Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 233, Marzo 1984

1. 111. The complaint by the Greek Federation of Bank Employee Unions (OTOE) is contained in a communication dated 25 July 1983. It was supported by the ex-President of the Athens Labour Centre, now President of the Free Democratic Trade Union Movement, Mr. Karakitsos. The Government replied in a communication dated 27 October 1983.
2. 112. Greece has ratified 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 organisation

1. 113. In its communication of 25 July 1983, the complainant organisation states that, in its opinion, the measures relating to the right to strike taken by the Greek Government in adopting Act No. 1365/1983 respecting the socialization of public and public utility undertakings are contrary to the general principles laid down in Convention Nos. 87 and 98, ratified by Greece in 1961.
2. 114. In a memorandum attached to its complaint, the OTOE explains that nearly 100 per cent of the 40,000 bank employees in the 32 banks existing in Greece at present are unionized in 40 primary unions, all of which belong to the Federation. These banks include banks of a semi-public character (where the State or public entities have a majority of shares), private banks and foreign banks. Eighty-five per cent of the employees work in semi-public banks, 10 per cent in private banks and 5 per cent in foreign banks. In 1982 an agreement was signed between the 40,000 OTOE bank employees and bank managements establishing a unified salary scale. This agreement was ratified by the Government. The complainant organisation goes on to explain that bank employees are not civil servants but belong to the private sector and every year negotiate their conditions of work by means of collective agreements.
3. 115. Until May 1982 the right to strike of primary unions and of the OTOE in the banking sector was regulated by union statutes, law and practice, i.e. the decision to call a strike rested with the executive councils of the trade union organisations. The councils were elected every two years by all bank employees in each union according to the system of proportional representation. The reason for this was that the bank employees are spread out among more than 1,000 bank branches throughout the country and any ballot among rank and file members would take at least 15 to 20 days.
4. 116. In any event, the complainant organisation states, the union statutes provide for the possibility of convening general assemblies if one-twentieth of the members so request, and the decision-making authority of these assemblies overrides that of the executive councils of the primary trade union organisations. Consequently, if an executive council takes an irresponsible decision to call a wildcat strike, the union's members can make use of the organization's statutory provisions to annul that decision or even dismiss the executive council and elect another. In April 1976, the Government attempted to change the strike decision procedure in bank unions by instituting balloting among rank and file members. This move was opposed by the OTOE, and the Government withdrew that amendment.
5. 117. In July 1982, Act No. 1264/1982 respecting freedom of association was enacted providing, like Act No. 330/1976, that in primary trade union organisations covering a large area or the whole of Greece (which is the case in the banking sector), the decision to call a strike rested with the executive council unless the union's statutes provided otherwise. This law also excluded banks from the public and public utility sector.
6. 118. In May 1983, suddenly and without consulting the trade unions, the Greek Government adopted a law on the socialization of public and public utility undertakings and modified the strike decision procedure in undertakings belonging to the socialised public sector. Section 4 of the law, which was adopted despite widespread protests, provides that only registered members of primary unions may decide to call a strike, thus abolishing the established procedures described above.
7. 119. According to the complainant organisation, this section of the law imposes a very serious limitation on the right to strike of bank employees since these employees are spread out among more than 100 bank branches throughout the country. Over half of the OTOE's members are employed in hundreds of branches outside the Athens-Piraeus region, and a strike vote among union members thus scattered throughout Greece entails a complicated procedure able to produce results only when the need for strike action has long passed.
8. 120. Moreover, the decision to call a strike is valid only if adopted by a majority of the registered union members. In other words, employees who are ill, who are on leave or who normally do not take part in voting will not be counted in calculating the majority required to call a strike. According to the complainant organisation, the law thus favours no-strike decisions. Furthermore, section 4 of the law allows a primary union which is a member of the federation (OTOE) not to comply with a strike decision taken by the competent bodies of the federation. This means, the complainant organisation states, that 300 registered members of the Bank of Greece Employees' Union (which has 3,000 registered members) can block a strike decision taken by the federation (OTOE) until a nation-wide, ballot among Bank of Greece employees results in 1,501 votes endorsing, the decision to strike taken by the OTOE.
9. 121. In conclusion, the OTOE considers that this legislation, rather than constituting a reasonable limitation of the right to strike, virtually abolishes that right in bank unions in Greece.

B. The Government's reply

1. 122. The Government states that section 4 of Act No. 1365 of 22 June 1983 does not abolish the right to strike but, on the contrary, is intended to give all workers the possibility of exercising that right in accordance with the democratic system of the principle of the majority (50 per cent ] 1 per cent) of unionised workers in order that the basis of popular participation may he broadened.
2. 123. According to the Government, the law protects the right to strike and the right to work as well as the interest of the community against the narrow interests of certain organised minorities. In recent years, it points out, strikes have been called by a limited number of trade unionists motivated more by political interests than by a desire to promote and defend the economic and occupational interests of their members.
3. 124. The Government recalls the constitutional nature of the right to strike and states that Act No. 1264 of 1982 respecting the democratisation of the trade union movement and the protection of workers' trade union freedoms not only guarantees that right but prohibits employers from resorting to strike breaking or lock-outs and from dismissing workers during a strike.
4. 125. It adds that the regulation of the right to strike under Act. No. 1365 of 1983 applies only to socialised undertakings, including banks, and explains why, in its opinion, banks in Greece have a public utility character that warrants regulation of this right in the banking sector.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 126. The Committee notes that this case relates to the regulation of the right to strike in socialised undertakings of a public or public utility character, including banks, as established by section 4 of Act No. 1365 of 22 June 1983.
2. 127. According to the complainants, this law does not constitute a reasonable limitation of the right to strike but virtually abolishes this right in bank unions in Greece. According to the Government, on the other hand, this legislation is intended to give all workers the possibility of exercising their right in accordance with the democratic system of the principle of the majority of unionised workers in order to broaden the basis of popular participation since, in recent years, strikes have been imposed by limited groups of trade unionists motivated more by political interests than by the desire to defend the economic and occupational interests of their members.
3. 128. The text of the disputed section of Act No. 1365 of 22 June 1983 reads as follows:
   • Section 4
4. 1. Any decision to take strike action of whatever nature in the undertakings referred to in section 2, subsection (1), of this Act, shall be taken by the general assembly of the primary trade union organisation.
   • The general assembly, which may proceed validly to conduct business with any number of its members present, shall consider the reasons for calling a strike and shall elect, by a majority of the members present at both the central and the regional level, the committees of tellers to supervise the voting procedure.
   • The decision to call a strike shall require an absolute majority of the registered members of the trade union organisation concerned.
   • In primary trade union organisations whose activities cover a larger area or even the whole of Greece, the vote for adopting the strike decision shall be held at the central office or regional branches of the organisation, in accordance with the provisions of its statutes.
   • If the statutes do not contain provisions to this effect, members of the union working in a locality coming under a regional branch may vote in the chief town of the department in which they are employed or in the place designated for the purpose by decision of the executive council of the union.
   • The decision to take strike action of whatever nature in the local branches of a trade union organisation whose activities cover a larger area or the whole of Greece, except for the Department of Attica, shall be taken by the general assembly of the local branches of the organisation in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsection (2) of this section and shall be approved by the executive council of the central organisation, provided the reasons for the strike are of a local nature.
5. 2. In secondary trade union organisations formed by workers of socialised undertakings, the decision to call a strike of whatever nature shall be taken by the executive council of the organisation by an absolute majority of all the members of the council.
   • The executive council of a primary trade union organisation, or one-tenth of the members of the organisation, may request the convening of a general assembly within five days from the presentation of the request, for the purpose of deciding whether the union concerned should participate or not in the strike decided by the secondary organisation to which the union in question belongs directly or indirectly. The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall be applicable as regards the quorum and the powers of the general assembly. During the period between the date on which the executive council decides to convene a general assembly, or the date of presentation of the request for convening the assembly by one-tenth of the members of the union, and the date on which the general assembly takes a decision on the matter by an absolute majority of the registered members of the union in question, it shall be unlawful for workers affiliated to the union to participate in any strike action.
6. 3. The executive council of a trade union organisation may convene a general assembly at any time for the purpose of deciding whether to call a strike, subject to the provisions of the second paragraph of subsection (2) of this section and notwithstanding the periods provided for by the statutes or by Act No. 1264/1982. The voting procedure may take place over a period of up to two days, according to circumstances.
7. 4. Any decision concerning the calling or carrying out of a strike of whatever nature shall be adopted by secret ballot in the presence of a court representative. Every person participating in the vote shall produce his police identity card and his trade union electoral passbook, in accordance with the provisions of sections 13 and 28, subsection (1), of Act No. 1264/1982.
   • When the vote takes place in the regional branches of the union, the president of the competent court of first instance may appoint as court representative a barrister within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid court.
8. 5. Section 20, subsection (1), fourth paragraph, of Act No. 1264/1982 is replaced by the following text, but solely as regards the undertakings covered by this Act:
   • "Workers in an undertaking who are not members of any trade union organisation may take part in a strike lawfully called by the most representative trade union organisation of the sector in which they are employed."
9. 6. Other questions concerning strikes shall be governed by the provisions of Act No. 1264/1982.
10. 129. The Committee has always considered that allegations concerning the right to strike do not fall outside its competence whenever they relate to the exercise of trade union rights, since the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for promoting and defending their occupational interests. Consequently, the public authorities should refrain from any interference likely to limit that right or to impede its exercise.
11. 130. In the Committee's view, it follows that the conditions required by legislation for a strike to be regarded as a lawful act should be reasonable and in no case such as to constitute a serious limitation on the possibilities of action of trade union organisations.
12. 131. In the present case, the Committee, after having carefully examined the text of section 4 of Act No. 1365, considers that when the majority required by legislation for declaring a lawful strike is half the votes of all the members of a trade union organisation whose activities cover a large area or even, in this case, the whole of Greece, such a provision for a qualified majority, although democratic in itself since it aims at putting an end to strikes called by a limited number of workers able to impose a strike on an entire group of wage earners, may in certain respects constitute interference by the public authorities in trade union activities.
13. 132. The condition laid down for calling a strike in the banking sector (acceptance by a qualified majority of all members of a trade union organisation whose activities cover a large area) in fact raises problems of compatibility with the principles of freedom of association. In similar cases in the past, [See for example 221st Report, Case No. 1097 (Poland).]the Committee has already pointed out that such provisions are likely to involve restrictions on the right of trade unions to organise their activities. It follows that the requirement of a simple majority of voting members only (especially in the case of a trade union organisation covering a large area), where the conditions laid down may be difficult to obtain, would be more in conformity with the principles set forth by both the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee invites the Government to reconsider this question in the light of the principles mentioned above and to take appropriate measures to bring the legislation more closely into line with them. The Committee would accordingly draw this matter to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendation.
14. 133. The Committee also notes with interest that the decision to call a strike in the local branches of a trade union organisation may be taken by the general assembly of the local branch when the reason for the strike is of a local nature and that in the secondary trade union organisations the decision to call a strike may be taken by the executive council of the organisation by an absolute majority of all the members of the council. These provisions are consistent with the principles of freedom of association.
15. 134. Concerning the allegation of the complainant organisation that a primary trade union organisation can "block" a strike decision taken by the federation until a vote has taken place throughout the country among bank employees, the Committee observes that the new law provides that the executive council of the primary trade union organisation or one-tenth of the organisation's members may convene a general assembly for the purpose of deciding whether the union concerned should participate or not in the strike decided by the secondary organisation to which the union in question belongs directly or indirectly and that participation in a strike before the primary union's general assembly has taken a decision by an absolute majority of the registered union members is unlawful.
16. 135. In this connection, the Committee recalls that the complainant organisation itself has explained that, under the procedure previously in force, special general assemblies convened at the request of one-twentieth of the members could annul the strike decision taken by an executive council which irresponsibly had called a wildcat strike. The provisions of the new law do not seem to be inconsistent with that procedure except in so far as the decision is to be taken by a qualified majority and not by a simple majority of the members voting.