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

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

The Committee notes section 244(1) of the Labour Code (2017) according to which, a strike is a stoppage of work by employees organized by a trade union or trade union organization in an effort to resolve a collective labour dispute on interests or ensure compliance with the decision reached in resolving such a dispute. The Committee considers that trade unions and employers’ organizations responsible for defending socio-economic and occupational interests should be able to use, respectively, strike action or protest action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 124). Recalling that organizations responsible for defending workers socio-economic and occupational interests should be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether under the legislation in force trade unions can have recourse to protest strikes against the Government’s economic and social policies.

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

The Committee notes the entry into force, on 1 July 2017, of a new Labour Code, and the information provided by the Government on the right to strike regulated by its provisions. The Committee will examine the Labour Code’s conformity with the Convention once its translation becomes available.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government in response to the Committee’s previous direct request. The Committee notes with interest that the Law on Trade Unions has been brought in line with the provisions of the Civil Code facilitating the procedure for the establishment of trade unions. It further notes that pursuant to section 20 of the Law on Trade Unions and part 3 of section 2.68 of the Civil Code, a refusal to register a trade union can be appealed against in court.

The Committee notes that section 77 of the Labour Code provides that, for a strike to be declared in an enterprise, a corresponding decision has to be approved by secret ballot by more than one half of the employees of the enterprise and, in case of a strike in a structural unit, by more than one half of the employees of that structural unit. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, while noting that this amendment was an improvement in comparison to the previous provisions that stipulated that a decision to declare a strike had to be approved by two-thirds of the enterprise’s employees, it had also considered that account should be taken only of the votes cast. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to amend section 77 of the Labour Code accordingly and to provide information on the measures taken in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee takes note of the observations submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2011 and those received on 1 September 2014 and the comments thereon submitted by the Government on 29 October 2014, as well as the observations submitted by the Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation (LPSK) in 2011 on issues raised by the Committee below. The Committee also notes the observations by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2014. It further notes the Government’s comments on the 2010 observations submitted by the LPSK and the Lithuanian Trade Union “Sandrauga”.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to freely organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 80(3) of the Labour Code so as to ensure that, in the event of a disagreement among the parties on the minimum service, any such disputes are settled by an independent and impartial body. The Committee further requested the Government to amend section 78(1) of the Labour Code with a view to ensuring that the workers in essential services, whose right to strike is subjected to restrictions or prohibition, are afforded compensatory guarantees, and are involved in determining and implementing the procedure which will ensure impartial and rapid settlement of their claims. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that sections of the Labour Code dealing with collective labour disputes were amended on 15 May 2014. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, according to the new amendment to section 80(3), in case of failure by the parties to agree on the minimum services, the final decision will be taken by the Labour Arbitration which is formed under the jurisdiction of the district court where the registered office of the enterprise or entity involved in the collective dispute is located. The Committee further notes with interest that, by virtue of the recent amendment, the demands put forward by workers in essential services are no longer settled by the Government, but fall under the purview of the Labour Arbitration. The Committee invites the Government to describe in its next report actions undertaken to implement the new legislative provisions in practice, including any judicial or administrative decisions in this respect.

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

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

Articles 2 and 7 of the Convention. Acquisition of legal personality. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Republic of Lithuania law amending section 2.38 of the Civil Code was adopted on 4 June 2010, facilitating the establishment procedure of trade unions by defining lower requirements on the membership. Section 2.38, paragraph 1, now provides that a trade union is considered established and can therefore obtain the legal personality if: (i) it has not less than 20 founders, or if they cover no less than one tenth of the total number of employees in an enterprise, institution or an organization (and one tenth of the total number of employees shall be no less than three); (ii) the general meeting of the trade union approved its regulations (statute); and (iii) the administrative bodies were elected thereof. Noting this information with interest, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report if section 6 of the Law on Trade Unions concerning the establishment of a trade union was also amended accordingly.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that pursuing to enforce comprehensive requirements on the regulations of trade unions and the registration thereof, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the law amending provisions of section 8 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Trade Unions. In this respect, the Committee notes that the amended section 8 does not seem to refer anymore to: (i) the legal basis for a refusal of registration of a trade union (section 8, paragraph 7, of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Trade Unions); and (ii) the possibility of appeal in court of the refusal to register (section 8, paragraph 7, of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Trade Unions). In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report if the refusal to register a trade union can be appealed against in court and it requests the Government to provide the relevant legislation regarding the abovementioned comments.

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

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 24 August 2010, and the comments submitted by the Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation (LPSK) on 31 August 2010 on the application of the Convention and in particular on certain restrictions of the right to strike already referred to by the Committee. Furthermore, the Committee notes the comments submitted the by LPSK on 9 September 2010 and the Lithuanian Trade Union “Sandrauga” on 13 October 2010. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Ministry of Social Security and Labour will analyse the amendments to the Labour Code as suggested by the Committee in its last observation. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls its previous comments and trusts that they will be taken into account in the process of revision of the Labour Code.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to freely
organize their activities and to formulate their programmes

(a) Unilateral determination of minimum service. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 80(2) of the Labour Code so as to ensure that, in the event of disagreement among the parties to the collective labour dispute on the minimum service, the definition of the service to be ensured may be determined by an independent and impartial body. The Committee had noted that according to the new amendment to subsection 2, the minimum services shall be determined by the parties to the collective dispute within three days from the day of submission of warning about the strike to the employer. The Committee had noted, however, that, according to subsection 3, if no agreement is reached by the parties to the dispute, the decision shall be made by the Government or a municipal executive body upon consultation with the parties to the dispute. The Committee had underlined that it would be highly desirable for negotiations on the definition and organization of the minimum service not to be held during a labour dispute, so that all parties can examine the matter with the necessary objectivity and detachment (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161). As regards the legal requirement that any disagreement on the minimum services shall be settled by the authorities, the Committee had recalled that the legislation should provide for any such disagreement to be settled by an independent body, and not by the Government or a municipal executive body. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 80(3) of the Labour Code accordingly and to indicate any progress made in this respect.

(b) Compensatory guarantees. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which claims of workers in essential services are settled and on the relevant body responsible for taking the final decision in this respect. The Committee had noted that, by virtue of the recent amendments, strikes are prohibited in first aid medical services and the demands put forward by the workers concerned are settled by the Government upon consultation with the parties to the collective labour dispute (section 78). The Committee had recalled in this respect that if the right to strike is subject to restrictions or a prohibition, workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned. It is essential that the latter be able to participate in determining and implementing the procedure, which should furthermore provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 164). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 78(1) accordingly and to indicate any progress made in this respect.

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

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and its reply to the 2006 comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned certain restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right to strike (sections 77, 78 and 80 of the Labour Code). The Committee notes that these legislative provisions have since then been amended and notes the text of the relevant amendments as entered into force on 1 July 2008. In this respect, the Committee wishes to raise the following points.

(a) Unilateral determination of minimum service. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 80(2) of the Labour Code so as to ensure that, in the event of disagreement among the parties to the collective labour dispute on the minimum service, the definition of the service to be ensured may be determined by an independent and impartial body. The Committee notes that according to the new amendment to subsection 2, the minimum services shall be determined by the parties to the collective dispute within three days from the day of submission of warning about the strike to the employer. The Committee notes, however, that, according to subsection 3, if no agreement is reached by the parties to the dispute, the decision shall be made by the Government or a municipal executive body upon consultation with the parties to the dispute. The Committee considers that it would be highly desirable for negotiations on the definition and organization of the minimum service not to be held during a labour dispute, so that all parties can examine the matter with the necessary objectivity and detachment (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161). As regards the legal requirement that any disagreement on the minimum services shall be settled by the authorities, the Committee is of the opinion that the legislation should provide for any such disagreement to be settled by an independent body, and not by the Government or a municipal executive body. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 80(3) of the Labour Code accordingly and to indicate any progress made in this respect.

(b) Strike ballot. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 77(1) of the Labour Code so as to lower the quorum (set at two-thirds of the enterprise employees voting in favour of a strike at the enterprise; and two-thirds of employees of a structural subdivision of the enterprise and at least half of the employees of the enterprise voting in favour of a strike in the structural subdivision of the enterprise) and to ensure that, account it taken only of the votes cast. The Committee notes with interest that according the new amendment, the right to adopt a decision to declare a strike is vested in the trade union according to the procedure laid down in its regulations. If an enterprise has no operational trade union and the meeting of workers has not conveyed the function of representation and protection of workers to a trade union of relevant economic branch, the labour council shall have to right to adopt a decision to declare a strike.

(c) Compensatory guarantees. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which claims of workers in essential services are settled and on the relevant body responsible for taking the final decision in this respect. The Committee notes that, by virtue of the recent amendments, strikes are prohibited in first aid medical services and the demands put forward by the workers concerned are settled by the Government upon consultation with the parties to the collective labour dispute (section 78). The Committee recalls in this respect that if the right to strike is subject to restrictions or a prohibition, workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned. It is essential that the latter be able to participate in determining and implementing the procedure, which should furthermore provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 164). The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 78(1) accordingly and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

(d) Strikes in nuclear facilities. With respect to the Committee’s previous request to provide information on any use of section 199(4) of the Criminal Code providing for criminal liability for strikes at nuclear facilities, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the Criminal Code of 1961 became invalid on 1 May 2003 and that the Criminal Code of 2000 (in force as of 1 May 2003) does not criminalize strikes at nuclear facilities.

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

The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government in response to the Committee’s previous direct request.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee had previously noted section 77(1) of the Labour Code which provided that a strike shall be declared if a corresponding decision was approved by secret ballot by two-thirds of the enterprise’s employees voting in favour of a strike in the enterprise; and two-thirds of the employees of a structural subdivision of the enterprise and at least half of the employees of the enterprise voted in favour of a strike in the structural subdivision of the enterprise. In this respect, it considered that the observance of the quorum provided for in section 77(1) of the Code might be difficult to reach and therefore hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike and requested the Government to amend this provision so as to lower the required quorum. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in accordance with section 77(1) of the Labour Code, as amended on 28 May 2005, a trade union may adopt a decision to call a strike in accordance with the procedure established by its statute. Where there is no active trade union at an enterprise and the workers did not delegate the representation function to a relevant branch trade union, the decision to strike at the enterprise or its branch may be adopted by a work council following the abovementioned quorum. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that a draft amendment of section 77 has been prepared and registered at the Parliament. The draft contains the following new quorum requirement: in case of a strike at an organization (enterprise) – vote by more than one-half of the employees is required; in case of a strike in a structural division – vote by more than one-half of the employees of the division and at least one-half of the employees of the organization as a whole is required. While noting that the proposed amendment would lower the quorum, the Committee nevertheless recalls that account should be taken only of the votes cast (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 170). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 77 of the Labour Code accordingly and to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Concerning the Committee’s previous request to indicate the personnel of internal services concerned by the prohibition of strikes provided for in section 78 of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that, in accordance with the latest amendment of section 78(1), this prohibition concerns all employees of the system of internal affairs with the exception of persons working under employment contracts. The Committee recalls in this respect that too broad a definition of the concept of public servants is likely to result in a very wide restriction or even a prohibition of the right to strike for these workers. The prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 158).

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, although the Tripartite Council (formed on the basis of an equal tripartite partnership) analysed and proposed to the Government possible solutions as to the settlement of the claims of workers employed in essential services who were prohibited from striking, the final decision was taken by the Government, as all enterprises and services in essential services were state-owned or related to objects of state significance. In this respect, the Committee felt that it would be more appropriate if the conclusions made by the Tripartite Council were final and binding, subject to review by an independent body, and in any case they should not lie with the discretionary authority of the State and requested the Government to ensure that the compensatory guarantees available to those whose strike action is restricted are seen to be impartial and reliable to the parties concerned. It further asked the Government to provide any decision taken pursuant to tripartite council conclusions. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the proposals will be referred to the Tripartite Council for consideration, as under p. 4.2 of the Agreement on Tripartite Cooperation concluded by the Government, trade unions and employers’ organizations, the Government has undertaken to adopt resolutions on relevant economic, employment, labour and social issues only upon consideration of such issues at the National Tripartite Council if requested by the parties. The Committee recalls that the issue of concern is the power of the Government to take final decisions in settling claims of workers employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term, who are prohibited from striking. The Committee recalls once again that, where restrictions are adopted on the right to strike of workers who are employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term, compensatory guarantees should include appropriate, rapid and impartial conciliation and mediation procedures and the bodies entrusted with such functions should be independent and have the confidence of both workers and employers. It therefore requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which claims of workers in essential services are settled and on the relevant body responsible for taking the final decision in this respect. It further requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of any discussion on this matter by the Tripartite Council.

In its previous direct request, the Committee noted section 199(4) of the amended Criminal Code which provided that “organization of a strike at a nuclear facility was punishable by a penalty of corrective works for the period of up to two years or a fine”. At the same time, it noted the Government’s indication that the Code did not provide for criminal liability for engaging in strike preparations at nuclear facilities. In these circumstances, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the precise meaning of section 199(4) of the Criminal Code and to keep it informed of any use of sections 67, 199(3) and 199(4) of the Criminal Code in respect of industrial action. Regretting that no information was provided by the Government in this respect, the Committee reiterates its previous request.

With respect to the Committee’s previous request to indicate whether workers may initiate protest action in respect of the social and economic policy of the Government and have recourse to sympathy strikes, without sanction, the Government indicates that, while article 51 of the Constitution and section 76 of the Labour Code provide for workers’ right to strike in order to protect their socio-economic interests, the Law on meetings permits rallies, picket lines, demonstrations, processions and other unarmed meetings, including protest actions against governmental socio-economic policies. The Committee notes this information with interest.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It further notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 10 August 2006 addressing issues previously raised by the Committee concerning strike restrictions and alleging that new rules for registering legal entities made the establishing of new trade unions more cumbersome. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities. (a) Prohibition of the right to strike by workers who are not employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee recalls that, in its previous observation, it requested the Government to amend section 78 of the Labour Code so as to lift the prohibition of the right to strike by workers in heating and gas supply companies. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s statement that sections 77(4) and 78(1) of the Labour Code were amended so as to take into account the comments of the Committee. By virtue of these amendments, which came into force on 28 May 2005, the ban on strikes in centralized power, heat and gas supply companies was lifted. The Committee asks the Government to transmit a copy of these amendments.

(b) Unilateral determination of minimum service. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 80(2) of the Labour Code so as to ensure that, in the event of disagreement among the parties to negotiations on the minimum service, the definition of the service to be ensured may be determined by an independent and impartial body. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this proposal will be referred to the Tripartite Council for consideration. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the discussion of this issue by the Tripartite Council.

A request on certain other points is being addressed directly to the Government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and comments made by the Lietuvos Darbo Federacija (LDF).

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities. (a) Prohibition of the right to strike by workers who are not employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee recalls that, in its previous observation, it requested the Government to amend section 78 of the Labour Code so as to lift the prohibition of the right to strike by workers in the heating and gas supply companies. The Committee considers that, in order to avoid damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility, such as the heating and gas supply, rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

(b) Unilateral determination of minimum service. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 80(2) of the Labour Code so as to ensure that, in the event of disagreement among the parties to negotiations on the minimum service, the definition of the service to be ensured may be determined by an independent and impartial body. In the view of the Committee, such a service should meet at least two requirements. Firstly, and this aspect is paramount, it must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear. Secondly, since this system restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. It would be highly desirable for negotiations on the definition and organization of the minimum service not to be held during a labour dispute, so that all parties can examine the matter with the necessary objectivity and detachment. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 159-161). The Committee considers that the final decision concerning minimum services should therefore rest with an independent body and not with the Government.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Committee’s comments with regard to the Labour Code will be transferred to the working group for preparing a draft Law on Amendments to the Labour Code formed by Decision No. 2149 of the Seismas Board of the Republic of Lithuania of 24 May 2004. The Committee trusts that the above comments will be taken into account in the Law on Amendments to the Labour Code and requests the Government to keep it informed of the developments in this respect.

A request on certain other points is being addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report.

Article 2 of the Convention. The right of employers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes that there are no unified registration records in the Republic and that the Government is planning to establish a database in order to integrate the existing records. The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to provide in its next report information on the number of employers’ organizations registered to date.

Articles 2 and 3. The right of workers to establish and join organizations and the right of workers’ organizations to elect their representatives freely. The Committee notes that according to the Government’s report, there is no legislative provision prohibiting union members from being elected to Office for any reason. The Committee furthermore notes from the report that the Civil Code and the Law on Trade Unions of the Republic of Lithuania No. I-2018 of 1991 grant the right to establish or join trade unions to the citizens of Lithuania and to other persons "permanently" residing in Lithuania. The Committee requests the Government to explain the conditions under which foreign workers are considered as "permanently" residing in the country. In this respect, the Committee requests to Government to clarify whether this requirement is restricted to election to trade union office, or also includes the right to join a union.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Lithuania (ratification: 1994)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. The Committee also notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2078 (see 324th Report, paragraphs 592-622; 325th Report, paragraphs 44-46; 326th Report, paragraphs 99-101; and 327th Report, paragraphs 74-76).

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had noted that the Act of 1992 on the Settlement of Collective Disputes created serious obstacles to the right to legal strike and in particular:

(a)  section 10 which prohibits the right to strike by, among others, workers in heating and gas supply companies and public servants not considered to be those exercising authority in the name of the State;

(b)  section 12 which enables the Government in practice to determine unilaterally the minimum service in case of a strike in certain services;

(c)  section 10 which provides that strikes might be prohibited in regions where a state of emergency had been declared; the Committee had also requested the text of the new Act No. I-551 of 2000 amending the Penal Code and the amendments that it has introduced to the Criminal Code in order to ensure that they do not unduly restrict industrial action;

(d)  the need to define compensatory guarantees for workers employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term who may be prohibited from taking industrial action;

(e)  section 13 which enables the courts to delay for 30 days a strike that has not yet begun and for another 30 days a strike that has already begun in case of "especially important reasons".

The Committee notes the statement in the Government’s report that the Act of 1992 on the Settlement of Collective Disputes will be replaced by a new Labour Code which was adopted on 4 June 2002 and will enter into force on 1 January 2003. The Committee will examine the text of the new Labour Code at its next session when it will be available in translation. In the meantime, and in light of the information provided by the Government in respect of the new Labour Code, the Committee wishes to raise the following points:

(a)  Prohibition of the right to strike by workers who are not employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that section 78 of the new Labour Code does not amend the provisions previously laid down in section 10 of the Act of 1992 on the Settlement of Collective Disputes concerning the definition of essential services. As a result, a general prohibition of strikes is imposed on the system of internal affairs, the defence and national security sectors, the electricity generating, heating and gas supply companies and in emergency medical services. The Committee recalls that while the defence, national security, public health and electricity services might be considered as essential services in the strict sense of the term, the other services set out in the list are not necessarily so. Concerning services of public utility such as heating and gas supply, the Committee considers that a system of minimum service is more appropriate than an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those where the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population may be endangered. The Committee notes in this context that a non-essential service in the strict sense of the term may become essential if a strike exceeds a certain duration or extent so that the life, personal safety or health of the population are endangered (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 152-164). The Committee therefore requests the Government to lift the outright prohibition of the right to strike by workers in the heating and gas supply companies. As for internal services, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the personnel concerned by this restriction.

(b)  Unilateral determination of minimum service. The Committee notes from the report that according to section 80.2 of the new Labour Code, the Government has the authority to define the minimum service after having considered the conclusions of a Tripartite Board or, in the absence of a Tripartite Board, those of the municipal authorities in consultation with the parties to the dispute. The Committee wishes to emphasize the importance that it attaches to genuine participation of the parties directly concerned, that is, the organizations of employers and workers, alongside the public authorities in the definition of a minimum service. The Committee observes that, as noted by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2078, in the event of disagreement, the parties should be able to bring the matter before an independent and impartial body with competence to make a final ruling on this matter. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that in the event of disagreement among the parties to negotiations on the minimum service, the definition of the service to be ensured may be determined by an independent and impartial body.

(c)  Prohibition of strikes during a state of emergency and penal sanctions against strike action. Concerning limitations of the right to strike during a state of emergency, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that according to the State of Emergency Act of 6 June 2000, No. IX-938, a state of emergency can be declared for successive six-month periods. The Committee recalls that restrictions on the right to strike during a state of emergency should be for limited periods and may only be justified in situations of acute national crisis. The Committee requests the Government to transmit in its next report the text of Act No. IX-938.

The Committee takes note of the text of Act No. I-551 of 2000 which has been transmitted with the Government’s report, and will examine it at its next meeting when it will be available in translation. The Committee also notes the amendments to the Criminal Code which have been transmitted by the Government. The Committee observes that article 199(3) of the amended Criminal Code imposes a penalty of imprisonment of up to three years or corrective works of up to two years, or a fine, in case of participation in collective action which causes disturbance to work in the sector of transportation or in public or social enterprises, establishments and organisations, and that article 199(4) enforces the prohibition of strikes at nuclear energy facilities with a sentence of two years of corrective works. The Committee furthermore observes that article 67 of the amended Criminal Code characterizes as an act of "sabotage" punishable by a ten-year term of imprisonment, any action aimed at obstructing the proper functioning of public or other enterprises in the sectors of industry, energy, transportation, agriculture, trade, other branches of the economy, or the public sector, with a view to weakening the State of Lithuania. The Committee observes that such provisions are highly likely to have the practical effect of restricting the right of workers to participate in industrial action by characterizing their activities as criminal acts punishable by penal sanctions. The Committee wishes to emphasize that if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all, they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 177). The Committee requests the Government to amend these provisions so as to ensure that penal sanctions may not be imposed for the exercise of the right to strike and that if penalties are imposed, in exceptional circumstances, they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed and accompanied by all the necessary judicial safeguards.

(d)  Compensatory guarantees for workers employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term who are prohibited from striking. The Committee also notes from the Government’s report that section 78 of the new Labour Code, provides that the Government will consider the conclusions of a Tripartite Board before addressing the claims of employees in essential services in the strict sense of the term where the right to strike is prohibited. The Committee recalls that where restrictions are adopted on the right to strike of workers who are employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term, compensatory guarantees should include appropriate, rapid and impartial conciliation and mediation procedures. The Committee requests the Government to provide details in its next report concerning the composition and functioning of the Tripartite Board and the extent to which the Government is bound to follow up on its conclusions in settling the claims of workers employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term, who are prohibited from striking.

(e)  Court rulings ordering a postponement of a strike. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information concerning section 13 of the Act of 1992 on the Settlement of Collective Disputes and in particular, whether this provision has been amended by the new Labour Code in order to define in more precise terms the legal grounds on which the Courts may decide to postpone a strike. The Committee requests the Government to communicate information on this point in its next report.

The Committee is also addressing a request regarding certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report.

Article 2 of the Convention.  The right of employers to establish organizations of their own choosing.  While noting that the establishment of employers’ organizations is guaranteed by article 35 of the Constitution, the law on public organizations and the law on association, the Committee requests once again the Government: (a) to provide details on the application in practice of the right of employers to establish organizations of their own choosing; (b) to provide the number of employers’ organizations registered to date.

Article 2.  The right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization.  The Committee notes that there have been no refusals of registration of trade unions during the period 1997-2000, and that 110 trade unions have been registered during the period 1992-2000.

Article 3.  The right of workers’ organizations to elect their representatives freely.  The Committee notes that permanent residents may join a trade union and participate in its activities, and requests the Government to indicate whether this includes the right to be elected to trade union office.

The Committee requests once again the Government to provide in its next reports information on the application and the functioning in practice of the current system of industrial relations and, in particular, to provide copies of administrative and judicial decisions handed down on the application of applicable legislative texts.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the reply to its previous direct request. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Lithuanian Workers’ Union (LWU) concerning the application in practice of the Act of 1992 on the settlement of collective disputes.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities.  In its previous comments, the Committee recalled the principles it had formulated as regards the right to strike and requested the Government:

(a)  to amend section 10 of the Act of 1992 on the settlement of collective disputes to lift the prohibition of the right to strike by workers who are not employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term;

(b)  to define the compensatory guarantees afforded to workers employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term;

(c)  to specify the legal framework and procedure for declaring a state of emergency (as strikes may be prohibited in regions where such state is declared) under section 10 of the Act of 1992 on the settlement of collective disputes;

(d)  to indicate whether there existed penal provisions, enforceable by prison sentences, restricting the right of workers to participate in industrial action in public transport, and public and social services.

1.  The Committee notes that the Government merely repeats the information already provided as regards point (a), and that it did not reply as regards point (b). The Committee therefore requests, once again, the Government:

(a)  to amend section 10 of the Act of 1992 on the settlement of collective disputes to lift the prohibition of the right to strike by workers who are not employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term;

(b)  to supply information on the compensatory guarantees afforded to workers employed in essential services in the strict sense.

In doing so, the Committee takes particularly into account the information provided by the LWU, which states that it is practically impossible to declare a legal strike under the Act of 1992 on the settlement of collective disputes as, for instance, in a recent dispute, which is the subject matter of a pending complaint before the Committee on Freedom of Association: the City of Vilnius has invoked section 12 of this Act to order that 70 per cent of the city transport operation be maintained as a minimum service; and recourse to section 13 of the same Act has been made, which provides that the courts may "for specially important reasons" delay for 30 days a strike that has not yet begun and delay for a further period of 30 days a strike that has already begun.

The Committee refers once again to the principles it has developed on these issues (see the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 152-164). The Committee considers that while authorities may establish a system of minimum service in sectors such as public transport, it must be a genuinely minimum service, that is one which is limited to meeting the basic needs of the population while maintaining the effectiveness of strike pressure. In the Committee’s view, 70 per cent of the city transport operation cannot be considered an acceptable minimum service. Furthermore, the workers’ organization affected should be able to participate in the definition of this minimum service with the employer and the public authorities.

2.  The Committee notes, as regards point (c) above, that the Ministry of Internal Affairs is currently drafting the Act which will regulate situations of state of emergency. The Committee recalls that such restrictions should be for limited periods and may only be justified in situations of acute national crisis (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 41 and 152).

3.  The Committee notes, as regards point (d) above, that the relevant sections of the Criminal Code were abrogated by Law No. I.551, and that a new draft Criminal Code submitted to the Parliament on 18 November 1999 should be adopted in year 2000; the Committee requests the Government to transmit, in its next report, the text of Law No. I.551 as well as the relevant provisions of the new Criminal Code.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO as regards all the abovementioned points, and requests it to provide in its next report information on the measures taken or contemplated to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, and to communicate copies of the relevant texts once they are adopted.

The Committee is addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report which provides only partial responses to the Committee's previous requests.

Article 2 of the Convention (The right of employers to establish organizations of their own choosing). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide further details on the application in law and practice of the Act respecting the right of employers to establish organizations of their own choosing as well as to provide the number of employers' organizations registered to date.

Article 2 (The right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization). In regard to section 8 of the Act of 21 November 1991 respecting trade unions which provides that where registration of a trade union is refused, the founder members shall be informed of the refusal in the three days following the decision which may then may be appealed in a court of law within ten days of the refusal, the Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government indicating that the refusal to register a trade union could be explained by the violation of the Constitution by a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether there have been any refusals to register a trade union and, if so, to provide copies of the judicial decisions.

Article 3 (The right of organizations to freely elect their representatives). The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether foreign workers who are legally resident in Lithuania may be elected to trade union office.

Articles 3 and 10 (The right of workers' organizations to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities). With regard to the right to strike, the Committee noted that section 10 of the Act respecting the settlement of collective disputes of 1992 provides a general prohibition of strikes in the defence and national security sectors, the electricity generating, heating and oil companies and emergency medical services. The Committee also noted that this section provides that claims made by workers in these sectors shall be taken into consideration by the Government. In this respect, the Committee wishes to recall the principles that it has formulated:

-- the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and to their organizations for furthering and defending their professional, economic and social interests;

-- the restrictions on or the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those where a strike may endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population;

-- if such restrictions are adopted, the guarantees must be accorded to protect workers who are deprived of an essential means of defending their professional interests. These restrictions should be compensated by appropriate, rapid and impartial conciliation and mediation procedures at the various stages at which those concerned may participate. Arbitration awards should be binding on both parties and, once issued, should be implemented rapidly and completely;

-- trade unions should be able to participate in the definition of minimum services.

The Committee considers that if the defence, national security and public health and electricity services may be considered as essential services in the strict sense of the term, the other services set out in the list are not necessarily so. (For all these principles, see the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 152-164.)

The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to amend its legislation to lift the prohibition of the right to strike by workers who are not employed in the essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee, moreover, requests the Government to define the compensatory guarantees contained in the mechanisms provided to respond to the claims of workers employed in the essential services in the strict sense of the term, who are deprived of the right to strike, which is an essential means of defending their occupational interests.

The Committee also notes that section 10 of the Act respecting the settlement of collective disputes, prohibits the right to strike in regions where a state of emergency has been declared. The Committee recalls that the freedom of association Conventions contain no provisions allowing the invocation of a state of emergency to justify exemption from the obligations arising out of the Conventions or the suspension of their application. Such measures, therefore, should be for a limited period and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to specify the legal framework and the procedure for declaring a state of emergency and it recalls that these restrictions should be for a limited period and may only be justified in a situation of acute national crisis. (See the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 41 and 152.)

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether a similar provision to section 190(3) of the Criminal Code of the former USSR, which contains restrictions on the rights of workers to take part in industrial action intended to disrupt public transport or public and social services, enforceable by prison sentences of up to three years, remains in force and, if so, whether the Government intends to repeal this provision. The Committee, moreover, requests the Government to provide a copy of the Penal Code currently in force.

The Committee also requests the Government to provide in its next reports information on the application and the functioning in practice of the current system of industrial relations and, in particular, to provide copies of the administrative and judicial decisions pronounced on the application of the new legislative texts.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1999.]

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's first report.

The right of employers to establish organizations of their own choosing (Article 2 of the Convention). The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that employers may establish organizations of their choice in accordance with the provisions of the Act on Public Organizations and the Act on Associations. Since the first article of the Act on Public Organizations lays down that it does not apply to trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to supply details on the application in practice and in legislation of this Act to employers' trade unions and to supply the number of employers' organizations registered to date.

The right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization (Article 2). In regard to article 8 of the Act on Trade Unions which provides that where registration of a trade union is denied, its founder members will be informed in the three days following the decision and that the refusal may be appealed to the courts which shall investigate within ten days the Committee requests the Government to indicate what can be the grounds for refusal to register a trade union and whether the courts may review the grounds for refusal so that it can ensure that the provision is in full conformity with Article 2 of the Convention.

Right of the organization to elect freely their representatives (Article 3). The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether foreign workers residing legally in the country may be eligible for trade union functions.

The right of workers' organizations to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities (Articles 3 and 10). In regard to the right to strike, the Committee notes that section 10 of the Act on the Regulation of Collective Disputes, 1992, provides a general prohibition in regard to striking in the sectors of defence and national security, the electricity companies, the centralized supply of heating and oil, and in emergency health services. The Committee also notes that this article provides that requests by workers in these sectors will be taken into consideration by the Government. The Committee wishes to recall in this regard the principles formulated by the supervisory bodies:

-- the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations in order to promote and defend their occupational, economic and social interests;

-- restrictions or prohibitions of this right should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict meaning of the term, namely those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population;

-- if such prohibitions are adopted, safeguards must be provided to protect the workers who are deprived of an essential means of defence of their occupational interests. These prohibitions should be offset by appropriate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures at the various stages at which those concerned should be able to participate. The decisions of arbitration should be binding for both parties and, once issued, should be implemented rapidly and completely;

-- the trade unions should be able to participate in defining minimum services.

The Committee considers that while defence, national security and emergency health services are essential services in the strict meaning of the term, the other services set out in the list are not necessarily so.

(For all these principles, see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 152 to 164.)

Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to specify the mechanisms provided to deal with the demands of workers who are deprived of the right to strike.

The Committee also notes that section 10 of the Act on the Regulation of Collective Disputes lays a prohibition on the right to strike in regions where a state of emergency has been proclaimed. The Committee requests the Government to specify the legal framework and the procedure for the declaration of a state of emergency, recalling that these restrictions should be for a limited period only and invoked only in situations of acute national crisis (see General Survey, paragraph 152).

The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next reports on the application and operation in practice of current industrial relations systems, particularly by supplying copies of the administrative or legal decisions issued under the new legislation.