Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO294, June 1994

1. 477. In a communication dated 19 October 1993, the National Federation of Workers' Councils (MOSZ) submitted a complaint of violations of trade union rights against the Government of Hungary. It sent additional information in a communication dated 13 December 1993.
2. 478. The Government sent its observations on the case in a communication of 10 March 1994.
3. 479. Hungary has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) and the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 480. The National Federation of Workers' Councils (MOSZ), in its communication of 19 October 1993, alleges that the Government of Hungary, in failing to ensure the implementation of the Labour Code (Act No. XXII of 1992) particularly with respect to the protection of its members from acts of anti-union discrimination, including dismissal, has violated Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 135. The MOSZ points out that restructuring has often been used as an excuse to dismiss its members and officials who have criticized and sometimes publicized the anomalies of privatization. Furthermore, employers have taken illegal measures to threaten workers so that they will resign from the workers' councils or merely become passive members. While the MOSZ indicates that it makes every effort to combat such situations by initiating personal discussions or instituting legal proceedings for the protection of its members, it points out that its financial resources are limited.
2. 481. The complainant also states that while the new legislation concerning industrial relations has positive aims, the ambiguity of certain areas and the interpretation of some regulations has permitted circumvention of the law. In particular, Writ No. AH 689/1993 issued on 23 June 1993, affirming decision No. 303-915/1/1993 of the Special Administration Section of the Government Division of the Ministry of the Interior, holds that the Workers' Councils can only be considered a trade union with respect to the application of the Labour Code, but not with respect to the provision on petty offences because the term "trade union" is not found in the title. The complainant considers that this interpretation violates Article 10 of Convention No. 87 which provides that the term "organization" for the purposes of the Convention means any organization of workers or employers for furthering and defending their interests.
3. 482. This limited interpretation of trade unions has also restricted legal representation of members by their union in labour disputes only to cases where the members have commissioned intervention, thus abolishing the union's right to represent their members in court on its own behalf. The result is that workers will incur significant expenses if they want to challenge an employer's decision and are obliged to rely on professional legal representation, particularly in light of the delays in hearing cases due to overburdened courts.
4. 483. While generally considering that the new Labour Code does not violate ILO Conventions, the complainant maintains that the Code is not applied in such a way as to ensure the effective protection of workers in accordance with ILO standards. Court proceedings are lengthy and expensive and, by virtue of section 201 of the Labour Code, do not result in a stay on the implementation of the measures taken by the employer thus depriving the worker of the income from his or her wages. Even if the dismissal is finally deemed to be unlawful, the remedy is often insufficient for the worker and inadequately dissuasive for the employer. The employer may request to pay a ludicrously small amount of "compensation" to the worker rather than ensuring reinstatement (section 100, paragraph 2, of the Labour Code). Reinstatement will be imposed only if the employer has violated the requirements of the proper application of the law, the ban on negative discrimination or the ban on giving notice (section 100, paragraph 3). The complainant points out that there is no reference in the ban on dismissals to violations of the ordinances on the protection of trade union officials. Furthermore, negative discrimination on the basis of trade union activity is difficult to prove as the employer does not make such accusations openly in the letter of dismissal, but looks for other pretexts. Thus, even if the dismissal is considered to be illegal, the employer only has to pay a small amount of compensation in order to get rid of an unwanted worker.
5. 484. Furthermore, the complainant points out that sanctions for the violation of trade union rights set out in the Code are insufficient and in some cases are not provided for at all. Under the Petty Offences Act, only private individuals can be sanctioned with a small fine (a maximum of 10,000 forints). This amount would not be likely to dissuade employers from acts of anti-union discrimination.
6. 485. The complainant then describes the cases of several workers, who were members or officials of the Workers' Council, and who have been dismissed from their employment ostensibly for reasons of restructuring or due to economic difficulties. The complainant alleges that the real reasons for their dismissal were their trade union membership, the reservations which they expressed concerning the ongoing privatization process and the disputes which they had entered into with the employer.
7. 486. Mr. Jozsef Mikola, President of the Workers' Council at Matravidéki Metal Works was dismissed without notice on the following grounds: "his conduct is unsociable and - by reason of his interest representation activity - he carries on political activity which infringes section 5 of the Labour Code and several individual initiatives of his cause considerable moral damage to the company". Neither the unsociable conduct in question nor the moral damage caused was specified. Furthermore, it was not clear how Mr. Mikola infringed section 5 of the Labour Code as this section concerns the prohibition of negative discrimination against employees in their employment relationship. The complainant alleges that the real reason for Mr. Mikola's dismissal was the fact that he expressed his opinion about the employer's inefficient decisions.
8. 487. Furthermore, section 28 of the Labour Code, which provides that the employer must inform the next highest body in the trade union hierarchy of the dismissal prior to giving immediate notice, had been violated. The MOSZ pointed out this error in procedure but the employer refused to remedy the situation. Mr. Mikola was thus obliged to undertake a lengthy procedure of appeal before the Labour Court which is still pending (No. M382/1983, Eger Court of Labour).
9. 488. The contract of Mr. Elod Nagy Kolozsvari, President of the Workers' Council of ALUGEP in Zalaegerszeg, was first terminated in May 1992 on the grounds of redundancy. The Court of Labour in Zalaegerszeg, in judgement No. 344/1992/2, annulled the termination and ordered his reinstatement. In April 1993, one year later, the employer gave him notice of dismissal once again on the grounds of redundancy. The higher-level trade union organization did not consent to the dismissal on either occasion and the employer did not reply to the trade union's request that he support the notice with well-grounded facts. According to the complainant, the critical approach and activity of Mr. Kolozsvari were the real reasons for the employer's decision. For similar reasons, Mr. Vilmos Gajan has been dismissed from the Budaflax Csillaghegyi Textile Share Holding Company (Pest County Labour Court, 6M No. 494/1991 and 4M No. 842/1992).
10. 489. The complainant also alleges that Mr. Sandor Lisztes who was given notice at the Debrecen Post Office Administration was intimidated by the employer and for this reason did not institute any legal proceedings and resigned from the Workers' Council.
11. 490. At the Hejömenti State Farm, eight workers, members of the Workers' Council were given notice in March 1993 on the grounds of redundancy due to privatization and in June 1993 six more members were laid off for the same reason. The employer, however, hired outsiders for those workers' jobs after their dismissal. The workers were not able to dispute the claim that their dismissal was on redundancy grounds because the employer threatened to deprive them of their wages due if they did not sign a clause in their notice renouncing their right to appeal. In another instance, two months prior to the works' council elections, the job classification of Mr. Pal Galambos was temporarily changed for this two-month period resulting in a change of his workplace to one which was far away from the original where the other members of the works' council remained. The higher-level trade union did not consent to this reclassification and protested against this discriminatory and illegal measure, the aim of which was obviously to weaken the Workers' Council during the election campaign and intimidate its members. The employer's policy proved to be very effective and the election results justified the workers' worries. The legal proceedings brought against the employer are still pending at the Miskolc Court of Labour.
12. 491. In another case, the complainant alleges that the insistence of the manager of ALBA VOLAN on receiving the list of union members for the calculation of leave to which union officials were entitled rather than simply referring to the global figures at his disposal was totally illegal. As a result of the management's acts and the lay-offs, within a short period of time the original Workers' Council membership fell from 150 to 87.
13. 492. The complainant also alleges that, throughout the privatization process of SOMIX Ltd., the firm failed to meet the requirements of Government Decree No. 119/1991 (IX.12) which prescribes that any plans to change or privatize enterprises must be explained to and discussed with the employees. Meanwhile, the director of the firm who had been found guilty of aiding and abetting fraud and forgery was replaced, although he still received 1.5 million florints in compensation for the premature termination of his contract. Mr. Fehérdi, President of the firm's Workers' Council, reported this matter on several occasions to the AVU, the controlling administration, and protested that the workers could not participate fully in the privatization process as they were not provided with sufficient information on the value and financial position of the firm. As a result, the AVU examined the privatization procedure several times, thus slowing down the process.
14. 493. Mr. Fehérdi, because of his activity in this respect, received a written admonition from the director of the firm dated 2 August 1993 indicating concern for his conduct and work efficiency and threatening that "if there was not a change, stricter measures would be applied". Meanwhile, the privatization took place and Mr. Fehérdi had even greater trouble with the AVU since it had become clear that the workers had been deceived. The reason given for his dismissal was that following the privatization of SOMIX Ltd., one of the new owners was to handle his department in the future. The worker challenged the dismissal in the Labour Court of Györ stating that the reasons for termination were not in compliance with section 89 of the Labour Code and that the agreement of the higher trade union body required under section 28 with respect to dismissal of trade union officials had not been obtained. Furthermore, upon the request of the worker, MOSZ (as the higher trade union body) expressly rejected the dismissal and sent a statement of claims to the Labour Court on 22 September 1993 but has not yet received a summons.
15. 494. The complainant requests that the Government establish an appropriate system of sanctions and a state body to control the observation of trade union rights so that these rights may be exercised fearlessly and so that freedom of speech and freedom of opinion is guaranteed. In particular, the complainant feels that the following sections of the Labour Code are inadequate: section 18 should define the concept of "trade union" more precisely; section 19, paragraph 3, provides that trade unions may represent their members but does not permit trade unions to appear independently in their own name; the right to submit grievances under section 23 is too weak and restrictive; trade unions should not be obliged to submit lists of their members for the purposes of section 25, paragraph 2; section 28 does not provide sufficient protection of trade union officials as the sanctions for infringements are inadequate and do not effectively prevent the employer from taking unlawful measures; section 89, paragraph 3, provides that reasons for giving notice may be related to the operations of the employer and therefore reorganization and reduction of the workforce cannot be challenged under section 199, paragraph 4; and section 201 does not permit a stay of the decision to terminate employment pending a final judgement.
16. 495. In its communication of 13 December 1993, the complainant elaborated upon a number of the allegations raised previously. The complainant recalled that sanctions were insufficient since the violation of individual trade union rights is considered a petty offence under Decree No. 17/1968 (IV.14), the maximum fine for which (recently increased to HUF 30,000) is still a small amount with little dissuasive force. Furthermore, the Workers' Councils cannot bring charges under this legislation as they are not considered to be trade unions.
17. 496. The complainant reiterates that the enforcement of trade union rights is also weak because the relevant provisions are often ambiguous permitting improper application and also due to certain interpretations given by the courts which limit workers' protection in the free exercise of their trade union rights. Employers often use the excuse of restructuring or reduction of staff to lay off trade union members or officers. According to a Supreme Court decision, the employer merely has to document that there actually has been a reorganization or reduction of staff and that these measures did specifically affect the post of the dismissed worker. The courts do not, however, review whether there is indeed any justification for taking such measures. Finally, the complainant maintains that, while new legislation has been adopted to ensure improved protection of workers' rights, the Government has failed to ensure its implementation.

B. The Government's reply

1. 497. In its communication of 10 March 1994, the Government emphasizes that it pays careful attention to safeguarding the interests of employees and their organizations and that the new legislation provides an adequate framework and appropriate guarantees in this regard. In particular, the Government points out that the new Labour Code, rather than restricting workers' rights, improves their protection by, in particular, defining trade unions in a manner which guarantees freedom of association, freedom of affiliation and the right to bargain collectively.
2. 498. The Government contests the allegation that trade unions are restricted in their freedom of opinion and points out that section 22 of the Labour Code provides that trade unions may request information from the employer on all issues affecting the employees' economic and social interests in relation to their employment, that employers shall not refuse to provide such information or justification for their actions and that trade unions shall be entitled to inform employers about their views and opinions concerning the measures taken and to initiate consultation respecting such matters.
3. 499. While noting that there had been some changes in the legislation concerning the right of agreement and right of objection guaranteed to trade unions which might be considered as restrictive in comparison with the previous legislation, the Government pointed out that these changes were made in the interest of ensuring the regular operation of employers' organizations as well as the personal rights of employees, particularly in the light of the changing political and social conditions. Thus, a balance was reached whereby the agreement of the representative trade union would still be required in certain matters. Under section 28 of the Labour Code, the employer must obtain the agreement of the next highest body in the trade union hierarchy if an employee who is an elected trade union official is to be assigned to another workplace or is to receive normal notice of dismissal from the employer. Section 23 of the Code also permits trade unions to present grievances against an employer's illegal measures (or omissions) that directly affect employees or their representative organizations. In the absence of an agreement with respect to the measures in question, they shall not be implemented, or shall be suspended, until after the successful completion of the conciliation procedures or until a binding court decision has been made.
4. 500. Legal disputes concerning labour relations are regulated under sections 199 to 202 of the Labour Code. The employee, the trade union or the workers' council may initiate legal proceedings as a result of an action or omission of the employer that contravenes relevant legal provisions concerning employment as well as to enforce claims arising from the employment relationship. The court is the competent body for the adjudication of labour disputes. In order to ensure efficient review of complaints and to avoid full court proceedings if the matter can be resolved otherwise, the parties must first seek conciliation which, if successful, shall be regarded as a binding agreement. If the conciliation procedure fails to result in an agreement within eight days from its commencement, court proceedings can be initiated.
5. 501. As concerns regular notice of dismissals communicated without the agreement of the higher trade union body as required under section 28, the Government indicates that such acts should be regarded as null and void but the trade union must seek a court decision on the matter. In the Government's view, notice of dismissal given by the employer without obtaining the required agreement from the trade union body could also be challenged under section 23 which permits trade unions to present grievances concerning the illegal measures taken by the employer, since disregarding the need to obtain agreement from the higher trade union body would amount to a violation of trade union rights rather than individual rights.
6. 502. The Government has indicated that organizations should be considered as trade unions on the basis of their activities. Thus, all organizations whose primary purpose is to promote and protect employees' interests arising from the work contract, regardless of their title, shall be considered to be trade unions. This is in accordance with the definition set forth in section 18 of the Labour Code. The controversy with respect to interpretations of the definition of trade union has largely arisen within the context of the implementation of contravention legislation. The Government has therefore issued an additional regulation (regulation 20/1994 (II.16)) clarifying Government Decree 17/1968 (IV.14) concerning petty offenses which states that even in the case of implementing contravention legislation, a trade union should be understood to mean any organization with the primary aim noted above.
7. 503. As concerns legal representation before courts of law, the Government indicates that under section 19(3) trade unions are entitled to represent their members concerning issues affecting their living and working conditions when authorized to do so. It is true that the trade union cannot intervene directly on its own behalf without being empowered by the employee concerned but this is out of concern for protecting the basic rights of the individual. This position was established by the Constitutional Court in decree AB 8/1990 (IV.23).
8. 504. For the purposes of determining the working time allowance for trade union officials under section 25 of the Labour Code, the employer does need to know the size of the trade union membership. This, however, does not necessarily conflict with section 26 of the Code which provides that employers may not require employees to disclose their trade union membership because the size of the membership may be proved in other ways than providing a membership list.
9. 505. Section 28 of the Labour Code is intended to protect the smooth operations of the trade union against interference by the employer with respect to the contracts of trade union officers. The employer must obtain the consent of the higher trade union body in order to give normal notice of dismissal and must give advance notice if he or she intends to give extraordinary notice of dismissal. A violation of these duties can be challenged in court where any actions contravening these procedures would be declared void. Sanctions are then imposed by virtue of Government Decree No. 17/1968. Although the complainant has complained that the maximum fine is not high enough to be dissuasive, this fine is the second highest of those presently available. Furthermore, the Government indicates that questions concerning the contravention penalty system as a whole have led it to begin a review with the aim of modernizing the entire system and which will generate new rules.
10. 506. As concerns dismissal based on grounds of structural adjustment or staff reduction, the Government points out that, under section 89(2) of the Labour Code, the employee may request that, in the event of disagreement, the employer provide proof of the validity and the rationality of the reason for giving notice. While it is true that the employer's decision concerning restructuring or lay-offs cannot be investigated in a legal dispute because such judgements are really within the employer's own domain, the employee is not deprived of the possibility of challenging the truthfulness of the justification given and claiming that it was really due to his or her trade union activity. Furthermore, in the event that a violation of the ban on negative discrimination on the basis of membership in an organization representing one's interest or involvement in any related activities (section 5) is proven, the employer cannot request to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement (section 100(3)).
11. 507. Finally, as concerns the complaint that under section 201 of the Labour Code legal proceedings are not suspended in the event of a challenge with respect to the normal notice of dismissal given by the employer, the Government points out that suspension of the decision would occur in a case of dismissal without notice (i.e. immediate termination of the contract of employment) (sections 201 and 202(1)(c)). It asserts, however, that it would be overly cumbersome for the employer if all decisions to terminate employment with notice were to be suspended pending a final court judgement. This would render it impossible for an enterprise to function normally and, in the case of a dispute concerning the reasons for dismissal as a result of lay-offs or structural adjustment, would result in a permanent wage-payment obligation for the employer without a return of the equivalent amount of work. Furthermore, in cases where the employee disputes the dismissal, the wages lost are alleviated by entitlement to unemployment benefit.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 508. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations to the effect that the Government of Hungary has failed to implement the Labour Code so as to ensure the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination taken by the employer, particularly in the form of dismissals and, as a result, has violated Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 135. While generally considering that the provisions of the new Labour Code are in compliance with these Conventions, the complainant focuses on the insufficient implementation and enforcement of the Code. These allegations also refer to several acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union officials and members at a number of undertakings. The Government submits for its part that the new legislation provides an adequate framework and appropriate guarantees for safeguarding employees and their organizations.
2. 509. As concerns MOSZ's complaint that it has been barred from representing its members in legal proceedings because it has been deemed by the courts not to satisfy the definition of a trade union since the words "trade union" do not appear in the title of the organization, the Committee notes with interest the Government's indication that a regulation 20/1994 (II.16) was issued to clarify the meaning of the term "trade union" in respect of Government Decree 17/1968 (IV.14) concerning petty offences so as to be understood to mean all organizations whose purpose is to promote and protect employees' interests arising from the work contract, regardless of their title. The Committee further notes that this interpretation is consistent with section 18 of the Labour Code which defines trade unions as "all organizations of employees whose primary purpose is to promote and protect employment-related interests of employees". It therefore considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
3. 510. As regards the dismissals of a number of trade union members and officials, the Committee notes with concern the allegations of anti-union discrimination. Furthermore, the Committee notes with regret that the Government's reply referred only to legal provisions, but did not respond to the complainant's allegations with respect to the practical application of these measures, nor to the specific cases of alleged discrimination.
4. 511. In accordance with the principle established by Article 1 of Convention No. 98, the Committee recalls that no person should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities. (See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 538.)
5. 512. The Committee would draw attention to the Workers' Representative Convention No. 135 (ratified by Hungary) and Recommendation No. 143 in which it is expressly established that workers' representatives in the undertaking should enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as workers' representatives or on union membership, or participation in union activities, insofar as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements. (See Digest, op. cit., para. 563.)
6. 513. Noting in particular the cases of dismissal raised by the complainant concerning several presidents of the Workers' Councils of different undertakings (Messrs. Mikola, Kolozsvari, and Fehérdi), the Committee recalls that adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment such as dismissal or transfer is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom (Digest, op. cit., para. 556). The Committee notes the complainant's allegations that the reasons given for dismissal were vague (unsociable conduct) and unsubstantiated and that the cases of Messrs. Mikola and Fehérdi are sub judice. The complainant has not provided any information on the current status of the case of Mr. Kolozsvari. The Committee trusts that these cases will be concluded expeditiously and invites the Government to keep it informed of their status.
7. 514. The Committee would recall in this regard that one way of ensuring the protection of trade union officials is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter except, of course, for serious misconduct (Digest, op. cit., para. 557). In this respect, the Committee notes that, while section 90 of the Labour Code prohibits the termination of employment during certain periods, such as sick leave and pregnancy, there is no specific provision prohibiting the dismissal of trade union officials during their period of office. Section 5, however, more broadly prohibits negative discrimination against employees in their employment relationship based on, inter alia, membership in an organization representing their interest or involvement in any related activities. Furthermore, under section 28 of the Labour Code, the agreement of the next highest body in the trade union hierarchy is required if an employee, who is an elected trade union official, is to be assigned to another workplace by the employer or if his or her employment is to be terminated with normal notice.
8. 515. As concerns extraordinary notice, however, section 28 only provides that the employer must inform the competent trade union body in advance, but does not require the trade union's agreement. Extraordinary notice may be exercised by the employer if it is considered that the employee has "behaved in such a way that the continuation of his or her employment becomes impossible" (section 96). In the event that the employee initiates a legal challenge with respect to extraordinary notice, the employer may suspend the employee from his or her job until judgement has been passed (section 96(4)). As the wording of section 96 concerning reasons for giving extraordinary notice is quite broad and may give rise to abuse, the Committee invites the Government to take further measures for the protection of trade union officials from acts of anti-union discrimination taken on the part of the employer in the light of the Workers' Representatives Recommendation No. 143.
9. 516. As concerns Mr. Galambos who was temporarily transferred two months prior to the works' council elections, the Committee would recall that a policy of transfers of persons holding trade union office may seriously harm the efficiency of trade union activities (see Digest, op. cit., para. 560). The Committee notes that the higher-level trade union did not consent to the reclassification and resulting transfer, as required by virtue of section 28 of the Labour Code, and has instituted legal proceedings against the employer. The Committee expresses its firm hope that these proceedings will be concluded promptly and invites the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these proceedings.
10. 517. The Committee notes the cases, according to the complainant, of 14 members of the workers' council who were given notice at the Hejömenti State Farm on the grounds of redundancy due to privatization but who were barred from initiating legal proceedings as a result of a clause which they signed in their notice renouncing their right to appeal the decision to terminate their employment. The complainant alleges in any event that the provisions of the Labour Code under which legal proceedings may be instituted against the employer for unfair dismissal are inadequate because the presumption in cases of redundancy and economic difficulties lies with the employer.
11. 518. The Committee would recall that in the past it has expressed the view that acts of anti-trade union discrimination should not be authorized under the pretext of dismissals based on economic necessity. Furthermore, it has drawn attention to the Workers' Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143), which recommends, as one of the measures that should be taken to ensure the effective protection of workers' representatives, the adoption of provisions for laying on the employer, in the case of any alleged discriminatory dismissal or unfavourable change in the conditions of employment of a workers' representative, the burden of proving that such action was in fact justified (Digest, op. cit., paras. 549 and 566). In this respect, the Committee notes that, in the event of any dispute arising with respect to its violation, section 5 of the Labour Code provides that the employer must produce evidence that his or her action did not contravene the prohibition of negative discrimination against employees in their employment relationship based on membership in an organization representing their interest or involvement in any related activities.
12. 519. As concerns the specific allegations of the dismissal of 14 members of the Workers' Council from the Hejömenti State Farm, the Committee considers that clauses whereby workers are barred from appealing against dismissal decisions should be considered as null and void as such clauses would deny workers their legitimate right to contest before a court of law a decision which might have been taken in opposition to their trade union rights.
13. 520. As concerns the complainant's allegations that even in the event of a judgement finding that there has been an unlawful dismissal, the employer merely opts to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the Committee notes that section 100(3) provides that the option of payment in lieu is not available to the employer in the event that the notice has been determined unlawful on the basis of a violation of the prohibition of negative discrimination.
14. 521. With respect to the complainant's allegation that the enforcement of the new Labour Code, particularly with respect to the sanctions which can be imposed for the violation of trade union rights, is inadequate, the Committee has recalled that the existence of basic legislative provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not sufficient if these provisions are not accompanied by effective procedures ensuring their application in practice and has emphasized the importance of Article 3 of Convention No. 98 which provides that machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, to ensure respect for the right to organize (see Digest, op. cit., para. 567).
15. 522. The Committee notes with interest the indication in the Government's reply of its intention to modernize the entire penalty system of the state administration and that a review of this matter and the preparatory work for new rules is currently under way. In this regard, the Committee asks the Government to ensure that the sanction to be imposed has a sufficiently dissuasive effect so as to provide adequate protection against anti-union discrimination.
16. 523. As concerns the general allegations that legal proceedings are overly lengthy, the Committee recalls the importance it attaches to such proceedings being concluded expeditiously, as justice delayed is justice denied. The Committee will examine any further information received from the complainant concerning its allegations in this regard.
17. 524. Finally, as concerns the insistence of the manager of ALBA VOLAN on receiving the list of union members for the calculation of leave entitlement, the Committee notes the Government's indication that the size of membership may be proved in other ways and that section 26 prohibits employers from requiring employees to disclose their trade union membership.