Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2002, publiée 91ème session CIT (2003)

Referring to its previous comments by which it noted the observations of the Solidarnosc-80 Union, communicated to the ILO on 5 August 1999, concerning the application of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the Government’s report for the period ending in June 2001 and of the partial information provided in reply to the matters raised by the organization.

According to Solidarnosc-80, the National Labour Inspectorate would have had, on the occasion of an industrial dispute taking place between the management of the Research Centre in Development and its employees, a tendentious and superficial position concerning the decisions taken unilaterally by the director of the Research Centre in Development on questions settled by the company collective agreement. From the union’s point of view, the conclusions of the National Labour Inspectorate would have given a distorted picture of the provisions of the company collective agreement as well as of other legal provisions; its interpretation of the Labour Code provisions would have resulted in them being deprived of their substance in order to favour the management to the detriment of the rights of the workers. The union considers that, acting in that way, the National Labour Inspectorate was failing in its obligation of impartiality between the employers and the trade unions.

In this respect, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government, according to which the question was to find out if the employer, in this case the director of the company, had consulted each of the company’s trade unions with regard to the modifications of the working conditions determined by the collective agreement, such as the labour regulations, the increase in wages, the promotion of certain workers, the distribution of working hours, the allocation of individual allowances and social security benefits. According to the Government, the National Labour Inspectorate has conducted investigations on the spot and, as regards questions of general interest, such as labour regulations, the distribution of working hours and the allocation of individual allowances, it repealed the Centre’s director’s decision on the basis of legal technicality under section 30, paragraph 5, of the Law on Trade Unions. As regards questions of personal interest, such as the increase in wages, the National Labour Inspectorate would have ordered the company director to conform to the provisions of the collective agreement.

The Committee observes that the Government stays silent regarding the allegations of partiality aimed at the National Labour Inspectorate, which stand at the core of the organization’s observation. The Committee would appreciate receiving information in this connection in the Government’s next report, as well as information concerning the manner in which impartiality is ensured from the National Labour Inspectorate in its relations with the employers and the workers, both in private and state-owned companies.