Definitive Report - Report No 41, 1960

1. 19. By letter of 18 February 1958 the Panhellenic Federation of Workers in Electricity and Public Utility Undertakings submitted to the I.L.O a complaint of violation of freedom of association by the Greek Government. By letter of 21 February 1958 the complaining organisation was informed of its right to furnish further information in support of its complaint. The complaint was communicated to the Greek Government for observations by a letter of 21 February 1958. In a communication dated 16 March 1958 the complaining organisation supplied additional information in support of its complaint. This information was likewise transmitted to the Greek Government by letter of 21 March 1958 and the Government sent its observations in a letter of 12 May 1958.
2. 20. In a communication dated 13 June 1958 the World Federation of Trade Unions submitted a complaint on the same subjects. This was communicated to the Government on 26 June 1958 and the Government sent its observations in a letter dated 21 July 1958.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 21. The Committee examined this case at its 20th Session (November 1958). The substance thereof may be summed up as follows. On 8 February 1958 the management of the Greek Electric Railways dismissed Mr. Dimitrios Yachnis who was an employee of the company and also General Secretary of the Greek Electric Railway Employees' Union and a member of the Executive of the Panhellenic Federation of Workers in Electricity and Public Utility Undertakings. The complainants allege that the dismissal of Mr. Yachnis, which took place after a strike and on the eve of trade union elections, was due to his trade union activities. The employers notified Mr. Yachnis of his dismissal on the instructions of police headquarters in accordance with Act No. 1985 of 1952 concerning the responsibilities of directors and personnel of public utility undertakings. The complainants claim that this action was taken in violation of the provisions of Act No. 1803 of 1951 concerning the protection of trade union officials. The Government stated that the question was simply one of legal interpretation which should be settled by the courts-namely, whether Mr. Yachnis should be protected by the provisions of the latter of the two Acts mentioned above, or whether his case was governed by the first of these Acts.
2. 22. At its session in November 1958, the Committee studied the substance of the case; it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. As the Committee considered that some additional information would be necessary in order to enable it to make definite recommendations with a full knowledge of the facts, it made a recommendation, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 140th Session (Geneva, 18-21 November 1958). The reasons for its recommendation were given in paragraphs 225-236 of the 30th Report.
3. 23. The recommendation of the Committee to the Governing Body was as follows:
   • The Committee recommends the Governing Body:
     • (a) to request the Government, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 225 and 226 above, to state whether, since the date of its reply, it has learned that Mr. Yachnis has availed himself of his right of appeal and, if so, to be good enough to furnish the text of the judgment together with that of the reasons adduced, or alternatively, in the event of no appeal having been lodged, to specify when the time-limit for filing such appeal expired or the date on which it will expire ;
     • (b) to take note of the Government's statement that the respective areas of application of Acts Nos. 1803 of 1951 and 1985 of 1952 are matter for determination by the courts, and to request the Government, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 228 to 231 above, to state whether, apart from the particular case of Mr. Yachnis, there exists any jurisprudence on this question and, if so, what is the effect of such jurisprudence ;
     • (c) to note that the Government has not furnished details as to the reasons why the police ordered the measures taken against Mr. Yachnis and to decide, there fore, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 223 to 236 above, and, especially, having regard to the fact that the dismissal complained of-affecting a trade union leader-occurred both following a strike and on the eve of trade union elections, to request the Government to furnish more detailed information with respect to the precise facts which caused the decision concerning Mr. Yachnis to be taken and, in particular, with respect to any specific activities which may have been held against him ;
     • (d) to take note of the present interim report of the Committee, it being understood that it will report further to the Governing Body when the further information requested from the Government pursuant to subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) above has been received.
   • 24. These provisional conclusions were adopted by the Governing Body at its 140th Session (November 1958) and brought to the notice of the Greek Government by a letter of 2 December 1958. The Government sent its reply in a letter of 6 March 1959.
4. 25. In this letter the Government gave a chronological account of developments in the case after the dismissal of Mr. Yachnis. On 17 March 1958 Mr. Yachnis brought an action against the Electric Railway Company calling for reinstatement in his post on the grounds that the provisions of Act No. 1803 of 1951 concerning the protection of trade union officials had not been respected. On 22 May 1958 Mr. Yachnis submitted a statement dated 19 May to the effect that he considered his contract of employment as having been terminated and he thus ceased to claim reinstatement. On 30 June 1958 the lower court declared Mr. Yachnis' dismissal to be null and void As a consequence of this decision the Electric Railway Company on 19 July 1958 called upon Mr. Yachnis to return to duty within five days. On 22 July Mr. Yachnis replied referring to his statement of 19 May concerning the cancellation of his contract. The five days mentioned in the injunction having passed, the company then declared on 28 July 1958 that it considered Mr. Yachnis as having resigned. On 3 October 1958 the company brought an action before the lower court in Athens requesting a decision that Mr. Yachnis had voluntarily resigned. This was rejected by a court decision of 31 December 1958. The company appealed against this decision on 24 January 1959. Mr. Yachnis at the same time brought an action against the company for payment of the compensation due to persons who are dismissed from their employment. The Government concluded this letter by stating that these two actions were still pending and that it would inform the Committee of the results as soon as the judgments had been given.
5. 26. When the Committee again had this case before it at its 22nd Session in May 1959, it noted that in its reply the Government had failed to communicate the information requested of it in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 237 of its 30th Report, quoted in paragraph 23 above of the present document. For this reason, and pending the receipt of the judicial decisions announced by the Government, the Committee requested the Director-General to obtain the information which it still lacked from the Government, and postponed further examination of the case until that time.
6. 27. The Greek Government was informed of this decision of the Committee in a letter dated 9 June 1959. The Government replied in a communication dated 14 October 1959.
7. 28. In its most recent communication, the Government has supplied the full text of the four decisions given in the case in question as a result of the various actions brought by the parties concerned.
8. 29. The first of these decisions (Decision No. 3360/58 of the Athens Court of First Instance) declares the dismissal of Mr. Yachnis to be null and void. In reaching this decision the Court based itself on the fact that the provisions of Act No. 1803 of 1951 had not been observed. These provisions require that persons working under an employment contract and being a chairman or general secretary of any occupational organisation may not be dismissed by termination of their contract of employment during their term of trade union office or during one year following cessation of their trade union functions.
9. 30. The Government, in the comments which it submits and which accompany the text of the judicial decisions, indicates that the decision referred to in paragraph 29 above must be regarded as constituting jurisprudence, thus replying to the question asked by the Committee concerning the areas of application of Acts Nos. 1803 of 1951 concerning the protection of trade union officials and 1985 of 1952 concerning the protection of the equipment of public utility companies against the danger of sabotage.
10. 31. Pursuant to the court decision referred to in paragraph 29 above, the Electric Railway Company invited Mr. Yachnis to resume his job, which he did not do, having in the meantime, as is apparent from the preamble to the court decision, been elected a Member of Parliament.
11. 32. In view of this attitude on the part of the person concerned the company brought an action requesting that the cessation of functions of Mr. Yachnis be regarded as voluntary resignation having regard in particular to the fact that the person concerned, before the decision of the Court of First Instance mentioned above was known, had formally declared that he renounced reinstatement. This request was rejected by the Court of First Instance (Decision No. 7706/58). The Court of Appeal, on the other hand, granted it, thus modifying the decision taken by the lower court (Decision No. 6979/59). In doing so it based its decision not on the fact that Mr. Yachnis had renounced reinstatement but on the fact that he had failed to return to duty when he had been invited to do so by his employers pursuant to the decision declaring the dismissal null.
12. 33. It follows that Mr. Yachnis failed in the action which he brought with a view to obtaining payment of the compensation due to persons who are dismissed from their employment (Decision No. 1204/59).
13. 34. As regards the other question asked by the Committee and the Governing Body concerning the reasons why the measures were taken against the person concerned, Decision No. 3360/58 points out that written material belonging to the General Security Police and the military authorities would tend to show that Mr. Yachnis, by virtue of his persistent Communist activity, had constituted a danger for the Railway Company falling under the definition given in Act No. 1985 of 1952 concerning public utility undertakings.