communication of 24 October 1986, and that of the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations in a communication of 23 December 1986. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 16 October 1986 and 10 March 1987.
2. 162. Greece has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 163. In this case the complainants allege a violation of freedom of association in Greece, following a labour dispute within the Olympic Airways Company which led to the arrest and dismissal of civil aviation workers.
2. 164. According to the complainants the facts in the case are as follows: in early June 1986 the Hellenic Airline Pilots Association (HALPA), following a preliminary agreement with the management of Olympic Airways, made efforts to reach a final agreement. The discussions concerned wages and the effects of new taxation laws. After negotiations with management broke down, and after the Government refused to honour a previous agreement, HALPA decided to consider recourse to direct action. The trade union's council convened a General Assembly of unionised pilots on 5 and 6 June 1986, which was attended by 360 trade union members; voting by secret ballot, 271 members approved a variety of direct measures, including a strike, against 39 dissenting votes. The General Assembly also authorised the council to call a strike which was to begin on 14 June. The council officially announced the General Assembly's decision to the management of Olympic Airways on 7 June, in accordance with the law.
3. 165. At the same time, the trade union provided management with the list of pilots and flight engineers to cover essential services, in accordance with Act No. 1264/1982. It provided the list of five crews (one for each type of aircraft), thus complying with requirements concerning the maintenance of essential services.
4. 166. On 9 June 1986, the Minister of Transport, Mr. Papademetriou, informed the trade union's council that the Government would declare a state of national emergency and the civil mobilisation of airline pilots and flight engineers unless the trade union called off the measures it had scheduled and made a public announcement to that effect within 24 hours.
5. 167. The trade union's council informed the Government that it did not have the authority to revoke the decision to strike, since the trade union's by-laws specified that the decision could be revoked only by the General Assembly. Nevertheless, it announced that it was ready to convene a new General Assembly for the purpose of conveying to it the Government's ultimatum.
6. 168. The Minister insisted on the need to call the strike off immediately, and the trade union again replied that this would be illegal, and was therefore impossible.
7. 169. In any event, on 9 June the trade union's council convened a new General Assembly for the 11th of the same month, which left enough time for deliberation since the strike had been called for the 14th of the month.
8. 170. Nevertheless, on 10 June 1986 the Government proclaimed a national state of emergency by means of Ministerial Decrees Nos. Y164 and Y165, which the Government predated to 6 June, on the pretext that the pilots' strike represented a serious threat to the public safety.
9. 171. On the same day, following the civil mobilisation, the airline pilots and flight engineers were individually summoned to appear before management; almost simultaneously, several of them were arrested for refusing to comply with the mobilisation. The International Federation of Transport Workers reports the arrest of 20-25 flight engineers and a like number of pilots.
10. 172. It is alleged that among the persons arrested were pilots who were on sick leave, on annual leave, or in foreign airports with their planes, and who were arrested upon their return. Others were dismissed. Moreover, judicial, administrative and civil actions were undertaken. Other pilots were imprisoned and goods were confiscated.
11. 173. It was at this time, according to the complainants, that two delegations representing the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations (IFALPA) and the European Organisation of Airline Pilots Associations (OEAPL), to which the Greek trade union is affiliated, arrived in Athens to investigate the case and help to mediate a settlement to the dispute. They obtained assurances from the management of Olympic Airways and the Government that if the pilots and flight engineers returned to work, everything would return to normal and, in particular, that legal proceedings would be stopped and employees who had been dismissed would be reinstated. Some of these assurances were withdrawn shortly after having been given; nevertheless, a new General Assembly had already been convened for 24 June. In the meanwhile, the Government gave other assurances to the effect that it did not intend to carry out reprisals and that negotations should begin with a view to finding a solution to the problems.
12. 174. The trade union's General Assembly, partly under the threat of on-going proceedings, and partly in the belief that the Government's intentions were honourable, decided to cancel the strike, and pilots and flight engineers returned to work as of 25 June.
13. 175. However, neither the Government nor the management of Olympic Airways have shown any good will and have not kept their promises as regards reprisals. Judicial proceedings are still pending and 45 pilots and 15 flight engineers have been dismissed. Furthermore, Olympic Airways has employed the services of foreign pilots who are paid in foreign currencies at twice or more the rate of Greek pilots.
14. 176. The International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations, in its communication of 23 December 1986, confirms that it undertook an inquiry on site in conjunction with the European Organisation of Airline Pilots Associations; both organisations sought to resolve the dispute by insisting on the need to reinstate the dismissed pilots and flight engineers and to return to the situation that prevailed before these measures were taken. It indicates that the trade unions's decision to call off the strike at the outset of the dispute, and to drop the contractual demands which had originally led it to call the strike, are evidence of its positive response in the face of the Government's repressive and vindictive attitude, and of the good faith of the Hellenic Airline Pilots Association. The International Federation goes on to say that this good faith must exist on both sides for a dispute to be resolved within a democratic framework. It further states that the Government had ulterior motives in forcing the trade union's capitulation by dubious methods; it claims that the Government sought to impose severe and long-lasting penalties against the trade union. It concludes by expressing its serious concern with the civil mobilisation, not only in connection with this dispute, when in fact it preceded the strike, but also in December 1986, when there was no dispute, and when the civil mobilisation was intended to resrict the individual liberty of pilots, to threaten their security of employment, and to intimidate them, regardless of the consequences that such actions might have on the safety of flights.

B. The Government's reply

1. 177. In its first reply of 16 October 1986, the Government acknowledges that warrants were issued for the arrest of pilots and flight engineers of Olympic Airways, and that a number of workers were dismissed, but it explains that these measures were made necessary by the refusal of those concerned to comply with a legitimate order for civil mobilisation.
2. 178. The Government recounts the facts as follows: after the order of mobilisation was issued, a number of the airline company's staff refused, without any justification, to comply with the order of mobilisation and return to work. According to the pertinent legislation, a wage earner's refusal to return to work and fulfil his contractual obligations is considered as a unilateral termination of the employment contract, provided his absence is not due to circumstances beyond his control, regardless of whether or not a state of mobilisation has been proclaimed. Consequently, Olympic Airways considered as terminated the contracts of 48 pilots and 15 flight engineers.
3. 179. Nevertheless, according to the Government, after having re-examined the cases of three pilots (Messrs. Dovanides, Kassavetis and Aslanoglu), and having found that their refusal to work was based on circumstances beyond their control, Olympic Airways revoked the dismissal of these three persons.
4. 180. On the other hand, as concerns the other dismissed employees (45 pilots and 15 flight engineers), Olympic Airways considered that they had, of their own volition, terminated their contracts of employment and that their dismissal was not subject to review.
5. 181. Furthermore, the public prosecutor filed judicial proceedings against those concerned for infraction of the act of civil mobilisation, and the Government contends that no-one has the right to interfere with the process of justice. Nevertheless, the public prosecutor informed the Government that all of the pilots arrested and imprisoned for violation of Legislative Decree No. 17 of 1974 on the "Civil mobilisation in the event of emergency" have been released under bond after periods of imprisonment ranging from three to eight days, and that no-one is currently being held.
6. 182. Subsequently, in a telegram of 10 March 1987, received at the ILO immediately after the March session of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Government declared that it had been informed by the management of Olympic Airways that the persons concerned had been reinstated to their positions following a recent agreement between Olympic Airways and the pilots and flight engineers who had been dismissed for refusing to comply with the civil mobilisation order. According to the Government, the case has been concluded to everyone's satisfaction and all proceedings have been suspended.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 183. The Committee notes with concern that in the present case, as the Government itself has admitted, measures for the arrest and dismissal of workers were taken by the public authorities and the management of Olympic Airways following a labour dispute and the proclamation of civil mobilisation.
2. 184. It notes, however, that according to information furnished by the Government, the pilots who had been arrested for refusing to comply with the order of mobilisation were released after periods of imprisonment ranging from three to eight days; that three dismissed pilots who were able to show that their non-compliance with their employment contract was not intentional were immediately reinstated; that the other 45 pilots and 15 flight engineers who had been dismissed were subsequently reinstated; and that all proceedings have been suspended.
3. 185. Nevertheless, the Committee wishes to remind the Government of the importance it has always attached to the right of workers and their organisations to resort to strikes as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests. In the present case, the Government has not contested the social and economic aspect of the claims filed by the pilots and flight engineeers of Olympic Airways, nor has it explained the reasons that led it to proclaim the civil mobilisation.
4. 186. On this point, the Committee recalls that it has always urged governments desiring to see labour relations develop in an atmosphere of mutual confidence, to have recourse, when dealing with situations resulting from strikes and lock-outs, to measures provided for under common law rather than emergency measures, which involve a danger, by reason of their very nature, of certain restrictions to fundamental rights (see Seventh Report, Case No. 56 (Uruguay), para. 69, 30th Report, Case No. 172 (Argentina), para. 204, 74th Report, Case No. 294 (Spain), para. 183, and 149th Report, Case No. 709 (Mauritius), para. 99).
5. 187. The Committee has likewise always drawn the attention of governments to the fact that mobilisation or the requisition of workers in the event of labour disputes entails the possibility of abuse, and it has emphasised that it is ill-advised to resort to such measures unless the same are intended to ensure the operation of essential services in the most serious of circumstances or in extreme national crises.
6. 188. In fact, the Committee considers that it is legitimate for a minimum service to be maintained in the event of a strike, the extent and duration of which might be such as to provoke an acute national crisis which might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the population. Nevertheless, such a minimum service should be limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to avoid endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that workers' organisations should be able to participate in determining such services, in conjunction with employers and the public authorities (see 234th Report, Case No. 1244 (Spain), paras. 153 and 154).
7. 189. In the present case, the Committee notes with regret that trade union members were arrested and dismissed. As it has previously indicated in a case concerning Brazil (see 236th Report, Case No. 1270 (Brazil), para. 620), it considers that the requisitioning of strikers, the arrest and dismissal of several among them, and the recruitment of new workers for the purpose of breaking a legitimate and peaceful strike does not conform with the principles of freedom of association.