Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 217, Junio 1982

1. 80. The complaint submitted by Mr. Vasilis Papastafidas, as President of the Federation of Motor Vehicle Employees of Greece (OYPAE), is contained an undated communication received at the TLC on 22 October 1981. The Government replied in a communication dated 13 April 1982.
2. 81. 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 President of the complainant Federation

1. 82. In his complaint, the President of the OYPAE, Mr. Vasilis Papastafidas, alleges that on 31 August 1981 eight members of the Administrative Board of the Federation - which belongs to the Greek Socialist Party (PASOC) - occupied the Federation's premises with the assistance of militant members and leaders of PASOC and elected a new secretariat.
2. 83. According to the complainant, the "majority" of eight members which elected this new secretariat failed to respect the Federation's statutes by omitting to attend a meeting of the Administrative Board at 9 a.m. on 31 August 1981. At 6 p.m. the same day, however, these eight members broke into and occupied the Federation's premises. The complainant states that the occupation of the premises led to confusion among the transport workers and that, as a result, the Federation's congress, which had been scheduled for 31 October-1 November 1981, had to be postponed. The matter was taken to court and a decision expected on 30 November 1981. The complainant concludes that this act of violence raises the question whether the Greek trade union movement can survive without protection.

B. The Government's reply

1. 84. In its reply dated 13 April 1982, the Government explains that the Ministry of Communications, which is competent in the matter, has stated that the dispute between the members of the Administrative Board of the OYPAE was taken to court. The Government encloses a copy of the judgement handed down by the Peace Tribunal of Athens on 2 October 1981.
2. 85. It appears from the Tribunal's decision that it was the new secretariat which lodged a complaint with the Peace Tribunal of Athens and that it won its case against the secretariat which lodged the complaint with the ILO.
3. 86. The Tribunal took the view that the Administrative Board of the Federation, which according to its statutes consists of 15 members, withdrew on 23 July 1981, by a majority of 8 members, its confidence in the President, Vasilis Papastafidas, and in the Secretary-General and Treasurer of the secretariat of the Board. The said eight members had at the same time submitted in writing a request for the renewal of the members of the Board.
4. 87. The newly elected secretariat went to court to demand that the former secretariat hand over the registers, receipts and other documents concerning the financial management of the Federation.
5. 88. The Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code, of Act No. 330 of 1976 on occupational associations and unions, of Convention No. 87 ratified by Greece and of the statutes of the complainant union, confirmed that occupational trade unions must be administered in the manner provided for by their statutes, according to democratic procedure and majority rule.
6. 89. In the case at hand, the President, Vasilis Papastafidas (the complainant in the case before the Committee on Freedom of Association), closed the meeting on 23 July 1981 without submitting for discussion the request for a renewal of the secretariat. Thereupon, the eight aforementioned members of the Administrative Board served a writ on Vasilis Papastafidas ordering him to convene a meeting of the Administrative Board within seven days for the purpose of electing a new secretariat. The meeting was convened or Monday, 31 August 1981 at 6 p.m. in the premises of the union executive.
7. 90. Parallel with this convocation by writ, the President of the Administrative Board, Vasilis Papastafidas, apparently invited the members of the Administrative Board on 20 August 1981 (although it was not possible to establish if and when the invitation was issued) to convene a meeting of the board at 9 a.m. on 31 August 1981 to establish procedures for the 16th Congress of the Federation and to examine its financial activities in July and August 1981. In the absence of a quorum, the meeting did not take place. However, at 6 p.m. the same day the members of the Administrative Board, in response to the convocation served by writ, found the secretariat premises closed whereas they normally remained open until 9 p.m. They broke open the door and held a meeting, since 8 members out of 15 were present and took part in the vote. Three other members of the Board who were present made a statement contesting the agenda and refused to participate in the meeting. The Administrative Board adopted a proposal censuring the existing secretariat and elected a new secretariat. It then replaced the broken lock on the door of the premises. Later that evening, certain members of the former secretariat, including its President, allegedly removed books from the premises. The former President confirmed this fact before the Tribunal, stating that he was still holding the registry of members, the union's seal and the minutes of its meetings.
8. 91. The Tribunal considered that the 6 p.m. meeting at which a majority of eight members elected a new secretariat was legal and that its decisions were valid. After examining the allegation of the former President of the secretariat, Vasilis Papastafidas, that the eight members concerned had acted incorrectly by failing to appeal to the courts against his refusal to defer to their request for authorisation to convene themselves a meeting of the Administrative Board and in fact by issuing a writ, the Tribunal observed that under section 96 of the Civil Code an assembly may be convened at the request of the number of members specified in the statutes or, alternatively, at the request of one-fifth of the members. Should the request be refused, the court may authorise the assembly to be convened. In other words, the Tribunal considered that the relevant section of the Civil code is applicable when the statutes are not explicit on the matter or when the request is presented by a minority (one-fifth) but that this is not the case since the union's statutes contain a provision on the subject and the convocation was requested by a majority of the members.
9. 92. In the view of the Tribunal, the persons convened to attend the meeting at 6 p.m. acted in accordance with the statutes of the union and did not infringe the principles of democratic procedure and majority rule. The decisions taken at that meeting are valid and, consequently, the newly-elected members of the secretariat, as representatives of the union, are entitled to demand the restitution of the union's assets and movable effects. The Tribunal therefore ordered the former secretariat, in the person of its President Vasilis Papastafidas, to hand over any furniture, files, books, monies, seals and any other moveable effect concerning the union currently in its possession.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 93. The Committee notes that this case concerns a dispute within a trade union organisation, wherein the complainant contests the election of a new secretariat of the Administrative Board of the Federation concerned. In this connection, the Committee has always emphasised that the authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activity. It also considers that it is not competent to make recommendations on internal dissensions of this nature, so long as the Government does not intervene in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal functioning of an organisation.
2. 94. In this instance, the Committee considers that such is not the case and that the intervention of a court of justice has, or the contrary, made it possible to clarify the situation from the legal standpoint and to ensure normal representation of the Federation concerned. Consequently, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.