Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Repetition

In its previous comments, the Committee had drawn the Government’s attention to the need to amend: (i) section 29(3) of Act No. 188/1999 on the civil servant statute, which provides that high-level civil servants or civil servants with budgetary responsibilities are suspended if they choose to exercise activities in the management of a trade union; (ii) section 205 of Act No. 62 of 2011 concerning Social Dialogue (Social Dialogue Act) which establishes minimum services by law; and (iii) section 30(2) of Act No. 188/1999 which stipulates that public servants on strike do not benefit from wages and wage-related rights, so that the matter is left for resolution between the parties. The Committee also requested the Government to provide detailed information on the practical application of sections 198–200 of the Social Dialogue Act (under which the management can request the court to pronounce itself on the cessation of a strike, and the court must within two days issue an urgent ruling as to whether the strike is illegal).

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom. As regards the issue relating to high-level civil servants or civil servants with budgetary responsibilities, the Committee notes that the Government refers to subparagraph 3(1) of section 29, according to which civil servants other than those considered as high-level or as responsible for budget may exercise simultaneously their public function and the function in the executive committees of trade unions. Considering that the amendment does not address the concern raised, the Committee once again highlights the need to amend section 29(3) of Act 188/1999 to ensure that: (i) high-level civil servants or civil servants with budgetary responsibilities are not automatically suspended when they choose to exercise activities in the management of a trade union; and (ii) the matter is the subject of consultations with the organizations concerned.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that the Government provides no information regarding the previously raised issue of minimum services set by law (section 205 of the Social Dialogue Act). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 205 of the Social Dialogue Act to allow for minimum services in the relevant sectors to be negotiated by the social partners concerned, and, in the absence of agreement, to be determined by an independent body.

Furthermore, concerning the practical application of sections 198–200 of the Social Dialogue Act, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that no cases were recorded relating to the application of these provisions, and that the registered collective disputes have been resolved by way of dialogue or conciliation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide any information on the practical application of sections 198–200 of the Social Dialogue Act under which the management can request the court to pronounce itself on the cessation of a strike and the court must within two days issue an urgent ruling on its legality.

With respect to the issue of wage payments to public servants on strike, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that the suspension of wage payments to public servants on strike does not hinder their payment from the trade union fund. The Committee considers that the concern raised relates to the payment of wages by the public employer, and that in imposing the suspension of such payment for all strikes, the provision restricts the freedom of the public employer and the unions concerned to agree otherwise. The Committee thus once again highlights the need to amend section 30(2) of Act No. 188/1999 so that the suspension of wages of public servants on strike can be the subject of negotiation between the parties concerned.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. With regard to the issue of division of trade union assets, a matter previously raised by the national workers’ organizations, the Committee notes that the Government indicates, in its report, that: (i) the Government had elaborated a law in this respect in 2013 which had not been endorsed by the legal commission of the Chamber of Deputies of the Romanian Parliament; (ii) since 2012, the Government has no influence on the situation due to numerous judicial proceedings and inter-union disputes; and (iii) presently, the joint administration of assets works well. In this respect, the Committee hopes that the Government will intercede with the parties concerned with a view to finding solutions and reaching an agreement on the distribution of trade union assets in the near future, and invites the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect.

The Committee further notes that the Government has not provided the information requested regarding the procedures instituted by the National Agency for Integrity (ANI) against the National Trade Union Confederation “CNS Cartel Alfa” (CNS “Cartel Alfa”) and its President Bogdan Hossu. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide details concerning this issue raised by CNS “Cartel Alfa” in 2011, including information on the fines imposed by the ANI and related judicial proceedings.

Lastly, following observations previously made by CNS “Cartel Alfa”, the Committee had requested the Government to take measures to delete section 1(1) (Nos 34 and 37) of Act No. 176 of 2010 amending Act No. 144 of 2007, which obliges the presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries and treasurers of trade union federations and confederations as well as Employer representatives to publicly declare their wealth and interests every year, and grants to the ANI the power to verify such statements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the aim is to ensure integrity and avoid corruption; and (ii) declarations of wealth enable receipt in a transparent manner of information concerning the independence of the union from the employer and public authorities. The Committee recalls that, under Article 3 of the Convention, workers’ and employers’ organizations enjoy the right to organize their administration freely, which encompasses the autonomy and financial independence and the protection of the assets and property of organizations, and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. While it understands that external supervision of union accounts may be undertaken with a view to ensuring the conditions for honest and effective administration, the Committee reiterates that such supervision and control by administrative authorities should be limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports, cases of complaints or serious grounds to suspect violations. Considering that the above intervention is incompatible with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to delete section 1(1) (Nos 34 and 37) of Act No. 176 of 2010 amending Act No. 144 of 2007.

The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to report progress in the near future on all the issues raised above.