Definitive Report - Report No 199, March 1980

1. 98. The Committee already examined this case and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body in February 1979. Since then, the ILO has received four communications from the Government on the following dates: 16 February 1979, June 1979, 11 and 16 October 1979.
2. 99. Greece has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Sight to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 100. The complaint of the Athens and Piraeus Hospital Physicians' Association (EINAP) concerned the prison sentences imposed on certain trade unionists. On 9 June 1978, 9 medical practitioners, members of the executive of the Association, were sentenced to 35 days' imprisonment by a court of first instance for having failed to comply fully with the procedure laid down in Act No. 330/76 respecting occupational associations and federations and the protection of freedom of association during a lengthy strike in 1977.
2. 101. The EINAP explained that the persons concerned had submitted a series of documents to the competent ministries and had engaged in negotiations with respect to their grievances. They had subsequently notified the authorities by telegram that a strike was being called, but had not given notice through the intermediary of a court bailiff, as required by law. In that respect, the EINAP pointed out that its negotiations with the Minister of Social services had lasted for over six months and that, in accordance with section 33 of Act No. 330/76, "notice shall be deemed to have been given if a strike is called after negotiations have been held with the employer or his occupational association". The EINAP therefore considered the sentencing of its leaders to be an infringement of the labour and trade union legislation. The EINAP concluded by stating that the persons concerned had appealed against their sentences and that the case would be pursued in a court of second instance.
3. 102. The Confederation of Hospital Establishments Unions of Greece (OSNIE) complained of repeated dismissals of its trade unionists and more particularly the dismissal of all the members of the executive of the KAT Hospital Staff Association. A strike called on 13 June 1978 was still in progress at the time the complaint was filed (July 1978). Its purpose was to secure the maintenance of acquired rights and, according to the complainants, all the provisions of Act No. 330/76 had been complied with.
4. 103. The Urban Transport Company Employees' Union (EAS) complained of the dismissal of five of its leaders: the chairman, the General Secretary and three members of its executive. In March 1977, the trade union officials concerned had organised work stoppages to obtain satisfaction of their demands concerning the work rules and undertaking regulations and to prevent compulsory overtime. The employer and the competent ministries had been notified of the strike by telegram eight days before it was called. However, the employer considered this to be illegal since notice was not given through a bailiff. The employer had then referred the matter to the public prosecutor and, on 14 October 1978, the 5 officials had been sentenced by an appellate court to 30 days' imprisonment for infringement of the procedure laid down in Act No. 330. Following that sentence, the Minister of Transport had ordered the company to dismiss the trade unionists concerned. Together with their complaint, the plaintiffs had sent the notices of dismissal, which had been examined and confirmed by the company disciplinary council of second instance.
5. 104. In its reply, the Government referred first of all to the complaint presented by the EINAP. In that connection, it mentioned section 36 of Act No. 330/76 dealing with strikes called in public utilities or services whose operation is of vital interest to the population, which include health centres and hospitals. Under this provision, a decision to call a strike in these undertakings may not be taken before eight days have elapsed since the workers' grievances and the reasons for the strike have been communicated in writing by a court bailiff to the employer or employers concerned, the competent ministry and the Ministry of Employment. The Government stated that, since the EINAP had not followed the legal procedure, legal proceedings had been initiated by the competent public prosecutor.
6. 105. With regard to the complaint presented by the OSNIE, the Government confirmed that the members of the executive of the KAT Hospital Staff Association had been dismissed during the strike called in that establishment. The Ministry of Labour had twice intervened to assist the parties to reach a settlement, but to no avail. The representatives of the hospital had maintained that the strike had been called in breach of the provisions of Act No. 330 of 1976 because the executive of the Association had not taken steps to ensure that the necessary emergency staff were on duty, as required under the terms of Award No. 9 of 1978 by the Arbitration Tribunal. Consequently, the protection to which the union's officials were entitled had been waived.
7. 106. The Government specified that, on the other hand, the union officials considered that their dismissal was null and void and contrary to the provisions of Acts Nos. 330 of 1976 and 1801 of 1951 (respecting the protection of trade union officials), that the procedure for calling strikes prescribed by Act No. 330 of 1976 had been followed and that the Association had made sure that emergency staff were available, who had discharged their duties normally during the strike. Lastly, the Government stated that the Ministry of Labour had filed a complaint against the hospital with the competent public prosecutor. The date of the hearing had not yet been fixed.
8. 107. At its February-March 1979 Session, on the recommendation of the Committee, the Governing Body:
   • (a) took note of the fact that the cases concerning the sentencing of officials of the Athens and Piraeus Hospital Physicians' Association and the dismissal of the members of the executive of the KAT Hospital Staff Association were the subject of court proceedings;
   • (b) requested the Government to supply the texts of the decisions or judgements pronounced in respect of these cases, together with the grounds adduced therefore;
   • (c) requested the Government to forward its observations with regard to the complaint of the Urban Transport Company Employees' Onion.
9. 108. In its communication of 16 February 1979, the Government stated that the five representatives of the Urban Transport Company Employees' Union had called an unlawful strike in the form of a series of work stoppages, which took place on 30 and 31 March 1978, without following the procedure prescribed by Act No. 330 of 1976. The representatives in question had therefore been irrevocably sentenced by Award No. 25705 of 20 September 1978 pronounced by the Athens county court. The Chairman and General Secretary of the union had subsequently been dismissed by a decision of the disciplinary council of first instance, confirmed by the disciplinary council of second instance on 17 November 1978. The labour contracts of the three other union officials had been rescinded under section 5 of Act No. 2112 of 1920 respecting labour contracts (dismissal), as amended by Act No. 3198 of 1955 respecting the termination of labour contracts.
10. 109. In its communication received at the ILO on 28 June 1979, the Government stated that, on 29 January 1979, the Athens court of second instance had examined the appeal brought by the officials of the Athens and Piraeus Hospital Physicians' Association and had acquitted them. The Government added that the dismissed trade unionists had also appealed to the court against their dismissal.
11. 110. The Government's communication of 11 October 1979 concerned the dismissal of the officials of the KAT Hospital Staff Association. The Government stated that the complaint filed by the Ministry was still the subject of court proceedings. The action brought by the dismissed officials had been examined in October 1979, but the court had not given a ruling immediately. Moreover, the Athens county court had found 7 of the 10 members of the executive of the Association guilty of breach of Act No. 330/76 and had imposed a sentence of 40 days' imprisonment, which had been redeemed by a cash payment. On the other hand, the Athens county court had acquitted the Chairman of the Board and the Superintendent of the KAT Hospital, against whom the officials of the Association had filed a complaint.
12. 111. In its communication of 16 October 1979, the Government confirmed the acquittal of the officials of the EINAP and supplied the text of the judgement.
13. 112. The complaints before the Committee in the present case concern the sentencing and dismissal of union officials as the outcome of strikes organised in 1977 and 1978. Two of the complaints concern the hospital sector and the third concerns an urban transport company.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 113. The Committee notes that, in one of the cases concerning the hospital sector - that of the officials of the Athens and Piraeus Hospital Physicians' Association - the court of appeal has acquitted the persons who were sentenced to 35 days' imprisonment by a court of first instance. With regard to the officials of the KAT Hospital Staff Association, it appears that 7 of them have been given sentences of 40 days' imprisonment, commuted to a fine, and dismissed. Their case is still the subject of court proceedings.
2. 114. In respect of the officials of the Urban Transport Company Employees' Union, it appears from the information supplied by the Government that they have been sentenced to 30 days imprisonment on appeal, and dismissed as a result.
3. 115. The Committee notes that the action taken against the officials of both the KAT Hospital Staff Association and the Urban Transport Company Employees' Union was based on the provisions of Act No. 33()/76 respecting occupational associations and federations and the protection of freedom of association. In accordance with section 34, paragraph 2, of that Act, strikes are authorised in public utilities and services whose operation is of vital interest to the population, which include health centres, hospitals and transport companies. However, by virtue of section 36, a decision to call a strike in such services may not be taken before eight days have elapsed since the workers' grievances and the reasons for the strike were communicated in writing by a court bailiff to the employer, the competent ministry and the Ministry of Labour. Moreover, in the event of a strike, the occupational association is obliged to supply the staff needed to ensure the proper operation of the services concerned (section 37). The protection enjoyed by trade union officers is waived and penalties are imposed for any violation of these provisions (sections 38 and 40).
4. 116. The Committee has already examined the provisions of Act No. 330/76.1 With regard to the provisions which make the exercise of the right to strike subject to certain conditions, the Committee expressed the opinion that such restrictions were no greater than those it had considered acceptable in other cases.
5. 117. In this particular case, their employer maintained that the officials of the KAT Hospital Staff Association did not take steps to ensure the necessary emergency service. The Committee feels that the obligation to ensure an emergency service in the event of a strike in a sector such as the hospital sector, in which, any interruption of the services provided could endanger the life and health of the population, is one with which trade unions must comply. In view of this and of the fact that the substance of the matter has already been examined by a court of law, the Committee is of the opinion that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
6. 118. As far as the officials of the Urban Transport Company, Employees' Union are concerned, it appears that they did not give notice of their strike in compliance with Act No. 330/76, which provides that such notice must set out the workers' grievances and be given through the intermediary of a court bailiff. In the opinion of the Committee, the condition it thus lays down for calling a strike is not in itself such as to restrict the exercise of the right to strike. Nevertheless, the Committee considers it useful to point out that imposing excessively heavy penalties for an infringement of procedure could jeopardise the future development of labour relations in the company.