Definitive Report - Report No 61, 1962

Case No 256 (Greece) - Complaint date: 15-MAR-61 - Closed

1. 20. In a communication dated 15 March 1961 addressed directly to the I.L.O jointly by the Athens and Piraeus Bus Conductors' Associations allegations were made by these organisations regarding breaches of trade union rights in Greece. On being informed by a letter dated 7 April 1961 that they were entitled to submit further information in substantiation of their complaint, the complainants furnished such information in a communication dated 20 April 1961.
2. 21. The complaint and the supplementary information supporting it were communicated to the Greek Government for its observations by two letters dated respectively 7 April and 9 May 1961. The Government replied by a communication dated 15 June 1961.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 22. The complainants allege that the employers and the Government are working hand in glove to deprive the bus drivers' and conductors' union of their leadership. They say this is borne out by the contents of Decree No. 3990 of 1959, and in particular section 17 of that decree.
2. 23. A study of this enactment shows that bus workers now belong to the K.T.E.L. (Common Bus Receipts Fund), which the Government states in its communication of 15 June 1961 to have been a long-standing objective of the workers. The K.T.E.L appears to be a body subject to public law, to which both employers and bus workers engaged in urban transport belong. These workers, although they are the employees of the bus owners, are nevertheless paid by the K.T.E.L.
3. 24. Section 17 (3) of the decree in question provides for the setting up of enlistment committees with responsibility both for confirming in their jobs those already in employment before the system was changed and for recruiting new employees.
4. 25. The complainants begin by alleging that the composition of these committees is unacceptable because, they say, they are composed of a representative of the employers, a representative of the Government (a policeman) and a representative of the workers appointed by the employers and the Government.
5. 26. The complainants add that these committees-whose decisions are final-have power to dismiss workers not on grounds of competence, but in accordance with the political criteria laid down in Act No. 516 of 1948.
6. 27. The complainants say that the committees in question have been used to break up the union leadership of the workers in this occupation, and they cite three cases of dismissal: those of the treasurer of the Bus Conductors' Union, the chairman of the Union's executive and the Union's representative on the E.K.A. (Athens Trade Council).
7. 28. In its reply dated 15 June 1961 the Government explains that until the promulgation of Decree No. 3990 of 1959 the bus workers dealt directly with their employers-that is without going through a bargaining agent-and this gave rise to a number of disputes. Since then, continues the Government, in accordance with their own wish, the bus workers belong to the K.T.E.L, and recruitment has to conform to certain rules.
8. 29. Decree No. 3990, declares the Government, provides for a six months' probationary period during which an applicant must prove that he is suitable for the job. Enlistment is effected by committees composed of a representative of the employers, a representative of the State (generally a traffic policeman) and a representative of the K.T.E.L with three years' service. The criteria used, continues the Government, are not only those laid down by the Staff Regulations of the K.T.E.L, which have been in force since 1955, but equally, and above all, such considerations as honesty, discipline, conscientiousness and attitude towards the passengers.
9. 30. The Government concludes its communication of 15 June 1961 by stating that the complaint is groundless and that the allegations it contains have no connection with the exercise of trade union rights.
10. 31. When the case came before it at its 29th Session (November 1961) the Committee took the view that both the wording of the decree cited and the explanations furnished by the Government seemed to show that the recruiting system in force for urban transport workers seemed to offer adequate safeguards to ensure that such recruitment was carried out under satisfactory conditions. It also considered that, as described by the Government, neither the composition of the enlistment committees nor the criteria on which they base their decisions would appear to be open to criticism.
11. 32. The Committee observed, nevertheless, that the fact remained that the complainants, after criticising the manner in which the workers' representatives on the enlistment committees are appointed, alleging that they are appointed jointly by the employers and the Government, questioned the objectivity of the criteria used by the committees and went further by making precise allegations to the effect that three union leaders, whose offices they specified, had been dismissed by the enlistment committees in such circumstances as to constitute a breach of freedom of association.
12. 33. Noting that the Government in its reply had refrained from commenting in any way on these specific allegations, the Committee considered that in order to be able to come to a decision in full awareness of the facts it would need further information on this point from the Government, and in consequence it asked the Director-General to request the Greek Government to inform the Committee as to (a) the manner in which the workers' representatives on the enlistment committees are appointed; and (b) whether or not the union leaders mentioned by the complainants were dismissed by order of an enlistment committee and, if so, on precisely what grounds.
13. 34. This request for further information was transmitted to the Greek Government by a letter from the Director-General dated 24 November 1961. The Government replied by a communication dated 13 January 1962.
14. 35. As regards the composition of the enlistment committees, the Government confirms what it said in its first reply. It adds, however, that the members of the committees are appointed in the department of Attica by the Minister of Communications, and in the other departments by the prefects. This seems to apply to employers' and workers' members as well as to government members.
15. 36. It would seem from the explanations furnished by the Government that, contrary to the allegations of the complainants, the employers do not join with the Government in appointing workers' representatives to the enlistment committees; it appears, on the contrary, that workers and employers are treated here on a footing of complete equality and that their representatives are designated by the authorities. It would be desirable, however, in order to prevent any abuse or criticism, and to ensure impartiality, for the existing system to establish beyond doubt that these representatives are truly representative of the employers and the workers, and accepted by them as such, and consequently for them to be appointed after consultation with the employers and workers concerned or their organisations. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to this point.
16. 37. In reply to the second question put by the Committee, the Government states that on the orders of an enlistment committee, the persons mentioned by the complainants were not reaccepted for employment, the committee having found that they did not meet the required standard, and, in particular, did not have the necessary occupational qualifications.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 38. It would appear from the Government's reply that the persons mentioned by the complainants were not dismissed properly speaking, but were not re-engaged as urban transport workers following the change in the system, i.e. after these workers were taken over by the K.T.E.L.
2. 39. The Committee notes, however, that the measure taken with respect to these individuals amounts in effect, notwithstanding the above, to a dismissal. It also notes that the three persons in question happen to be trade union leaders.
3. 40. In a number of earlier cases the Committee has emphasised that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment-such as dismissal, transfer or other prejudicial measures-and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee pointed out that one way of ensuring such protection is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter, except, of course, for serious misconduct. The Committee also considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. In the present case the Committee recommends the Governing Body to remind the Greek Government of the importance that should be attached to the aforementioned principles.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 41. As regards the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to draw the Government's attention to the importance, when the authorities appoint employers' or workers' members of the enlistment committees of the K.T.E.L, of choosing persons who are representative of the employers or the workers and accepted as such by the employers and the workers, and of ensuring, therefore, that they are appointed after consultation with the employers and workers concerned or their organisations;
   • (b) to draw the Government's attention to the Governing Body's view that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment -such as dismissal, transfer or other prejudicial measures-and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions.