Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Lithuania (Ratification: 1994)

The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government in response to the Committee’s previous direct request. It wishes to raise the following points in respect of the Labour Code, which entered into force in January 2003.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes section 77(1) of the Labour Code which provides that a strike shall be declared if a corresponding decision is approved by secret ballot by two-thirds of the enterprise’s employees voting in favour of a strike in the enterprise; and two-thirds of the employees of a structural subdivision of the enterprise and at least half of the employees of the enterprise vote in favour of a strike in the structural subdivision of the enterprise. The Committee recalls that, if a member State deems it appropriate to establish in its legislation provisions which require a vote by workers before a strike can be held, it should ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast, and that the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 170). The Committee therefore considers that the observance of the quorum provided for in section 77(1) of the Code may be difficult to reach and therefore hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 77(1) so as to lower the required quorum and keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Concerning the Committee’s previous request to indicate the personnel of internal services concerned by the prohibition of strikes provided for in section 78 of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that this prohibition concerns all employees of the system of internal affairs. As it is still not quite clear which employees are concerned by this prohibition, the Committee recalls that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 158). It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the prohibition of the right to strike in the system of internal affairs is limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State.

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide details on the composition and functioning of the Tripartite Board and the extent to which the Government is bound to follow up on its conclusions in settling the claims of workers employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term, who are prohibited from striking. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in this respect that, although the Tripartite Council - formed on the basis of an equal tripartite partnership - analyses and proposes to the Government possible solutions, the final decision is taken by the Government, as all enterprises and services in essential services are state-owned or related to objects of state significance. The Committee wishes to recall in this respect that, where restrictions are adopted on the right to strike of workers who are employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term, compensatory guarantees should include appropriate, rapid and impartial conciliation and mediation procedures and the bodies entrusted with such functions should be independent and have the confidence of both workers and employers. The Committee therefore feels that it would be more appropriate if the conclusions made by the Tripartite Council were final and binding, subject to review by an independent body, and in any case they should not lay with the discretionary authority of the State. It requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken to ensure that the compensatory guarantees available to those whose strike action is restricted are seen to be impartial and reliable to the parties concerned. It further requests the Government to provide any decision taken pursuant to Tripartite Council conclusions.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous report, the Government transmitted the amendments to the Criminal Code. The Committee observed on that occasion that section 199(4) of the amended Criminal Code provided that "organization of a strike at a nuclear facility is punishable by a penalty of corrective works for the period of up to two years or a fine". The Committee notes, however, the Government’s indication that the Code does not provide for criminal liability for engaging in strike preparations at nuclear facilities. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the precise meaning of section 199(4) of the Criminal Code. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of any use of sections 67, 199(3) and 199(4) of the Criminal Code in respect of industrial action.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether workers may initiate protest action in respect of the social and economic policy of the Government and have recourse to sympathy strikes, without sanction.