Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2018, Publicación: 108ª reunión CIT (2019)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - Croacia (Ratificación : 1991)

Otros comentarios sobre C098

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in its communication dated 1 September 2018, alleging that employers from both the private and public sectors are undermining the collective bargaining process by delaying negotiations, favouring negotiations with yellow unions and concluding agreements directly with work councils. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Rapid appeal procedures. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the allegations of excessive court delays in dealing with cases of anti-union discrimination and requested the Government to provide details on the measures taken or envisaged to accelerate judicial proceedings in cases of anti-union discrimination and to provide statistics concerning the impact of such measures on the length of proceedings. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) due to the large number of labour disputes in the area, the Government has undertaken judicial reforms in order to accelerate judicial proceedings including the establishment of the Municipal Labour Court in Zagreb; (ii) by virtue of the Law on Areas and Seats of the Courts, which entered into force on 1 April 2015, five county courts (Bjelovar County Court, Osijel County Court, Rijela County Court, Split County Court and Zagreb County Court) have been charged with the harmonization of court practices and the acceleration of appeal proceedings regarding labour disputes before municipal courts; and (iii) since 2014, 30 civil actions regarding anti-union discrimination have been brought before the courts, of which eight complaints have been solved by the courts; 31 cases are still pending (nine of which were filed before 2014). While taking due note of the detailed elements provided by the Government, the Committee observes with concern that it stems from this information that the judicial resolution of anti-union discrimination cases is still characterized by excessive delays. Recalling that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice, the Committee urges the Government to take, jointly with the competent authorities, effective measures to significantly accelerate the judicial proceedings in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect as well as on the results obtained, and recalls that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee recalls that since 2007 it has been examining allegations related to the unilateral modification, for financial reasons, of the substance of collective agreements in the public sector through the adoptions of several Acts. The Committee recalls that this issue was also addressed by the Committee on the Application of Standards in 2014 and by the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA). The Committee further observes that both the 2016 observations of the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (UATUC) and the Association of Croatian Trade Unions (MATICA) also refer to this question. The Committee notes that, concerning the effects of the Act on Withdrawal of Right to Salary Increase Based on Years of Service, the CFA had noted in October 2016 that the Act was no longer in force since 1 January 2016 and had understood that negotiations concerning wage increase between the Government and public and civil service unions had since begun. After recalling that, in the context of economic stabilization, priority should be given to collective bargaining as a means of determining the employment conditions of public servants, rather than adopting legislation to restrain wages in the public sector, the CFA had trusted that, for the maintenance of the harmonious development of labour relations, the parties would bargain in good faith and make every effort to reach an agreement (see 380th report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Case No. 3130, paragraph 398). The Committee further notes that the Government states that: (i) all acts of realization adopted for the period 2011–17 do not contain provisions on the unilateral amendment of the provisions of a collective agreement in the public service for financial reasons; (ii) the Act on non-payment of certain financial rights of persons employed in public services is no longer in force since 1 January 2016; and (iii) since 2017, the basic salary for both civil and public servants increased by 2 per cent, and other material rights are being fully paid as agreed in collective agreements. The Committee takes due note of this information. Underlining the importance of ensuring that any future Act related to the State Budget does not enable the Government to modify, for financial reasons, the substance of collective agreements applicable to the public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requests the Government to provide updated information on the collective agreements negotiated and signed in the public sector, and to indicate whether the 2 per cent increase in wages is the result of collective bargaining.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.