Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 370, Octobre 2013

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 93. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns obstacles to collective bargaining in a public administration (Court of Audit), at its March 2012 meeting [see 363rd Report, paras 209–214, approved by the Governing Body at its 313th Session]. On that occasion, noting with interest the information to the effect that, on the initiative of the Court of Audit, meetings had been held since February 2011 between the Court and the trade unions active within it on modalities for the negotiation of a collective labour agreement, the Committee requested the Government to continue to inform it of any new developments in that regard. As to its recommendations concerning the need to amend Act No. 130/1996 on collective labour agreements and Act No. 188/1999 on the status of civil servants so that they do not limit the scope of negotiation of collective agreements in the public service, the Committee noted with regret that the Government’s report did not contain any information on the measures taken or envisaged to amend those legislative texts, which had been the subject of recommendations for many years. Noting that the Government had referred to Act No. 284/2010 on the unitary remuneration of staff paid out of public funds, under which the salaries of civil servants and contract employees cannot be negotiated collectively and are established solely by law, the Committee was bound to request the Government once again to take all the steps necessary to amend the Act so as to ensure that base salaries, pay increases, allowances, bonuses and other entitlements of public service employees are no longer excluded from the scope of collective negotiations. Similarly, the Committee once again urged the Government to take all the necessary steps to amend the Act so that it no longer limits the scope of matters that can be negotiated in the public administration, in particular those that normally pertain to conditions of work and employment. The Committee also encouraged the Government once again to draw up guidelines on collective bargaining with the social partners concerned and thus to define the scope of bargaining, in accordance with ILO Conventions Nos 98 and 154, which it has ratified. Lastly, the Committee drew the legislative aspects of this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR).
2. 94. In a communication dated 10 September 2012, the Government reiterates that the dispute in question no longer has any legal basis. Since the date on which Act No. 62/2011 on social dialogue entered into force, no complaints against the Court of Audit concerning the violation of the new legal provisions have been filed. In accordance with section 141(3) of the Act, if, within an enterprise, there is no collective labour agreement, the parties may call for negotiations on that subject at any time. The initiative lies with the employer or, otherwise, with the relevant trade union organizations (section 140). Any refusal by an employer to bargain collectively is penalized in accordance with section 217(b). Moreover, the Government notes that the guarantees offered by Conventions Nos 98 and 154 do not extend to public servants engaged in the administration of the State (fonctionnaires publics) and, in all cases, it is the obligation of States to encourage and promote the use of machinery for negotiation established by the social partners and not to impose collective bargaining, which should be free and voluntary) in the sense of the aforementioned Conventions (Articles 4–6 of Convention No. 98 and Articles 1 and 5 of Convention No. 154). Bearing in mind the particularity of the powers of the Court of Audit of Romania and the differentiated legal status of the staff it employs (which is similar to the status of magistrates), the rights and working conditions of staff, as well as industrial relations, are regulated, in consultation with the trade unions through specific statuses (the status of public auditors, the status of members of the Court of Audit of Romania and the status of public officials), by Framework Act No. 284/2010 and other specific laws, as well as by the Labour Code.
3. 95. The Committee takes note of this information. Above all, it wishes to recall that Romania has ratified the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), and that, in its 2013 General Survey, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has emphasized that Conventions Nos 151 and 154, whether in unitary or federal States, apply in particular to civil servants engaged in the public administration, such as public servants in ministries and other similar government bodies, as well as their auxiliary staff and all other persons employed by the government. They also apply to all public servants and employees of local authorities and their public bodies. The scope of application of Conventions Nos 151 and 154 also includes employees of public enterprises, municipal employees, employees of decentralized institutions and public sector teachers, whether or not they are considered under the national legislation as being in the category of public servants (see General Survey 2013, para. 256). Furthermore, the Committee shares the Government’s view that, in the sense of Article 4 of Convention No. 98, the obligation of governments is to take measures to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. However, in this context, the Committee notes with regret that the Government’s reply does not contain any information on the developments in the negotiation of a collective labour agreement between the senior officials of the Court of Audit and the trade unions active within it, or in the work of the committee that was established previously to monitor relations between the Court and the trade union organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to continue to inform it of any new developments in this regard.