Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Hungary (Ratification: 1957)

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

The Committee notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 27 October 2021, included in the Government’s report, which relate to the issues examined by the Committee below, and the Government’s comments thereon.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code (2012) prohibited workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests, and explicitly provided for the possibility to restrict workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee considered that the above provisions impeded the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members and expected that its comments would be fully taken into account in the framework of the ongoing review of the Labour Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in 2019, section 9 of the Labour Code was amended to implement the European Union reform on data protection. Pursuant to the amended text, “the employee’s personality rights [including freedom of expression] may be limited only where the limitation is strictly necessary for a reason directly associated with the intended purpose of the employment relationship and is proportionate in order to achieve that objective. The employee shall be informed in advance in writing of the manner, conditions and expected duration of the restriction of the personality right, as well as of the circumstances justifying its necessity and proportionality”. The Government points out that the amendment establishes stricter conditions for the restriction of the employees’ rights, including freedom of expression set forth in Article IX (1) of the Fundamental Law. The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council considers the amendment to section 9 (2) of the Labour Code to be only a partly sufficient response to the observation made by the Committee. The Committee also notes that the workers’ group is of the view that section 8 (3) of the Labour Code refers to reputation and other legitimate interests of an employer as interests to be respected and not to be seriously violated in expressing opinion. The Committee notes the workers’ group of the National ILO Council’s proposal to hold consultations on necessary and proportionate limits to the constitutional right of employee’s freedom of expression with involvement of experts and social partners. The Committee regrets that the Government merely indicates that the court being the competent body to interpret the conditions regulated by section 8 (1)-(3) of the Labour Code, the aggrieved party can bring appropriate claims in cases of violation of freedom of expression. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take all necessary measures, including legislative, in consultation with the social partners, to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all progress achieved in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council concerning allegations on the stringent requirements in relation to union headquarters, the refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the imposition of the obligation of including the company’s name in the official name of associations, and the difficulties created or encountered by trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws in line with the Civil Code. The Committee notes with regret that the Government did not provide comments in this respect. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the information it had previously provided on the existing legal framework for registration, and adds that from 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2021, 1,149 trade unions were registered and eight applications were rejected (three without a call for rectification due to an incomplete application, and five after the issuance of a request for rectification because the applicant did not properly comply with the court’s order within the deadline). The Committee also notes the workers’ group of the National ILO Council’s observation that the implementation of Article 2 of the Convention continues to be complicated by unnecessary requirements and that trade unions may only commence operations from the effective date of the court’s decision on registration. The Committee further notes that, while the Government indicates that the courts no longer require the fulfilment of all minor requirements for court registration, the workers’ group of the National ILO Council points out that the relevant Act has not been amended accordingly. In light of the above,the Committee is obliged to request once again the Governmentto provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council. The Committee recalls that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, nor should they allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations. Accordingly, the Committee once again requests the Government to: (i) engage without delay in consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to assess the need to further simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters; and (ii) take the necessary measures to effectively address the alleged obstacles to registration in practice, so as not to impede the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration during the reporting period, and to provide additional details on the grounds for refusal of registration so to enable the Committee to better assess the conformity of these grounds with the Convention.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide its comments on the ITUC allegations that trade union activity was severely restricted by the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities, for instance by reviewing general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conducting inspections directly or through other state bodies, and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices. The ITUC further alleged that, in the exercise of these broad capacities, prosecutors questioned several times the lawfulness of trade union operations, requested numerous documents (registration forms, membership records with original membership application forms, minutes of meetings, resolutions, etc.) and, if not satisfied with the unions’ financial reporting, ordered additional reports, thereby overstepping the powers provided by the law. The Committee notes with regret that the Government did not provide its comments on these serious allegations from the ITUC. Recalling that acts described by the ITUC would be incompatible with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention, the Committee again requests that the Government respond to the ITUC allegations.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee had previously highlighted the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act), in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that having dealt with difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it plans to put on the agenda a comprehensive amendment of the Strike Act. The Committee urges the Government to take all necessary measures to amend without further delay the Strike Act, as well as the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act as per the Committee’s previous comments, and to provide information on all developments in this respect.

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

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

Repetition

The Committee notes the observations received on 1 September 2017 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which are reflected in the present observation. It also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 11 September 2017, included in the Government’s report, which relate to issues under examination by the Committee and contain allegations that Act XLII of 2015 resulted in trade unions formerly established in the area of civilian national security not being able to operate properly. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the 2012 Labour Code prohibit workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests, and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had requested the Government to provide detailed information on the results of the “For Employment” project, under which an assessment of the impact of the Labour Code on employers and workers had been undertaken, as well as on the outcome of the consultations on the modification of the Labour Code within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government (VKF). The Committee had expressed the hope that the review of the Labour Code would fully take into account its comments with respect to the need to take any necessary measures to ensure respect for freedom of expression. The Committee notes that the Government confines itself to indicating that the negotiations in question have not been closed yet. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the outcome of the “For Employment” project (completed in August 2015) or on the consultations undertaken since 2015 within the framework of the VKF with a view to elaborating consensus-based proposals for the review of the Labour Code. The Committee highlights once again the need to take all necessary, including legislative, measures to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members, and expects that its comments will be fully taken into account in the framework of the ongoing review of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the allegation of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council that numerous rules in the new Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) obstructed their registration in practice. The Committee had requested the Government to: (i) assess without delay, in consultation with the social partners, the need to simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters, as well as the ensuing obligation to bring the trade union by-laws into line with the Civil Code on or before 15 March 2016; and (ii) take the necessary steps to effectively address the difficulties signalled with respect to registration in practice, so as not to hinder the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had also requested the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Act CLXXIX of 2016 on the amendment and acceleration of proceedings regarding the registration of civil society organizations and companies, which entered into force on 1 January 2017, amended the 2011 Association Act, the 2013 Civil Code and the 2011 Civil Organization Registration Act. The legislative amendments were adopted to: (i) simplify the contents of association statutes; (ii) rationalize the court registration and change registration procedures of civil society organizations (court examination limited to compliance with essential legal requirements on number of founders, representative bodies, operation, mandatory content of statutes, legal association objectives, etc.; notices to supply missing information no longer issued on account of minor errors); and (iii) accelerate the registration by courts of civil society organizations (termination of the public prosecutor’s power to control the legality of civil society organizations; maximum time limit for registration). The Committee notes, however, that the ITUC reiterates that trade union registration regulated by the Civil Organization Registration Act is still being subjected to very strict requirements and numerous rules that operate in practice as a means to obstruct the registration of new trade unions, including the stringent requirements on trade union headquarters (unions need to prove that they have the right to use the property), and alleges that in many cases judges refused to register a union because of minor flaws in the application form and forced unions to include the enterprise name in their official names. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council states that, when the new Civil Code entered into force, all trade unions had to modify their statutes to be consistent with the law and at the same time report the changes to the courts, and reiterates that these regulations pose a serious administrative burden on trade unions.

The Committee observes the persisting divergence between the statements of the Government and the workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council concerning in particular the stringent requirements in relation to union headquarters, the alleged refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the alleged imposition of including the company name in the official name of associations, and the alleged difficulties created or encountered by trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws into line with the Civil Code. The Committee recalls that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities nor allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) engage without delay in consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to assess the need to further simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters; and (ii) take the necessary measures to effectively address the alleged obstacles to registration in practice, so as not to impede the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. In the absence of the solicited information, the Committee also requests the Government once again to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. The Committee notes that the ITUC alleges that trade union activity is severely restricted by the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities, for instance by reviewing general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conducting inspections directly or through other state bodies, and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices; and further alleges that, in the exercise of these broad capacities, prosecutors questioned several times the lawfulness of trade union operations, requested numerous documents (registration forms, membership records with original membership application forms, minutes of meetings, resolutions, etc.) and, if not satisfied with the unions’ financial reporting, ordered additional reports, thereby overstepping the powers provided by the law. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, while public prosecutors no longer have the right to control the legality of the establishment of the civil society organizations, they retain the power to control the legality of their operation. The Committee generally recalls that acts as described by the ITUC would be incompatible with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the specific ITUC allegations above.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee had previously noted that: (i) the Strike Act, as amended, states that the degree and condition of the minimum level of service may be established by law, and that, in the absence of such regulation, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court; and (ii) excessive minimum levels of service are fixed for passenger transportation public services by Act XLI of 2012 (Passenger Transport Services Act), both at the local and suburban levels (66 per cent) and at national and regional levels (50 per cent); as well as with regard to postal services by Act CLIX of 2012 (Postal Services Act), for the collection and delivery of official documents and other mail. The Committee trusted, in view of the consultations undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act, that due account would be taken of its comments during the legislative review.

The Committee notes that the Government refers again to the relevant provisions of the Strike Act (section 4(2) and (3)) and to the Passenger Transport Services Act and Postal Services Act. In the Government’s view, by regulating the extent of sufficient services in respect of two basic services that substantially affect the public and thus creating a pre-clarified situation, the legislature promoted legal certainty in the context of the exercise of the right to strike. The level of sufficient services was determined seeking to resolve the potential tension between the exercisability of the right to strike and the fulfilment of the State’s responsibilities to satisfy public needs. The Government further indicates that negotiations on the amendment of the Strike Act took place in the framework of the VKF throughout 2015 and 2016, in the course of which the trade unions considered that the extent of sufficient services in the passenger transport sector was excessive. The employees’ and employers’ sides managed to agree on a few aspects of the amendment of the Strike Act, but failed to reach an agreement regarding, inter alia, which institution should be authorized to determine the extent of sufficient services in the absence of a legal provision or agreement. Stressing the importance of a compromise of the social partners on the amendment proposals of the Strike Act, the Government adds that, since the trade unions had announced proposals at the end of 2016 but had not submitted them during the first half of the year, no further discussions have taken place in 2017. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council reiterates that the strike legislation contains an obligation to provide sufficient service during strike action which in some sectors virtually precludes the exercise of the right to strike (for example by requiring 66 per cent of the service to be provided during the strike and ensuring the feasibility of this rate through extremely complicated rules).

The Committee recalls that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in establishing the minimum service, together with employers and public authorities; and emphasizes the importance of adopting explicit legislative provisions on the participation of the organizations concerned in the definition of minimum services. Moreover, any disagreement on such services should be resolved by 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. The Committee further recalls that the minimum service 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; and that, in the past, it has considered that a requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may considerably restrict the right of transport workers to take industrial action. The Committee therefore once again highlights the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act) in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. The Committee expects that the consultations on the modification of the Strike Act undertaken within the framework of the VKF will continue. It requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the status or results of the negotiations with particular regard to the manner of determining minimum services and the levels imposed in the postal and passenger transport sectors, and expects that the Committee’s comments will be duly taken into consideration during the legislative review.

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

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

The Committee notes the observations received on 1 September 2017 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which are reflected in the present observation. It also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 11 September 2017, included in the Government’s report, which relate to issues under examination by the Committee and contain allegations that Act XLII of 2015 resulted in trade unions formerly established in the area of civilian national security not being able to operate properly. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the 2012 Labour Code prohibit workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests, and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had requested the Government to provide detailed information on the results of the “For Employment” project, under which an assessment of the impact of the Labour Code on employers and workers had been undertaken, as well as on the outcome of the consultations on the modification of the Labour Code within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government (VKF). The Committee had expressed the hope that the review of the Labour Code would fully take into account its comments with respect to the need to take any necessary measures to ensure respect for freedom of expression. The Committee notes that the Government confines itself to indicating that the negotiations in question have not been closed yet. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the outcome of the “For Employment” project (completed in August 2015) or on the consultations undertaken since 2015 within the framework of the VKF with a view to elaborating consensus-based proposals for the review of the Labour Code. The Committee highlights once again the need to take all necessary, including legislative, measures to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members, and expects that its comments will be fully taken into account in the framework of the ongoing review of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the allegation of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council that numerous rules in the new Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) obstructed their registration in practice. The Committee had requested the Government to: (i) assess without delay, in consultation with the social partners, the need to simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters, as well as the ensuing obligation to bring the trade union by-laws into line with the Civil Code on or before 15 March 2016; and (ii) take the necessary steps to effectively address the difficulties signalled with respect to registration in practice, so as not to hinder the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had also requested the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Act CLXXIX of 2016 on the amendment and acceleration of proceedings regarding the registration of civil society organizations and companies, which entered into force on 1 January 2017, amended the 2011 Association Act, the 2013 Civil Code and the 2011 Civil Organization Registration Act. The legislative amendments were adopted to: (i) simplify the contents of association statutes; (ii) rationalize the court registration and change registration procedures of civil society organizations (court examination limited to compliance with essential legal requirements on number of founders, representative bodies, operation, mandatory content of statutes, legal association objectives, etc.; notices to supply missing information no longer issued on account of minor errors); and (iii) accelerate the registration by courts of civil society organizations (termination of the public prosecutor’s power to control the legality of civil society organizations; maximum time limit for registration). The Committee notes, however, that the ITUC reiterates that trade union registration regulated by the Civil Organization Registration Act is still being subjected to very strict requirements and numerous rules that operate in practice as a means to obstruct the registration of new trade unions, including the stringent requirements on trade union headquarters (unions need to prove that they have the right to use the property), and alleges that in many cases judges refused to register a union because of minor flaws in the application form and forced unions to include the enterprise name in their official names. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council states that, when the new Civil Code entered into force, all trade unions had to modify their statutes to be consistent with the law and at the same time report the changes to the courts, and reiterates that these regulations pose a serious administrative burden on trade unions.

The Committee observes the persisting divergence between the statements of the Government and the workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council concerning in particular the stringent requirements in relation to union headquarters, the alleged refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the alleged imposition of including the company name in the official name of associations, and the alleged difficulties created or encountered by trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws into line with the Civil Code. The Committee recalls that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities nor allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) engage without delay in consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to assess the need to further simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters; and (ii) take the necessary measures to effectively address the alleged obstacles to registration in practice, so as not to impede the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. In the absence of the solicited information, the Committee also requests the Government once again to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. The Committee notes that the ITUC alleges that trade union activity is severely restricted by the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities, for instance by reviewing general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conducting inspections directly or through other state bodies, and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices; and further alleges that, in the exercise of these broad capacities, prosecutors questioned several times the lawfulness of trade union operations, requested numerous documents (registration forms, membership records with original membership application forms, minutes of meetings, resolutions, etc.) and, if not satisfied with the unions’ financial reporting, ordered additional reports, thereby overstepping the powers provided by the law. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, while public prosecutors no longer have the right to control the legality of the establishment of the civil society organizations, they retain the power to control the legality of their operation. The Committee generally recalls that acts as described by the ITUC would be incompatible with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the specific ITUC allegations above.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee had previously noted that: (i) the Strike Act, as amended, states that the degree and condition of the minimum level of service may be established by law, and that, in the absence of such regulation, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court; and (ii) excessive minimum levels of service are fixed for passenger transportation public services by Act XLI of 2012 (Passenger Transport Services Act), both at the local and suburban levels (66 per cent) and at national and regional levels (50 per cent); as well as with regard to postal services by Act CLIX of 2012 (Postal Services Act), for the collection and delivery of official documents and other mail. The Committee trusted, in view of the consultations undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act, that due account would be taken of its comments during the legislative review.

The Committee notes that the Government refers again to the relevant provisions of the Strike Act (section 4(2) and (3)) and to the Passenger Transport Services Act and Postal Services Act. In the Government’s view, by regulating the extent of sufficient services in respect of two basic services that substantially affect the public and thus creating a pre-clarified situation, the legislature promoted legal certainty in the context of the exercise of the right to strike. The level of sufficient services was determined seeking to resolve the potential tension between the exercisability of the right to strike and the fulfilment of the State’s responsibilities to satisfy public needs. The Government further indicates that negotiations on the amendment of the Strike Act took place in the framework of the VKF throughout 2015 and 2016, in the course of which the trade unions considered that the extent of sufficient services in the passenger transport sector was excessive. The employees’ and employers’ sides managed to agree on a few aspects of the amendment of the Strike Act, but failed to reach an agreement regarding, inter alia, which institution should be authorized to determine the extent of sufficient services in the absence of a legal provision or agreement. Stressing the importance of a compromise of the social partners on the amendment proposals of the Strike Act, the Government adds that, since the trade unions had announced proposals at the end of 2016 but had not submitted them during the first half of the year, no further discussions have taken place in 2017. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council reiterates that the strike legislation contains an obligation to provide sufficient service during strike action which in some sectors virtually precludes the exercise of the right to strike (for example by requiring 66 per cent of the service to be provided during the strike and ensuring the feasibility of this rate through extremely complicated rules).

The Committee recalls that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in establishing the minimum service, together with employers and public authorities; and emphasizes the importance of adopting explicit legislative provisions on the participation of the organizations concerned in the definition of minimum services. Moreover, any disagreement on such services should be resolved by 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. The Committee further recalls that the minimum service 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; and that, in the past, it has considered that a requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may considerably restrict the right of transport workers to take industrial action. The Committee therefore once again highlights the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act) in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. The Committee expects that the consultations on the modification of the Strike Act undertaken within the framework of the VKF will continue. It requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the status or results of the negotiations with particular regard to the manner of determining minimum services and the levels imposed in the postal and passenger transport sectors, and expects that the Committee’s comments will be duly taken into consideration during the legislative review.

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 mainly concern allegations pertaining to the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 3 September 2014 included in the Government’s report, as well as the Government’s comments thereon. The Committee notes the observations from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the newly adopted Labour Code prohibit any conduct of workers including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests; and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict the workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had invited the Government to assess, in consultation with the social partners, the need for amending these provisions so as to ensure the respect of freedom of expression. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that: (i) an assessment of the impact of the Labour Code on employers and employees was undertaken as part of the “For Employment” project, which was implemented between 1 September 2013 and 31 August 2015 and consisted of various workshops and official presentations, and, while the results of the project are not yet available, in order to be able to achieve its objective, the review and modification of the Labour Code was included in the legislative schedule for 2015; and (ii) as agreed with the social partners in December 2014, consultations are being undertaken since February 2015 on the modification of the Labour Code within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government, a forum composed of tripartite theme-based expert groups, that deliberates on the matters raised by the Committee, and that is due to present consensus-based proposals for modification. The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council questions the efficiency and effectiveness of these consultations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the results of the “For Employment” project as well as on the outcome of the consultations within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government. The Committee expresses the hope that the review of the Labour Code will fully take into account the Committee’s comments with respect to the need to take any necessary measures, including legislative amendments, to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede freedom of expression and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members. It requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the allegation of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council that numerous rules in the new Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) obstructed their registration in practice. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) based on the experience so far (most of all, the small number of pending judicial proceedings), the requirements of the new Civil Code have not made it significantly more difficult for trade unions to be registered; (ii) unless trade unions pursue activities which require a licence, they may pursue their activities automatically after being registered by the court; and (iii) the Civil Organization Registration Act of 2011 permits the registration of an association by the court within the framework of a simplified registration procedure (duration of 15 days). The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council reiterates that the relevant provisions made the registration of trade unions and the modification of the articles of association of already registered trade unions so difficult that it is basically impossible for them to function. Noting the divergence between the statements of the Government and the workers’ organizations, and recalling that registration should be a mere formality, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) assess without delay, in consultation with the social partners, the need to simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters, as well as the ensuing obligation to bring the trade union by-laws into line with the Civil Code on or before 15 March 2016; and (ii) take the necessary steps to effectively address the difficulties signalled with respect to registration in practice, so that the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing is not hindered. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that: (i) section 3(3) of the Act on Strikes, as amended in 2010, states that the degree and condition of the minimum level of service may be established by law, and that, in the absence of such regulation, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations; or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court; and (ii) the Government had indicated that based on trade union applications to the courts for determination of minimum services, it became necessary to amend and clarify the provisions of the Act on Strikes with respect to services where parties could frequently not agree (public transport and postal services) so as to guarantee a predictable service level for users. In reply to the Committee’s request for information, the Government indicates that: (i) the Act XLI of 2012 on passenger transport service (Passenger Transport Services Act) states that for the period affected by the strike, the minimum level of service for local and suburban passenger transportation public services is 66 per cent; and the minimum service for national and regional passenger transportation public services is 50 per cent; and (ii) with regard to postal services, section 34(3) of the Act CLIX of 2012 on postal services (Postal Services Act) states that in case of a strike, official documents must be collected at least four days a week and shall be delivered within a period no more than 50 per cent longer than the specified time frame; and other mail shall be collected at least on every second working day and delivered within a period no more than twice as long. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that, as agreed with the social partners in December 2014, consultations are currently being undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government; and that the Committee’s comments are being discussed in these consultations. The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council questions the efficiency and effectiveness of these consultations, and alleges that it is practically impossible to organize or maintain a lawful strike because the Strikes Act establishes the definition, degree and volume of passenger transportation public services and postal services in such detail, and because the Act prescribes an unreasonably high minimum level of service.

The Committee recalls that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in establishing the minimum service, together with employers and public authorities. 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. The Committee further recalls that the minimum service 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; and that, in the past, it has considered that a requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may considerably restrict the right of transport workers to take industrial action. The Committee therefore highlights the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act), in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. In view of the consultations currently being undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act, the Committee trusts that due account will be taken of its comments during the legal review, and requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the Government's comments on the 2012 observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). It also notes the observations of the workers’ side of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 3 September 2014 included in the report, as well as the Government’s comments thereon.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comment, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the newly adopted Labour Code prohibit any conduct of workers including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests; and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict the workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had invited the Government to review these provisions by assessing the need for amending these provisions so as to guarantee the respect of freedom of expression.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) as regards the legitimate economic interests of the employer, they are constituted by all that is related to the legitimate economic activities, whereas no protection is provided for employer interests which cannot be deemed legitimate; (ii) the conduct jeopardising the legitimate economic interests of the employer includes typically, but is not limited, to work carried out by the employee for other employers or membership in a business corporation of identical scope of activities as the employer; (iii) as regards the employer’s reputation, the fundamental right of freedom of speech is restricted to such an extent that the fundamental right of the employer to his reputation is not infringed out of proportion; and (iv) the Government is not aware of any problem arising with respect to the application of these provisions in effect for the past two years. The Committee recalls that the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas and, to this end, workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of expression at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of other trade union activities. Nevertheless, the Committee underlines that, in expressing their opinions, trade unions and their leaders need to respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language. Considering that the broad wording of section 8 could entail serious restrictions to freedom of expression, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the steps contemplated to guarantee that the implementation of sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code does not impede the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members; and to assess, in consultation with the social partners, the need for their amendment so as to ensure the respect of the principle set out above.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. The Committee notes the allegation of the workers’ side of the National ILO Council that the enforcement and legal interpretation of the numerous rules in Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) significantly hamper the registration of trade unions. It also notes that the Government states that the new Civil Code seeks to regulate in the most comprehensive manner possible the common rules for legal entities, and that the articles of incorporation of trade unions do not need to be brought into line with the new Civil Code until their amendment or until 15 March 2016 at the latest. In view of the allegation that the numerous rules in the Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions obstruct their registration in practice, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the conditions for the granting of registration are not tantamount to a de facto requirement for previous authorization from the public authorities to establish a trade union, and to review in consultation with the social partners the need for simplifying the requirements for registration of workers’ and employers’ organizations.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee previously noted that the ITUC alleged that as a result of the 2010 amendment of Act VII of 1989 on strikes (Act on Strikes), there were growing difficulties in exercising the right to strike in practice; and that, as confirmed by the Government, trade union applications for determination of the minimum level of service in the sectors of transport by road and rail had often been rejected by the courts due to formal deficiencies and, consequently, no strikes had been staged in the relevant sectors in 2011. The Committee had requested the Government to take steps to ensure that the application in practice of section 4 of the Act on Strikes as amended, did not impede the lawful exercise of the right to strike.

The Committee notes the copy of the Act on Strikes as last amended supplied by the Government and observes that, according to its section 4(3), the level of service deemed sufficient and the related requirements may be defined by an act of Parliament; or, if there is none, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations; or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court of public administration and labour. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the wording of the Act on Strikes as amended offers less opportunity to abuse the right to strike as occurred occasionally under the previous legislation and encourages the parties to reach an agreement on minimum services; (ii) based on the recent practice regarding trade union applications to the courts for determination of minimum services, it became necessary to amend and clarify the provisions of the Act on Strikes with respect to services where parties could frequently not agree, so as to guarantee a predictable service level for users; (iii) therefore the definition of the still adequate service was included in Act XLI of 2012 on passenger transport service, which means that transport employees are not hindered by the lack of regulation in starting a strike; and (iv) for the same reasons, Act CLIX of 2012 on postal services stipulates the extent and conditions of the still adequate services regarding postal services. The Committee also notes the views of the workers’ side of the National ILO Council that: (i) the Act on Strikes as amended in 2010 tightens the requirements of minimum services stipulating that strikes cannot be launched in a legal manner as long as the issue has not been settled by the parties; and (ii) with regard to public transport, the act defines minimum services during a strike, but in such a manner that it calls into question the pressure a strike can exert. Recalling that minimum services should be confined to operations that are strictly necessary to ensure that the basic needs of the users of the relevant service are met, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the minimum services prescribed for the public transport and postal sectors and to transmit copies of the relevant laws and regulations. More generally, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that, failing agreement of the parties, applications to the courts for determination of the minimum service level are expeditiously decided upon so as not to unduly impede the exercise of the right to strike.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 31 July 2012 on the application of the Convention.

The Committee also notes the adoption on 13 December 2011 of Act I of 2012 enacting the Labour Code.

Freedom of expression. The Committee notes with concern that, despite its previous comments in this respect with regard to the draft law, sections 8 and 9 of the newly adopted Labour Code continue to prohibit any conduct of workers including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests; and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict the workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee recalls that the freedom of opinion and expression and, in particular, the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, constitute civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work in light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008, paragraph 59). The Committee invites the Government to review sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code by assessing, in consultation with the social partners, the need for amending these provisions so as to guarantee the respect of the principle enounced above. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

Article 3. Exercise of the right to strike in practice. The Committee notes that: (i) the ITUC states that, as a result of the 2010 amendment of Act VII of 1989 on strikes, there are growing difficulties in exercising the right to strike in practice, and provides examples of cases in which trade union applications for determination of the minimum level of service were either not decided upon or rejected by the court due to the union’s “vested interest in determining the conditions” of minimum services; and (ii) the Government indicates that trade unions often submitted applications to the labour court to determine the minimum level of service in the sectors of transport by road and rail, which were rejected by the court due to formal deficiencies and without substantive examination, and that, consequently, no strikes have been staged in the relevant sectors in 2011. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the application in practice of section 4 of Act VII of 1989, as amended, does not impede the lawful exercise of the right to strike. It also requests the Government once again to provide, in its next report, a copy of the amendment dated 1 December 2010 of Act VII of 1989 on strikes.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 August 2011 on the application of the Convention, as well as the Government’s observations thereon. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, a copy of the amendment dated 31 December 2010 of Act VII of 1989 on strikes.

The Committee also notes that a new Labour Code is being drafted, and that its section 8 provides that:

• (1) Employees may not manifest practices during the term of employment that may jeopardize the lawful economic interests of their employers unless authorized by a rule of law.
• (2) Employees may likewise not manifest practices outside working time, in particular, based on the nature of their job or position within the organization that may directly and actually lead to the incorrect judgement of the employer’s prestige or may jeopardize the employer’s lawful economic interests or the purpose of employment.
• (3) Pursuant to section 9, subsection (2), the employee’s freedom of expression may be restricted.

In this regard, the Committee recalls that the freedom of opinion and expression and, in particular, the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, constitute civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 25 and 38). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision so as to ensure that the principle enounced above is duly taken into account, and to provide a copy of the new Labour Code once adopted.

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

The Committee takes note of the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 10 August 2006. It observes that they refer to questions related to the application of Convention No. 98.

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

The Committee takes notes of the Government’s report.

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). It observes that they refer to questions related to the application of Convention No. 98.

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

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report and the accompanying comments made on the report by the workers’ representatives sitting on the National ILO Council as regards the insufficient protective measures against anti-union discrimination. The Committee will consider these comments and the Government’s reply thereto in the context of its regular supervision of Convention No. 98.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report.

1. The Committee notes, according to the Government's report, that the Act No. 13 of 1993 concerning the protection of trade union property (Magyar Közlöny, 12 March 1993, No. 29, pages 1547-1553) and amending Act No. 28 of 11 July 1991 (Magyar Közlöny, 17 July 1991, No. 80, pages 1725-1733), reproduces the agreement that it had concluded concerning the distribution of trade union property, with the National Association of Trade Unions (MSZOSZ) and the six National Confederations of Trade Unions. According to the Government, the Act No. 13 guarantees that such property will be so distributed that all trade unions will be placed on an equal footing so as to be able to act in full independence.

2. With regard to the distinction between the most representative trade unions and the others under the provisions of Act No. 33 of 2 June 1992 respecting public employees (Magyar Közlöny, No. 56, pages 1953-1964), the Committee notes that in the event of a dispute as to the representativeness of an organization, section 5(3) of the Act provides that the dispute must, at the request of one of the parties concerned, be settled by a court in non-adversarial proceedings and that, as a general rule, the provisions of Act No. 33 do not prevent minority organizations from organizing their activities and representing their members in the event of individual complaints. The Committee considers that the legislation on public employees is not inconsistent with the requirements of the Convention on these points.

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

With reference to its previous direct request concerning the effect given in practice to section 3(3) of Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike, which provides that a strike may be prohibited on the grounds that it constitutes a threat to the environment, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that this section applies in cases in which: (i) a strike directly and seriously endangers life, personal health and physical integrity in certain sections of health care institutions (such as surgical wards in hospitals); (ii) a strike directly and seriously endangers the environment in places where hazardous materials or energy are used (such as nuclear power stations); and (iii) a strike takes place in services of which the principal function (such as fire services) or the secondary function (such as transport services) is to participate in the prevention of natural disasters. The Government adds that the courts have not yet ruled that a strike is illegal on the grounds that it constitutes a serious threat to the environment.

The Committee recalls that restrictions on the right to strike should be confined to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In the Committee's opinion, transport services do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term.

It therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 3(3) of Act No. VII of 1989 is not applied in practice to prevent workers in transport services and their organizations from going on strike as a means of defending their economic and social interests. The Committee also requests the Government to state in its next report whether, during the period covered by the report, the courts have forbidden strikes under this section and, if so, to supply the text of any ruling made in this respect.

The Committee once again requests the Government to supply a copy of Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and its reply to the comments made by the National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions (MSZOSZ).

1. The Committee recalls that, according to the MSZOSZ, Act No. 28 of 11 July 1991 respecting the protection of trade union property and Act No. 29 of 11 July 1991 respecting the voluntary nature of the payment of trade union membership dues impair the right of trade unions to organize the management of their property freely.

According to the Government, Act No. 28 of 1991 endeavours to resolve the contradictions which existed in respect of the property rights of trade unions and to ensure that these rights can be exercised equally by all trade unions. The Act therefore provides for a transitional period in the management of trade union assets while awaiting their definitive distribution. The Government also states that in December 1992 an agreement was concluded with the MSZOSZ and the National Council of Trade Unions (NCTU) on the distribution of trade union assets. This agreement was introduced in an Act which was adopted by the Parliament in February 1993.

The Committee notes this information. It hopes that the Act of February 1993 will make it possible to resolve the issue of the distribution of the assets covered by Act No. 28 of 1991 in such a manner that the possibility of effectively exercising their activities in full independence is guaranteed on an equal footing to all trade unions. The Committee asks the Government and the trade union organizations concerned to confirm this.

2. With regard to Act No. 29 of 1991 on the voluntary payment of trade union membership dues, the Government points out that under section 1 of the Act the employer may only deduct dues from the worker's wages if the worker gives explicit authorization in writing specifying the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the amount deducted. It is also prohibited for employers to discriminate between workers or different trade union organizations.

In view of this information, the Committee considers that Act No. 29 of 1991 does not jeopardize the safeguards set out in the Convention since it does not establish any discrimination between trade union organizations and does not therefore prejudice the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

3. With regard to the comments of the MSZOSZ relating to the distinction made between the most representative trade unions and other organizations under the provisions of the Labour Code and Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees, the Government states that sections 23 and 29 of the Labour Code establish a right of objection against measures (or acts of negligence) by the employer in respect of trade unions which are recognized for that employer. Trade unions which are not recognized have the right, under section 199(l), to initiate legal proceedings against a measure (or act of negligence) by an employer which violates the appropriate employment regulations or in support of claims deriving from the employment relationship. The Government adds that the Labour Code also establishes two methods of determining the representative status of trade unions for the purposes of collective bargaining and the conclusion of collective agreements (section 33).

The Committee considers that the provisions of the Labour Code do not prevent minority organizations from organizing their activities and representing their members in the case of individual claims. The Committee therefore considers that they are not contrary to the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee will examine Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees, with respect to the application of the Convention, as soon as the text is made available to it.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

With reference to its requests for information on the application of certain provisions of Act No. II of 1989 on the right to organize and Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike, the Committee takes due note of the information supplied by the Government in its report.

The Committee nevertheless asks the Government in its next report to supply information on the practical effect given to section 3(3) of Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike indicating, in particular, whether, during the period covered by the report, any strikes were prohibited because they constituted a threat to the environment. It also asks the Government to provide copies of any decisions adopted in this connection.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide a copy of Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions (MSZOSZ) on Law No. 28 of 11 July 1991 respecting the protection of trade union property, equal opportunities of association for workers and equal opportunities of operation for their organizations, and Law No. 29 of 11 July 1991 respecting the voluntary nature of the payment of trade union membership dues, which, according to the MSZOSZ, impaired the right of trade unions to organize the management of their property freely, and on the provisions of the Labour Code of 1992 and of Act No. 33 of 1992 issuing the conditions of employment of public employees, which make a distinction between the most representative trade unions and the others.

The Committee asks the Government to respond to these comments and to submit any observations it may deem appropriate so that the Committee can address these specific questions at its next meeting.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

With reference to the new laws that have been adopted recently, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information on the following points:

Article 2 of the Convention. Within what period of time must the attorney general transmit courts' decision to give effect to a request to register a trade union organisation (section 15 of Act No. II of 1989)?

Article 3. What is the scope of section 3(1)(c) of Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike which prohibits the calling of a strike to challenge any individual act or omission on the part of an employer which could be settled by judicial means, and section 3(3) of the same Act, which prohibits the calling of a strike if it constitutes a threat to the environment? In addition, what is the scope of section 1(3) according to which any abuse of the right to strike is prohibited?

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

With reference to the observations that it has been making for several years, the Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption of the new Constitution, dated 18 October 1989, and of Act No. II of 1989 on the right to organise and Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike, which establish the possibility of trade union pluralism and guarantee workers the right to call strikes to defend their economic and social interests. In this connection, the Committee notes that several independent trade unions from the pre-existing trade union structure have been registered.

The Committee is addressing a direct request for information on certain points to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish organisations of their own choosing to further and defend their interests (Articles 2, 3 and 10 of the Convention). In its previous comments the Committee noted that under the terms of the Labour Code of 1967, as amended, and of Decree No. 34 of 1967, issued thereunder, the National Council of Trade Unions (SZOT), referred to by name in the legislation (sections 8, 12 and 17), exercised the exclusive function of trade union representation at the higher level (the expressing opinions and giving advice to the Council of Ministers concerning regulations respecting the living and working conditions of employees, supervising the protection of the safety and health of workers and operating the social insurance scheme, among other functions). It requested the Government to take steps to guarantee to workers who may wish to do so, the possibility of establishing trade unions outside the existing trade union structure.

The Committee notes with interest the Government's statements in its report to the effect that sections 8 and 12 of the Labour Code have been amended by Act No. XI of 1987, which came into force on 1 January 1988. These provisions no longer refer by name to the National Council of Trade Unions and make reference only to trade unions in general. Another provision refers to "trade union bodies at the workplace" and this expression, according to the Government, means "any trade union" and not "a certain trade union". Furthermore, the Government indicates that a Decree issued under the Labour Code of 1967 is no longer in force and that section 17 of the Labour Code has been amended by section 9(6) of Legislative Decree No. 5 of 1984 to transfer the operation of social insurance to the State.

Finally, the Government states that during the period covered by the report two independent trade unions were registered, namely the Democratic Trade Union of Scientific Workers and the Democratic Trade Union of the Cinema. The Committee welcomes this information.

In addition, the Committee has been informed that the Government envisages the adoption of legislative reforms, including the reform of the Constitution. In this regard:

(a) the Committee hopes that the new Constitution will guarantee workers and employers the right to establish free organisations, to organise their administration and to formulate their programmes in full freedom and without interference from the public authorities, in order to further and defend the interests of their members;

(b) the Committee also hopes that it will be possible to provide for the right of workers to call strikes as one of the means available to them to further and defend their economic, social and occupational interests.

It requests the Government to supply information in its next report on developments in the situation.