Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 211, Noviembre 1981

1. 74. The complaint of the Pan Hellenic Federation of Accountants (POL) is contained in a communication dated 10 July 1980. On 25 October 1980, POL presented additional information in support of its complaint. For its part the Government sent its observations in a letter dated 26 March 1981.
2. 75. Greece has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Allegations of the complainant

1. 76. In its first communication, POL alleged that the Ministry of Labour had interfered in the trade union activities of accountants. The Ministry of Labour allegedly made use of the provisions of Act No. 3239/55 respecting collective bargaining, which the complainant considers detrimental to the interests of the workers, to offer employers around 100 million drachmai at the expense of the accountants and assistant accountants. POL maintains that in this way the Government made use of the services of the so-called Accountants' Occupational Organisation, a trade union association which lacked any real existence, to conclude "pseudo collective agreements" with the employers' organisations without the participation of POL.
2. 77. The complainant includes with its original complaint two of the communications which it had sent out to all accountants in Greece. It would appear from these communications, firstly, that as a result of the absence of any promulgation in the Official Gazette by the Minister of Labour of an arbitration award (No. 55/80) which the Federation had been awarded by the Arbitration Appeals Court of Athens, the POL officials were obliged to file he said arbitration award at the Athens justice of the peace court on 25 June 1980 in order to obtain its enforcement (procedural document No. 45).
3. 78. The complainant explained that this arbitration award should have come into force on the same date as its adoption, i.e. 29 February 1980, and that the employers should have granted wage increases to accountants and assistant accountants from that date. However, the complainant alleges that the Government, acting in the interests of the employers, allowed the latter to withhold the wage increases for a prolonged period of time. Indeed, POL maintains that the Ministry of Labour had recourse to the law to ensure that the arbitration award did not become obligatory until the date of its promulgation, which was then delayed for more than four-and-a-half months after the adoption of the award, i.e. until 15 July 1980 following an express request to the court for its implementation lodged by POL on 25 June 1980.
4. 79. Secondly, the complainant alleges that the Ministry of Labour lost no time in making it obligatory for all parties to subscribe to the provisions of a "pseudo collective agreement" which had been signed by the Accountants' Occupational Organisation, a rival body which the complainant labels an "anti-trade union movement" sponsored by the Federation of Private Greek Employees (OIYE), which according to POL was irrelevant to the accountants.
5. 80. In its additional communication of 25 October 1980, POL reviews the history of the trade union movement of accountants in Greece. It explains that POL was dissolved during the period of dictatorship, when its rival was recognised to be the most representative organisation. However, a decision of the Athens court of arbitration of the first instance has since granted recognition as the most representative organisation to POL (judgement No. 28/1976).
6. 81. POL also states that by means of the procedure set forth in Act No. 3239/55 respecting collective bargaining, the Government is able to fix wages by threatening to settle disputes by blocking them in the Court of arbitration. In the view of the complainant, a court would issue uniform, stereo-typed decisions which would result in wage increases which were in line with the wishes of the Government. Furthermore, the complainant explained that when a dispute involving accountants is submitted to arbitration, OIYE signs a collective agreement with the employers without POL being present or invited to participate. POL adds that this was the case in 1978 and 1980. For their part, the courts do not grant any arbitration awards to the accountants which are any more advantageous than these "pseudo collective agreements" signed by OIYE. Furthermore, these agreements take effect for OIYE members a few weeks before the dispute between the employers and POL is sent to arbitration. In the view of POL, this allows the accountants to be pressurised into joining the rival organisation.
7. 82. Thus POL alleges that the last collective agreement covering members of the rival organisation came into force on 1 February 1980, whilst the arbitration award (No. 55/80) which applied to all accountants was dated 29 February 1980. Moreover, the Ministry delayed the promulgation of the date from which the award came into force. When this finally took place, almost five months later, on 12 June 1980, it exempted employers from the retroactive payment of the wage increase granted from 19 February 1980 under the said arbitration award and justified the withholding of hundreds of millions of drachmai by the employers by referring to legal obstacles.
8. 83. POL also alleges that an attempt was made to impose an additional contribution on all wage earners in the country, payable in addition to the contribution which already finances ODEPES, a public body which collects trade union dues and subsequently distributes funds to the trade union organisations. POL maintains that this contribution should be collected on behalf of the General Confederation of Greek Workers (CGTG) through the state services (IRA). If this attempt were to be successful, it would have serious consequences for the trade union movement and an even more negative system than that of the Trade Onion Special Fund Management Organisation (ODEPES) would be gradually set up: those organisations which do not belong to the CGTG and which, in any case, demand the abolition of this system of financing will, in the view of the complainants, be excluded from benefiting from such contributions.

B. The Government's reply

1. 84. In its reply dated 26 March 1981, the Government states that under Act No. 3239/1955, employers and workers are free to negotiate collective agreements to establish the conditions of work and wages applicable to workers in their branch.
2. 85. The Government adds that since the adoption of Act No. 73 of 1974, the Ministry of Labour no longer has the right to annul or amend collective agreements, either in whole or in part. However, before the promulgation of such agreements in the official Gazette, it may proceed to an examination of the lawfulness of such agreements and, in the event that they infringe the law, refrain from promulgating them. The Government explains that in this case either of these parties may file the collective agreement at the competent justice of the peace court. Once this is done, the agreement comes into force but in the event of litigation by one or other of the parties, the lawfulness of the agreement is decided by the court.
3. 86. The Government states that, in the present case, several trade union organisations compete with one another to promote the occupational and economic interests of accountants employed in private undertakings. The Federation of Private Greek Employees (OIYE), the Federation of Accountants and Assistant Accountants as well as the Association of Accountants signed a collective agreement with the employers' organisations on 24 April 1980 covering the conditions of work and wages of their members. This agreement was filed with the Ministry of Labour for promulgation. The Ministry returned the document to the parties concerned, pointing out that the Pan-Hellenic Federation of Accountants (POL), which in the past had been considered the most representative organisation, was not included.
4. 87. In the light of the refusal by the Ministry of Labour to promulgate the collective agreement in question, the signatory organisations filed the agreement before the Athens justice of the peace court, in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of Legislative Decree No. 186 of 1969. The Government explains that once the collective agreement is thus filed at the court, it becomes binding on the employers and workers who have signed it. The Government adds that both the most representative organisations as well as those which are simply representative may conclude collective agreements.
5. 88. The Government points out that, in the meantime, a dispute broke out between POL and the trade union organisations which had signed the collective agreement. The dispute was taken to the Athens court of arbitration of the first instance and subsequently settled on appeal at the request of POL by Decision No. 55/80 respecting the conditions of work and wages of accountants and assistant accountants affiliated to POI.
6. 89. The Government states that both texts were declared obligatory by Decisions Nos. 16090 and 16091 of 1980. It explains that the Ministry of Labour does not have the right to give retroactive effect to the provisions of an arbitration award or a collective agreement: these texts therefore came into force on the date of their promulgation in the Official Gazette.
7. 90. Finally, as regards the question of trade union dues, the Government recalls that it has already provided the ILO with comprehensive and exact information on this subject. It reiterates that it is still awaiting concrete suggestions from the workers' organisations with a view to making rules for the collection of dues by means of a check-off system established by collective agreement so as to abolish the financing of trade union organisations by the intermediary of ODEPES.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 91. The Committee notes in the present case that the respective statements of the complainant and the Government are contradictory. The complainant alleges that the Government deliberately delayed the date on which an arbitration award came into force and that it encouraged the conclusion of a "pseudo collective agreement" between employers' and workers' organisations which were insufficiently representative, in order to promote the interests of the employers at the expense of those of the complainants. On the other hand, the Government believes that it has made a contribution towards guaranteeing the trade union rights of the complainant by its refusal to publish automatically a collective agreement signed by trade union organisations which were not the most representative organisations of their branch and the fact that it pointed out to these organisations that the complainant, which was the most representative organisations, was not one of the signatories of the said collective agreement.
2. 92. The Committee notes that the complainant was obliged to file the arbitration award and the collective agreement at the Athens justice of the peace court to ensure their publication and subsequent implementation. In this respect, the Government itself explains that the filing of such texts at the Court makes them binding for both signatories and that the texts come into force on the date of their promulgation. The Committee observes that both texts were promulgated by ministerial Decisions Nos. 16090 and 16091 published in the Official Gazette.
3. 93. Furthermore, the Committee has examined the provisions of Act No. 3239 of 18 May 1955 whereby no decision of the Ministry of Labour publishing the collective agreement or confirming and publishing an arbitration award in the Government Gazette may be issued before the sixteenth day or after the thirty-fifth day from the filing of the agreement at the Ministry of Labour or the notification of the award (section 20(l)). Where the prescribed procedure is not completed within the period specified, either of the parties shall be entitled to file the agreement or award at the justice of the peace court in Athens within ten days of the end of the time allowed. The parties so doing must give notice thereof by bailiff to those affected and to the Ministry of Labour; the agreement or award shall take effect from the day following the notification of the last recipient (section 20(3)). The Act also stipulates that the collective agreement shall take effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, unless a different date is specified therein. Moreover, Legislative Decree No. 73 of 1974, which amends Act No. 3239 of 1955, gives the Government the right, as it itself has pointed out, to verify the lawfulness of collective agreements and arbitration awards and to refer back for further study by the parties or the Administrative Court of Arbitration any agreement or decision which it is about to publish (section 2).
4. 94. As regards the arbitration award, the Committee notes that although the Government did not refer the award back to the Administrative Court of Arbitration, it did not publish the award within the 35 days following its adoption, as required by the law. In fact, the complainant alleges that the award dates from 29 February; it should therefore have been published at the beginning of April.
5. 95. However, the Committee also observes that the complainant itself could have filed the award which it had received at the justice of the peace court of Athens within the ten days of the end of the time allowed, i.e. about 15 April 1980, and given notice both to the employers and the Ministry so as to ensure that the award took effect. In accordance with the law, the award would then have taken effect the day following notification of the last recipient, i.e. very probably before the end of April or at the very beginning of May.
6. 96. In this connection, the complainant itself admits that it did not file its request until 25 June, hence the delay with which the arbitration award came into effect. Furthermore, the complainant does not indicate whether it gave notice thereof by bailiff to its employers and the Ministry. If it had made haste to give such notification, once again the arbitration award would, according to the law, have come into effect from the day following the notification of the last recipient.
7. 97. As regards the allegation that the Government knowingly delayed the date on which an arbitration award came into effect, the Committee therefore notes that although the Government did not publish the award within the 35 days required by the law, the complainant itself did not file its request with the Court within the period of 10 days allowed by the law. The Committee believes in this connection that the provisions of the law are reasonable and that such requirements do not constitute an infringement of trade union rights in general and that there has been no breach of the trade union rights of the complainant in the present case.
8. 98. As regards the allegation that the Government deliberately encouraged the conclusion of a "pseudo collective agreement" with trade union organisations which were insufficiently representative, the Committee notes that before publishing the collective agreement in the official Gazette, the Government pointed out to the parties that the complainant, which was the most representative trade union organisation, was not a signatory. The Government had therefore taken the necessary precautions before it promulgated the agreement at the request of the signatories. As regards the second point, the Committee once again therefore believes that the publication of the collective agreement did not constitute an infringement of the trade union rights of the complainant.
9. 99. With regard to the allegation concerning the financing of trade union organisations, the Committee once again asks the Government to adopt legislation so as to abolish the financing of these organisations by the intermediary of the ODEPES and so as to fix a framework to permit trade unions, which so wish, to collect dues from their members by means of a check-off system established by collective agreement.