Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO283, June 1992

1. 147. On 20 May 1991, the Greek General Confederation of Labour (its Greek acronym being GSEE) lodged a complaint against the Government of Greece, alleging violations of trade union rights.
2. 148. The Government supplied its comments in a communication dated 10 February 1992.
3. 149. 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. 150. In its complaint the GSEE alleges that the right to strike has been restricted and that the Government has used financial pressure to interfere in the normal functioning of the workers' trade union movement.
2. 151. The GSEE alleges, first, that sections 1 to 6 of Act No. 1915 of December 1990 on the protection of trade union rights and the rights of the population as a whole, and the financial autonomy of the trade union movement, have imposed new and serious restrictions on the right to strike. The complainant organisation explains that this anti-strike legislation was the Government's response to the wave of strikes prompted two months earlier by a Bill which meant a considerable deterioration in wage-earners' social security and a drop in income for retired persons.
3. 152. The GSEE also alleges that the Government at the same time decided to put a financial stranglehold on the trade union movement. It gives a summary of the background of the financing system for trade unions in Greece. The GSEE explains that for decades there has been an abnormal system for financing trade unions. The financial intervention of different governments in the trade union movement by means of strengthening grass-roots trade union organisations has been based on Act No. 5204 of 1931 which set up the Workers' Fund (the Greek acronym being OEE) and which provided for financial support of the trade union movement by this body. For a long time, the Workers' Fund received financial support from the State alone. Subsequently, it was also financed by the employers. Since Act No. 678 of 1977 came into force, the OEE has been financed exclusively by wage-earners through the deduction of 0.25 per cent of their wages and by an equal contribution from employers. The GSEE considers that this legislation led to a progressive improvement in the criteria for financing trade unions by the OEE. Nevertheless, the possibility for successive Ministers of Labour to manage 8 per cent of the Workers' Fund resources without supervision or transparency persisted and led to increased government intervention in the trade union movement.
4. 153. The complainant indicates that between July 1989 and September 1990 there was considerable progress in the democratisation of the OEE: the criteria for financing trade unions by workers were all made objective and Act No. 1876 of 1990 made it impossible for Ministers of Labour to manage 8 per cent of the OEE's resources without supervision. The general trend of the OEE has been towards allocating 40 per cent of its resources, as provided for in Act No. 1876 of 1990, to multilateral support for the trade union movement based on clear and objective criteria. This support covers: (a) regular subsidies, according to the number of voting members and of trade unions at each level; (b) the operating costs of federations and labour centres; (c) the staff costs of federations and labour centres; (d) the premises belonging to trade unions at each level; (e) heating for trade union premises at each level; and (f) the provision of furniture and equipment for the premises of trade unions at all levels.
5. 154. The complaint of the GSEE focuses more specifically on Act No. 1915 of 1990, section 7 of which provides for the halving of all forms of financial support for trade unions from 1 April 1991 and their abolition from 1 January 1992.
6. 155. The GSEE states that the 40 per cent of the OEE's financial resources thus freed by Act No. 1915 of 1990 are, under the same Act, allocated to other objectives of the Fund (social policy, workers' leisure activities, etc.) and alleges that the Government's aim is purely and simply to have most of these resources deposited in "frozen" bank accounts and that, if this is the case, they will be used for partisan purposes. The complainant is of the view that this concern is also justified by the fact that the Government recently tried to bring the OEE's board under its control by using legislation to increase the number of its members, the new members being hand-picked officials of the Ministry of Labour.
7. 156. The GSEE is of the opinion that, to prevent the restoration of trade union financial autonomy, the Government rushed through the adoption of section 8 of Act No. 1915 of 1990, under which it may intervene without authorisation in relations between employers and trade unions and once again thwart the freely chosen financial autonomy of occupational organisations. According to the GSEE, the Government has set limitations on the possibility of maintaining the employer's contribution, whereas it is precisely its re-establishment which is needed. It feels that this amounts to government intervention in matters which relate to the freedom of employers and trade union organisations to make their own choices and agree among themselves.
8. 157. The GSEE points out that, although under a general collective agreement signed in 1991 the trade union contribution is to be maintained, it will take at least three years for the provisions of this agreement to be implemented. It considers that, by means of Act No. 1915 of 1990 which has virtually no transitional provisions, the Government is seeking to cut off the trade union movement's financial lifeline, to put a stop to the financing of trade unions by the workers, and to use the latter's financial resources for its own purposes.
9. 158. The complainant organisation goes on to describe the consequences of Act No. 1915 of 1990 which allows the Government unjustly to retain the main source of trade union funds which previously came from the workers through the OEE. It is of the opinion that it will make it much more difficult, if not impossible, for trade unions, federations and labour centres to operate; it will result in dismissal for employees working for the federations (the GSEE says it will be forced to dismiss at least half its staff), communication difficulties between trade unions and workers and restrictions on the GSEE's transport facilities and its possibilities of travelling to keep in touch with trade unions throughout the country, as well as on its most basic contacts with trade unions abroad.
10. 159. A third allegation concerns the GSEE's premises. It states that money from the OEE had made it possible to buy the building next to its own and that, following a 1989 survey, work had started on joining, rebuilding and enlarging the two buildings. For the years 1989-90 the OEE paid the GSEE a third of the cost involved. The complainant organisation believes that the Government is using Act No. 1915 of 1990 to prevent the two buildings from being restored. It claims the Government betrayed its intentions when, at the end of 1990, it placed 100 million drachmas in blocked accounts instead of continuing to finance the work. According to the GSEE it is obvious that the GSEE building may never be completed if the Government continues to use these tactics. It states that it has informed the Minister of Labour in detail of the situation.
11. 160. The complainant concludes by stating that the GSEE and the employers' organisations have agreed to formulate and present a joint proposal for new regulations making those who put up the funds entirely responsible for the OEE again and to modify and broaden its aims and activities so as to provide a better service for workers and the trade union movement.

B. The Government's reply

1. 161. In its communication dated 10 February 1992 the Government first of all submits its observations on sections 1 to 6 of Act No. 1915 of 1990. It states that the main aim of this law is to protect society as a whole from unlawful and abusive strikes, especially in the public sector in the broad sense of the term, and not to impose limitations on the exercise of the right to strike. Sections 1 to 6 of the Act do not in any way attempt to change the existing legislation governing the right to strike, but rather to supplement and clarify it. The Government admits that the list of public enterprises and public utility undertakings set out in section 19(2) of Act No. 1264 of 1982 has been expanded in Act No. 1915 of 1990 and now covers services and bodies such as rubbish collection and transport, the Bank of Greece, civil aviation and the accounting services responsible for the payment of staff wages in the public sector in the broad sense of the term. It was felt necessary to extend the list because of the essential nature of the services provided, because they cater to some of the population's basic needs, and because their interruption could have serious and harmful consequences for the economy of the country, which is going through a difficult period. The Government states that the consequences could include health risks for the population, the break-down of public transport, the spoiling of perishable goods and raw materials, the non-payment of, or delay in paying workers' wages and other allowances, etc. The Government claims that, by and large, the new Act No. 1915 of 1990 does not restrict the right to strike, but rather gives effect to and supplements Act No. 1264 of 1982 by including provisions deemed necessary by the national courts.
2. 162. As regards the allegations that sections 7 and 8 of Act No. 1915 of 1990 are designed to put a financial stranglehold on the trade union movement, the Government indicates that the relevant sections are a follow-up to section 31 of Act No. 1876 of 1990 putting an end to financial assistance from the Workers' Fund (OEE) to trade union organisations as from 1 January 1991. The Government also states that sections 7 and 8 of Act No. 1915 of 1990 were adopted to ensure the financial independence of organisations and to free them from any dependence on or interference from the Government; for a long time financial independence has been a constant demand of the trade union movement. It notes that a series of complaints on the subject have been presented by trade union organisations in Greece have beem examined by ILO supervisory bodies.
3. 163. The Government emphasises that section 7 of Act No. 1915 of 1990 does not provide for the immediate abolition of normal financial assistance to trade union organisations but a stage-by-stage reduction until the end of 1991. This arrangement has been made so that the organisations involved have time to settle the matter of self-financing and the allocation of financial resources derived from members' contributions, in accordance with their by-laws and the decisions of their official bodies, through the machinery of collective agreements, mediation and arbitration provided for under Act No. 1264 of 1982 and section 6 of Act No. 1876 of 1990. The Government adds that the new legislation meets the trade union movement's desire to be financially independent by making available the necessary machinery to guarantee self-financing. According to the Government, this legal framework is in accordance with the views and jurisprudence of the ILO.
4. 164. As regards the allegations relating to the OEE's failure to finance the continuation of restoration work on the GSEE building, the Government states that section 31 of Act No. 1876 of 1990 repealed section 14(4) of Legislative Decree No. 3755 of 1957 (providing, inter alia, for special financial assistance from the OEE) as from 1 January 1991. In the past, the OEE had contributed substantially to work on the GSEE headquarters. The Government adds that at the moment there are no funds from which the OEE could finance such work.
5. 165. Considering, nevertheless, that it is necessary to finance extension work, new construction work, an extra floor, etc. for the old GSEE building, the Government has added a corresponding provision to the recently adopted Act No. 2008 of 1992 whereby the OEE will meet the cost of work on the GSEE building and of its fittings and maintenance.
6. 166. As regards the joint proposal made by employers' organisations and the GSEE that the administration and management of the OEE (hitherto under State supervision) be entrusted to the most representative organisations of employers and workers, the Government indicates that this is currently being discussed by the Government (Ministry of Labour) and the representative occupational organisations, i.e. the Federation of Greek Industries and the GSEE. As soon as the final outcome is known, the Government will inform the Committee.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 167. The Committee observes that the complainant organisation alleges: (1) new restrictions on the right to strike by virtue of sections 1 to 6 of Act No. 1915 of 1990; (2) a financial stranglehold on the trade union movement by virtue of sections 7 and 8 of the same Act; and (3) the Workers' Fund's failure to finance the continuation of restoration work on the GSEE building.
2. 168. As regards sections 1 to 6 of Act No. 1915 of 1990 which extend the list of public enterprises and public utility undertakings mentioned in section 19(2) of Act No. 1264 of 1982, the Committee notes the Government's reply that the services involved are essential for meeting the basic needs of the population and that their interruption could have serious and harmful consequences on the economy of the country, which is going through a difficult period.
3. 169. The Committee has always considered that the right to strike may be restricted or even prohibited in the civil service - civil servants being those who act on behalf of the public authorities - or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 394.) It also considers that it is legitimate that a minimum service be maintained in the event of a strike the extent and duration of which might be such as to result in an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population. Such a minimum service should be confined to operations that are strictly necessary to avoid endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; in addition, workers' organisations should be able to participate in defining such a service in the same way as employers and the public authorities. (Digest, para. 415.)
4. 170. The Committee observes that the list of services declared as essential in the legislation goes beyond the definition of essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Some of these services therefore could not, in the opinion of the Committee, be the object of a strike prohibition. However, it appears, in this case, that the legislation does not prohibit strikes in what are deemed to be essential services in Greece. It merely imposes certain conditions on the exercise of the right to strike in these services, namely four days' notice and a minimum service. The Committee therefore considers that the provisions in question do not constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association.
5. 171. It must, however, examine how these minimum services are defined and guaranteed. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its report transmitted in June 1991 to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations by virtue of article 22 of the Constitution of the ILO, the Government indicates that section 4 of Act No. 1915 of 1990, which provides that the designation of minimum staff in the event of a strike in the public sector or in public utility services is the responsibility of the employer, does not amount to a restriction on the right to strike. According to the Government, it is merely the exercise of the employer's right to ensure the functioning of its enterprise and is imposed by the imperative of meeting the basic needs of society that are affected by the strike. Observing, therefore, that the workers' organisations do not seem to participate in the definition of minimum services, the Committee calls on the Government to take the necessary action to guarantee, both in law and in practice, that the workers' organisations are involved in defining the minimum services to be maintained in the event of a strike in the services listed in section 4 of Act No. 1915 of 1990, and to keep it informed of any action taken in this regard.
6. 172. The Committee observes that a second allegation concerns sections 7 and 8 of Act No. 1915. According to the GSEE, the Act is designed to put a financial stranglehold on the trade union movement since section 7 has abolished all forms of financial support for trade unions as from 1 January 1992. The Committee notes that before Act No. 1915 came into force the trade unions were financially supported by the State-supervised Workers' Fund (OEE), which allocated 40 per cent of its financial resources to the trade union movement on the basis of objective and clear criteria. Since 1977, the OEE had been financed by a contribution of 0.25 per cent of wage-earners' salaries and an equal contribution from the employers.
7. 173. The Committee also observes that the GSEE alleges that the Government has used section 8 of Act No. 1915 to intervene in relations between employers and trade unions. It notes that, under this section, the amount of union dues deducted and the way they are allocated among the trade union organisations at different levels will be determined by the organisations' general assemblies or executive committees, in accordance with their by-laws; these dues may be deducted only with the consent of the workers; the dues thus deducted will be paid over by the employer to the trade union organisation at the level of the enterprise which is then responsible for this allocation. The GSEE alleges that section 8 sets limitations on the possibility of maintaining the employer's contribution at the place of work when it should, on the contrary, reintroduce it.
8. 174. The Committee recalls that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations had made for many years comments on the former system for financing the trade union movement which made trade unions financially dependent on a public body. The Committee had considered that any form of state control should be abolished, and that it was incompatible with the principles of freedom of association since it permitted interference by the authorities in the financial management of trade unions and provided for a system of union security which was not the result of clauses freely agreed between trade unions and employers. By adopting Act No. 1915 of 1990, the Government seems to be giving effect to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. However, it appears that following the entry into force of the new law, and until the establishment of a self-financing system, trade union organisations are likely to face major financial problems. Consequently, it asks the Government to make an in-depth study of the joint proposal made by the GSEE and the Federation of Greek Industries to entrust the administration and management of the OEE to the most representative organisations with a view to finding a solution satisfactory to all parties concerned and compatible with the principles of freedom of association, and to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.
9. 175. As regards the third allegation concerning the failure of the OEE to finance the continuation of restoration work on the GSEE building, the Committee notes the Government's comment that Act No. 2008 of 1992 has settled this matter by providing that the OEE shall finance the work on the building and meet the cost of fittings and maintenance. The Committee is consequently of the opinion that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.