Interim Report - Report No 190, March 1979

Case No 876 (Greece) - Complaint date: 30-APR-77 - Closed

1. 265. The Committee has already examined this case in November 1977, on which occasion it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. Since then, the Greek Federation of Teachers in Private Teaching (OIELE) has sent supplementary information in communications dated 18 and 20 February and 9 October 1978. The Government, for its part, has sent observations in communications dated 8 February, 22 May and 10 November 1978. Finally, the OIELE has sent additional information in a communication dated 9 January 1979.
2. 266. Greece has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 267. The allegations still outstanding after the examination of the case by the Committee in November 1977 relate to the dismissal of Mr. C. Voliotis, of the Ionos School, Secretary General of the Union of Teachers in Private Teaching (Athens and Piraeus), and Mr. M. Krikis, of the Delassal School, President of the Union of Teachers in Private Teaching (Salonica) in violation of section 26(1) of Law No. 330/1976. The complainants claimed that these dismissals were proof of the anti-worker nature of Law No. 682/1977 respecting private general education in schools and boarding schools which had recently been passed by Parliament.
2. 268. At its November 1977 Session the Committee noted that the Government had not replied to these allegations. The Committee recalled that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination was particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to carry out their trade union functions in full independence, they must have the assurance that they would not be victimised by virtue of their trade union office. On the recommendation of the Committee, the Governing Body requested the Government to provide its observations on the allegations in question.
3. 269. In its communication of 18 February 1978, the Greek Federation of Teachers in Private Teaching stated that Mr. Voliotis (already mentioned in an earlier communication) and Mr. Vandoros, former President of the Union of Teachers in Private Teaching (Athens and Piraeus), had been brought before a disciplinary board on the grounds that they had made false statements and threatened their superiors. The accusations had been made on 29 March 1977 by the then Minister of Education. According to the complainant organisation, Messrs. Voliotis and Vandoros, on the instructions of their union, had sent the elementary and secondary school inspectors a cable in which they accused the latter of negligence in supervision of the application of the decisions of the Ministry by the employers and stated their intention to take legal action. The two trade union leaders had also protested against the dropping of the charges against the owner of a school where certain teachers who had organised work stoppages had been cleared by the disciplinary board. The Government had considered this protest to be a violation of discipline. The Government had then ordered the school inspectors to take disciplinary action against the trade union leaders. The complainant organisation concludes its communication by stating that the activities of trade union organisations should not be judged by the administrative authorities but only by courts of law.
4. 270. In its communication of 20 February 1978, OIELE reports that a court of first instance in Athens rejected the appeal filed by Mr. Voliotis against the owner of the Ionos School for illegal dismissal. OIELE also states that Mr. Voliotis intends to appeal against this decision. Finally, it states that, despite the judgement given by the court of first instance of Salonica, which pronounced the dismissal of Mr. Krikis to be illegal, he has not been authorised to resume work and will not be allowed to do so until the court of appeal has given a decision in his case.
5. 271. OIELE also states, in its two communications of 9 October 1978, that Messrs. Voliotis and Krikis have not yet been reinstated in their jobs. The complainant organisation adds that the Secretary General of the Union of Teachers in Private Teaching (Salonica), Mr. Vandoros, was also dismissed on 21 August 1978. OIELE sees this measure as a violation of section 26 of Law No. 330/76 and a new law adopted by Parliament in September 1978, under which no private teacher may be dismissed after 16 August 1978.
6. 272. OIELE also remarks that over 100 private school teachers, including many active trade unionists, were dismissed on 15 August 1978. It mentions the names of seven of them, all of whom had taken part in the congress of the complainant organisation in September 1977: Chronis Plavukos (Ursulline School), Eleni Papadopoulos (Erasme School), Maria Mari (Ziridis School), Despina Dermitzaki and Marielli Vitali (Aidononopoulos), Dismothenis Palamurdas (Hill School) and Kaliopi Kurti (Moraitis School). Several hundred other teachers, including the President of the Union of Teachers in Private Teaching (Athens and Piraeus), Maria Karamaliki, are without work because their schools are closed. Under Law No. 682/77, they are not entitled to financial compensation. OIELE finally alleges that the Government has taken no measures to reinstate the persons who had been dismissed because they had been candidates for the general elections in November 1977, despite the fact that the Council of State had considered that the dismissals were illegal.
7. 273. In its communication of 8 February 1978, the Government transmits the observations of the Ministry of National Education, which states that Law No. 682 of 1977 respecting private general education schools and boarding schools has granted new privileges to private teachers, in particular the right to an indemnity in the event of dismissal. The Ministry adds that the private teachers, including two trade unionists, were dismissed in accordance with the provisions of section 55 of Law No. 682 of 1977, and that they were granted an indemnity. This section provides that "during the 1977-78 school year it shall be prohibited to dismiss more than two teachers in any one school when the number of teachers does not exceed 20, and over 10 per cent of teachers when the number exceeds 20. Any dismissals beyond these limits shall be deemed to be null and void".
8. 274. In an appendix to the Government's communication of 2 May 1978, the Ministry of National Education states that the disciplinary action against Messrs. Voliotis and Vandoros had nothing to do with their trade union activity but was taken because they had used improper language to the general inspectors. Nevertheless, the disciplinary board had shown clemency and had acquitted them.
9. 275. As regards the dismissal of Mr. Krikis, the Government states that the court of first instance of Salonica had decided in his favour, but that his employer had appealed against this decision on 20 March 1978.
10. 276. Finally, the Government states, in its communication of 10 November 1978, that after his acquittal by the disciplinary board Mr. Vandoros had continued to exercise his functions in the normal way. Mr. Voliotis, on the other hand, had subsequently been dismissed because he had been a candidate at the legislative elections in November 1977, in accordance with the Constitution and the legislation in force. Mr. Voliotis had appealed against this decision, but the court had not yet given a judgement.
11. 277. The appeal filed by the employer of Mr. Krikis against the decision of the court of first instance in the latter's favour was examined by the court of appeal on 25 September 1978, but the judgement had not yet been made public. Nevertheless, according to information in the Government's possession, the court had decided in Mr. Krikis' favour.
12. 278. The OIELE points out in its communication of 9 January 1979 that the court of appeal has confirmed the judgement at first instance concerning Mr. Krikis, declaring null and void his dismissal. However, according to the complainant organisation, the employer has refused to implement the decision of the court of appeal.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 279. The Committee notes that the present case concerns the dismissal of three leaders of trade unions of teachers in the private sector, Messrs. Voliotis, Vandoros and Krikis. Additional information sent by the complainant has also mentioned the dismissal of seven teachers who had taken part in the congress of the Federation of Teachers in private teaching in September 1977.
2. 280. It appears from the information available to the Committee that Messrs. Voliotis and Vandoros were brought before a disciplinary board. According to the Government, this disciplinary action was taken not because of their trade union activities but because they had used improper language to their superiors. The disciplinary board dealing with the case had acquitted the two trade unionists. Accordingly, Mr. Vandoros had resumed his teaching functions in the normal way, but Mr. Voliotis had subsequently been dismissed because he had been a candidate for the legislative elections and has appealed against this decision.
3. 281. The Committee accordingly notes that the case of Mr. Vandoros was settled by a disciplinary body to the satisfaction of the person concerned and that Mr. Voliotis has appealed against the decision of dismissal against him. The Committee is of the opinion that it would be useful for it to have the text of the judgement handed down in this case.
4. 282. As regards Mr. Krikis the Committee notes that a court of first instance pronounced his dismissal illegal. However, this trade union leader may not be reinstated in his job until the judgement of the court of first instance has been confirmed by the court of appeal which is examining the appeal presented by the employer. According to the complainants, the court has now confirmed the judgement of the court of first instance, but the employer has refused to implement the decision handed down. In order to enable it to come to a definitive conclusion on this aspect of the case, the Committee considers that it would be desirable for it to have the Government's observations on this point.
5. 283. Finally, the Committee notes that the Government has not yet replied to the allegations made by OIELE regarding the dismissal of seven teachers who had taken part in the congress of the complainant organisation in September 1977.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 284. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) (i) to note that the disciplinary board examining the case of Mr. Vandoros has not taken sanctions against him;
   • (ii) to note that Mr. Voliotis has appealed against this decision of dismissal taken against him and to ask the Government to supply the text of the judgement when it is handed down;
   • (b) to request the Government to supply its observations regarding the decision of the court of appeal as regards Mr. Krikis and the allegations concerning the refusal of the employer to implement the decision of the court;
   • (c) to request the Government to transmit its observations regarding the dismissal of the seven teachers' trade union members mentioned in paragraph 272 above;
   • (d) to take note of the present interim report.