Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

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

The Committee notes the observations received on 1 September 2015 and 1 September 2017 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), alleging acts of anti-union dismissals, union busting and intimidation in several enterprises, and criticizing in particular the excessive limitation of the scope of collective bargaining and the employers’ power to unilaterally modify the scope and content of collective agreements. The Committee also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 11 September 2017, included in the Government’s report, which denounce that: (i) the law does not allow trade unions with less than 10 per cent representation among the workers to negotiate collective agreements, not even with respect to their own members; (ii) the law restricts the ‘coalition’ freedoms of trade unions for entitlement to collective bargaining so that they cannot seek to collectively attain the 10 per cent threshold; and (iii) in those cases where no trade union represents the required percentage, the workers’ council is entitled to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (except on wage issues). The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council, including to clarify whether the representativity threshold applies to collective agreements at both enterprise and industry levels.

The Committee further notes several judgments of the Supreme Court of Hungary (Curia) supplied by the Government, which have a bearing on the Convention, in particular on the promotion of collective bargaining.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications that: (i) section 82 of the Labour Code provides compensation not exceeding the worker’s 12-month absence pay in case of unlawful dismissal of trade union officials or members; (ii) reinstatement is granted in case of dismissals violating the principle of equal treatment (section 83(1)(a)) or dismissals violating the requirement for prior consent of the union’s higher body before the termination of a union official (section 83(1)(c)); and (iii) while the Labour Code does not contain penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination against union officials and affiliates, the Equal Treatment Authority (ETA) may, in such cases, levy fines. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that Bill No. T/17998 on the amendment of legislation related to the entry into force of the Act on the General Administrative Order, which will also bring about the harmonization of the Labour Code and relevant ILO Conventions, contains inter alia a provision amending the definition of worker representatives (section 294(1)(e) of the Labour Code), the purpose of which is to ensure that, in the event of unlawful termination of a worker representative, the possibility of requesting reinstatement into the original job will also be awarded to union officers, not only to elected representatives as is currently the case under section 83(1)(d). The Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that union officials, union members and elected representatives enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities, and requests the Government to provide information on developments in relation to the adoption of new legislative provisions in this regard. In the absence of the information solicited from the Government with respect to the working of the ETA, the Committee requests the Government once again: (i) to indicate whether, given that section 16(1)(a) of the Equal Treatment Act stipulates that the ETA may order the elimination of the situation constituting a violation of law, the ETA may order on that basis reinstatement in case of anti-union dismissals of trade union officials and members; (ii) to provide information as to whether the ETA may order compensation on the basis of section 82 of the Labour Code; and (iii) to provide information on the average duration of the proceedings before the ETA related to anti-union discrimination (including of any subsequent appeal procedures before the courts), as well as on the average duration of purely judicial proceedings.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee, while noting the Government’s indication that the Constitution and the current national legislation were sufficient to prevent acts of interference, had requested the Government to take steps to adopt specific legislative provisions prohibiting acts of interference. Noting that the Government provides no information in this respect, the Committee recalls that it considers that the provisions of the Labour Code and the Equal Treatment Act do not specifically cover acts of interference 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. The Committee requests the Government once again to take all necessary measures to adopt specific legislative provisions prohibiting such acts of interference on the part of the employer and making express provision for rapid appeal procedures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements signed, the sectors concerned and the share of the workforce covered by collective agreements.