Definitive Report - REPORT_NO94, 1967

CASE_NUMBER 471 (Italy) - COMPLAINT_DATE: 09-MRZ-66 - Closed

1. 18. The complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions is contained in a communication dated 9 March 1966, addressed directly to the I.L.O. This communication having been forwarded to the Government for its observations, the latter replied by two communications, dated 13 May and 22 August 1966 respectively.
2. 19. Italy 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, 1947 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 20. The complainants allege in general terms that the anti-worker policy of the Italian employers is aimed at attacking democratic freedoms in general and intimidating the Italian workers, their militants and their leaders.
2. 21. In support of this general affirmation W.F.T.U states that in February 1966, in response to the call of all the trade union organisations, 1,200,000 Italian metalworkers went on strike in order to obtain a more modern and advanced national labour agreement. According to W.F.T.U the success of the movement to enforce this claim provoked a reaction on the part of the employers which violated freedom of association in the undertaking.
3. 22. W.F.T.U goes on to state that the management of R.I.V.-S.K.F of Villar Perosa (Turin) decided to dismiss Mr. Antonio Chiriotti, delegate of the works council, " for his active participation in the nation-wide strike by Italian metalworkers ". In the view of the complainants this dismissal, which occurred during the metalworkers' strike, " constitutes not only discrimination against trade union leaders in the undertaking but also an intolerable attack on trade union freedoms in general ".
4. 23. The complainants affirm that hundreds of analogous cases have occurred, " which is evidence of the Italian employers' persistent action directed against the trade unions ".
5. 24. In conclusion, W.F.T.U asks the I.L.O to invite the Italian Government, on the one hand, to take steps to procure the immediate reinstatement of the trade union leader Antonio Chiriotti, and, on the other hand, to take action to ensure respect for trade union rights in general and at the level of the undertaking in particular.
6. 25. In the observations sent to the International Labour Office in a communication dated 13 May 1966 the Government states that upon receiving the text of the complaint, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare immediately took steps to investigate the grounds for the dismissal of Mr. Chiriotti. The investigation carried out by the Labour Inspectorate of Turin established that on 17 February 1966, on the occasion of the national strike of metalworkers that followed the breaking-off of the inter-union negotiations for the renewal of the national collective labour agreement for workers in metalworking and allied industries, groups of strikers, led by their trade union leaders, assembled in front of the Airasca plant of R.I.V.-S.K.F and formed a picket to prevent workers from entering the plant. In one of the groups in question, the Government states, Mr. Chiriotti, a works council delegate in another plant of that firm, " stood out as one of the most active group leaders ".
7. 26. The Government declares that, in order to ensure freedom of work and allow workers who were not participating in the strike to enter the plant at Airasca, the police were compelled to intervene several times, inviting the men on picket duty to withdraw and leave the other workers free to go to work or not, as they chose. As Mr. Chiriotti resisted, the Government states that the police reported him to the judicial authority for an offence under section 650 of the Penal Code (refusal to obey the representatives of the authorities). In a communication dated 22 August 1966 the Government states that the judicial authority acquitted Mr. Chiriotti of the charge against him under section 650 of the Penal Code.
8. 27. The Government goes on to state that, since Mr. Chiriotti took part in a strike by workers of one plant, whereas he was employed at another plant, his firm (R.I.V.-S.K.F.) dismissed him in accordance with section 38, subsection (b), of the National Collective Labour Agreement for Metalworkers of 17 February 1963, which provides for the dismissal, without notice, of " any worker who causes serious moral or material damage to the undertaking or who, within the framework of the employment relationship, commits acts that constitute an offence according to the law ".
9. 28. Independently of the notification of dismissal, the Government states, the management of R.I.V.-S.K.F initiated the procedure provided for dismissing a member of a works council in accordance with the inter-Confederation agreement signed on 8 May 1953 between the General Confederation of Italian Industry on the one hand and, on the other, the Italian General Confederation of Labour, the Italian Confederation of Workers' Unions, the Italian Labour Union and the Italian Confederation of National Workers' Unions, which agreement concerns the establishment and operation of works councils.
10. 29. According to article 14 of that agreement which, the Government states, protects the members of works councils and works delegates, such persons may not be dismissed or transferred without the consent of the regional Confederations of occupational organisations which represent the worker concerned and the undertaking concerned. The Confederations give their decision after investigating the case for the purpose of conciliation, if the workers' organisation so requests; article 14 provides for recourse to arbitration procedure should the attempt at conciliation fail, and the worker's dismissal is suspended while the procedure in question is in progress.
11. 30. The Government goes on to state that Italian law, " in recognising freedom of association and the right to strike (articles 39 and 40 of the Constitution), guarantees the exercise of trade union rights ". It is up to the trade union organisations themselves to ensure the respect of those rights, which are confirmed by the Constitution, by establishing and specifying, in full freedom and independence, either in the collective agreements or in auxiliary agreements such as that of 8 May 1953 referred to above, what restrictions are to be placed on the behaviour of the parties to the employment relationship; in the event of failure to reach a settlement, disputes between the parties may be brought before a court of law.
12. 31. With particular reference to the subject-matter of the complaint, the Government states that, since the dismissed worker was a member of the works council, the management of the firm initiated the special procedure provided for under article 14 of the inter-Confederation agreement of 8 May 1953.
13. 32. In its communication of 22 August 1966 the Government states that the committee set up as provided in the inter-Confederation agreement, consisting of a labour inspector (as chairman), an employers' representative and a workers' representative, after the attempt at conciliation had failed, made a thorough investigation of the case, weighed all the elements thereof and reached the conclusion that the dismissal of the worker concerned was justified.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 33. From the facts available to the Committee it is clear that firstly, Mr. Chiriotti was dismissed by his employers following a strike by workers at one of the plants operated by the firm R.I.V.-S.K.F, whereas he himself belonged to the personnel of another plant; and, secondly, since the worker concerned was a member of the works council of his plant, his employers had recourse to the provisions of the inter-Confederation agreement concluded in 1953 between the most representative employers' and workers' organisations in Italy, article 14 of which covers the protection of works council members and works representatives. In accordance with that agreement conciliation procedure had been initiated and upon its failure it was followed, still in accordance with the inter-Confederation agreement, by an arbitration procedure conducted by a committee in which employers and workers participated on a footing of perfect equality. That committee considered the dismissal of the person in question to have been justified.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 34. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the fact that the arbitration procedure followed had been established by mutual agreement between the employers' and workers' organisations and that that procedure appears to have been followed in due and proper form, the Committee considers that the complainant has not furnished proof that freedom of association has been violated in this case, and consequently recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.