Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Romania (Ratification: 1958)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2021, Publication: 109th ILC session (2021)

Written information provided by the Government

With regard to effective protection against acts of trade union discrimination and interference – Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention

Regarding the burden of proof in cases of union discrimination against union leaders, the Ministry of Justice indicates that, by Decision No. 681/2016, the Constitutional Court, ruling on the notification of unconstitutionality regarding the provisions of the sole article, point 1, of the Law amending and supplementing the Law on Social Dialogue, held inter alia, that, “as the Court held in Decision No. 814 of 24 November 2015, the courts, within the analysis of the legality of the decision to dismiss an employee who also has an elected position in a trade union body, examine whether there is any connection between the reason indicated for dismissal (as provided in article 61 – reasons related to the employee, or article 65 – reasons that are not related to the employee, of the Labour Code) and the fulfilment of the mandate that the employee holding an elected position within the union body received from the employees of the unit, and responsibility to demonstrate the legality of the dismissal rests with the employer, according to article 272 of the Labour Code”.

Therefore, in the event that an employee holding an elected position in a trade union body challenges the legality of the dismissal, the special provisions of the Labour Code become applicable, according to which: “The burden of proof with regard to labour disputes rests with the employer, who is obliged to submit evidence in his defence prior to the first day of appearance in court.” (article 272).

If the union leader considers himself to have been discriminated against, he has the possibility to address the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD – Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării), according to the procedure regulated by Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on preventing and sanctioning all forms of discrimination. Thus, according to article 20, paragraph 1, of this Act, “The person who considers himself or herself to have been discriminated against may notify the Council within one year from the date on which it is committed or from the date on which she could become aware of its commission.” Paragraph 6 of the same article also provides that: “The person concerned shall present facts on the basis of which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, and the person against whom the complaint was made shall have the burden of proving that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment. Any means of proof may be invoked before the Board of Directors in compliance with the fundamental rights, including audio and video recordings or statistical data.”

At the same time, article 27, paragraph 1, of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 also provides for the possibility for the person who considers himself or herself to have been discriminated against to make a claim before the court, including for compensation and to restore the situation prevailing prior to the discrimination or the cancellation of the situation created by the discrimination, according to common law, with such a request not being conditional upon a notification to the Council. In this case, too, the person concerned shall present facts on the basis of which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, and the person against whom the complaint was made shall have the burden of proving that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment (article 27, paragraph 4).

Regarding the number of cases of trade union discrimination and interference by employers brought to the attention of different jurisdictions, the average duration of proceedings and their outcome, the Ministry of Justice indicates that the data available in judicial statistical databases that are managed by the Ministry refer exclusively to the activity of courts. The data are collected by specialized staff at the level of each court on the basis of the nomenclature in the ECRIS system (the European Criminal Records System). Within this nomenclature, no elements were identified that would allow reporting of the available data according to the required criteria, respectively the number of cases pending in the courts relating to trade union discrimination and interference by employers. Also, judicial statistics cannot be disaggregated according to certain qualities of the parties/participants.

Regarding the actions and remedies applicable in cases of trade union discrimination, the Ministry of Justice indicates that, according to article 260, paragraph 1(r), of the Labour Code, ”The following acts constitute a contravention and are sanctioned as follows … (r) non-compliance with the provisions of article 5, paragraphs (2)–(9), and of article 59(a), with a fine of from 1,000 to 20,000 lei.” Article 5, paragraph 2, states that “Any direct or indirect discrimination against an employee, discrimination by association, harassment or victimization, based on the criteria of race, nationality, ethnicity, colour, language, religion, social origin, genetic traits, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, chronic non-communicable disease, HIV infection, political choice, family situation or responsibility, membership or trade union activity, members of a disadvantaged category, is prohibited.”

According to the Labour Inspectorate, between 1 January and 30 April 2021, no fines were applied for violations of the law related to union membership or activity.

In the event that a person opts for a complaint to the CNCD under the conditions set out in article 20 of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000, the decisions pronounced by the Board of Directors can be appealed to the contentious administrative courts, according to the law (article 20, paragraph 9); if the decision is not contested within 15 days of its the communication, it constitutes an enforceable ruling. A decision pronounced in the court of first instance can be appealed within 15 days of its communication, in accordance with the provisions of article 20, paragraph 1, of the Law regarding the administrative court procedure No. 554/2004.

If an application is formulated directly to the court, pursuant to article 27 of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000, the Ministry of Justice specifies that, interpreting this law, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, by Decision No. 10/206, in the interests of law established that “the court competent to resolve claims for compensation and to re-establish the situation that existed prior to the discrimination or cancel the effects created by the discrimination is the court or tribunal, as the case may be, as courts of civil law, in relation to proceedings by a court having jurisdiction and its value, except in cases where discrimination has occurred in the context of legal relationships governed by special laws and where the protection of subjective rights is achieved through special jurisdictions, in which case the applications will be tried by these courts, according to special legal provisions”.

In the case of trade union discrimination, as the alleged act of discrimination occurred in a labour relationship, which is governed by a special law, respectively the Labour Code, the court competent to resolve the present dispute is the court in whose district the plaintiff is domiciled, and only the judgment of the court of first instance is subject to appeal (article 214 of the Law on Social Dialogue No. 62/2011).

In consultation with the social partners and in accordance with national practice, Law No. 53/2003 – the Labour Code was amended in 2020 in order to ensure proper recognition of harassment, intimidation and victimization of employees and their representatives, including in the exercise of legitimate trade union rights and activities (article 5), with dissuasive sanctions applied effectively, including pecuniary sanctions of up to eight minimum monthly gross wages, for individual cases.

In 2020, Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on the preventing and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination was supplemented by the adoption of Law No. 167/2020 amending and supplementing Government Ordinance No. 137/2000, as well as supplementing article 6 of Law No. 202/2002 on equality of opportunity and treatment for women and men.

Law No. 167/2020 defines moral harassment in the workplace as any behaviour displayed with respect to an employee by another employee who is their superior, by an inferior and/or by an employee with a comparable hierarchical position, regarding the work relationship, which has the purpose or effect of a deterioration of working conditions by harming the rights or dignity of the employee, by affecting their physical or mental health or by compromising their professional future, conduct manifested under any of the following forms: (i) hostile or unwanted conduct; (ii) verbal comments; (iii) actions or gestures.

It also strengthened the attributions of the National Council for Combating Discrimination, as the national authority responsible for preventing, monitoring, assisting and mediating between the parties and for investigating and sanctioning cases of discrimination and acts of anti-union discrimination.

With regard to the promotion of collective bargaining and negotiation with elected workers’ representatives – Article 4 of the Convention

The regulation of social dialogue responds to the national situation and the lack of cooperation between the parties, against the conflicting background of labour and industrial relations, also reported by the European Commission in the 2018 Country Report.

Parliament is currently in the process of adopting, in the Chamber of Deputies (decision-making body), a draft law revising the Law on Social Dialogue, initiated in 2018, which includes in its current form the proposals and amendments made by trade unions and employers in the field of association, representativeness and collective bargaining in the context of the consultations held in Parliament, as well as the aspects accepted of the ILO recommendations in the 2018 Technical Memorandum.

The agreement of the social partners for the revision of the collective bargaining sectors, pursued by the Government, was conditional on the prior adoption of the revision of the Law on Social Dialogue.

As the ILO Report on Social Dialogue pointed out, sectoral collective bargaining has declined since the 2008 crisis, with priority being given to enterprise-level bargaining to adapt and make work and employment more flexible, a trend that continues today. Following the development of new economies and new forms of work and employment, interest in unionization and collective bargaining has diminished.

The revision of the legal framework will not directly eliminate the problem of the low interest of national employers in engaging in bargaining at higher levels of the company due to the difficulties of reconciling the individual interests of employers.

The Government has included in future national programmes and strategies for 2021–27 (the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, the National Reform Programme, and the National Employment Strategy) the objective of strengthening collective bargaining and supporting the structural capacity, organization and action of [the social] partners as a premise for motivating and supporting association, strengthening representativeness and identifying sectoral and national bargaining interests.

The Law on Social Dialogue promotes voluntary negotiation within the meaning of ILO Convention No. 98 and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), at any level of interest to the parties. Article 153 of the Law on Social Dialogue guarantees all unions/trade unions the right to bargain, and to conclude agreements with the employer/employers’ organizations on behalf of their members, an eloquent example being the collective agreement concluded by unions and employers in the construction sector.

In the same vein, we mention that European directives favour the general notion of workers’ representatives, understood as trade unions and/or employee representatives. As such, employees’ representatives are regulated nationally as representatives elected by the vote of all employees in the company (not just those who are not affiliated, within the meaning of the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135)), in respect of freedom of association and the choice of representatives in collective bargaining, also decided by the Constitutional Court of Romania in ruling No. 62/2019.

The coverage rate of collective bargaining takes into account only the number of employees covered by collective agreements concluded in units with more than 21 employees as a result of the application of erga omnes, without taking into account all collective agreements in force, group level and sectoral contracts, voluntary agreements concluded by the parties and/or collective agreements of civil servants.

With regard to collective bargaining in the public sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State – Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention

The Government adopted in 2021 a working memorandum for the revision of the Law on remuneration in the public system, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour.

The elaboration and adoption of the initiative will follow the legal procedures for consulting the social partners, as was the case with the current Law on the remuneration of staff in the public system, approved by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and based on a system of coefficients negotiated with trade unions.

Additional details related to the comments and direct requests of the CEACR regarding the application of Convention No. 98 will be provided in the Government’s report under article 22 of the ILO Constitution.

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative, Adviser, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection – The Romanian Government takes its ILO obligations very seriously. Romania has ratified all the fundamental and governance Conventions and a number of other important ones. We believe that respect and collective bargaining are the hallmarks of any modern and organized community. Freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike are guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution.

First of all, I would like to bring to your attention some important legislative changes and provisions that would help to ensure a common high level of protection from discrimination in the employment field.

In consultation with the social partners and in accordance with national practices, Law No. 53/2003 – the Labour Code, was amended in 2020, in order to ensure proper recognition of harassment, intimidation and victimization of employees and their representatives, including in the exercise of legitimate trade union rights and activities, with dissuasive sanctions applied effectively, including pecuniary sanctions. The new amendments were made to article 5, article 59 and article 260 of the Labour Code by Law No. 151 of 2020. This new enactment amends the definitions provided for the concept of “discrimination”, both direct and indirect, by means of amending, inter alia, the criteria established by the Labour Code for assessing which acts/deeds are considered as discrimination.

Moreover, Law No. 151/2020 introduces the concept of “harassment”, “discrimination by association” and “victimization” and does also establish that any behaviour consisting in ordering a person, in writing or orally, to use a form of discrimination based on one of the criteria provided by the Labour Code, against one or more individuals, is considered discrimination.

Article 5, paragraph 2, states that: “Any direct or indirect discrimination against an employee, discrimination by association, harassment or victimization, based on the criteria of race, nationality, ethnicity, colour, language, religion, social origin, genetic traits, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, chronic non-communicable disease, HIV infection, political choice, family situation or responsibility, membership or trade union activity, members of a disadvantaged category, is prohibited.”

The new amendment does also include the cases that are not considered discrimination, which are aiming to cover certain professional requirements that are essential and decisive and which could justify exclusions or distinctions as regards a particular job that are linked to the specific nature of that specific activity or the conditions under which that activity is performed, to the extent that the purpose is legitimate and the requirements are proportionate.

In addition, Law No. 151 amends the prohibition to dismiss employees as established under article 59(a) of the Labour Code, by means of aligning the relevant criteria with the criteria established for the prohibition to discriminate.

Finally, the new enactment provides, according to article 260(1)(r), the related contravention for failure to observe said provisions. A fine of between 1,000 and 20,000 lei has been newly introduced, that is around €200 and €4,500. According to the labour inspectorate, between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2021, no fines were applied for violations of the law related to union membership or activity.

Separately from the amendments to the Labour Code, the provisions of Law No. 167/2020 introduce the legal definition of moral harassment. Law No. 167, for the amendment and completion of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000, as well as for the completion of article 6 of Law No. 202/2002 on equal opportunities and treatment between women and men, also brings amendments to the specific legislation regarding discrimination and defines moral harassment at the workplace as a behaviour displayed with respect to an employee by another employee who is their superior, by an inferior and/or by an employee with comparable hierarchical position regarding the work relationship, which has the purpose or effect of deteriorating the working conditions by harming the rights or dignity of the employee, by affecting their physical or mental health or by compromising their professional future, conduct manifested under any of the following forms: hostile or unwanted conduct; verbal comments; actions or gestures.

It also strengthens the attributions of the National Council for Combating Discrimination, as the National Authority responsible for preventing, monitoring, assisting and mediating between the parties and verification and sanctioning in cases of discrimination and acts of anti-union discrimination.

Several specific duties are provided for employers in order to prevent and fight against acts of moral harassment at the work place, such as:

the obligation to take any measures that are required for the scope of preventing and fighting against acts of moral harassment at the workplace, including by means of establishing related disciplinary sanctions under their internal regulations;

the prohibition to establish, in any form, internal rules or measures that oblige, determine, or encourage employees to exert acts of moral harassment at the workplace.

Law No. 167 provides several specific sanctions that are applicable both to employees exerting acts of moral harassment, which could be sanctioned with fines between 10,000 lei and 15,000 lei, and to employers failing to observe the specific obligations applicable to them in this context, the level of fines ranging between 30,000 lei and 200,000 lei. This is around €6,000 and €40,000.

Moreover, the new enactment establishes the specific measures which could be imposed by a court of law or, in certain cases, by the National Council for Combating Discrimination, to the extent that it is decided that an act of moral harassment at the workplace was committed:

the obligation of the employer to pay to the employee an amount which is equal to the salary rights which were not granted to him or her;

the obligation of the employer to pay to the employee damage compensation and moral damages;

the obligation of the employer to modify the disciplinary entries regarding the employee.

With respect to the amendments brought to Law No. 202/2002, article 6 of said enactment was supplemented by means of introducing the prohibition of moral harassment based on sex, the provisions of Government Ordinance No. 137 being applicable also for such cases, accordingly.

The National Council for Combating Discrimination is the competent national authority active in the field of discrimination that guarantees compliance with, and the enforcement of, the non-discrimination principle, in accordance with the national and international legislation. The Council is an autonomous state authority, under parliamentary control, which performs its activity in the field of discrimination, combining 14 discrimination criteria, including sanctioning. It was established pursuant to the adoption of Government Ordinance No. 137 and Government Decision No. 1194 of 2001 on the organization and functioning of the Council. The Steering Board of the Council is a collective and deliberative body that takes responsibility for the tasks provided by law. The Steering Board is made up of nine members having the rank of Secretary of State, appointed by the plenary session by the two Chambers of the Parliament.

With regard to litigation, the Council intervenes before the courts and formally decides on complaints, for example through decisions or recommendations addressed to the parties. Council decisions are legally binding on the parties involved, subject to the appeal rights.

Government Ordinance No. 137 regulates the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination and implements European Union (EU) Directive No. 43 of 2000, implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, as well as Directive No. 78 of 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Government Ordinance No. 137 protects all individuals, regardless of their status. It contains detailed provisions on discrimination, harassment and victimization, and it sets down the sanctions applicable in case legal provisions are breached.

The following paragraphs extend the definition of discrimination to instruction to discriminate, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimization. According to this Ordinance, the elimination of all forms of discrimination is achieved by: prevention through instituting special measures of protection for disadvantaged persons who do not enjoy equal opportunities; mediation for the amicable resolution of conflicts arising from committing acts/deeds of discrimination; and sanctioning discriminatory behaviour.

For example, I will present a case of discrimination against the union and union members that went through all of the steps of the legal process. At the end of 2014, shortly after an airline company received a notification regarding the existence of the cabin crew union “Aerolimit Professional”, the union leader was dismissed and, soon after, there followed the dismissal of another 19 members of the union, whose posts were abolished. On 19 March 2015, the court ruled that the President of the union had been unlawfully dismissed and ordered the company to reinstate him. The company chose not to respect the court decision and refused to put him into active duty under the pretext of a safety investigation by the competent national aviation authority. This argument was later dismissed by the authority itself.

On 12 May 2015, the court decided that the submission aiming at the dissolution of the trade union was unlawful and the “Aerolimit Professional” union was entitled to represent cabin crew members in the company. On 3 July 2015, the National Council for Combating Discrimination found the company guilty of dismissing 19 staff members due to their union affiliation and stated that the termination of the contracts of employment was discriminatory and had the intention to stop the union movement.

By Decision No. 260 of 2015, the National Council for Combating Discrimination decided the following:

The communication expressing disagreement with regard to the establishment of the union is an act of discrimination according to article 2, paragraphs 1 and 5, in conjunction with article 7 of Government Ordinance No. 137.

The termination of the employment contracts of the persons associated with the newly formed union represents discrimination.

The discrimination was aimed at stopping the trade union movement, which is an extremely serious act.

The Council decided also to apply a fine of 25,000 lei (approximately €5,500) of which 5,000 lei for expressing disagreement with regard to the establishment of the union and 20,000 lei for terminating the employment contracts of persons associated with the newly formed union.

In addition to the sanction applied, the Steering Board of the Council ordered the defendant to communicate the summary of this decision in the national media and in its own publication which is distributed to travellers.

On 16 July 2015, the court decided the reinstatement of the cabin crew members dismissed by the company. The court considered that the termination of the employment contracts of all the dismissed workers in this case to be unlawful and ordered the company to reinstate them into their former positions. Furthermore, the company was obliged to repay the workers their salaries from the date of dismissal until reinstatement. Each plaintiff was also entitled to compensation of approximately €1,130.

On 7 March 2019, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, having as object the annulment of the administrative act of the National Council for Combating Discrimination decided to reject the appeal filed by the plaintiff company as unfounded. The decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice was definitive.

On 9 December 2020, the court approved the forced execution based on the executory title represented by the decision pronounced by the National Council for Combating Discrimination, and confirmed by the decision of the court. It also upheld the decision pronounced by the National Council for Combating Discrimination, as confirmed by the final decision pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, forcing the company to publish the summary of this decision in the national media and in its own publication distributed to passengers according to article 26, paragraph 2, of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000.

Worker members – We thank the Government for the information provided, but we wish to refocus today’s discussion on the heart of the matter, which is addressed in the report of the Committee of Experts. Romania has been the subject for many years of persistent comments concerning the application of the Convention. I recall that our Committee examined this case at its session in 2011. The problems raised then are similar to those that we are discussing today and the fears expressed then have become real. The situation has deteriorated so much that the unions had to lodge a complaint with the Committee on Freedom of Association in 2018.

A process of reform has indeed been initiated, but it now seems to be under serious threat. I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to three aspects.

First, as noted by the Committee of Experts in its report, Romanian legislation does not provide effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Government has provided the Committee with written information on this subject. On the one hand, it is clear that the amendment made in 2020 does not cover acts of anti-union discrimination, as this ground is not specified. Moreover, the Government’s comment relating to section 260 of the Labour Code does not permit verification of the extent to which this provision is effective and sufficiently dissuasive. The Government has therefore not demonstrated how its legislation is sufficiently protective against acts of anti-union discrimination, and that the protection is sufficiently dissuasive and effective.

The second issue relates to representativeness. By way of a general comment, the Government indicates in its written information that the regulation of social dialogue in the country suffers from a lack of cooperation between the parties. It must nevertheless be recalled that the Government also bears significant responsibility for the creation of an enabling environment for social dialogue. This is covered by the objective of Article 4 of the Convention, which calls for appropriate measures to be taken to encourage and promote collective bargaining. It is useful to recall that Article 5(d) of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), which has been ratified by Romania, specifies that the aims of the measures taken in this context shall include that “collective bargaining should not be hampered by the absence of rules governing the procedure to be used or by the inadequacy or inappropriateness of such rules”.

With more specific reference to the issue of representativeness, the Romanian legislation that is currently in force is based on the principle of exclusive bargaining. In other words, only the organization with membership covering over half of the workers in the enterprise can negotiate agreements erga omnes on behalf of all the workers. In the absence of such an organization, it is the elected representatives who carry out the negotiation, to the detriment of minority unions which can only bargain on behalf of their own members.

The system of exclusive bargaining is not in itself contrary to ILO standards. What raises more problems is the recourse to elected workers and its consequences. This gives rise to several comments. In the first place, we recall that the Convention guarantees the right to collective bargaining for workers’ organizations, I repeat, workers’ organizations.

Moreover, both Convention No. 154 and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), which has also been ratified by Romania, specify without any ambiguity that the existence of elected representatives shall not be used to undermine the position of workers’ organizations. The system of workers’ representatives was designed as a subsidiary procedure to workers’ organizations, and not to replace them. The information provided by the Government shows that, following a change made in 2016, collective bargaining through elected representatives is only possible in enterprises without a representative union.

However, in view of the required representativeness threshold, namely 50 per cent plus one, that means in practice that in most enterprises bargaining is carried out by elected representatives instead of the unions that do not attain this threshold. These representatives therefore act as exclusive negotiators. However, a coherent reading of ILO instruments only allows the application of the mechanism of exclusive negotiator between trade unions. Indeed, the extension of this role to representatives would place them in an advantageous position in relation to trade unions, and weaken the latter.

The Government explains that nothing prevents trade unions from negotiating on behalf of their members at the enterprise level, but that, in view of their lack of representativeness, the agreements concluded are not erga omnes. On the one hand, as indicated above, this practice is likely to weaken trade unions. And, on the other hand, questions arise as to the value of a union negotiating in an enterprise solely on behalf of its own members, with the resulting inequalities of treatment. Moreover, the procedure for the election of representatives also raises problems, as the legislation does not allow trade unions to submit lists when they are affiliated to a federation at the branch level. In addition, the process is organized by the employer, without the possibility for the unions to verify its transparency.

If, as it claims, the Government wishes to combat the lack of cooperation between organizations and strengthen their representativeness, there are certainly other ways of doing so that are more appropriate and more respectful of trade union pluralism. This issue must also be seen in relation to the conditions determined for the establishment of a union at the enterprise level, which create the requirement for over 15 workers. In so doing, the legislation deprives a significant proportion of workers of the right to organize and to bargain collectively through their organizations. Moreover, contrary to the Government’s indications, trade unions are indeed seeking dialogue at the national level. Indeed, even supposing that one of the parties is not seeking dialogue, it is still the responsibilty of the Government to promote and encourage negotiation at all levels, in accordance with the Convention.

I would like to conclude by referring to one final aspect. The Government appears to consider the fact that bargaining at the enterprise level has come to prevail over other levels as a sort of destiny that can only be accepted. We would suggest another interpretation: there is no destiny in this respect. It is merely the consequence of institutional and political choices. Other choices and options would certainly lead to other more virtuous and desirable results.

Employer members – The Employer members wish to thank the Government for its comments and statements today. Romania ratified the Convention in 1958. Today is the second occasion since 2011 on which our Committee has examined the application of this Convention in law and in practice by Romania.

The first comment by the Committee of Experts relates to acts of anti-union dscrimination, and accordingly to protection against such acts. The Committee of Experts requests the Government to take the necessary measures, on the basis of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention, so that acts of anti-union discrimination and interference are subject to effective sanctions. In its written information provided on 21 May 2021, the Govenment specified the following elements.

With regard to specific and dissuasive sanctions, a fine of between 1,000 and 20,000 lei is envisaged for any act of direct or indirect discrimination against an employee on the grounds of trade union membership or activities. We welcome the legislative changes made in 2020, following consultations with the social partners, which now punish those responsible for harassment or intimidation at work, including with fines of up to eight times gross monthly wages. Acts of violence and intimidation directed at trade union leaders are considered to be crimes.

With regard to the burden of proof when the legality of a decision to dismiss an employee holding elected trade union office is challenged, the complainant may turn to the National Council for Combating Discrimination. Persons who consider that they have suffered discrimination have to present facts on the basis of which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, and the person against whom the complaint is made has the burden of proving that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment.

In 2020, the powers of the National Council for Combating Discrimination were strengthened as the national authority responsible for prevention, monitoring, assistance and mediation, and the punishment of discrimination, and particularly anti-union discrimination.

The complainant may also make a claim before a court, which will examine whether there is any connection between the reason indicated for dismissal and the fulfilment of the trade union office. Once again, it is the employer who is legally responsible for proving that the dismissal is lawful.

The Employer members note the progress made by the Government in taking effective measures to combat acts of anti-union discrimination, as there are now appropriate procedures and dissuasive sanctions. Nevertheless, the Employer members wish to emphasize that the reversal of the burden of proof is not required by the Convention. Nor does the Convention require the establishment of specific sanctions for acts of discrimination on the basis of trade union beliefs: the Convention requires adequate protection against such acts.

With reference to preventive measures, the Employer members consider that it is for the unions to raise the issue with the Government if they observe that no action is taken against anti-union practices. On the basis of specific and well-founded allegations, such cases should be subject to tripartite discussion.

The second series of issues concerning which the Committee of Experts raises questions for the Government concern obstacles to the freedom of certain workers’ organizations to engage in collective bargaining for the conclusion of collective agreements at the enterprise level, including the representativeness criteria for workers’ organizations at the enterprise level.

According to the Government, the national legislation is in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. The Social Dialogue Act promotes voluntary negotiation within the meaning of ILO Conventions Nos 98 and 154, not only at the enterprise level, but also at the sectoral and national levels. All legally constituted trade unions have the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements on behalf of their members with the employer or with employers’ organizations. This is confirmed by section 153 of the Social Dialogue Act, under the terms of which, and I translate freely: “In accordance with the principle of mutual recognition, any legally constituted trade union may conclude with an employer or an employers’ organization any type of agreements or accords, in writing, establishing the rules for the parties and the provisions of which are only applicable to the members of the signatory organizations.”

The Employer members emphasize that the Convention covers procedures for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between employers and employers’ organizations, on the one hand, and workers’ organizations, on the other. The Convention does not therefore cover any negotiations with workers’ representatives elected within the enterprise. Accordingly, if agreements are concluded with such representatives, they fall outside the scope of the Convention.

With regard to the coverage rate of collective agreements which, according to Eurofound, fell from 100 per cent in 2010 to around 15 per cent in 2017, the Government indicates that these figures only take into account the number of employees covered by collective agreements concluded in units with over 21 employees, and that this coverage rate does not take into account voluntary collective agreements, which are only applicable to the members of the signatory organizations.

The Employer members observe that sectoral social dialogue is not yet fully structured. There are currently only 29 branch dialogue structures, which does not therefore cover all economic activities. This certainly explains why the predominant level of bargaining is currently at the enterprise level. Another reason for the decrease in collective bargaining may be a result of the fact that the national labour legislation already regulates working conditions down to the smallest details, which leaves little room for negotiations between the partners. The Employer members therefore encourage the Romanian authorities to make the labour legislation more flexible, precisely so that the social partners have the necessary space to enter into negotiations and conclude balanced collective agreements.

With reference to the current criterion for the representativeness of a trade union in the enterprise (50 per cent of workers plus one), the Employer members consider that it does not necessarily have to be changed as collective agreements are applicable erga omnes. Moreover, it appears that minority unions can form a coalition, on condition that they are defending a uniform position, and in so doing can together achieve the representativeness threshold. Finally, as indicated above, on the basis of mutual recognition, any legally constituted trade union can negotiate a collective agreement which will only be applicable to its own members.

The Employer members support the Government’s efforts to further develop social dialogue, which necessarily involves improving the capacities of the social partners. For this purpose, the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, supported financially by the European Union for the years 2021 to 2027, as well as programmes for the exchange of good practices in the context of European social dialogue, will play a major role.

The third issue on which the Committee of Experts raises questions concerns the public sector. According to the Government, the legislative process has just been initiated in 2021 for the revision of the Law on the remuneration of public sector employees. Tripartite consultations have also been organized.

The Employer members welcome the fact that the situation in Romania is being brought into conformity with the Convention, as this Convention also covers public employees who are not engaged in the administration of the State. However, the holding of tripartite discussions does not challenge in any way the principle that the salaries of these public employees are determined by law.

By way of conclusion, the Employer members encourage the Government authorities to promote bipartite social dialogue and to intensify their consultations with representative organizations of employers and workers, if legislative amendments are envisaged in future in relation to social dialogue. Such consultations have already borne fruit, as ILO technical assistance and the proposals made by the social partners in relation to freedom of association, representativeness and collective bargaining have been included in the new Bill which is currently being examined by the Parliament.

Employer member, Romania – I would like to provide the views of Concordia, which is the most representative employers’ organization in Romania, on the Committee of Experts’ observation concerning the application of the Convention by Romania. Overall, we consider that Romania is compliant with the Convention, and is ensuring the right to organize and adequate conditions for voluntary negotiations between employers or employer organizations and workers’ organizations.

First of all, I would like to stress that the Social Dialogue Act was adopted by the Parliament in 2011 after a large consultation with the social partners. The review of the legislation in the field of social dialogue has been debated with the social partners since 2006, and amendments to the laws on the development of the national social dialogue system were agreed upon between the Government and the social partners.

Social Dialogue Act No. 62/2011, and the Romania Labour Code, set forth trade unions’ rights and freedoms and protection in the exercise of trade union prerogatives, including against dismissal due to union reasons (articles 9 and 10) and dissuasive sanctions in enforcement (articles 217 and 218), complemented by provisions of the common and labour law which provide for court rulings on disputes from the conclusion, amendment, performance or termination of individual or collective employment agreements with the possibility to claim compensation.

Effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference is ensured not only by Act No. 62/2011, but also by other legal acts, such as article 5 of the Labour Code, which sets the non-discrimination principle in direct or indirect relation to union membership; or Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on preventing and sanctioning all forms of discrimination, which also includes discrimination based on union membership.

The Labour Code and related legislation, in particular Act No. 62/2011, guarantees the individual and collective right to association and affiliation and to carry out trade union activities and bans employees from waiving their rights (article 38 of the Labour Code). Nobody may be constrained or forced to become a union member, and the relationship between the trade union and its members is regulated by the trade unions’ own by-laws.

Also, with a view to guaranteeing employees’ protection in the exercise of their rights, the Labour Code provides for the employer’s obligation to justify dismissal decisions or modifications of the labour relation. Within collective agreements, trade unions may negotiate specific protection measures for union members and management, as well as clauses on labour dispute resolution.

In order to protect union members and not to deter organization, the legal and administrative actions provided by law are solely based on statements provided by the union on the number of company employees as union members.

Regarding representativeness criteria and the coverage of collective bargaining: 100 per cent coverage before 2011 was achieved through collective agreements at the national level (with erga omnes effects) which created an artificial sense of strong social dialogue. Its elimination, in line with international best practice and freedom of association and voluntary negotiation, gave more room for collective bargaining at the company level. This is also linked to the bigger picture of the social dialogue landscape in Romania, where negotiations at the sectoral level are less attractive as an addition to company-level negotiations. Only a small number of economic sectors are defined by law (meaning 29) and they do not reflect the realities of the economic landscape. Moreover, every aspect related to labour conditions and relations is regulated in detail in Romania, leaving not much space for the social partners to negotiate. For instance, the minimum salary is statutory, with 100 per cent coverage.

It should also be noted that the current provisions of article 129 of Act No. 62 of 2011, setting compulsory collective bargaining at company level, are actually in conflict with the Convention as regards the freedom of the parties to establish the level of collective negotiations.

The unions also claim that the 2018 proposed amendments to Social Dialogue Act No. 62 were not consulted with the representative trade unions. However, there were extensive consultations in the Ministry for Social Dialogue at that time, for more than eight months, with both unions and employers sitting at the table. No law has been passed so far by the Government. The debate has moved to the Parliament, where both parties participated. The changes to Social Dialogue Act No. 62 are now in the final stage of approval.

Employer member, Germany – The Employer members note from the Government’s submission that there is a general decline of collective bargaining, determined by the actual changes in the world of work, which corresponds to similar developments also existing in other countries. Beyond that, we would like to point out that there may also be special reasons for the decline of collective bargaining in Romania.

Consideration should be given to the changing economic context in the country. The economic landscape has changed significantly since the 1990s and 2000s, in the sense that many large state-owned enterprises dominated by the big trade unions disappeared.

At the same time, the legal framework for social dialogue was further developed so that regulated compulsory collective bargaining at the national level was abolished in 2011. This was a necessary measure as an obligation to bargain at a particular level is not in line with the principle of “voluntary negotiation” as guaranteed by Article 4 of the Convention.

Labour regulation in Romania is still very detailed and strict, which reduces the room for collective bargaining. Currently, according to article 129 of the Social Dialogue Act, collective bargaining is still compulsory at the unit level. This situation reduces interest in collective bargaining at the sectoral level and it may also explain the high percentage of agreements concluded with elected workers’ representatives given the absence of workers’ organizations in most small and medium-sized enterprises.

Therefore, it is not possible to conclude from purely statistical data that the Government is generally not sufficiently promoting collective bargaining, as required by Article 4 of the Convention. However, if there is one measure that may be taken by the Government in this regard, it would be to introduce opening clauses in the law, in order to give more room for collective agreements between the social partners in line with the needs of their sector or their company.

Regarding the criterion of trade union representativeness, the Employers’ group would like to stress that this is required because of the erga omnes nature of the collective bargaining agreements. Due to the applicability of the agreements to all workers of the unit, it is necessary to define representativeness thresholds or other criteria to legitimize the trade union.

In addition, we would like to stress that, according to articles 134 and 135 of the Social Dialogue Act, in the absence of a representative union, a non-representative union can also participate in joint negotiations with workers’ representatives if it is affiliated to a representative sectoral trade union. Only if no trade union is established, the workers are represented just by their elected representatives.

It cannot be concluded that the Social Dialogue Act favours collective bargaining with workers’ representatives to the detriment of trade unions.

Employer member, Norway – At the outset, I would like to align myself with the intervention by the Employer spokesperson in this case. Furthermore, I would like to underscore that the Convention is a framework to ensure enabling conditions for social dialogue. However, the Convention cannot secure the success of the process or the outcome. An important element of successful social dialogue is the existence of trust between the social partners and that the partners involved both have the capacity needed.

The situation in Romania is improving and, as stated also by the Government, the country has a balanced legislation in place. On a personal note, I would like to inform you that my organization, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), and Concordia, one of the main employers’ organizations in Romania, at present are running a joint project precisely on social dialogue and how to improve the functioning of it.

When it comes to issue number one on protection against anti-union discrimination, it must be recalled that both the labour law and other parts of Romanian legislation deal with the issue. In other words, protection against such discrimination is ensured in the legislation.

As far as wage negotiations in the public sector are concerned, I would like to welcome the initiative referred to by the Government that it has been decided to start a process aimed at revising the law on civil servants’ remuneration. This is to ensure an improvement of the system.

Even though there are many positive developments in Romania today, the Government should be encouraged to intensify its consultations with the social partners in order to further improve social dialogue in the country.

Worker member, Germany – I am speaking on behalf of the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB), the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV), the General Confederation of Labour of Belgium (FGTB) and French workers. Reading the written statement of the Government to the Committee, one feels slightly reminded of the principle “divide and conquer”. New economies and forms of work, it is stated there, diminish the interest for unionization and collective bargaining.

The effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining is not only one of the four fundamental principles that ILO Members States have an obligation to respect, to promote and to realize, it also lies at the core of social dialogue and is reflected even in the tripartite nature of this Committee. Being able to speak as a collective is often the only factor that makes an individual worker’s voice heard. The picture of the flexible worker being her own entrepreneur that some like to paint is therefore essentially flawed.

The austerity measures adopted by Romania have, over the past decade, led to a severe deterioration of the collective bargaining landscape. The Social Dialogue Act adopted in 2011 has de facto eliminated collective bargaining at the sectoral and national levels. And bargaining at company level has become considerably more difficult. It is therefore no surprise that coverage has declined from almost 100 per cent in 2010 to only 15 per cent in 2017.

How can we conceive a “human-centred world of work” and strive for a “human-centred recovery” from the COVID-19 pandemic when the right to speak and negotiate collectively is so severely hampered?

Studies show that wages are lowest in Europe where collective bargaining is weakest. Romania is not only among the countries with the lowest, average and minimum wages; the current minimum wage levels also do not provide workers with an income that allows decent living. In-work poverty is among the highest in the EU, and affects one third of Romanian workers.

The situation in Romania has not only been criticized by the Committee of Experts, but also by the EU institutions. Under the European Semester, Romania has for years been receiving country-specific recommendations in relation to the very limited scope of social dialogue, the low minimum wages and the lack of objective criteria for setting the minimum wage.

We therefore call on the Government to immediately amend – in full consultation with the social partners – its legislation and bring it into line with the Convention.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union – I am speaking in the name of IndustriALL Global Union and would like to give the Committee a practical example from workers from an automotive component plant in Romania who decided to form a union in 2019. This is to illustrate how the Romanian labour legislation actively hinders the application of the Convention.

After the registration of the trade union at the auto plant, the first stumbling block is the verification process related to the representation of more than 50 per cent of the workforce. According to article 52(C)(c) of the Social Dialogue Act, the union not only has to prove the number of members in the plant to the competent labour court, but also has to provide a document on the total number of employees issued exclusively by the company. By relating the two figures, the court can then determine whether the 50+1 threshold is met and, as a consequence, whether the union qualifies for collective bargaining.

However, the same article 52(C)(c) obliges the union to submit the document from the company, but does not oblige the company to issue this written declaration on the size of the workforce. So, it is very easy for the company to simply refuse without any sanctions, thus blocking the application of the Convention before any bargaining has even started.

In the concrete case, it required the intervention of IndustriALL Global Union, the mother company and our Global Framework Agreement to make the local Romanian management issue the required letter.

Also, it was noted that the company, which is not obliged to recognize and speak with the elected trade union representatives, persistently continued to treat the local trade union leader as a simple employee representative (her/his former status). When collective bargaining finally started, the company used two other particularities of the Romanian labour law to the detriment of the union: article 129(5) to avoid any shorter period of collective bargaining than 60 days; and article 141 of the Social Dialogue Act, saying that only one collective agreement can be signed between the social partners in 12 months. Here the company prolonged the negotiations into the pre-Christmas period threatening the employees not to pay the usual Christmas bonus in case the union decided to go for industrial action. The union had to give in and finally signed a collective agreement including a new pay agreement for 2020 at the end of 2020.

When the company invited the union for the wage negotiations for 2021 in March of that same year, the union could not exert any pressure on the company because according to article 161 of the Social Dialogue Act, the union could not open any industrial action and the wage agreement was simply an addendum to the existing collective agreement.

Due to time constraints, I have to stop here but I am sure it has become clearer to the Committee how the Romanian labour legislation prevents the proper application and implementation of the Convention.

Government representative – I welcome the numerous interventions that reflected a diversity of opinion and views on how the various parties should interact, brief one another and provide a useful basis for consideration. The Romanian Government stands ready to continue to work closely with the ILO and the social partners to find the best way forward to the benefit of all economically active persons and to ensure that their rights are well protected and represented.

Employer members – The Employer members have taken due note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. Our principal recommendation to the Goverment authorities is to further promote bipartite social dialogue, and to intensify its consultations with representative organizations of employers and workers, if legislative amendments are envisaged in relation to social dialogue.

With a view to improving effective protection against anti-union discrimination, and further promoting collective bargaining, several pathways to improvement are proposed.

First pathway, in relation to anti-union discrimination, it is important for the Government to provide detailed information on: the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference brought to the various competent authorities; the average duration of the respective procedures and their outcome; and the sanctions and remedies imposed in practice.

Second pathway, in order to promote collective bargaining and reverse the fall in the coverage rate, it appears to us to be important for the legislation to leave more room for bargaining and the conclusion of collective agreements by the social partners. They will be more motived to enter into bargaining with a view to the conclusion of balanced agreements, taking into account the needs of their sector or enterprise.

Third pathway, the efforts made recently to allow collective bargaining by public employees not engaged in the administration of the State should be continued.

The Employer members invite the Government to provide all this information in its next regular report on the Convention. I will conclude by pointing out that the mere fact of including in a law the requirement for the parties to associate will not create solid social dialogue. It is particularly necessary to reinforce the calls for the social partners to organize freely and to engage in free and independent bargaining.

Worker members – I first wish to thank those who have contributed to our discussion.

The Employer members have claimed that the Convention does not provide for the reversal of the burden of proof or that sanctions are necessary to protect against trade union discrimination. In their great wisdom, the drafters of the Convention considered it useful to speak of adequate protection. This term encompasses, among other matters, the reversal of the burden of proof and sanctions. In passing, that means that the most appropriate measures can be taken without entering into an over-detailed enumeration.

Nor do we share the assessment by the Employers that the current representativeness threshold should not be reviewed. Article 4 of the Convention does not specify the representativeness threshold. However, anything that prevents bargaining by trade unions is contrary to this Article. Representativeness thresholds that are too high, as they are in the present case, are not in conformity with the Convention.

Moreover, we cannot follow the Employer members in their claim that negotiations carried out by workers’ representatives are not covered by the Convention. The concept of collective bargaining within the meaning of the ILO is single and indivisible. There is not one type of bargaining for unions and another for the rest of humanity. This concept is the same, irrespective of who undertakes it on behalf of the workers. That is what is envisaged in Convention No. 98, Convention No. 135 and Convention No. 154, all of which have been ratified by Romania.

As I said in my introductory intervention, the industrial relations situation in Romania has not occurred by chance. It is the consequence of the backward steps taken in 2011 under pressure from the Troika. These changes resulted in the displacement of the centre of gravity of collective bargaining to the enterprise level.

As we have shown, the modification of the representativeness threshold at this level has had a heavy impact on trade unions. This impact can easily be measured by observing the collapse in the number of collective agreements concluded at the branch and national levels.

The right to collective bargaining guaranteed to trade unions by the Convention has also suffered from this new configuration. If proof is needed, over 92 per cent of the collective agreements concluded in the private sector have been negotiated by elected representatives. But, over and above the unions, this situation has also greatly fragilized the situation of workers as a whole, with over one third of them being paid at the rate of the minimum wage. Nor will I insist on the economic and social consequences implied by this pauperization, with a significant rise in emigration leading to shortages of workers in a series of sectors.

May I now recall the essential points for the Workers’ group. It is the Government’s responsibility to provide effective and dissuasive protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The issue of the representativeness threshold deserves particular attention, and in particular urgent action. On the one hand, it is crucial to review the representativeness threshold at the enterprise level. It is also necessary to review the procedure for the election of representatives so as to allow unions to submit lists in all situations and to ensure the transparency of the procedure. Finally, we call on the Government to promote and encourage collective bargaining at all levels, including the national level.

With a view to giving effect to these elements, we call on the Government to accept a high-level mission.

Chairperson – I would now like to consult the Employer and Worker spokespersons. The Worker member of Romania, who was not able to connect, has just managed to connect and would like to take the floor. Are the Employer and Worker spokespersons in agreement that we can exceptionally give him the floor?

(The two spokespersons indicate their agreement.)

Worker member, Romania – The Committee of Experts emphasizes in its report that, through its provisions, the Social Dialogue Act, adopted in 2011, establishes a minimum requirement of 15 founder members in the same enterprise/unit to establish a union.

It should be noted that this is an unsurmountable obstacle in a country where most employers are small and medium-sized enterprises, as they represent 92.5 per cent of all enterprises in Romania and have fewer than 15 employees. This requirement therefore denies the right to organize to over 2.2 million workers. The unions have indicated that, in order to be in conformity with the provisions of the Romanian Constitution (the Basic Law), the requirement should be 15 employees in the same enterprise or in several enterprises in the same field, thereby offering the possibility to establish a union even at the national sectoral level.

We recall that the law prohibits dismissed and retired workers from joining unions, if they so wish, even if they have participated in trade union activities. Those who have the right to establish and/or join a union are set out in section 3 of the Social Dialogue Act. The categories of persons referred to above are not explicitly included. The reference by the Government to section 32 of the Social Dialogue Act is not pertinent and does not respond to the question, as the statutes of trade unions are subject to control by the courts. As a consequence, section 32 does not apply ex ante, but only following the approval of the statutes by the court. Those who have been dismissed or who have retired can therefore only become members of unions if that is accepted by the courts.

I emphasize that, in accordance with the provisions of the Social Dialogue Act, as also noted by the Committee of Experts, daily workers, self-employed workers and workers engaged in atypical forms of employment, who account for around 25.5 per cent of the total active population in Romania, are not covered by the Act and cannot therefore exercise their trade union rights.

Most collective labour agreements, over 80 per cent of them, are now negotiated by the elected representatives of employees, because unions not considered to be representative do not have the right to negotiate on behalf of their own members. Although the amendment of the Act has been called for, in the sense that bargaining with non-unionized representatives of the employees should only be possible when there is no union at the respective bargaining level, no action has been taken.

In 2010, all collective agreements and accords were negotiated and concluded by unions, while in 2017 only 14 per cent of all the collective agreements concluded were negotiated by unions, with 86 per cent being negotiated by elected representatives of employees. Although the Convention establishes the right to collective bargaining for both workers’ organizations (unions), irrespective of their level, and for employers and their organizations, collective bargaining is carried out principally by non-unionized workers’ representatives, and not by unions.

The level of representativeness that allows participation in bargaining is 50 per cent plus one of the total number of employees, which has led to a drastic fall in the number of collective agreements concluded at the enterprise level. The requirement imposed for the conclusion of a sectoral collective agreement, namely only if the signatory organization represents at least 50 per cent plus one of the workers in the sector, has blocked collective bargaining at this level. These 2011 legislative provisions are not the outcome of agreement between the social partners, nor of public or parliamentary debate: they were adopted and introduced by law, by the Government.

The main consequences of these legislative changes are the following. First, the elimination of the single collective labour agreement at the national level, which was the principal source of law in the field of labour and industrial relations in Romania. Over 1.7 million workers, out of a total of around 5 million workers in the country, are paid at the level of the gross minimum wage established by the Government. More than 4 million workers have left Romania to find work abroad as a result of the precarity of labour relations.

Second, the insitution of collective bargaining in Romania has been dismantled and the role of unions in this institution has been weakened, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of Romania, the Basic Law (article 41(5)) which guarantees rights to collective bargaining.

I emphasize the gravity of the situation of industrial relations in Romania and of collective bargaining, which has been dismantled since 2011.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

Having examined the matter and taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion that followed, the Committee noted that there are significant compliance issues regarding the Convention in law and practice with respect to the protection against anti-union discrimination and the promotion of collective bargaining.

In this regard, the Committee requests the Government of Romania to:

• ensure adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in law and practice in compliance with the Convention;
• collect detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities; the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome; how the burden of proof is applied in such cases affecting trade union officers as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases;
• ensure, in law and practice, that collective bargaining with the representatives of non-unionized workers only takes place where there are no trade unions in place at the respective level; and
• amend the law so as to enable collective bargaining for public servants not engaged in the administration of the State in line with the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all of the above points to the Committee of Experts before its next session in 2021.

The Committee requests the Government to accept an ILO technical advisory mission before the next International Labour Conference.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2011, Publication: 100th ILC session (2011)

A Government representative assured the Committee of her Government’s commitment to improving the labour legislation and complying with international labour standards. She provided information on each of the points raised by the Committee of Experts. With regard to protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and the allegations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Government would organize a tripartite meeting with the social partners on the subject following the present session of the Conference. However, it should be noted that the national legislation was more favourable than the Convention, as it provided that negotiations were compulsory in enterprises with at least 21 employees and that, subject to agreement between the parties, negotiations could be held also in enterprises with less than 21 employees. Moreover, the legislation did not provide for the dismissal of trade union leaders in the case of an unlawful strike. With reference to the allegations made by the Block of National Trade Unions (BNS), the registration of collective labour agreements concluded at the enterprise level was the responsibility of the local administration. However, the lack of training of the personnel responsible for social dialogue in relation to the techniques for the resolution of disputes concerning representative status for collective bargaining and the absence of an up-to-date database of representative trade unions at the enterprise level gave rise to problems. To limit their impact, amendments were made to the Act on labour inspection, so that the registration of collective agreements concluded at the enterprise level now was carried out by the regional labour inspection services. With reference to the sanctions imposed in the case of restrictions on trade union activities, the Government would provide information in its next report, taking into account the fact that they were within the competence of the labour inspectorate and the Ministry of Justice. The Government representative referred to two types of labour disputes: conflicts of interest, relating to collective bargaining and which were subject to conciliation, and disputes as to rights, which were resolved by the courts. In 2010, a total of 73 conflicts of interest had been registered, of which 71 had been submitted to conciliation, related to the refusal to commence the compulsory annual bargaining round, to sign the negotiated contract or differences that had not been resolved in the context of the negotiations. During the first quarter of 2011, some 24 labour disputes had been registered for the same reasons. With regard to the sanctions envisaged in the case of acts of interference and anti-union discrimination, she indicated that they had been set following consultations with the social partners, in accordance with the legal regime governing penalties and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their amount had been increased tenfold by the Social Dialogue Act. With respect to collective bargaining in the public budget sector, she considered that the exclusion of the determination of wages from bargaining was not in violation of the provisions of the Convention and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154). With reference to Case No. 2611, following the notification by the Ministry of Labour to the Court of Accounts recalling the obligation to negotiate a collective labour agreement, negotiations had commenced in February 2011 between that institution and the Legis union, and several working meetings had been held. Law No. 284/2010 on Unitary Salaries of Staff Paid from Public Funds, provided that the wage entitlements of such personnel, consisting of public officials and contractual employees, were not subject to collective bargaining, but were determined by law. She considered that this practice was not contrary to Article 6 of the Convention and made it possible to ensure equity and non-discrimination between contractual employees and public officials. Moreover, the system had been introduced at the request of representative unions at the national level with a view to eliminating inequalities and promoting employment in the private system. Finally, with reference to the modifications to the labour legislation, following long consultations with the social partners, the new Labour Code and the Social Dialogue Act had entered into force. The objective of the Labour Code was to introduce greater flexibility into industrial relations, in accordance with Romania’s European commitments. The Social Dialogue Act made collective bargaining more flexible, by reinforcing the role of the unions and of bargaining at the enterprise level, and was considered as the vector of wage and employment policy. The Act on the Status of Public Officials would also be revised to take into account the new Social Dialogue Act.

The Worker members recalled that the Government had agreed with the social partners to proceed to improve the labour legislation, including in relation to social dialogue. Even though the Committee of Experts, at its last session, had not received any information on the changes made to a number of laws, major reforms had taken place in January 2011. The main trade unions in Romania had requested a technical opinion from the ILO on the draft Labour Code and the Social Dialogue Act. That opinion, even though it had been issued outside the working framework of the supervisory bodies, constituted an excellent basis for work inasmuch as it identified a number of provisions which posed problems of conformity with the Convention. The reform of the Labour Code and of the Social Dialogue Act, which formed part of the reforms driven by the European Union and the IMF, had not been discussed with the social partners or been the subject of democratic debate and had been implemented without taking account of the ILO’s technical opinion. The reform not only constituted an attack on social dialogue, since the social partners had not been consulted on a subject which came well within their competence, but also dealt a damaging blow to collective bargaining. The purpose of the reform was to obtain a more flexible labour market, to be in step with European directives and attract foreign investors. That affected dismissals, employment contracts, working time, collective labour relations and the regulation of collective bargaining through new rules on representativeness. Thus, for example, collective bargaining would no longer be erga omnes but would be subject to criteria linked to the number of workers represented by the signatory organizations, and the negotiation of wages in the public sector would be according to parameters which were not open to negotiation. The Worker members emphasized that the pressure from financial institutions obliged States to engage in labour law reforms without proceeding with serious reforms of a macroeconomic nature. Social protection in the broad sense seemed to have become the only variable that could be used to save the economy and finances of States. The workers were not responsible for the crisis but it was they who had been paying the price for it over the last three years. Governments had to make choices that maintained the balance between a healthy economy and protection of the population (which included the quality of work and social protection) in order to preserve social cohesion. The Worker members recalled the working paper presented at the symposium celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Convention, which emphasized, in connection with the impact of stabilization and structural adjustment policies on wage fixing and conditions of work, that such restrictions should be applied as an exceptional measure, be limited to what was necessary, not exceed a reasonable period of time, and be accompanied by appropriate guarantees to provide effective protection of the standard of living of the workers concerned, especially those who were likely to be affected the most. Any reform of the legislation on conditions of work and collective bargaining that failed to respect those criteria and was conducted outside the process of democratic consultation of the social partners and Parliament, should immediately be declared unconstitutional. Consequently, the reform of the legislation conducted in Romania should be reviewed with the competent departments of the ILO regarding its conformity with the Convention, and the social partners and the ILO should assess whether the abovementioned criteria had been taken into account.

The Employer members recalled that this was the first time that the case had been examined by the Committee, although the individual case concerning the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), had been examined in 2007 and the Committee of Experts had made observations to the Government on Convention No. 98 in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2006, 2007 and 2009, as well as direct requests, the last of which had been in 2004. With regard to anti-union discrimination, they agreed with the Committee of Experts request for the Government to initiate discussions with the most representative social partners and to keep it informed of any developments in that respect. They added that it was appropriate to request the Government to provide its observations on a series of allegations made by the ITUC and the BNS. The request for statistical information was also appropriate. With regard to protection against acts of interference, they said that the conclusion of the Committee of Experts was premature in requesting an increase in the amount of sanctions, when information had not yet been received from the Government on the alleged anti-union discrimination. They emphasized that, before seeking to resolve the issue, it was necessary to wait for the information that the Government was to provide to the Committee of Experts. With reference to collective bargaining by public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, they recalled that the observation of the Committee of Experts referred to the analysis made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2611 and 2632. They added that the Government had indicated in its report that Law No. 330 on Unitary Salaries of Staff Paid from Public Funds had been adopted in 2009 and that it referred to all workers in the public sector, including public employees engaged in the administration of the State. They recalled that Article 6 of the Convention did not cover the situation of such employees, and that it was therefore a matter to be addressed within the context of Convention No. 154, which had also been ratified by Romania. They reaffirmed that workers in the service of the State should enjoy their right to collective bargaining subject to the limitations of each country and in accordance with the national situation. In conclusion, they indicated that the Committee of Experts had adopted the correct approach to the issue of the amendment of the national legislation. They specified that there should be tripartite revision of the system of compulsory bargaining in enterprises that had more than 21 workers.

The Worker member of Romania said that the Government had embarked on labour legislation reform taking account only of conditions imposed by the international financial institutions to tackle the crisis and ignoring the observations made by the social partners. Amendments to the Labour Code and the Social Dialogue Act had been adopted by Parliament under the direct responsibility of the Government, thereby preventing any democratic debate, which constituted an attack on social dialogue and the social partners. Furthermore, technical advice from the Office concerning the texts had not been taken into account. The speaker mentioned several provisions of the new Social Dialogue Act which ran contrary to the Convention, inter alia, by providing for the disappearance of collective contracts at sectoral and even national level; imposing levels of negotiation; establishing arbitrary criteria for representativeness, such as having to have local units in half the country’s departments or, in a particular enterprise, having to have a number of trade union members equivalent to at least a simple majority of the number of employees at that enterprise; and making the Government the competent authority to determine the sectors in which collective negotiations would take place, which reduced the social partners to a mere advisory role. In that regard, the Office had expressed the technical opinion that the criteria of representativeness would be difficult to meet and that, in the future, collective bargaining would mainly take place with workers’ representatives, thereby undermining trade unions that already existed at enterprises. Consequently, the Government should put an end to the serious violations of international labour Conventions that it had ratified, by ensuring that its legislation was in conformity with them. To that end, a direct contacts mission would be necessary.

The Employer member of Romania stated that as an employer representative who had participated in the process of revision of the Labour Code and of the Social Dialogue Act, he could attest that the Government might well have committed certain formal or procedural errors but had not in any case violated the Convention or other ratified Conventions. By the end of 2010, five trade union confederations and 13 employers’ confederations represented more than 60 per cent of the active population and over 90 per cent of enterprises. In view of such situation, the Government decided to revise the legislation to better reflect reality. In the course of five months of consultations, the social partners formulated proposals and the Government decided the final form of the legislation that set out concrete criteria for the determination of the representativeness of employers’ and workers’ organizations. Romanian employers were satisfied with the final legal text, all the more so as the negotiations were carried out in an appropriate legal framework. The speaker concluded by emphasizing that the employers did not share the trade unions’ views about the alleged violation of the Convention, and he called for moderate and balanced conclusions in this case.

The Worker member of France expressed his astonishment at the statements made by the Employer member of Romania and the Government representative, which gave the impression that all ILO standards were observed, while in reality the legislation adopted contained anti-union provisions. He emphasized that the bailing out of the international financial system had had repercussions on the finances of countries and that the resources allocated to education and social protection had been reduced. The case of Romania was of concern to the trade union movement, as it symbolized the trend that existed in Europe, which was harming the economic, political and social rights of workers and their representative organizations. The national debt could not in any case justify the imposition of the Labour Code by virtue of an exceptional procedure, without consulting workers’ organizations or any plenary discussion in Parliament. That was a serious violation of the spirit and letter of the Convention, which undermined the principles of collective bargaining, as well as other principles contained in other Conventions, with the aim of weakening workers. Such violations were tending to spread to other countries and the ILO needed to be attentive. It was therefore appropriate to invite the Government to accept a direct contacts mission with a view to bringing its legislation into conformity with the relevant international labour standards.

The Worker member of Hungary referred to the changes recently introduced with respect to the representativeness criteria required for engaging in enterprise-level collective bargaining and stated that the new criteria were not in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. Raising the threshold for collective bargaining would result in many trade unions being unable to engage in collective bargaining which would be carried out only by elected workers’ representatives for whom no representativeness criteria had been set. The Convention contained two essential aspects: action by public authorities to promote and develop collective bargaining; and free and voluntary negotiations which implied autonomy of the social partners. The new Romanian legislation on representativeness could not be seen as either promoting collective bargaining or respecting voluntary bargaining of autonomous partners. It was emphasized that collective bargaining was not a gift of public authorities to workers’ organizations, but rather a result of more than a one hundred years’ fight of the trade union movement. Recalling that collective bargaining was today universally recognized as a fundamental workers’ right, she stated that the new Romanian legislation was seriously weakening rather than promoting collective bargaining. She therefore urged the Government to take all appropriate measures, after meaningful consultations with the social partners and with the technical assistance of the ILO, in order to bring its legislation in line with the Convention.

The Government representative recalled that her Government was committed to improving the situation and had always been attentive to allegations and comments. The Government would keep this Committee informed of any legislative developments and would reply in detail to the points raised during the discussion. The crisis her country had gone through called for urgent legislative and administrative measures. The new legislation, which was adopted in the framework of a continuous and transparent tripartite social dialogue, offered certain flexibility and facilitated the adaptation of industrial relations to new socio-economic realities resulting from the crisis. By way of example, within one month from the adoption of the new Labour Code, 330,000 contracts of employment had been recorded as a result of labour inspection controls undertaken in the context of the fight against irregular employment. Those workers could, hereafter, enjoy the benefits of social protection. The speaker concluded by expressing the hope that the Government would continue to take advantage of the technical assistance of the Office and that it would pursue fruitful cooperation.

The Employer members said that they considered it appropriate to promote tripartite discussion with the main employers’ and workers’ organizations on controversial topics. It would be sensible to await the supplementary replies that the Government would send in its next report, so that the Committee of Experts could examine certain issues in more detail. They reminded the Government that it could request technical assistance from the ILO as regards amending national legislation on dispute settlement, collective agreements, trade unions, the status of public servants and other matters.

The Worker members reiterated that it was important that the Government accepted the idea of an urgent abrogation of the Labour Code and of the Social Dialogue Act, which had been adopted hastily, without consulting the social partners, and which were contrary to workers’ rights and collective bargaining. In the reform process, the tripartite partners should avail themselves of the technical opinion prepared by the ILO. This process should give rise to a new debate which should not only evaluate conformity with the Convention but should also analyse whether the restrictions introduced by the laws regarding contract of employment and collective bargaining were exceptional in nature; were limited to the extent that it was necessary; did not exceed a reasonable period; and were accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards. The Government had to accept the technical assistance of the ILO in the form of a high-level mission which could address all these issues with the effective participation of the social partners. In addition, the Government should provide, for the next session of the Committee of Experts, detailed information on any progress made.

The Worker member of France stated that the new Labour Code had not been the subject of consultations but had been imposed. The consultations to which the conclusions referred concerned texts of laws that had been adopted previously. Moreover, the possibility of bargaining collectively at the branch level had been suppressed, with bargaining now being limited to the enterprise level. The conclusions suggested progress that did not exist in reality.

The Chairperson indicated that he did not agree with the views of the Worker member of France. The conclusions reflected the discussion that had taken place in the Committee, the statements of the parties, as well as the requests made by the Committee.

The Worker member of France replied that, while the conclusions indeed included these three elements, they did not reflect the positions that he and the Worker member of Romania had expressed during the discussion.

The Government representative of Romania wished to specify that the social partners had participated in the development of the Labour Code. With regard to collective bargaining at the branch level, he emphasized that while the new legislation referred to collective bargaining at the sectoral level, this corresponded to the previous bargaining at the branch level.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative, and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning legislative restrictions on the scope of collective bargaining for public servants, including those who are not engaged in the administration of the State (such as teachers). In particular, it noted the exclusion from the scope of collective bargaining for these workers of subjects such as base salaries, pay increases, allowances and other staff entitlements which were fixed by law. In addition, Act No. 330/2009 on Unitary Salaries of Staff Paid from Public Funds stipulated that salaries were fixed exclusively by law and could not be negotiated. Finally, the Committee of Experts had been referring to the insufficiency of the fines imposed for acts of interference.

The Committee noted that the Government representative indicated that the limitation of the scope of collective bargaining in the public service and, in particular, the exclusion from it of the salary entitlements of public servants through Act No. 330/2009 on Unitary Salaries of Staff Paid from Public Funds, had been undertaken by the Government at the initiative of the national representative trade unions. Moreover, following a long series of consultations with the social partners, the new Labour Code just came into force with the aim of bringing flexibility to labour relations in conformity with the country’s European commitment and in response to the important economic constraints on the country. As regards the allegations of anti union discrimination made by the ITUC, she stated that the Government was going to organize a tripartite meeting after the International Labour Conference to discuss this matter. She stated that some problems being experienced by the Government were due to the lack of training of staff in social dialogue and the absence of an updated database of representative unions at each enterprise. As regards the insufficiency of relevant sanctions, she stated that the Law on Social Dialogue had increased the amount tenfold.

The Committee took note of the allegations of serious restrictions to the effective exercise of the right to collective bargaining within the context of a financial and economic crisis. It recalled the importance of the principle that restrictions on collective bargaining as part of a stabilization policy should be imposed only as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and they should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards. It expressed the firm hope that the Government would review the legislative measures recently taken, as well as those envisaged, with the technical assistance of the ILO and in full consultation with the social partners, with the aim of ensuring full respect for the abovementioned principle and to ensure that matters normally pertaining to conditions of work and employment were included in the scope of collective bargaining for those public service workers covered by the Convention.

The Committee requested the Government to submit all the pending matters for intensive tripartite dialogue and to provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts for its session in 2011, on the steps taken, as well as a copy of the relevant legislative texts so that it would be in a position to assess their conformity with the Convention. It further requested the Government to provide detailed information and statistics relating to the impact of the recent legislative changes on the application of the Convention. The Committee was awaiting the next report of the Committee of Experts so that it would be able to note substantial progress in the application of the Convention in the near future. The Committee welcomed the Government’s commitment to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Worker member of France stated that the new Labour Code had not been the subject of consultations but had been imposed. The consultations to which the conclusions referred concerned texts of laws that had been adopted previously. Moreover, the possibility of bargaining collectively at the branch level had been suppressed, with bargaining now being limited to the enterprise level. The conclusions suggested progress that did not exist in reality.

The Chairperson indicated that he did not agree with the views of the Worker member of France. The conclusions reflected the discussion that had taken place in the Committee, the statements of the parties, as well as the requests made by the Committee.

The Worker member of France replied that, while the conclusions indeed included these three elements, they did not reflect the positions that he and the Worker member of Romania had expressed during the discussion.

The Government representative of Romania wished to specify that the social partners had participated in the development of the Labour Code. With regard to collective bargaining at the branch level, he emphasized that while the new legislation referred to collective bargaining at the sectoral level, this corresponded to the previous bargaining at the branch level.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

Legislative reform. The Committee recalls that: (i) since 2012, it has been requesting the Government to amend the Social Dialogue Act of 2011 to ensure its conformity with the Convention; (ii) the application of the Convention gave rise, in 2021, to a discussion before the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (hereinafter the Conference Committee); (iii) at the request of the Conference Committee, a technical assistance mission was conducted in May 2022, at the end of which the Office, at the request of the Government, prepared a technical memorandum concerning the draft reform of the Social Dialogue Act.

The Committee notes with satisfaction that Act No. 367/2022 on social dialogue was promulgated on 19 December 2022 and that, particularly with regard to the promotion of collective bargaining in the private sector, the Act took into consideration many comments and recommendations made by the Committee of Experts, the Conference Committee and the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) with respect to Case No. 3323.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that, for several years, it has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the penalties applicable in cases of anti-union discrimination and interference, to ensure that they are sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the legislative amendments made by Act No. 367/2022 and by Act No. 283/2022 which revises several provisions of the Labour Code. The Committee notes in particular that: (i) Act No. 283/2022 incorporates into sections 5 and 6 of the Labour Code provisions that protect workers, including trade union representatives, against any reprisals following actions to defend rights; fines between 4,000 Romanian New Lei (RON) and RON8,000 (equivalent to between US$220 and US$880) may be imposed; (ii) similarly, Act No. 367/2022 prohibits any discrimination based on trade union membership or activity, and also prohibits any anti-union acts, including dismissal, and provides for the protection of trade union representatives and elected representatives against any act intended to prevent them from exercising their representation mandate; and (iii) section 175 of Act No. 367/2022 establishes fines of between RON30,000 and RON50,000 (between US$6,600 and US$11,000) for anti-union acts. The Committee also notes the detailed information of the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) on its mandate, its activities, and the penalties that it is authorized to impose, including fines of between RON1,000 and RON30,000 (between US$220 and US$6,600) for discrimination against individuals and between RON2,000 and RON100,000 (between US$440 and US$22,000) for discrimination against a group of persons or a community. The CNCD adds that, between 2019 and 2022: (i) it examined 39 complaints of anti-union discrimination; (ii) in nine cases, discrimination was determined, leading to six warnings and three fines (RON2,000 (US$440), RON4,000 (US$660), and RON10,000 (US$2,200), respectively); and (iii) four of the nine decisions were appealed before the courts.

The Committee notes these various elements. While welcoming the increase in the fines established by Act No. 367/2022, which revised the Social Dialogue Act of 2011 (an increase of over 50 per cent from which, however, the effects of inflation should be deducted), the Committee notes at the same time that: (i) the only information on the imposition of fines concerns small fines levied in three cases by the CNCD, and no details were provided on any decisions taken by the labour inspectorate or the courts; and (ii) the Government did not indicate, as had been requested, whether the competent authorities have the possibility to order the reinstatement of persons dismissed for their trade union activities. Recalling the importance of being able to apply dissuasive penalties through effective procedures for cases of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) provide information on the application in practice of the penalties established by section 175 of Act No. 367/2022; (ii) specify whether reinstatement is a possible penalty in cases of dismissalbased on trade union affiliation or activity; and (iii) provide full information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference brought before the various competent authorities (the labour inspectorate, the courts and the CNCD), the average duration of proceedings and the type of decisions taken.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining at the enterprise level. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, further to its previous comments, Act No. 367/2022 has: (i) strengthened the key role of trade union organizations by providing that elected staff representatives may only negotiate collective agreements in the complete absence of trade union organizations in the enterprise (sections 57, 58 and 102 of the Act); (ii) lowered from 50 per cent to 35 per cent the proportion of affiliated workers in an enterprise required in order for a trade union to be considered representative (section 54); and (iii) provided for various arrangements (section 102) to allow for bargaining with workers’ organizations if no trade union reaches the aforementioned representativeness threshold in the enterprise (in particular through the participation of representative federations or confederations at the sectoral or national level, to which the enterprise trade union would be affiliated or, in the absence of such organizations, by allowing for joint bargaining by all trade unions present in the enterprise). The Committee further notes the extension of the obligation to bargain to enterprises with between ten and 20 workers (section 97).

Promotion of collective bargaining at the sectoral and national levels. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, further to its previous comments, Act No. 367/2022 (section 54): (i) reduces from 7 per cent to 5 per cent the percentage of affiliated workers in a sector of activity required in order for a trade union federation to be considered representative; (ii) provides that, if a trade union organization does not reach this threshold in the sector concerned, a representative confederation at the national level may bargain on behalf of its members in that sector; and (iii) explicitly provides for the possibility of negotiating agreements at the national level (section 102). The Committee adds that the Act contains various additional measures aimed at promoting collective bargaining and increasing its coverage: (i) the redefinition of sectors of economic activity to facilitate collective bargaining within them; (ii) the establishment of a procedure to extend sectoral and national collective agreements beyond their signatories; and (iii) the creation of an obligation to bargain at the sectoral level.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation in practice of the various provisions referred to above which are aimed at promoting collective bargaining at all levels, by providing, in particular, detailed information on: (i) the number and level of collective agreements concluded, the sectors concerned and the level of coverage of collective bargaining, distinguishing the contribution of each level of negotiation; and (ii) the respective proportion of agreements concluded by trade union organizations and by elected workers’ representatives at the enterprise level.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining with public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee recalls the 2021 conclusions of the Conference Committee on collective bargaining in the public sector, and its 2019 comments concerning the need for wages to be included in the scope of the collective bargaining for all public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes the Government’s indication regarding the provisions of section 105 of Act No. 367/2022 on staff paid from the state budget, according to which: (i) collective agreements cannot contain clauses regarding wage entitlements of which the granting and amount are established by the legislation in force; (ii) collective labour agreements may, nevertheless, provide for bargaining after the approval of the income and expenditure budgets of the respective units, within the limits and under the conditions established by the latter; and (iii) where wage entitlements are set in special laws between minimum and maximum limits, the concrete wage entitlements are determined by collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to specify: (i) the different categories of public sector workers covered by section 105 of Act No. 367/2022; and (ii) the content and scope of financial negotiations for employees paid by the State to which the aforementioned provision refers.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation(ITUC) received on 1 September 2022 concerning, on the one hand, the matters examined by the Committee in its previous comments and, on the other, allegations of anti-union dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

The Committee notes that, according to publicly available information, on 23 November 2022 the Chamber of Deputies adopted a reform of the Social Dialogue Act (SDA) of 2011, which was transmitted to the President of the Republic for promulgation. The Committee notes in this respect that: (i) it has made comments since 2012 on the need to revise the SDA; (ii) the technical advisory mission carried out in May 2022 following the 2021 conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (the Conference Committee) was informed of the ongoing reform process and exchanged views on it with the national tripartite constituents; and (iii) at the request of the Government, the draft reform was the subject of technical comments by the Office in October 2022. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Government has availed itself of the technical assistance of the Office in the ongoing legislative reform and requests the Government to provide a copy of the law as soon as it is promulgated. The Committee hopes that its content will take into account the comments it made on the SDA.

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received and is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments. Observing that the technical advisory mission covered the various aspects examined by the Committee and the Conference Committee with regard to the application of the Convention, the Committee invites the Government to take into account the points raised by the mission in the preparation of its next report.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 109th Session, June 2021)

The Committee notes the discussion which took place in June 2021 in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (the Conference Committee) concerning the application of the Convention by Romania. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee, after noting that there were significant compliance issues regarding the Convention in law and practice with respect to the protection against anti-union discrimination and the promotion of collective bargaining, requested the Government to: (i) ensure adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in law and practice in compliance with the Convention; (ii) collect detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities; the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome; how the burden of proof is applied in such cases affecting trade union officers as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases; (iii) ensure, in law and practice, that collective bargaining with the representatives of non-unionized workers only takes place where there are no trade unions in place at the respective level; and (iv) amend the law so as to enable collective bargaining for public servants not engaged in the administration of the State in line with the Convention. The Conference Committee also requested the Government to: (i) provide information on all of the above points to the Committee of Experts before its next session in 2021; and (ii) accept an ILO technical advisory mission before the next International Labour Conference.

The Committee observes that in its report the Government essentially reiterates the information already provided to the Conference Committee.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to: (i) take measures to amend the legislation in order to guarantee that acts of anti-union discrimination are subject to specific and dissuasive sanctions; (ii) indicate how the burden of proof is placed in cases of allegations of anti-union discrimination affecting trade union officers; (iii) provide detailed statistical information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities, the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome, as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases; and (iv) ensure that anti-union practices, and in particular preventive measures, would be subject to tripartite discussions. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that, following consultations with the social partners, the Labour Code was amended in 2020 by Law 151/2020 to ensure a proper recognition of harassment, intimidation and victimization of employees and their representatives, including in the exercise of legitimate trade union rights and activities, with dissuasive sanctions applied effectively. It indicates that: (i) section 5, paragraph 2 of the Labour Code, as amended, explicitly prohibits direct or indirect discrimination based on membership or trade union activity; (ii) section 59(a) of the Labour Code was amended to explicitly prohibit dismissal based on trade union affiliation or activity; and (iii) section 260(1)(r) of the Labour Code, as amended, provides that non-compliance with the provisions of section 5, paragraphs (2)–(9), and of section 59(a) is sanctioned with fines between 1,000 LEI and 20,000 LEI (equivalent to US$229 and US$4,575 respectively). Regarding the burden of proof in cases of union discrimination against union leaders, the Government indicates that, as provided for in section 272 of the Labour Code, the burden of proof with regard to labour disputes rests with the employer. The Committee notes that in the ITUC’s view, section 260 of the Labour Code does not permit verification of the extent to which the legislation is effective and sufficiently dissuasive. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s indication that no fines were applied for violations of the law related to union membership or activity between January 2020 and April 2021. The Committee finally notes that, at the discussion held at the Conference Committee, the Government indicated that the Ministry of Justice manages the courts databases and that data is collected with a particular nomenclature that did not allow the Government to identify the type of statistical information requested by the Committee.

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. As regards sanctions, the Committee recalls the importance of legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination to be accompanied by dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. In this respect, the Committee considers that the amount of the fines established in the Labour Code might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises. The Committee also recalls that, with respect to anti-union dismissals the reinstatement with retroactive compensation constitutes, in the absence of preventive measures, the most effective remedy. The Committee finally recalls the importance of statistical information for the Government to fulfil its obligation to prevent, monitor and sanction acts of anti-union discrimination. Based on the above, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) take measures, after consultation with the representative social partners, to strengthen the existing sanctions in cases of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their effectiveness and dissuasiveness, particularly for large enterprises; (ii) indicate whether reinstatement is an available remedy in cases of dismissal based on trade union affiliation or activity; and (iii) gather and communicate information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities, the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome, as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases. As mentioned in its previous comments, the Committee further requests the Government to ensure that anti-union practices, and in particular preventive measures in this respect, will be subject to tripartite discussions.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee notes that Case No. 3323 concerning, inter alia, allegations of shortcomings and gaps in the national legislation with respect to collective bargaining was examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) (393rd Report, March 2021). The Committee notes that the CFA referred to it the legislative aspects of the case, related to issues that have been the subject of comments by this Committee since the adoption of the Social Dialogue Act (SDA) in 2011.

Collective bargaining at the company level. In its previous comments, against the background of a sharp decline in collective bargaining coverage in the country following the adoption of the SDA, the Committee noted that a number of aspects of the SDA and its implementation raised issues of compatibility with the Convention. The Committee noted in particular the high representativeness threshold required to negotiate at company level (50 per cent plus one of the workers of the company) and the fact that the SDA allowed elected workers’ representatives to bargain collectively for the totality of workers of the company. In its last comment, while noting the Government’s indication that, following a 2016 amendment to section 134.2 of the law, negotiation with elected workers’ representatives was now only possible in the absence of a trade union, the Committee had noted with concern the statistical data provided by the ITUC according to which 86 per cent of all collective agreements signed were by elected workers’ representatives and only 14 per cent by trade unions. On that basis, the Committee had requested the Government to amend the threshold applicable to negotiations at the company level so as to effectively promote collective bargaining, to clarify whether the negotiating powers granted to the elected workers’ representatives existed only when there is no trade union and to provide its comments on the statistics provided by the ITUC.

As regards the representativeness thresholds established by the legislation with respect to collective bargaining at the company level, the Committee notes that, in its replies to the CFA, the Government clarified that voluntary bargaining is not conditioned by the representativity of the organizations since minority unions have the right to bargain collectively based on mutual recognition and can conclude collective agreements applicable to members of the signatory parties. The Committee notes the ITUC observations in this respect, according to which, while the Government states that nothing prevents trade unions from negotiating for their members at the company level, given their lack of representativeness, the agreements reached have no erga omnes effect. With regard to the impact of negotiations conducted by elected workers’ representatives on the right to collective bargaining recognized by the Convention to trade unions, the Committee notes that the Government refers to a draft revision of the SDA currently being adopted but does not comment on the ITUC’s observations that the vast majority of company collective agreements were still signed by elected workers’ representatives to the detriment of trade unions. The Committee notes in this respect that, in its 2021 observations, the ITUC adds that: (i) while the Government states that collective bargaining through elected representatives is only possible in companies that do not have a representative union, the fact that the required representativeness threshold is 50 per cent plus one means in practice that in the majority of companies it is the elected representatives who negotiate instead of the unions who do not reach that threshold; (ii) elected representatives have concluded over 92 per cent of collective agreements in the private sector; and (iii) the procedure for electing representatives does not allow trade unions to present lists when they are affiliated to a federation at the branch level.

The Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, collective bargaining with non-union actors should only be possible when there are no trade unions at the respective level. The Committee also recalls that, by virtue of Article 4 of the Convention, the Government has the obligation to effectively promote free and voluntary collective bargaining in a manner appropriate to national conditions. Expressing its concern at the persistent indications of a very low level of bargaining coverage and noting the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 3323, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to promote collective bargaining between workers’ and employers’ organizations and to ensure that the existence of elected workers’ representatives is not used to undermine the position of the workers’ organizations concerned. In this regard, the Committee specifically requests the Government to: (i) specify how the mutual recognition between an employer and a minority trade union mentioned by the Government takes place in practice; (ii) provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded at the enterprise level, indicating those concluded by minority trade unions on behalf of their own members; (iii) clarify whether, under section 134(2) of the SDA, the negotiating powers granted to the elected workers’ representatives exist only when there is no trade union at the respective level; and (iv) take the necessary measures to ensure that agreements concluded with elected representatives prior to the 2016 amendment to the SDA do not have the effect of continuing to undermine the position of trade unions.

Collective bargaining at the sectoral and national levels. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had taken note of the information from both the Government and the trade unions concerning the drastic decrease in the number of sectoral collective agreements following the changes introduced by the SDA. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the representativeness thresholds so as to effectively promote collective bargaining at all levels. The Committee notes the absence of specific information from the Government in this respect. Taking due note of the conclusions and recommendations of the CFA in Case No. 3323, the Committee recalls once again that collective bargaining should be possible at all levels and that the Government has an obligation to ensure effective promotion of collective bargaining in a manner appropriate to national conditions. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to revise, in consultation with the representative social partners, the relevant thresholds and conditions in order to ensure that collective bargaining is effectively possible at all levels, including the sectoral and national levels. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the evolution of the number of collective agreements signed at the different levels above the enterprise level, as well as on the overall coverage of collective bargaining in the country.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the European Transport Workers’ Federation and the International Transport Workers’ Federation received on 29 July 2021 alleging violations of a collective labour agreement. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2021 concerning matters examined by the Committee in the present comment. It further notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 8 September 2021 concerning the discussions that took place at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards with respect to the application of the Convention.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 109th Session, June 2021)

The Committee notes the discussion which took place in June 2021 in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (the Conference Committee) concerning the application of the Convention by Romania. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee, after noting that there were significant compliance issues regarding the Convention in law and practice with respect to the protection against anti-union discrimination and the promotion of collective bargaining, requested the Government to: (i) ensure adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in law and practice in compliance with the Convention; (ii) collect detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities; the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome; how the burden of proof is applied in such cases affecting trade union officers as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases; (iii) ensure, in law and practice, that collective bargaining with the representatives of non-unionized workers only takes place where there are no trade unions in place at the respective level; and (iv) amend the law so as to enable collective bargaining for public servants not engaged in the administration of the State in line with the Convention. The Conference Committee also requested the Government to: (i) provide information on all of the above points to the Committee of Experts before its next session in 2021; and (ii) accept an ILO technical advisory mission before the next International Labour Conference.

The Committee observes that in its report the Government essentially reiterates the information already provided to the Conference Committee.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to: (i) take measures to amend the legislation in order to guarantee that acts of anti-union discrimination are subject to specific and dissuasive sanctions; (ii) indicate how the burden of proof is placed in cases of allegations of anti-union discrimination affecting trade union officers; (iii) provide detailed statistical information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities, the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome, as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases; and (iv) ensure that anti-union practices, and in particular preventive measures, would be subject to tripartite discussions. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that, following consultations with the social partners, the Labour Code was amended in 2020 by Law 151/2020 to ensure a proper recognition of harassment, intimidation and victimization of employees and their representatives, including in the exercise of legitimate trade union rights and activities, with dissuasive sanctions applied effectively. It indicates that: (i) section 5, paragraph 2 of the Labour Code, as amended, explicitly prohibits direct or indirect discrimination based on membership or trade union activity; (ii) section 59(a) of the Labour Code was amended to explicitly prohibit dismissal based on trade union affiliation or activity; and (iii) section 260(1)(r) of the Labour Code, as amended, provides that non-compliance with the provisions of section 5, paragraphs (2)–(9), and of section 59(a) is sanctioned with fines between 1000 LEI and 20,000 LEI (equivalent to US$229 and 4,575 respectively). Regarding the burden of proof in cases of union discrimination against union leaders, the Government indicates that, as provided for in section 272 of the Labour Code, the burden of proof with regard to labour disputes rests with the employer. The Committee notes that in the ITUC’s view, section 260 of the Labour Code does not permit verification of the extent to which the legislation is effective and sufficiently dissuasive. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s indication that no fines were applied for violations of the law related to union membership or activity between January 2020 and April 2021. The Committee finally notes that, at the discussion held at the Conference Committee, the Government indicated that the Ministry of Justice manages the courts databases and that data is collected with a particular nomenclature that did not allow the Government to identify the type of statistical information requested by the Committee.

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. As regards sanctions, the Committee recalls the importance of legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination to be accompanied by dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. In this respect, the Committee considers that the amount of the fines established in the Labour Code might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises. The Committee also recalls that, with respect to anti-union dismissals the reinstatement with retroactive compensation constitutes, in the absence of preventive measures, the most effective remedy. The Committee finally recalls the importance of statistical information for the Government to fulfil its obligation to prevent, monitor and sanction acts of anti-union discrimination. Based on the above, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) take measures, after consultation with the representative social partners, to strengthen the existing sanctions in cases of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their effectiveness and dissuasiveness, particularly for large enterprises; (ii) indicate whether reinstatement is an available remedy in cases of dismissal based on trade union affiliation or activity; and (iii) gather and communicate information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities, the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome, as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases. As mentioned in its previous comments, the Committee further requests the Government to ensure that anti-union practices, and in particular preventive measures in this respect, will be subject to tripartite discussions.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee notes that Case No. 3323 concerning, inter alia, allegations of shortcomings and gaps in the national legislation with respect to collective bargaining was examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) (see 393rd Report, March 2021). The Committee notes that the CFA referred to it the legislative aspects of the case, related to issues that have been the subject of comments by this Committee since the adoption of the Social Dialogue Act (SDA) in 2011.

Collective bargaining at the company level. In its previous comments, against the background of a sharp decline in collective bargaining coverage in the country following the adoption of the SDA, the Committee noted that a number of aspects of the SDA and its implementation raised issues of compatibility with the Convention. The Committee noted in particular the high representativeness threshold required to negotiate at company level (50 per cent plus one of the workers of the company) and the fact that the SDA allowed elected workers’ representatives to bargain collectively for the totality of workers of the company. In its last comment, while noting the Government’s indication that, following a 2016 amendment to section 134.2 of the law, negotiation with elected workers’ representatives was now only possible in the absence of a trade union, the Committee had noted with concern the statistical data provided by the ITUC according to which 86 per cent of all collective agreements signed were by elected workers’ representatives and only 14 per cent by trade unions. On that basis, the Committee had requested the Government to amend the threshold applicable to negotiations at the company level so as to effectively promote collective bargaining, to clarify whether the negotiating powers granted to the elected workers’ representatives existed only when there is no trade union and to provide its comments on the statistics provided by the ITUC.

As regards the representativeness thresholds established by the legislation with respect to collective bargaining at the company level, the Committee notes that, in its replies to the CFA, the Government clarified that voluntary bargaining is not conditioned by the representativity of the organizations since minority unions have the right to bargain collectively based on mutual recognition and can conclude collective agreements applicable to members of the signatory parties. The Committee notes the ITUC observations in this respect, according to which, while the Government states that nothing prevents trade unions from negotiating for their members at the company level, given their lack of representativeness, the agreements reached have no erga omnes effect. With regard to the impact of negotiations conducted by elected workers’ representatives on the right to collective bargaining recognized by the Convention to trade unions, the Committee notes that the Government refers to a draft revision of the SDA currently being adopted but does not comment on the ITUC’s observations that the vast majority of company collective agreements were still signed by elected workers’ representatives to the detriment of trade unions. The Committee notes in this respect that, in its 2021 observations, the ITUC adds that: (i) while the Government states that collective bargaining through elected representatives is only possible in companies that do not have a representative union, the fact that the required representativeness threshold is 50 per cent plus one means in practice that in the majority of companies it is the elected representatives who negotiate instead of the unions who do not reach that threshold; (ii) elected representatives have concluded over 92 per cent of collective agreements in the private sector; and (iii) the procedure for electing representatives does not allow trade unions to present lists when they are affiliated to a federation at the branch level.

The Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, collective bargaining with non-union actors should only be possible when there are no trade unions at the respective level. The Committee also recalls that, by virtue of Article 4 of the Convention, the Government has the obligation to effectively promote free and voluntary collective bargaining in a manner appropriate to national conditions. Expressing its concern at the persistent indications of a very low level of bargaining coverage and noting the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 3323, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to promote collective bargaining between workers’ and employers’ organizations and to ensure that the existence of elected workers’ representatives is not used to undermine the position of the workers’ organizations concerned. In this regard, the Committee specifically requests the Government to: (i) specify how the mutual recognition between an employer and a minority trade union mentioned by the Government takes place in practice; (ii) provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded at the enterprise level, indicating those concluded by minority trade unions on behalf of their own members; (iii) clarify whether, under section 134(2) of the SDA, the negotiating powers granted to the elected workers’ representatives exist only when there is no trade union at the respective level; and (iv) take the necessary measures to ensure that agreements concluded with elected representatives prior to the 2016 amendment to the SDA do not have the effect of continuing to undermine the position of trade unions.

Collective bargaining at the sectoral and national levels. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had taken note of the information from both the Government and the trade unions concerning the drastic decrease in the number of sectoral collective agreements following the changes introduced by the SDA. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the representativeness thresholds so as to effectively promote collective bargaining at all levels. The Committee notes the absence of specific information from the Government in this respect. Taking due note of the conclusions and recommendations of the CFA in Case No. 3323, the Committee recalls once again that collective bargaining should be possible at all levels and that the Government has an obligation to ensure effective promotion of collective bargaining in a manner appropriate to national conditions. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to revise, in consultation with the representative social partners, the relevant thresholds and conditions in order to ensure that collective bargaining is effectively possible at all levels, including the sectoral and national levels. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the evolution of the number of collective agreements signed at the different levels above the enterprise level, as well as on the overall coverage of collective bargaining in the country.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the Parliament is in the process of adopting a draft law revising the SDA with proposals and amendments made by trade unions and employers in relation to representativeness and collective bargaining and recalls in that regard that the ITUC had previously indicated that trade unions had not been consulted on the proposed amendments. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the mentioned reform has been duly consulted with the representative social partners and that its content will take on board the present comments in order to give full effect to the Convention. The Committee further trusts that the ILO technical advisory mission requested by the Conference Committee will take place before the next International Labour Conference and that it will be able to take note of the progress achieved in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2018, as well as on the observations of the Block National Trade Unions (BNS), the Confederation of Democratic Trade Unions of Romania (CSDR) and the National Trade Union Confederation (CNS ‘CARTEL ALFA’) received on 31 August 2018 referring to matters examined in this observation. Noting that the Government has not yet provided its reply to the above-mentioned observations, the Committee reiterates its previous request.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to specify the legal provisions that sanction acts of anti-union discrimination and to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employers’ interference, including the sanctions and remedies applied. The Committee notes that according to the information provided by the Government: (i) labour legislation does not include sanction regulations regarding acts of anti-union discrimination; however conflicts related to the conclusion or execution of individual labour contracts fall within the jurisdiction of the courts, which, upon request may decide according to section 253 of the Labour Code providing compensation in case of violation of rights; (ii) in 2016, Act No. 62 of 2011 concerning social dialogue (Social Dialogue Act, (SDA)) was amended in order to extend the protection against anti-union dismissal of trade union officers during and two years after the end of the mandate for reasons not related to the employee, for professional misconduct or for reasons connected with the fulfilment of the mandate (paragraph 11, section 10 of the SDA, as amended); (iii) the Constitutional Court considered that the protection granted to trade union officers was unconstitutional, that trade union immunity must operate exclusively in relation to trade union activity and in the face of an objective situation of dismissal not related to the employee, trade union officers have to be in an analogous situation with the other employees who do not exercise trade union functions (sentence No. 681/2016).

The Committee notes that section 10 of the SDA prohibits the amendment and termination of individual labour contracts for grounds regarding union membership, and that section 220(2) of the Labour Code provides protection specifically to trade union officers for anti-union acts (including dismissals) but that none of the mentioned provisions set specific sanctions in case of their violation. Noting, additionally, that section 253 of the Labour Code, referred to by the Government and applicable to any violation of labour rights, provides for compensation for the damage caused by the employer on the general basis of contract civil liability, the Committee observes therefore that the current legislation does not set specific sanctions applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination. In this regard, the Committee recalls that acts of anti-union discrimination should be subject to effective and dissuasive sanctions and that, to this end, they should be higher than those set for other violations of labour rights.

In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the relevant legislation in order to guarantee that acts of anti-union discrimination are subject to specific and dissuasive sanctions. Furthermore, noting that the Constitutional Court considered that the trade union immunity must operate exclusively in relation to trade union activity, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how the burden of proof is placed in cases of allegations of anti-union discrimination affecting trade union officers. It further requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities, the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome, as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases.

Tripartite discussion of recent anti-union practices. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the social partners were not interested in including in the agenda of the Tripartite National Council for Social Dialogue matters related to trade union discrimination. It also notes that in its 2018 observations the ITUC raised that trade unions are subjected to systematic anti-union discrimination, which undermines their existence and the protection they provide to workers. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to ensure that anti-union practices, and in particular preventive measures, will be subject to tripartite discussions. It requests the Government to provide information on any further progress in this regard.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Negotiation with elected workers’ representatives. In its previous comments, the Committee had pointed out that section 135(1)(a) of the SDA (Act No. 62 of 10 May 2011; and subsequent amendments) raised problems of incompatibility with the Convention, because in cases where a non-representative union (pursuant to section 51 of the SDA, a union that does not have at least half plus one of the number of workers of the undertaking) was not affiliated to a representative sectoral federation, the negotiation of a collective agreement erga omnes could be carried out exclusively by elected workers’ representatives, thus rendering obsolete the right of unions considered as non-representative to negotiate on behalf of their own members. It had recalled in this regard that collective bargaining with representatives of non-unionized workers should only be possible when there are no trade unions at the respective level, and that appropriate measures should be taken, wherever necessary, to ensure that the existence of elected workers’ representatives is not used to undermine the position of the workers’ organizations concerned. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the SDA was not enacted with an aim of favouring collective bargaining with employees’ representatives; and (ii) section 134(2) of the SDA, was amended in 2016 as follows: “if the union is not representative, representation is made by the federation to which the union is affiliated, if the federation is representative at the level of the sector to which the unit belongs; where no unions are constituted by the elected representatives of the employees” (Law No. 1/2016). The Committee further notes that in their 2018 observations, the BNS, the CSDR and the CNS ‘CARTEL ALFA’ alleged that elected workers’ representatives have been used to undermine negotiations efforts of representative unions and that in 2017 more than 92.5 per cent of collective agreements in the private sector were negotiated and signed by elected workers’ representatives. It further notes that according to the statistics provided by the ITUC, while in 2010 all collective agreements were negotiated and signed by trade unions, in 2017 only 14 per cent of all collective agreements concluded were signed by trade unions, and 86 per cent were concluded by elected workers’ representatives. The Committee recalls that, since, under the terms of the Convention, the right of collective bargaining lies with workers’ organizations at all levels, and with the employers and their organizations, collective bargaining with representatives of non-unionized workers should only be possible when there are no trade unions at the respective level (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 239). While taking due note of the amendment of section 134(2) of the SDA, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the negotiating powers granted to the elected workers’ representatives exist only when there is no trade union. Further noting with concern the statistics submitted by the national unions and the ITUC, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

Representativeness criteria and coverage of collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that section 51 of the SDA which sets out the representativeness criteria at enterprise level (union membership of at least 50 per cent plus one of the workers of the enterprise) required to be amended so as to ensure the possibility for unions that had not secured the absolute majority requested by that provision to be able to bargain collectively. The Committee had further noted that the SDA (2011) had resulted in a drastic decrease in the number of collective agreements concluded at the enterprise level and at the sectoral level. The Committee notes the Government’s information that bipartite and tripartite consultations on collective bargaining procedures have not led to an agreement between the social partners. The Government further indicates that upon its request for technical assistance, the Office drafted a technical memorandum regarding the revision of the SDA and that the comments of the Office are currently under parliamentary discussion. As to the number of collective agreements concluded, the Committee notes that according to the Government: (i) at the enterprise level, in 2013, there were 8,367 collective agreements, while in 2016, there were 9,366 collective agreements (approximately 33 per cent of the workers); and (ii) at sectoral level, in 2014, there were three contracts, while in 2016 there were none. On the other hand, the Committee notes that according to the ITUC, the BNS, the CSDR and the CNS ‘CARTEL ALFA’: (i) the SDA severely undermined the capacity of first-level unions to represent workers in collective bargaining – the representativeness criteria have only been met in nine out of the 30 sectors, which are thus the only ones represented by trade unions; (ii) trade unions have not been consulted on the proposed amendments to the SDA and the Government did not take into consideration the joint proposal made by the organizations above. The Committee further notes that, according to the European Foundation of the Improvement of Living Conditions and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND), the 2011 SDA led to the concentration of collective bargaining at company level and collective bargaining coverage has declined from almost 100 per cent in 2010 to approximately 35 per cent in 2013 and only 15 per cent (952,911 employees) in 2017. In view of the above and recalling its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to take, in full consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, all the necessary measures to amend the representativeness thresholds so as to effectively promote collective bargaining at all levels.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. Public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee had previously noted that salaries under Act No. 284/2010 on Unitary Salaries of the Staff Paid from the Public Budget were based on a legislatively established coefficient and had requested the Government to ensure that the wages of all public servants not engaged in the administration of the State are not excluded from the scope of the collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the Convention does not explicitly provide for the obligation of State parties to bargain collectively on wages, that the fixing of wages shall be at the discretion of national practice, and that a new salary law implemented in 2017 (Law No. 153/2017-Unique Pay Law), in consultation with social partners, set up an agreed mechanism for wage increases of staff paid by the State budget beginning in 2020. With respect to the discussions regarding the draft amendment to Act No. 284/2010, the Government indicates that despite the consultations carried out between 2014–16 by the bipartite and tripartite working groups, no consensus was reached in that regard. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with the Convention, public servants not engaged in the administration of the State should be able to negotiate their wage conditions collectively and that mere consultation with the unions concerned is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Convention in this respect. However, the special characteristics of the public service described above require some flexibility, particularly in view of the need for the state budget to be approved by Parliament (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 219). Highlighting once again the need to ensure that wages are included in the scope of the collective bargaining for all public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in full consultation with the social partners and, if necessary, with technical assistance from the Office, to bring national law and practice into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention, fixing for example upper and lower limits for the wage negotiations with the trade unions concerned.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2015.

Repetition

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that sections 10 of Act No. 62 of 2011 concerning Social Dialogue (Social Dialogue Act) and 220(2) of the Labour Code prohibited acts of anti-union discrimination, but that neither the Social Dialogue Act nor the Labour Code appeared to contain sanctions for the violation of these provisions; and that Government Ordinance No. 137 of 2000 sanctioned discrimination on various grounds but not by reason of union affiliation or engagement in legitimate trade union activities. The Committee had requested the Government to specify the legal provisions which sanction acts of anti-union discrimination, and to provide statistical information on sanctions imposed for acts of anti-union discrimination or interference.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that: (i) the labour and social dialogue legislation correlates with the provisions in general law, and the resolution of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference falls under the remit of the monitoring institutions and courts that are able to take remedy measures; and (ii) trade unions could play a more active role in informing workers and assisting members in gaining access to the national mechanisms for the resolution of abuse. The Committee also notes the information supplied by the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), on eleven cases relating to infringements of the right to organize brought before the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) since the beginning of 2013, with fines being imposed in certain cases. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the various legal provisions, which, according to the Government, sanction acts of anti-union discrimination, including the legal basis for the fines imposed by the CNCD. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities, the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome, as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases.

Tripartite discussion of recent anti-union practices. The Committee had previously noted from the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Block of National Trade Unions (BNS) the occurrence in recent years of certain anti-union practices, and requested the Government to discuss this situation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers. The Committee had welcomed the Government’s indication that a debate on the subject might be included on the agenda of the National Tripartite Council for Social Dialogue. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) during the consultations before the Council in 2014 and 2015, neither the labour inspection nor the trade unions have signalled any cases of making employment conditional upon non-affiliation to a union; and (ii) recent cases signalled to the competent authorities concerned the refusal by employers based in another State to recognize legally established national trade unions. The Committee trusts that the occurrence of all anti-union practices relating to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention will be included on the agenda of the National Tripartite Council for Social Dialogue and invites the Government to report on the outcome of the discussion and any agreed follow-up measures, including as to cases concerning the refusal by employers based in another State to recognize legally established national trade unions.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee previously noted with concern that the Government indicated, in a recent request for ILO technical assistance with regard to a draft Emergency Ordinance, substantially amending the Social Dialogue Act, that one of the consequences of the Social Dialogue Act had been a drastic decrease in the number of collective agreements concluded at the enterprise level and at the level of sector of activity (due to delay in the determination of the sectors of activity by the social partners). The Committee had requested the Government to provide detailed information on any developments in regard to this decrease and to communicate comparative and other statistics on the coverage of collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government refers to enclosed data on collective agreements negotiated and concluded in 2014 as compared to 2012, but observes that the information was not attached to the report. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information and statistics relating to the impact of the recent legislative changes on the application of the Convention and to communicate comparative and other statistics for the reporting period on the number of collective agreements concluded at the levels of the enterprise and the sector of activity, including the number of workers and the sectors of activity covered.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes: (i) the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2018 alleging that the Social Dialogue Act of 2011 (SDA) is having disastrous effects on collective bargaining and that the 2018 proposed amendments to the SDA are not being consulted with the representative trade unions; and (ii) the joint observations of the Block of National Trade Unions (BNS); Confederation of Democratic Trade Unions of Romania (CSDR); National Trade Union Confederation (CNS ‘CARTEL ALFA’) received on 31 August 2018, also alleging the negative effects of the SDA on collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments initially made in 2015.

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2015, which allege acts of anti union discrimination and interference on the part of the employer. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon. Furthermore, the Committee notes the 2014 observations from the ITUC and the Government’s comments thereon.

Article 4 of the Convention. Criteria of representativeness. The Committee had previously noted the representativeness criteria at enterprise level set out in section 51 of the Social Dialogue Act (union membership of at least 50 per cent plus one of the workers of the enterprise), and had requested the Government to take measures to ensure that if no union secures the absolute majority, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government according to which: (i) all trade unions enjoy by virtue of section 1(b)(iii) and (u) of the Social Dialogue Act the right to collective bargaining in line with section 153 (the provision stipulates that any legally established trade union may conclude agreements with an employer or employers’ organization that are only applicable to the members of the signatory union); and (ii) collective bargaining by representative trade unions leads, due to their legitimacy, to collective agreements with force of law applicable to all workers in the unit.

Furthermore, the Committee had previously observed that, according to section 135(1): (i) in enterprises without a representative trade union, if an enterprise-level union exists and is affiliated to a representative federation in the relevant sector of activity, the negotiation of a collective agreement will be carried out by that federation together with the elected workers’ representatives; and (ii) in enterprises without a representative trade union, if an enterprise-level union exists but is not affiliated to a representative federation in the relevant sector of activity, the negotiation of a collective agreement will be carried out by the elected workers’ representatives. The Committee had requested the Government to ensure that the relevant legislation is amended in order to guarantee respect for the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the requirement, in case that there is only a non-representative enterprise union, of its affiliation to a federation representative at the relevant sectoral level, originates from the former legislation and has the support of the trade unions; and (ii) the recognition of the right of workers’ representatives (elected from within the enterprise union(s) or among non-affiliated workers) to negotiate in the absence of a representative enterprise union or of a non representative enterprise union affiliated to a representative sectoral federation, responds to the necessity to cooperate at enterprise level so as to avoid mutual challenges from unions and a deadlock in collective bargaining. The Committee understands that section 135 regulates the manner of negotiating a collective agreement applicable to all workers in the unit (erga omnes) in the absence of a representative union and of its ensuing legitimacy. The Committee observes that this lack of legitimacy might explain the requirement for the non representative union to be affiliated to a representative sectoral federation in order for that federation to be able to negotiate, at the request and within the mandate of the union, together with the workers’ representatives, an erga omnes collective agreement (section 135(1)(a)). However, the Committee observes that, in cases where a non-representative union is not affiliated to a representative sectoral federation, the negotiation of a collective agreement erga omnes can be carried out exclusively by elected workers’ representatives, thus rendering obsolete the right of non-representative unions to negotiate on behalf of their own members (section 153). The Committee recalls in this regard that collective bargaining with representatives of non-unionized workers should only be possible when there are no trade unions at the respective level, and that appropriate measures should be taken, wherever necessary, to ensure that the existence of elected worker representatives is not used to undermine the position of the workers’ organizations concerned. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the relevant legislation in order to guarantee the application of these principles.

Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, in the public budget sector, which covers all public employees, including those who are not engaged in the administration of the State, the fixation of salaries is exclusively by law, and no salaries or other pecuniary entitlements exceeding the provisions of this law can be negotiated through collective agreements (sections 3(b) and 37(1) of Act No. 284/2010 on Unitary Salaries of the Staff Paid from the Public Budget). The Committee had welcomed section 138(3) of the Social Dialogue Act as amended, according to which, in cases where the wage entitlements are established in special laws between minimum and maximum limits, the concrete wage entitlements are determined by collective bargaining within the legal limits. Considering that this provision may be compatible with the Convention, depending on the practical application, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the categories of employees in the public budget sector for which wage entitlements were established in special laws between minimum and maximum limits so that the concrete wage entitlements were determined by collective bargaining within those limits.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the provisions relating to the negotiation of bonuses, increases and pecuniary rights (section 138(3) of the Social Dialogue Act and sections 12, 21–23 and 32 of Act No. 284/2010) are applied by respecting, during the negotiations, the minimum and maximum limits stipulated by the law and the special laws; (ii) such negotiations took place in the health and education sectors and resulted in agreements concerning pecuniary rights or fiscal advantages; (iii) unitary salaries under Act No. 284/2010 are based on a coefficient which is periodically reviewed in consultation/negotiation with the social partners, and to which salary increases are directly related; and (iv) a draft amendment to Act No. 284/2010 is currently being discussed. The Committee understands from the information provided by the Government and the annexes to Act No. 284/2010 that: (i) in case of pecuniary rights such as bonuses (e.g. for special, difficult or dangerous working conditions) and indemnities, negotiations are taking place with the trade unions concerned as regards the relevant workplaces, staff categories and amounts (which cannot exceed the legal limits); and (ii) in case of base salaries, however, the coefficient for the relevant staff category is fixed in the annexes to Act No. 284/2010 after consultation with the social partners. Highlighting once again the need to ensure that, in addition to pecuniary entitlements, wages are equally included in the scope of collective bargaining for all public service workers covered by the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in full consultation with the social partners and, if necessary, with technical assistance from the Office, to bring national law and practice into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention, on the understanding that upper and lower limits may be fixed for the wage negotiations with the trade unions concerned. The Committee trusts that due account will be taken of its comments during the ongoing legal review of Act No. 284/2010 and requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect.

More generally, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) following an agreement in 2014 of the National Tripartite Council for Social Dialogue, two bipartite working groups have been set up concerning amendments to the Social Dialogue Act and concerning collective bargaining sectors and procedure, but were unable to reach consensus on a common draft amending the relevant legislation; and (ii) a series of proposals for amendments to the Social Dialogue Act have been submitted to the ILO for comment in 2015 and the ILO memorandum will be discussed by the National Tripartite Council. The Committee trusts that the Government will take due account of its comments in the context of this legislative review and that the new legislation will be in full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect. Recalling also that the Government recently benefited from ILO technical assistance seeking to ensure the conformity with the Convention of a draft Emergency Ordinance substantially amending the Social Dialogue Act, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that sections 10 of Act No. 62 of 2011 concerning Social Dialogue (Social Dialogue Act) and 220(2) of the Labour Code prohibited acts of anti-union discrimination, but that neither the Social Dialogue Act nor the Labour Code appeared to contain sanctions for the violation of these provisions; and that Government Ordinance No. 137 of 2000 sanctioned discrimination on various grounds but not by reason of union affiliation or engagement in legitimate trade union activities. The Committee had requested the Government to specify the legal provisions which sanction acts of anti-union discrimination, and to provide statistical information on sanctions imposed for acts of anti-union discrimination or interference.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that: (i) the labour and social dialogue legislation correlates with the provisions in general law, and the resolution of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference falls under the remit of the monitoring institutions and courts that are able to take remedy measures; and (ii) trade unions could play a more active role in informing workers and assisting members in gaining access to the national mechanisms for the resolution of abuse. The Committee also notes the information supplied by the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), on eleven cases relating to infringements of the right to organize brought before the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) since the beginning of 2013, with fines being imposed in certain cases. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the various legal provisions, which, according to the Government, sanction acts of anti-union discrimination, including the legal basis for the fines imposed by the CNCD. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and employer interference brought to the various competent authorities, the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome, as well as the sanctions and remedies applied in such cases.

Tripartite discussion of recent anti-union practices. The Committee had previously noted from the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Block of National Trade Unions (BNS) the occurrence in recent years of certain anti-union practices, and requested the Government to discuss this situation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers. The Committee had welcomed the Government’s indication that a debate on the subject might be included on the agenda of the National Tripartite Council for Social Dialogue. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) during the consultations before the Council in 2014 and 2015, neither the labour inspection nor the trade unions have signalled any cases of making employment conditional upon non-affiliation to a union; and (ii) recent cases signalled to the competent authorities concerned the refusal by employers based in another State to recognize legally established national trade unions. The Committee trusts that the occurrence of all anti-union practices relating to Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention will be included on the agenda of the National Tripartite Council for Social Dialogue and invites the Government to report on the outcome of the discussion and any agreed follow-up measures, including as to cases concerning the refusal by employers based in another State to recognize legally established national trade unions.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee previously noted with concern that the Government indicated, in a recent request for ILO technical assistance with regard to a draft Emergency Ordinance, substantially amending the Social Dialogue Act, that one of the consequences of the Social Dialogue Act had been a drastic decrease in the number of collective agreements concluded at the enterprise level and at the level of sector of activity (due to delay in the determination of the sectors of activity by the social partners). The Committee had requested the Government to provide detailed information on any developments in regard to this decrease and to communicate comparative and other statistics on the coverage of collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government refers to enclosed data on collective agreements negotiated and concluded in 2014 as compared to 2012, but observes that the information was not attached to the report. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information and statistics relating to the impact of the recent legislative changes on the application of the Convention and to communicate comparative and other statistics for the reporting period on the number of collective agreements concluded at the levels of the enterprise and the sector of activity, including the number of workers and the sectors of activity covered.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2015, which allege acts of anti union discrimination and interference on the part of the employer. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon. Furthermore, the Committee notes the 2014 observations from the ITUC and the Government’s comments thereon.

Article 4 of the Convention. Criteria of representativeness. The Committee had previously noted the representativeness criteria at enterprise level set out in section 51 of the Social Dialogue Act (union membership of at least 50 per cent plus one of the workers of the enterprise), and had requested the Government to take measures to ensure that if no union secures the absolute majority, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government according to which: (i) all trade unions enjoy by virtue of section 1(b)(iii) and (u) of the Social Dialogue Act the right to collective bargaining in line with section 153 (the provision stipulates that any legally established trade union may conclude agreements with an employer or employers’ organization that are only applicable to the members of the signatory union); and (ii) collective bargaining by representative trade unions leads, due to their legitimacy, to collective agreements with force of law applicable to all workers in the unit.

Furthermore, the Committee had previously observed that, according to section 135(1): (i) in enterprises without a representative trade union, if an enterprise-level union exists and is affiliated to a representative federation in the relevant sector of activity, the negotiation of a collective agreement will be carried out by that federation together with the elected workers’ representatives; and (ii) in enterprises without a representative trade union, if an enterprise-level union exists but is not affiliated to a representative federation in the relevant sector of activity, the negotiation of a collective agreement will be carried out by the elected workers’ representatives. The Committee had requested the Government to ensure that the relevant legislation is amended in order to guarantee respect for the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the requirement, in case that there is only a non-representative enterprise union, of its affiliation to a federation representative at the relevant sectoral level, originates from the former legislation and has the support of the trade unions; and (ii) the recognition of the right of workers’ representatives (elected from within the enterprise union(s) or among non-affiliated workers) to negotiate in the absence of a representative enterprise union or of a non representative enterprise union affiliated to a representative sectoral federation, responds to the necessity to cooperate at enterprise level so as to avoid mutual challenges from unions and a deadlock in collective bargaining. The Committee understands that section 135 regulates the manner of negotiating a collective agreement applicable to all workers in the unit (erga omnes) in the absence of a representative union and of its ensuing legitimacy. The Committee observes that this lack of legitimacy might explain the requirement for the non representative union to be affiliated to a representative sectoral federation in order for that federation to be able to negotiate, at the request and within the mandate of the union, together with the workers’ representatives, an erga omnes collective agreement (section 135(1)(a)). However, the Committee observes that, in cases where a non-representative union is not affiliated to a representative sectoral federation, the negotiation of a collective agreement erga omnes can be carried out exclusively by elected workers’ representatives, thus rendering obsolete the right of non-representative unions to negotiate on behalf of their own members (section 153). The Committee recalls in this regard that collective bargaining with representatives of non-unionized workers should only be possible when there are no trade unions at the respective level, and that appropriate measures should be taken, wherever necessary, to ensure that the existence of elected worker representatives is not used to undermine the position of the workers’ organizations concerned. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the relevant legislation in order to guarantee the application of these principles.

Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, in the public budget sector, which covers all public employees, including those who are not engaged in the administration of the State, the fixation of salaries is exclusively by law, and no salaries or other pecuniary entitlements exceeding the provisions of this law can be negotiated through collective agreements (sections 3(b) and 37(1) of Act No. 284/2010 on Unitary Salaries of the Staff Paid from the Public Budget). The Committee had welcomed section 138(3) of the Social Dialogue Act as amended, according to which, in cases where the wage entitlements are established in special laws between minimum and maximum limits, the concrete wage entitlements are determined by collective bargaining within the legal limits. Considering that this provision may be compatible with the Convention, depending on the practical application, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the categories of employees in the public budget sector for which wage entitlements were established in special laws between minimum and maximum limits so that the concrete wage entitlements were determined by collective bargaining within those limits.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the provisions relating to the negotiation of bonuses, increases and pecuniary rights (section 138(3) of the Social Dialogue Act and sections 12, 21–23 and 32 of Act No. 284/2010) are applied by respecting, during the negotiations, the minimum and maximum limits stipulated by the law and the special laws; (ii) such negotiations took place in the health and education sectors and resulted in agreements concerning pecuniary rights or fiscal advantages; (iii) unitary salaries under Act No. 284/2010 are based on a coefficient which is periodically reviewed in consultation/negotiation with the social partners, and to which salary increases are directly related; and (iv) a draft amendment to Act No. 284/2010 is currently being discussed. The Committee understands from the information provided by the Government and the annexes to Act No. 284/2010 that: (i) in case of pecuniary rights such as bonuses (e.g. for special, difficult or dangerous working conditions) and indemnities, negotiations are taking place with the trade unions concerned as regards the relevant workplaces, staff categories and amounts (which cannot exceed the legal limits); and (ii) in case of base salaries, however, the coefficient for the relevant staff category is fixed in the annexes to Act No. 284/2010 after consultation with the social partners. Highlighting once again the need to ensure that, in addition to pecuniary entitlements, wages are equally included in the scope of collective bargaining for all public service workers covered by the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in full consultation with the social partners and, if necessary, with technical assistance from the Office, to bring national law and practice into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention, on the understanding that upper and lower limits may be fixed for the wage negotiations with the trade unions concerned. The Committee trusts that due account will be taken of its comments during the ongoing legal review of Act No. 284/2010 and requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect.

More generally, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) following an agreement in 2014 of the National Tripartite Council for Social Dialogue, two bipartite working groups have been set up concerning amendments to the Social Dialogue Act and concerning collective bargaining sectors and procedure, but were unable to reach consensus on a common draft amending the relevant legislation; and (ii) a series of proposals for amendments to the Social Dialogue Act have been submitted to the ILO for comment in 2015 and the ILO memorandum will be discussed by the National Tripartite Council. The Committee trusts that the Government will take due account of its comments in the context of this legislative review and that the new legislation will be in full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect. Recalling also that the Government recently benefited from ILO technical assistance seeking to ensure the conformity with the Convention of a draft Emergency Ordinance substantially amending the Social Dialogue Act, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 100th Session, June 2011)

In its previous observation, the Committee noted the debate which took place within the Conference Committee in June 2011 and welcomed the Government’s commitment to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance. The Committee had also noted the adoption of: (i) Act No. 62 of 2011 concerning Social Dialogue (Social Dialogue Act), which abrogated Act No. 130 of 1996 on collective agreements, Act No. 168 of 1999 on the settlement of labour conflicts, Act No. 356 of 2001 concerning employers’ organizations and Act No. 54 of 2003 on trade unions; and (ii) Act No. 40 of 2011, which substantially amended the Labour Code.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments submitted by: (i) the Federation of Free Trade Unions of the Chemical and Petrochemical Industries (FSLCP) in a communication dated 5 June 2012; and (ii) the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 31 July 2012.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. Sanctions prescribed for acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, noting that sections 10 of the Social Dialogue Act and 220(2) of the Labour Code prohibited acts of anti-union discrimination but that the new legislation did not seem to foresee sanctions in the case of their violation, the Committee had requested the Government to clarify this point. The Committee notes that the Government confirms that the Social Dialogue Act and the Labour Code as amended do not contain sanctions for acts of anti-union discrimination but indicates that sanctions for anti-union dismissals are provided for in the general law such as in Government Ordinance No. 137 of 2000 concerning the prevention and sanctioning of all forms of discrimination. The Committee notes that the mentioned Ordinance contains provisions prohibiting and sanctioning discrimination on the grounds of race, nationality, religion, social origin, HIV, refugee status, conviction, age, sex or sexual orientation, as regards the entry into employment, modification or termination of the employment contract, etc. Noting that union affiliation or the engagement in legitimate trade union activities does not constitute a ground for discrimination under the Ordinance, the Committee recalls that the existence of general legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination (such as section 10 of the Social Dialogue Act and section 220(2) of the Labour Code) is not enough if these provisions are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the general legal provisions, which, according to the Government sanction acts of anti-union discrimination or, if need be, to take the necessary measures to guarantee full protection against acts of anti-union discrimination including by imposing sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Sanctions in practice for acts of anti-union discrimination or interference. Furthermore, the Committee had previously noted that, according to the ITUC, sanctions for anti-union activities are rarely imposed in practice due to loopholes in the Penal Code, and that the complaint procedure is too complicated. The Committee notes that the Government provides statistical information on sanctions imposed by labour inspection pursuant to section 217(1)(b) of the Social Dialogue Act, which concerns the refusal to bargain collectively (whereas acts of interference are sanctioned pursuant to section 217(1)(a)). The Committee recalls that the refusal to bargain collectively does not constitute an act of anti-union discrimination or interference. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide in its next report statistical information, or at least the maximum information available, on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference brought to the competent authorities, the average duration of the relevant proceedings and their outcome, as well as the sanctions and remedial measures applied in such cases.

Tripartite meeting regarding recent anti-union practices. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted from the comments of the ITUC and the BNS the occurrence in recent years of certain anti-union practices such as making employment conditional upon the worker’s agreement not to create or join a union or anti-union dismissals, and requested the Government to discuss this situation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that, following the formation of the new Government and the modification of the composition of the National Tripartite Council for Social Dialogue, a debate on the subject will be able to be included on the agenda of the Council, according to the priorities for action and consultation established in agreement with the social partners. The Committee trusts that the meeting will be organized in the very near future and requests the Government to provide information on its outcome and any agreed follow-up measures.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Bargaining level. The Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate whether the new legal provisions allow the parties, if they so wish, to negotiate and conclude, in addition to sectoral agreements, collective agreements at the national level. It had also requested the Government to communicate comparative statistics for the period 2008–12 on the coverage of collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Social Dialogue Act establishes in section 128(1) the “mandatory” bargaining levels (i.e. enterprise, group of enterprises, and sector of activity as determined by the social partners), which does not prohibit collective bargaining at the national level, if the parties so decide, all the more so since the representativeness criteria at national level are already established; (ii) the national collective agreement is no longer valid due to its denunciation by the employer organization; and (iii) given that the requested comparative statistics 2008–12 would not be of relevance because 2012 is a period of transition necessary for the adaption to the new legal provisions, statistical data is provided only concerning the 2012 collective agreements at the level of sector of activity and groups of enterprises. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government but observes that the information on the sectoral collective agreements in force in 2012 was not attached to the report. The Committee notes with concern that the Government indicates, in a recent request for ILO technical assistance with regard to a draft Emergency Ordinance which substantially amends the Social Dialogue Act, that one of the consequences of the Social Dialogue Act was a drastic decrease in the number of collective agreements concluded at the enterprise level and at the level of sector of activity (due to delay in the determination of the sectors of activity by the social partners). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any developments in regard to this decrease and to communicate comparative and other statistics on the coverage of collective bargaining.

Criteria of representativeness. The Committee had previously noted the representativeness criteria at enterprise level set out in section 51 of the Social Dialogue Act (union membership of at least 50 per cent plus one of the workers of the enterprise) and, recalling that if no union secures the absolute majority, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members, it had requested the Government to amend the legislation in order to ensure respect for this principle. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, if no trade union attains the majority to be recognized as bargaining agent, the “representatives designated by the employees” become the legitimate partners, which includes the representatives of the trade unions existing at enterprise level and the representatives elected by the workers. While noting this information, the Committee observes that, according to section 135(1): (i) in enterprises without a trade union meeting the representativeness criteria, if an enterprise-level union exists and is affiliated to a federation meeting the representativeness criteria in the relevant sector of activity, the negotiation of a collective agreement will be carried out by the representatives of that federation together with the elected workers’ representatives; and (ii) in enterprises without a trade union meeting the representativeness criteria, if an enterprise-level union exists but is not affiliated to a federation meeting the representativeness criteria in the relevant sector of activity, the negotiation of a collective agreement will be carried out by the elected workers’ representatives. Recalling the principle enunciated above, the Committee underlines that the affiliation to a representative federation should not be required for being able to negotiate at enterprise level. It further emphasizes that direct negotiation between the undertaking and its employees, bypassing representative organizations where these exist, might in certain cases be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted. The Committee requests the Government to amend the relevant legislation in order to guarantee the application of these principles.

Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that in the public budget sector which covers all public employees, including those who are not engaged in the administration of the State (e.g. teachers), the following subjects are excluded from the scope of collective bargaining: base salaries, pay increases, allowances, bonuses and other staff entitlements which are fixed by law. It had also noted that the salary rights in the budget sector were presently established by Act No. 284/2010 on Unitary Salaries of the Staff Paid from Public Funds, which abrogated Act No. 330/2009 and continued to stipulate that the fixation of salaries in the public budget sector is exclusively by law (section 3(b)) and that no salaries or other pecuniary entitlements exceeding the provisions of this law can be negotiated through collective agreements (section 37(1)). The Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to bring national law and practice into conformity with the Convention to ensure that wages and pecuniary entitlements are included in the scope of collective bargaining for the public service workers covered by the Convention.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in particular that Act No. 284/2010 is in line with the Government’s wage policy in the public sector, the protocol concluded with the social partners in 2008 and the provisions of the financial agreements of the country with the International Monetary Fund concerning the general budget for personnel expenses in the framework of the consolidated State budget. It further notes that the Government refers to Government Decision No. 833 of 2007 and section 138 of the Social Dialogue Act. In this context, the Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that measures are being taken towards the progressive increase of the salaries of staff paid from public funds that had been reduced by 25 per cent in 2010.

The Committee welcomes in particular section 138(4) of the Social Dialogue Act, according to which, while wages in the public sector are fixed by law within specific limits that cannot be the subject of negotiations nor modified by collective agreements, in cases where wage entitlements are established in special laws between minimum and maximum limits, the concrete wages are determined by collective bargaining, within the legal limits. Considering that this provision may be compatible with the Convention, depending on the practical application, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the categories of public servants for which the wage entitlements are established in special laws between minimum and maximum limits so that the concrete wages are determined by collective bargaining within those limits. For the remaining categories of public servants, while taking into consideration the Government’s statements concerning Act No. 284/2010, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in full consultation with the social partners and, if necessary, with technical assistance from the Office, to bring national law and practice into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention, so as to ensure that wages and pecuniary entitlements are included in the scope of collective bargaining for all public service workers covered by the Convention, on the understanding that upper and lower limits may be set for the wage negotiations. The Committee also requests the Government to supply a copy of Government Decision 833/2007.

Observing that the Government has recently benefited from ILO technical assistance seeking to ensure the conformity with the Convention of a draft Emergency Ordinance which substantially amends the Social Dialogue Act, the Committee trusts that, in the context of this legislative review, the Government will take due account of the technical comments made by the Office in the framework of the technical assistance provided and will soon be in a position to report progress on the issues raised by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to supply in its next report a copy of the Social Dialogue Act as amended by the Emergency Ordinance.

Lastly, the Committee recalls that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee had requested the Government to provide detailed information and statistics relating to the impact of the recent legislative changes on the application of the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will submit the requested information in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 100th Session, June 2011)

The Committee notes the debate which took place within the Conference Committee in June 2011 and welcomes the Government’s commitment to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to the 2010 comments made by the Block of National Trade Unions (BNS) concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee also notes the comments made by the BNS and the National Trade Union Confederation (CNS CARTEL ALFA) received on 10 June 2011 and the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 August 2011, as well as the Government’s observations on both communications.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted from the Government’s report that the legal framework on labour and social dialogue was under review. In this regard, the Committee notes from the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee that Act No. 53/2003 (Labour Code) has been substantially amended by Act No. 40/2011, and that Act No. 62 concerning social dialogue was adopted on 10 May 2011. The Committee observes that Act No. 62 of 10 May 2011 concerning social dialogue abrogates the following pieces of legislation: (i) Act 54/2003 on trade unions; (ii) Act No. 130/1996 on collective agreements (except its sections 26–39, which will be abrogated on the date of issuance of the Order to be adopted under section 177 of the Social Dialogue Act); and (iii) Act No. 168/1999 on the settlement of labour conflicts.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that, according to the ITUC, sanctions for anti-union activities are rarely imposed in practice due to loopholes in the Penal Code. The Committee had further noted the indications of the ITUC that the procedure for lodging a complaint appears to be too complicated and the authorities do not prioritize the trade unions’ complaints, and that the labour inspectorates do not always respect the confidentiality of the complaints. The Committee notes that the ITUC reiterates its comments as regards the non-application of sanctions in practice. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide in its next report, taking into account the new legislation, statistical information or at least the maximum information available on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination brought to the competent authorities, the average duration of proceedings and their outcome, as well as the sanctions and remedial measures applied.

Furthermore, in its previous comments, the Committee had noted from the ITUC comments that in recent years, certain employers have made employment conditional upon the worker agreeing not to create or join a union. The Committee had requested the Government to discuss this situation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers. The Committee notes that the BNS also denounces that some employers require documents that are officially published and seriously obstruct the right to organize, and that the ITUC alleges that a number of anti-union dismissals have occurred in the media sector. The Committee has noted from the oral information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee the Government’s commitment to organizing a meeting with the social partners on the subject of anti-union discrimination after the Conference. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the tripartite meeting has been postponed due to the appointment of the new Minister of Labour. The Committee welcomes the Government’s formal commitment to initiate tripartite discussions in this regard, trusts that the meeting will be organized in the very near future and requests the Government to provide information on its outcome and on any agreed follow-up measures.

Regarding the legal framework of the protection against acts of interference, the Committee notes that, in the context of sanctions for acts of anti-union discrimination, the Government refers to section 220(1) and (2) of the Labour Code (according to which union officials are protected by law against any form of constraint or limitation in the exercise of their functions and cannot be dismissed during their term of office for reasons related to their mandate) and section 218 of the Social Dialogue Act (according to which the constraint or limitation of union officials in the exercise of their functions is punished with a prison term of three months to two years or with a fine; the remaining paragraphs deal with acts of constraint in the context of strike action). The Committee further notes that section 10 of Act No. 62 of 10 May 2011 concerning social dialogue prohibits the modification or termination of employment on the ground of union membership or activity. The Committee observes that the new legislation does not seem to foresee sanctions in the case of violation of section 10 of the Social Dialogue Act and section 220(2) of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to clarify this point. Should it be confirmed that the new legislation does not provide for sanctions for the violation of section 10 of the Social Dialogue Act and section 220(2) of the Labour Code, the Committee wishes to recall that the existence of general legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee full protection against acts of anti union discrimination including by imposing sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Concerning protection against acts of interference, the Committee had requested, in its previous comments, information on the penalties against acts of interference which were prohibited under sections 221(2) and 235(3) of Act No. 53/2003 and Act No. 54/2003. The Committee had noted from the Government’s report that under Act No. 54/2003, such acts were punished with imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine between RON2,000 and RON5,000 (approximately US$600 to US$1,600). Considering that these fines might, in some cases, not be sufficiently dissuasive, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to increase the amount of the existing sanctions so that they constitute a sufficient deterrent against all acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes with satisfaction that acts of interference are now prohibited by section 218 of Act No. 53/2003 (Labour Code) as amended and section 7(2) of Act No. 62 of 10 May 2011 concerning social dialogue, and that under section 217(1)(a) of the Social Dialogue Act, acts of interference by public authorities or employers and employers’ organizations are punished with a fine between RON15,000 and RON20,000 (approximately US$4,700–$6,300).

Article 4. Right to collective bargaining. Bargaining level. The Committee notes that the BNS and the CNS CARTEL ALFA deplore that the labour law reform has caused the national-level collective agreement and the branch-level collective agreement to disappear and allege that section 128(1) of the new Social Dialogue Act, according to which collective agreements may be negotiated at enterprise level, at the level of a group of enterprises and at the level of sector of activity (an entity to be determined by the Government according to section 1(r)), is contrary to the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government’s reply that, the bargaining levels have been laid down by law, taking into consideration the legitimacy of the bargaining parties as conferred by the criteria of representativity, in the absence of other practical arrangements and due to fears expressed by the social partners as regards the negative impact of a lack of regulation in the field; and that, following discussions with the social partners, it was decided that the sectors of activity will be determined exclusively by the social partners. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the new legal provisions allow the parties, if they so wish, to negotiate and conclude, in addition to sectoral agreements, collective agreements at the national level. The Committee also requests the Government to communicate comparative statistics for the period 2008–12 on the coverage of collective bargaining.

Criteria of representativity. The Committee notes that the BNS criticizes that the criteria for being deemed representative set forth in section 51 of the new Social Dialogue Act are arbitrary and in breach of the free will of the parties, highlighting the representativity criteria at national level (cumulating membership of at least 5 per cent of the labour force and territorial structures in more than half of the national municipalities) and at enterprise level (membership of at least 50 per cent plus one of the workers of the enterprise). The Committee notes from the Government’s reply that the representativity criteria at national and sectoral levels have not been revised but have remained the same. It also notes the Government’s indication that the representativity criteria at enterprise level have been amended (the Committee understands that previously the membership requirement was of at least one third of the workers of the enterprise) in order to: (i) comply with the principle of application erga omnes of the clauses of the collective agreement; (ii) ensure the legitimacy of the trade union to negotiate and represent the interests of all the workers of the enterprise; and (iii) to avoid the frequent conflicts arising under the old legislation among unions contesting the representativity established by the tribunal – the resolution of these conflicts, of which one had been previously reported by the BNS, had in some cases exceeded the competence and level of training of the local authorities. Recalling that, under a system where the law stipulates that a trade union must receive the support of 50 per cent of the members of a bargaining unit to be recognized as a bargaining agent, if no union secures this absolute majority, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in this unit, at least on behalf of their own members, the Committee requests the Government to amend the legislation in order to guarantee the application of this principle.

Moreover, the Committee notes that, according to section 135(1)(i), in enterprises without a trade union meeting the representativity criteria, if an enterprise-level union exists and is affiliated to a federation meeting the representativity criteria in the relevant sector of activity, the negotiation of a collective agreement will be carried out by the representatives of that federation together with the elected workers’ representatives. The Committee considers that this provision could infringe upon the principle of the free and voluntary collective negotiation and therefore the autonomy of the bargaining partners. It requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 135 in practice.

Articles 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining with public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted from the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2611 and 2632 that in the public budget sector which covers all public employees, including those who are not engaged in the administration of the State (e.g. teachers), the following subjects are excluded from the scope of collective bargaining: base salaries, pay increases, allowances, bonuses and other staff entitlements which are fixed by law. The Committee had noted from the Government’s report that the salary rights in the budget sector were settled by Act No. 330/2009 on Unitary Salaries of the Staff Paid from Public Funds which stipulates that the fixation of salaries is exclusively by law and that it cannot be negotiated. The Committee previously recalled that all public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy the guarantees provided for in Article 4 of the Convention with regard to the promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee had further recalled that if, as part of its stabilization policy, a government considers that wage rates cannot be settled freely through collective bargaining, such a restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards. Therefore, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate in its next report if Act No. 330/2009 on Unitary Salaries of the Staff Paid from Public Funds is considered as an exceptional measure within the context of an economic stabilization policy, if adequate safeguards were established in order to protect workers’ living standards and if it provides for a limited length of application.

The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government the adoption of Act No. 284/2010 on Unitary Salaries of the Staff Paid from Public Funds, which abrogated Act No. 330/2009 and entered into force on 1 January 2011. The Committee notes that Act No. 284/2010 continues to stipulate that the fixation of salaries in the public budget sector is exclusively by law (section 3(b)) and that no salaries or other pecuniary entitlements exceeding the provisions of this law can be negotiated through collective agreements (section 37(1)). The Committee notes that the Government highlights section 32 of Act No. 284/2010, which provides that the level of hierarchy coefficients for the categories of wages provided in this law will be revised periodically depending on the evolution of the wages existing in the Romanian labour market, so that public sector wages can be set at a competitive level, within the limits of financial sustainability. The Committee further notes the Government’s indications that the conditions of work and employment in the public budget sector have never been excluded from the scope of collective bargaining; that the system of unitary salaries for staff paid from public funds was established in common accord with the trade unions in order to correct the serious budgetary imbalance and deficit that irresponsible collective negotiations of salaries at the level of each public institution had generated; and that no constitutional, European or international requirements could oblige governments to pay to staff paid from public funds salaries – whether negotiated or not – that exceed the financial sustainability of the state budget.

The Committee observes with concern that Act No. 284/2010, which replaces Act No. 330/2009, continues to globally preclude collective bargaining on salary rights and pecuniary entitlements in the public budget sector. While taking into consideration the Government’s statement on the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the state budget, the Committee underlines that the Convention does not impose an obligation on the Government to regularly achieve results as regards the negotiation of salary and economic clauses of collective agreements in the public sector. The Committee is therefore bound to reiterate that, while Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope, all other categories of public servants should enjoy the guarantees of the Convention and therefore be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including wages and pecuniary entitlements. The Committee takes full account of the serious financial and budgetary difficulties facing governments, particularly during periods of prolonged and widespread economic stagnation. However, it considers that the authorities should give preference as far as possible to collective bargaining in determining the conditions of employment of public servants; where the circumstances rule this out, measures of this kind should be limited in time and protect the standard of living of the workers who are the most affected. In other words, a fair and reasonable compromise should be sought between the need to preserve as far as possible the autonomy of the parties to bargaining, on the one hand, and measures which must be taken by governments to overcome their budgetary difficulties, on the other. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that legislative provisions which allow Parliament or the competent budgetary authority to set upper and lower limits for wage negotiations or to establish an overall “budgetary package” within which the parties may negotiate monetary or standard-setting clauses or those which give the financial authorities the right to participate in collective bargaining alongside the direct employer would be compatible with the Convention, provided they leave a significant role to collective bargaining (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 264). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in full consultation with the social partners and, if necessary, with technical assistance from the Office, to bring national law and practice into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention and the abovementioned principles, so as to ensure that wages and pecuniary entitlements are included in the scope of collective bargaining for the public service workers covered by the Convention, and recalls that this collective bargaining of salaries in the public service could take place prior to the discussion of the budget legislation and could be global and not necessarily at the level of each public institution.

Information on the impact of the new legislation. In its conclusions, the Conference Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information and statistics relating to the impact of the recent legislative changes on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government states that this evaluation will only be possible at the end of 2012 so that the Government could only report on the impact of the new legislation in its report due in 2013. The Committee trusts that the Government will submit the requested information in its next report.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes from the International Trade Union Confederation’s (ITUC) comments of 24 August 2010, that in recent years, certain employers have made employment conditional upon the worker agreeing not to create or join a union. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government indicates in its reply dated 19 October 2010 that it does not have any information concerning this issue. The Committee requests the Government to discuss this situation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers and to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.

The Committee also notes that according to ITUC although anti-union activities are prohibited, the sanctions for restricting trade union activities are rarely applied in practice, the procedure for lodging a complaint appears to be too complicated and the authorities do not prioritize the trade unions’ complaints. ITUC states that the labour inspectorates do not always respect the confidentiality of the complaints and that certain employers prefer facing penalties rather than complying with the labour laws in place. The Committee finally notes that according to the ITUC, while the law provides for sanctions for obstructing union activities, those sanctions cannot be applied in practice due to loopholes in the Penal Code. The Committee also notes the comments made by the Block of National Trade Unions (BNS) in a communication dated 1 September 2010. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Moreover, in its previous observation, the Committee had requested the Government to provide statistical information regarding the protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee takes note from the Government’s report that the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection does not have statistical data concerning discrimination against trade unions. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report, statistical information, or at least the maximum information available, on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination brought to the competent authorities, the average duration of proceedings and their outcome, as well as  information concerning the nature and the outcome of the registered labour disputes that are currently being conciliated before the services of mediation and council of the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection.

Articles 2 and 3. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested information on the penalties against acts of interference which are prohibited under sections 221(2) and 235(3) of Act No. 53/2003 and Act No. 54/2003. The Committee had noted from the Government’s report that under Act No. 54/2003, the restriction of the exercise of the activities of trade union officials or the obstruction of the exercise of the right of freedom of association are punished with imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine between 2,000 Romanian new lei (RON) and RON5,000 (approximately US$600–1,600). The Committee considers that these fines might, in some cases, not be sufficiently dissuasive. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to increase the amount of the existing sanctions so that they constitute a sufficient deterrent against all acts of anti-union discrimination.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining with public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted from the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2611 and 2632 that in the public budget sector which covers all public employees, including those who are not engaged in the administration of the State (e.g. teachers), the following subjects are excluded from the scope of collective bargaining: base salaries, pay increases, allowances, bonuses and other staff entitlements which are fixed by law. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the salary rights in the budget sector were settled by Law No. 330/2009 on Unitary Salaries of the Staff Paid from Public Funds which stipulates that the fixation of salaries is exclusively by law and that it cannot be negotiated.

The Committee recalls that all public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy guarantees provided for in Article 4 of the Convention with regard to the promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee further recalls that if, as part of its stabilization policy, a government considers that wage rates cannot be settled freely through collective bargaining, such a restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report if Law No. 330/2009 on Unitary Salaries of the Staff Paid from Public Funds is considered as an exceptional measure within the context of an economic stabilization policy, if adequate safeguards were established in order to protect workers’ living standards and if it provides for a limited length of application.

Draft labour legislations. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that pursuant to the ILO mission, the social partners that are representative at the national level, as well as representatives of the Government, signed a memorandum in which they agreed to improve the legal framework on labour and social dialogue and in this regard, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) the elaboration of Act No. 168/1999 on the settlement of labour conflicts is part of the 2010 legislative schedule; (ii) Act No. 130/1996 on collective agreements and Act 54/2003 on trade unions will be debated within the Social Dialogue Commissions from the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection at the latest in December 2010; and (iii) the modification of Act No. 188/1999 on the status of civil servants (with its amendments in Law No. 864/2006) was modified by Act No. 140/2010 adopted by the Parliament on 8 July 2010, but is currently under review.

The Committee has not yet received any update concerning the possible amendments of these legislative texts. It trusts that the Government will be in a position to report progress soon on the issues raised above in the framework of the law reform currently underway and transmit a copy of the relevant legislation once adopted. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee takes note of the report of the technical assistance mission to Romania which took place in May 2008 in the context of the follow-up to the conclusions reached by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2007. It notes from the Government’s report that pursuant to the ILO mission, the social partners that are representative at the national level in Romania, as well as representatives of the Romanian Government, signed a memorandum in which they agreed to improve the legal framework on labour and social dialogue and to request specialized ILO technical assistance on the legislative texts concerning: the right to freedom of association for trade unions and employers’ organizations (Act No. 54/2003 which according to the Government, is currently under discussion before Parliament); collective agreements (Act No. 130/1996); and settlement of industrial disputes (Act No. 168/1999). A tripartite working group has been set up in order to examine amendments to the abovementioned Acts and focuses at present on a draft bill to amend Act No. 130/1996.

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 29 August 2008 referring to acts of anti-union discrimination and employer refusal to bargain, as well as the Government’s reply which focuses on the legislative framework for addressing these issues. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report statistical information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination brought to the competent authorities, the average duration of proceedings and their outcome, as well as information on the activities of the mediation and conciliation services of the Ministry of Labour, Family and Equal Opportunities.

The Committee also notes the communications by the National Education Federation (FEN) dated 12 September 2007 and 27 May 2008, as well as the Government’s reply of 4 December 2007 and 21 October and 11 November 2008 concerning collective bargaining in the public sector with regard to the wages of teachers. The Committee addresses this issue below.

Finally, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2611 and 2632 submitted, inter alia, by FEN, with regard to various aspects of collective bargaining in the public sector (351st Report, paragraphs 1241–1283).

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested information on the penalties against acts of interference which is prohibited under sections 221(2) and 235(3) of Act No. 53/2003 and Act No. 54/2003. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that under Act No. 54/2003, the restriction of the exercise of the activities of trade union officials or the obstruction of the exercise of the right of freedom of association are punished with imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine between 2,000 Romanian New Lei (RON) and RON5,000. Noting that these remedies are provided under Act No. 54/2003, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether they apply also to violations of Act No. 53/2003, and if not, requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt dissuasive sanctions and rapid appeal procedures against acts of interference under Act No. 53/2003.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining with public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee requested information on the process and scope of collective bargaining for public servants not engaged in the administration of the State under Act No.  188/1999 as amended by Act No. 251/2004. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that under section 72 of Act No. 188/1999 the public authorities and institutions have the right to conclude agreements every year with the representative trade unions of public employees (or the representative of public employees where there are no unions) on the following subjects: the constitution and functioning of funds for the improvement of working conditions; safety and health at work; the daily work programme; vocational training; other measures concerning the protection of trade union officers. The Government adds that at present, the representatives of Government, and workers’ and employers’ organizations are holding tripartite negotiations for the establishment of a set of principles which will constitute the basis of a new law on the salaries of personnel in the public budget sector.

The Committee notes from the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2611 and 2632 that in the public budget sector which covers all public employees, including those who are not engaged in the administration of the State (e.g. teachers), the following subjects are excluded from the scope of collective bargaining: base salaries, pay increases, allowances, bonuses and other staff entitlements which are fixed by law. The Committee emphasizes that all public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy the guarantees provided for in Article 4 of the Convention with regard to the promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated in the framework of the current labour law reform to amend section 12(1) of Act No. 130/1996 so that it no longer excludes from the scope of collective bargaining base salaries, pay increases, allowances, bonuses and other entitlements of public employees who are not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee, in recognition of the fact that the special characteristics of the public service require some flexibility in the application of the principle of the autonomy of the partners to collective bargaining, recalls that the Government could adopt legislative provisions which allow Parliament or the competent budgetary authority to set upper and lower limits for wage negotiations or to establish an overall “budgetary package” within which the parties may negotiate monetary or standards-setting clauses (for example: reduction of working hours or other arrangements, varying wage increases according to levels of remuneration, fixing a timetable for readjustment provisions). Such measures should leave a significant role to collective bargaining and meet with the agreement of the parties concerned.

The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to report progress soon on the issues raised above in the framework of the law reform currently under way, and encourages the Government to continue to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It also notes the observations of 10 August 2006 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

In earlier comments, the Committee noted the adoption of Act No. 429/2003 amending the Constitution, Act No. 53/2003 on the new Labour Code and the new Act on trade unions, No. 54/2003. The Committee noted that Act No. 188/1999 on civil servants has been amended by Act No. 251/2004 and Act No. 251/2006 of 22 June 2006. From the information supplied by the Government, it notes that the new “social stability pact, 2004” concluded by the social partners, provides for resumption of the discussions on the law governing labour disputes and that governing labour courts. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any developments in these matters.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted in earlier comments that section 221(2) of Act No. 53/2003 prohibits any interference by the employer or by employers’ organizations, either directly or through their representatives or members, in the establishment of trade unions or in the exercise of trade union rights. Act No. 54/2003 provides for similar protection. Section 235(3) of Act No. 53/2003 prohibits any interference by employees or trade unions, either directly or through trade union representatives or members, in the establishment of employers’ organizations or the exercise of their rights. The Committee again asks the Government to indicate the penalties for acts of interference.

Article 6. Public servants. The Committee observes that Act No. 188/1999 on civil servants was amended by Act No. 251/2004. In its report, the Government indicates that civil servants may form organizations, join them and perform any kind of duty in them. They have the right to associate in occupational organizations or any other type of organization the aim of which is to represent their own interests, promote vocational training and protect their status. Concerning Act No. 251/2006 of 22 June 2006 amending and supplementing Act No. 188/1999 on the status of civil servants, and is waiting for it to be translated and will therefore wait for the translation before expressing its views on any particular issues relating to the Convention. It notes the ICFTU’s assertion that public employees may bargain for everything except salaries, which are set by the Government. The Committee reminds the Government that restrictions of this kind on collective bargaining are contrary to the Convention. It requests the Government to send its comments on the ICFTU’s observations and to send to the ILO, in one of its working languages, the text of the provisions that govern collective bargaining for public employees and officials not engaged in the administration of the State, together with information on collective agreements concluded in the public sector in the last three years.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the comments by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) on the application of the Convention, sent in a communication dated 31 August 2005. The Committee requests the Government to reply to these comments.

The Committee will examine the matters it raised in its direct request of 2004 (see direct request of 2004, 75th Session) at its 2006 session in the framework of the regular reporting cycle.

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

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Government’s report. It notes the adoption of Act No. 429/2003 amending the Constitution, Act No. 53/2003 on the new Labour Code and the new Act No. 54/2003 on trade unions. The Committee notes that Act No. 188/1999 on civil servants has been amended by Act No. 251/2004. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s indications, the resumption of the discussions on the law of labour disputes and the laws related to labour courts is provided for in the new "Social Stability Pact for 2004" concluded between the social partners. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest that Act No. 54/2003 has broadened the protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in certain respects and that it completes Act No. 53/2003.

Articles 2 and 3. The Committee notes that section 221(2) of Act No. 53/2003 prohibits any interference on the part of the employer or employers’ organizations, either directly or through their representatives or members, in the establishment of trade unions or in the exercise of their rights. A similar protection is afforded under Act No. 54/2003. Further, section 235(3) of Act No. 53/2003 prohibits any interference on the part of the employees or trade unions, either directly or by trade unions’ representatives or members in the establishment of employers’ organizations or the exercise of their rights. The Committee requests the Government to indicate what are the applicable sanctions to any acts of interference.

Article 4. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that Act No. 143/1997 amending Act No. 130/1996 on collective labour agreements limits negotiations on collective agreements to 60 days and it requested the Government to indicate the procedure adopted in the event negotiations would continue after the expiry of this time limit. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government indicates that, when the negotiations exceed 60 days, they result, in accordance with section 68(c) of Act No. 168/1999 on the settlement of labour disputes, in a conflict of rights concerning "the finding of the cessation of the applicable collective labour contract", which should be settled by the courts in accordance with section 70. The Government adds that, when negotiations last more than 60 days, they may also result, in accordance with section 12 of Act No. 168/1999, in a conflict of interests. The Committee notes that, in case a conflict of interest arises, the union which is party to the conflict shall submit the matter for conciliation to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection under section 17. Under section 26, if the conflict of interest has not been settled through conciliation, the parties can agree to submit the matter to mediation. Under section 32, at any point in time during the conflict of interest, the parties may agree to submit the matter to arbitration.

Article 6. The Committee notes that Act No. 188/1999 on civil servants has recently been amended by Act No. 251/2004. The Committee will examine whether the Act, as amended, raised any particular issue under the Convention once it has received its translation. The Committee recalls that, while public servants engaged in the administration of the State, that is, public servants who by their functions are directly employed by the administration of the State (for example, those employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies), can be excluded from the scope of the Convention, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to specify the manner in which public servants not engaged in the administration of the State are covered by the provisions of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether the legislation protects, by means of expeditious procedures and effective sanctions, workers who are members of trade unions or who participate in trade union activities against acts other than termination of employment. The Committee had also requested it to indicate whether the legislation provides for expeditious procedures and dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference by employers. In its latest report, the Government indicates that Act No. 54/1991 provides for fines or sentences of imprisonment for any obstacle to the free exercise of the right of association and that, under the terms of emergency Ordinance No. 179/1999, amending and supplementing Act No. 92/1992 respecting the organization of the judiciary, individuals may appeal through the courts when they consider that their rights have been infringed. Labour disputes are judged rapidly in the tribunal of first instance by a committee composed of a judge and two assessors representing respectively employers’ and workers’ organizations.

The Committee notes from the general comments made by the trade unions that, while the latter consider the legislative framework to be satisfactory, its application in practice leaves much to be desired in relation to several important aspects of the Convention (for example, the low level of sanctions for acts of interference in trade union activities; the limited effectiveness of protective measures against acts of anti union discrimination; the excessive length of judicial procedures relating to labour disputes; the non compliance of certain employers with collective agreements that have been concluded and registered). The Committee also notes that all the social partners concluded a social agreement in February setting out the common priorities in social matters for 2001 and which provides for the adoption or amendment of several legislative texts in this respect (including the Labour Code, the legislation on labour disputes, the legislation respecting labour tribunals), that the social partners will be associated with these discussions and the work of bringing the national legislation into closer conformity with international labour standards and that the Government intends to take into account the Committee’s comments in this exercise. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the work and discussions in question, any texts which are adopted and information on the application of the legislation in practice.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Act to amend and supplement Act No. 130/1996 on collective labour agreements limits negotiations on collective agreements to 60 days and it requested the Government to indicate the procedure adopted when negotiations still continue after that period. The Government states that the legislator set the above period in order to prevent delays in the conclusion of collective labour agreements and that the information provided to trade union delegates by the employer and the place and timing of the following meetings are indicated during the first meeting of the parties. The Committee notes this information but is bound to observe that the Government has not replied to its question. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the procedure adopted when negotiations are still continuing after 60 days in the circumstances described above.

3. The Committee reminds the Government that it can call on the technical assistance of the ILO and it hopes that these measures to improve the legislation and its application in practice will be adopted in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report and with regard to the Act respecting the amendment of Act No. 130/1996 on collective labour agreements and its supplement (hereafter referred to as the Amending Act).

The Committee notes that the above Act limits negotiations on collective agreements to 60 days. Recalling that under the Convention, voluntary negotiations of collective agreements should be promoted, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the procedure adopted when after 60 days of negotiations a collective agreement has not been concluded.

The Committee notes that the prescribed percentage for an employers' organization to represent employers on a national level has been reduced and that an employers' organization should be made up of employers representing at least 25 per cent of all sectors of activity. The Committee notes that to represent workers on a national level, workers' associations must represent 5 per cent of the workforce in at least 25 per cent of all sectors of activity. The Committee takes due note that the number of trade union members required for a trade union to be representative has been reduced to at least one-third of the total workforce of the enterprise.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the 1999 collective labour agreement as well as an up-to-date copy of the 1973 Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any developments with regard to the amendment of the Labour Code and to forward a copy of the legislative text as soon as it has been adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the Act amending Act No. 130/1996 respecting collective labour agreements and its supplement.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged and the sanctions envisaged to ensure all workers enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government's statement relating to measures in Act No. 54/1991, the collective labour agreements and the Labour Code that ensure protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that these instruments provide workers with adequate protection as regards freedom to join a trade union of their own choosing and against termination of employment for participating in trade union activities. The Committee requests that the Government indicate whether legislation provides expeditious procedures and effective sanctions to protect workers due to trade union membership or for their participation in trade union activities against acts other than termination of employment, such as transfers, demotion, etc.

2. The Committee notes the provisions under Act No. 54/1991 prohibiting acts of interference. The Committee requests that the Government indicate whether legislation provides expeditious procedures and dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference in the event of such acts.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee has noted the Government's report, the new Law on Collective Employment Contracts of 1996, the communication from the National Union Block dated 14 October 1996 and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1904, adopted by the Governing Body at its 268th Session in March 1997.

The Committee notes with satisfaction that certain restrictions on the right of employers to bargain collectively, on which it had commented, have been lifted under the above Law. In specific terms, the right to bargain collectively is no longer restricted to chambers of commerce and industry.

The Committee had asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged, together with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, to ensure appropriate protection for all workers against acts of anti-union discrimination intended to make a worker's employment conditional on his not joining a trade union, dismiss a worker or cause harm to him as a result of his union membership.

The Committee also asked the Government to indicate in detail the measures, together with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, taken or envisaged to guarantee to workers' organizations appropriate protection against acts of interference by employers, in particular those giving rise to the establishment of workers' organizations supported by financial or other means so as to place such workers' organizations under the supervision of an employer or an employers' organization.

In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Individual Employment Contracts Bill provides for the prohibition of discrimination based on union membership. Amendments to the 1991 Trade Unions Act will be discussed, together with the proposals made by the social partners, within the tripartite consultative committee set up under the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made, and to provide details, and hopes that it will also be able to provide a copy of the Bill or the provisions prohibiting anti-union discrimination and interference and providing for effective sanctions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures which have been adopted or are envisaged to guarantee all workers (and not only trade union leaders, as provided by section 48 of Act No. 54/1991) adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination calculated to make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or cause the dismissal of a worker, or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership, enforced by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 2. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the specific measures which have been taken or are envisaged to guarantee that workers' organizations enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by employers, and particularly against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organizations supported by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers' organizations, and enforced by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1788, approved by the Governing Body at its 262nd Session in March-April 1995 concerning restrictions on collective bargaining by certain categories of railway workers and the need to ensure that draft legislation on collective bargaining and the resolution of collective disputes is designed fundamentally to promote the broader development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between employers and workers' organizations with a view to the regulation by this means of terms and conditions of employment. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on developments in the situation in this respect.

With regard to restrictions on the right of employers to collective bargaining under the terms of section 8(3) of Act No. 13 of 1991, which reserve the right to bargain collectively by chambers of commerce and industry, which are considered by Cartel Alfa not to be independent organizations truly representing employers, the Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government to the effect that draft legislation on employers' organizations is currently being adopted and that section 1 of this legislation provides that employers' organizations are independent and apolitical. Section 6 of the above draft legislation defines employers' organizations as the representatives of employers for the negotiation and conclusion of collective labour agreements and other agreements with the authorities and workers' organizations. The Committee notes that section 8(3) of Act No. 13 of 1991 will be repealed as a result of the coming into force of the above draft text (section 20). The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation as soon as it is adopted and to specify the minimum number of employers required to establish an organization.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes with interest the information supplied in the Government's report in reply to its previous direct request, to the effect that Act No. 14 of 1991 which allowed disputes to be referred to compulsory arbitration is no longer in force and that a large number of collective agreements were concluded in 1993.

It also notes the Government's reply to the comments of the World Confederation of Labour (WLC) and the Cartel Alfa National Trade Union Confederation, which contain complaints, inter alia, about section 8, paragraph 3 and section 12, paragraph 3 of Act No. 13 of 1991.

1. The above organizations contend that section 8, paragraph 3 of Act No. 13 of 1991 respecting collective labour agreements restricts the right of employers to collective bargaining by providing that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry shall appoint employers' representatives, and thus imposes on workers' organizations a bargaining partner which has to be recognized by the Government, since the establishment of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, which are not union-type associations, is subject to Government recognition under Legislative Decree No. 139 of 1990. The Government states in its report that a Bill on employers' organizations is in the process of being drafted and that section 8 of Act No. 13 of 1991 will be brought into line with it once it has been enacted.

The Committee notes this information and asks the Government to provide a copy of the Bill once it has been enacted.

2. The comments of the WLC and Cartel Alfa also concern section 12, paragraph 3, of Act No. 13 of 1991 which provides that a collective agreement applies as from the date of its registration. The Government explains that the purpose of this section is to enable the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare to keep a check on the form of collective agreements and ascertain that they contain no clauses that are inconsistent with the minimum conditions of work set in the legislation.

The Committee considers that, if it is applied in this manner, section 12, paragraph 3 of Act No. 13 is not contrary to the requirements of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee takes note of the texts of the three basic Acts of 1991 respecting labour adopted by the Romanian Parliament: Act No. 54 respecting trade unions, Act No. 13 on collective labour agreements and Act No. 15 on the settlement of collective labour disputes, and of the new Constitution.

It also notes the comments made by the World Confederation of Labour and the Cartel Alpha National Trade Union Confederation, and asks the Government to reply to them.

The Committee observes with interest that the new Acts, in conjunction with the repeal of several legislative provisions on which it commented earlier, change the general orientation of the industrial relations system, establish trade union pluralism and the independence of the trade union movement, and recognise the principle of free negotiation of collective labour agreements.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether Act No. 14 under which a collective dispute could be referred to compulsory arbitration in the event of failure of wage negotiations during 1991, expired on 31 December 1991 as anticipated, or whether a similar provision has been extended to 1992.

In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the practical application of Article 4 of the Convention (number of collective agreements in force, number of employees covered, sectors concerned, etc.).

Since the Government has not yet had time to reply to the comments of the World Confederation of Labour and the Cartel Alpha National Trade Union Confederation, the Committee will address these specific questions at its next meeting, once it has examined the Government's observations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee takes note of the texts of the three basic Acts of 1991 respecting labour adopted by the Romanian Parliament: Act No. 54 respecting trade unions of 1 August, Act No. 13 on collective labour agreements of 8 February, and Act No. 15 on the settlement of collective labour disputes, and of the new Constitution of 8 December 1991.

The Committee observes with interest that the new Acts, in conjunction with the repeal of several legislative provisions on which it commented earlier, change the general orientation of the industrial relations system, establish trade union pluralism and the independence of the trade union movement, and recognise the principle of free negotiation of collective labour agreements.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government on certain points. Act No. 54 respecting trade unions of 1 August 1991 Act No. 13 on collective labour agreements of 8 February 1991 Act No. 15 on the settlement of collective labour disputes of 1991 Constitution of 8 December 1991