Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO375, June 2015

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 22. The Committee last examined this case which concerns alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, harassment and intimidation at its June 2011 meeting [see 360th Report, paras 666–742]. On that occasion the Committee requested the Government to provide its own observations with respect to the specific cases of alleged interference and anti-union discrimination. In particular, as regards the termination of employment of several union members at the Celelbi GHH Kft, the Committee requested the Government and the complainant to indicate whether the nine remaining union members dismissed in March 2009 (Péter Huszka, Gábor Dobrovinszky, Miklós Varga, László Dömötör, András Péter Fazekas, János Szigeti, Péter Márkus, Gábor Kenyeres and Rudolf Faragó) have initiated judicial proceedings and, if so, to keep it informed of their final outcome. The Committee also requested to be kept informed of the final ruling concerning László Cserháti as soon as it is handed down. The Committee further requested the Government and the complainant to indicate whether Ms Marica Merzei has initiated legal proceedings and to inform it of the final ruling concerning the termination of employment of union officials Ferenc Borgula and Attila Mercz. The Committee expected that, should it be found that the abovementioned union members were dismissed due to their trade union affiliation or legitimate trade union activities (such as candidature at works council elections), they would be reinstated in their position without loss of pay or, in the event that, given the time elapsed, their reinstatement would be impossible for objective and compelling reasons, they would receive adequate compensation so as to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction against anti-union dismissals. With respect to the alleged intimidation and harassment of a union official and union members who were candidates in the works council elections, the Committee requested the Government and the complainant to indicate whether any of the abovementioned employees have initiated judicial proceedings and, if so, to keep it informed of their final outcome. Finally, as regards the general anti union climate alleged by the complainant, the Committee, with reference to the relevant observations that the Committee of Experts had been making for many years, requested the Government to adopt specific legislation ensuring the adequate protection of workers’ organizations against acts of interference by the employer and establishing rapid appeal procedures coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts.
2. 23. As regards RÜK Kft, the Committee asked the Government and the complainant to indicate whether any of the five union members and two officials concerned had initiated judicial proceedings against the employer in regard to the alleged acts of harassment and intimidation, and, if so, to keep it informed of their final outcome.
3. 24. As regards Budapest Airport Zrt, the Committee asked the Government and the complainant to indicate whether any of the contract workers (Ágnes Szathmári, Katalin Jávori, Dániel Linguár, Róbert Tóth, László Icsó, Kitti Szekeres) had initiated judicial proceedings for non-renewal of fixed-term contracts following the December 2008 strike. As to the alleged dismissal of union members Katalin Zsekov and Anikó Hirmann following strike action, and noting the court ruling in favour of Katalin Zsekov, the Committee asked the Government and the complainant to indicate whether Anikó Hirmann had initiated judicial proceedings and to forward the decision on appeal concerning Andrea Kiss as soon as it is rendered.
4. 25. As regards the alleged intimidation of all union members in the Healthcare Centre, the Committee requested the Government to institute an independent inquiry to establish the facts and to ensure that any acts of intimidation or harassment identified are adequately remedied and, where appropriate, that sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are imposed so that such acts do not recur in the future.
5. 26. In its communication dated 23 February 2012, the Government indicates, with regard to the delayed judicial proceedings, that owing to the separation of powers and the constitutional principle of judicial independence and impartiality, it could not take any measures to accelerate ongoing legal proceedings. The Government adds that a new law establishing a new administrative model for a more effective operation of the judicial system entered into force on 1 January 2012 and that the recommendations of the Committee have been forwarded to the National Judicial Office in charge of coordinating the operation of courts. The Government indicates, in respect of the Committee’s request for observations on specific cases of alleged interference and anti-union discrimination, that Hungarian law guarantees the right of association and that the prohibition of anti-union discrimination is adequately enforced by appropriate institutions as is exemplified, according to the Government, by the judgments in the current legal proceedings which ordered employers guilty of infringement to compensate. The Government adds that, with regard to the specific cases referred to by the Democratic League of Independent Trade Unions (LIGA), it does not intend to take up further position as they are ongoing cases before the competent courts.
6. 27. The Government further indicates in its communication that it does not consider it justified to adopt further specific legislation to ensure the adequate protection of workers’ organizations against acts of interference by the employer as it considers that Hungarian laws, such as the Fundamental Law of Hungary or the Labour Code, already provide for specific provisions aimed at protecting the workers’ organizations. These protections include, inter alia, the prohibition to render employment, entitlement or benefit contingent upon affiliation or lack of affiliation with any trade union, obligation of the employer to ensure time off for the trade union official and the prohibition for the employer to dismiss a trade union official without the prior consent of the relevant supervisory trade union organization. The Government adds that these provisions are complemented by adequate sanctions that range from imposition of fines to making state financial aid to employers contingent on compliance with labour laws and that a new Labour Code set to enter into force on 1 July 2012 will further guarantee the right of association and the autonomous operation of trade unions in accordance with the Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
7. 28. In response to the request to institute an independent inquiry to establish the facts relating to the alleged intimidation in the Healthcare Centre, the Government indicates that there are legal and administrative mechanisms to ensure the conduct of an independent inquiry and that, in this case, the facts have already been sufficiently established by the Equal Treatment Authority in decision EBH/39/2010/3 wherein it determined that the worker had not been harassed because of their union membership or position in the union. The Government indicates that the decision was appealed and that it will keep the Committee informed of the results of the administrative proceedings.
8. 29. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government. With regard to the protracted judicial proceedings, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the constitutional principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary prevent it from adopting any measures to expedite the legal proceedings. The Committee notes however with interest the forwarding of its recommendations in this regard to the National Judicial Office in charge of coordinating the operation of courts and requests to be kept informed of any action taken.
9. 30. In relation to the request for observations on specific cases of alleged interference and anti-union discrimination, while noting the general information provided by the Government on the general guarantees offered by the Hungarian legislation, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided its own observations on the allegations five years after the complaint was lodged. Recalling the importance for the government’s own reputation to formulate detailed replies to the allegations brought by complainant organizations so as to allow the Committee to undertake an objective examination and that in all the cases presented to it since it was first set up the Committee has always considered that the replies of governments against whom complaints are made should not be limited to general observations [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 24–25], the Committee trusts that the Government will soon be in a position to submit detailed information on outstanding matters in this case, including through any judicial decisions rendered.
10. 31. As regards the Committee’s recommendation to adopt specific legislation ensuring the adequate protection of workers’ organizations against acts of interference by the employer and establishing rapid appeal procedures, the Committee observes that the new Labour Code does not appear to cover all forms of anti-union interference. The Committee therefore invites the Government to take additional measures for the protection of workers’ organizations from interference and reminds the Government of the possibility to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office. The Committee refers the legislative aspect of this case, as a result of the ratification of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations which is already dealing with this matter.
11. 32. In relation to the request to institute an independent inquiry to establish the facts relating to the alleged intimidation in the Healthcare Centre, the Committee, noting the Government’s indication that the facts in question had been established by means of an independent procedure of the Equal Treatment Authority, observes that the Government reiterates information regarding solely one union member, i.e. Edit Kranczné Majoros whose appeal of decision EBH/39/2010/3 (which found that no harassment on account of union membership or position had taken place) is still pending, whereas the allegations concerned 11 union members who resigned from the union out of fear for their jobs. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information regarding the facts surrounding the resignation of the other union members in the Healthcare Centre and to indicate whether the appeal procedure in the case of Ms Majoros has been concluded.