Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Hungary (Ratification: 1957)

Article 2 of the Convention. Acts of interference. In previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt specific legislative provisions prohibiting acts of anti‑union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes that the Government once again indicates in its report that it considers that the legislation in force, namely the Labour Code and Act No. CXXV of 2003 on equal treatment and the promotion of equal opportunities, set out sufficiently detailed provisions on the prohibition of all acts of interference. In this respect, the Committee notes that section 32 of the Labour Code affords a protection for certain acts of interference, stipulating that only a trade union or an employers’ organization that is independent from the other is entitled to conclude a collective agreement. The Committee recalls that legislation should make express provision for rapid appeal procedures, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference in order to ensure the application in practice of Article 2 of the Convention. Moreover, to ensure that these measures receive the necessary publicity and are effective in practice, the relevant legislation should explicitly lay down these substantive provisions, as well as appeals and sanctions in order to guarantee their application (see the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 232). In order to give effect to Article 2 of the Convention, the Committee recalls the need to adopt specific legislative provisions prohibiting acts of interference (in particular, those designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to place workers’ organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations through financial or other means), and establishing rapid appeal procedures, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that no particular legislative amendment is planned concerning protection against interference, although an expert examination was initiated in 2009 as to opportunities in finding alternative solutions for the settlement of disputes, which may, depending on the outcome of the tripartite consultations, result in a legislative act that could notably afford a better protection against acts of interference. In these circumstances, the Committee, recalling its abovementioned comments, also requests the Government to keep it informed of any development concerning the abovementioned expert examination and to provide a copy of any legislation adopted in this respect.

Article 4. Representativeness for the conclusion of collective agreements. The Committee had previously requested information on the system of bargaining agent certification at the sectoral and national levels. The Committee notes that the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in its comments submitted on 24 August 2009, and the Workers side of the National ILO Council (including the National Federation of Autonomous Trade Unions, the Trade Union Group of Intellectuals, the Democratic League of Independent Trade Unions, the National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions, the National Federation of Workers’ Councils and the Co-operation Forum of Trade Unions) in its comments sent along with the Government’s report on 24 November 2009, both indicate that trade unions need to represent 65 per cent of the workforce (for a single union), a threshold which can hardly be achieved under a plural trade union structure, in order to be able to engage in collective bargaining (section 33(5) of the Labour Code), amend or renegotiate the collective agreement (section 37(1) and (2) of the Labour Code). The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the provisions cited above require a relatively high rate of employees for the conclusion of the collective bargaining agreement, as several representative trade unions are unable to enter into one jointly in a given case; (ii) in such a case, the lack of consensus among the trade unions necessitates the observation of the rules according to which the trade union with the highest rate support will be entitled to enter into the collective bargaining agreement, reaching about two-thirds (65 per cent) share mentioned above; and (iii) as amendments have been made recently to the Act on the legal status of public servants (subsection 4 of section 12/A of Act No. XXXIII of 1992 on the legal status of public servants), according to which a trade union having at least a 50 per cent support may conclude the collective bargaining agreement in a similar case, the Government would be ready to discuss an amendment to section 33(5) of the Labour Code. The Committee recalls that high percentage requirements for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent may impair the promotion and development of free and voluntary collective bargaining. In addition, the Committee recalls that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all unions in this unit, at least on behalf of their own members (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 241). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken or contemplated so as to lower the 65 per cent requirement in section 33(5) of the Labour Code, as well as any measure taken or envisaged in order to ensure that where no union represents 65 per cent of the employees in a bargaining unit, collective bargaining rights are granted to all unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members.

Finally, the Committee had also requested information on developments concerning a draft Bill pertaining to certain aspects of social dialogue. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, Act No. LXXIII of 2009, on the National Council for the Reconciliation of Interests (“NCRI Act”), and Act No. LXXIV of 2009, on the Sectoral Dialogue Committees and certain issues of the medium-level social dialogue (“SDC Act”), entered into force on 20 August 2009. The Committee will provide its observations on these two Acts in its next report, once translated by the Office.