Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 279, November 1991

Case No 1565 (Greece) - Complaint date: 04-DEC-90 - Closed

1. 381. The International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) presented a complaint against the Government of Greece alleging violations of freedom of association in a communication received on 4 December 1990. It presented additional information in letters dated 7 January and 22 April 1991.
2. 382. The Government sent its observations on the allegations in a communication dated 12 June 1991.
3. 383. Greece has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) and the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 384. In its letter received on 4 December 1990, the IUF alleges violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, ratified by Greece, in the form of illegal actions taken against its affiliate, the Panhellenic Federation of Catering and Tourist Industry Employees, by the employer Olympic Catering, a subsidiary of the State-owned enterprise Olympic Airlines. This involved the mass dismissal of 950 employees including the entire executive committee of the Olympic Catering workers' union. It states that the Government is directly involved in the ownership and management of the enterprise and is responsible for making the decisions which are the subject of this complaint.
2. 385. The complainant explains that the employer, until recently, employed 2,067 staff operating bars and restaurants as well as auxiliary services at all Greek airports. In October 1990, the employer claimed major losses, dismissed 950 employees and announced plans to sell 66 per cent of its shares. The union believes that the management was pursuing a policy leading to privatisation and sale of the company, while publicly assuring the workers and Parliament that it had no such intention. According to the complainant, the company could have been a profitable one and the union therefore submitted proposals for its necessary modernisation and reorganisation. These were ignored by management. The union then offered to contribute salaries worth 1.2 billion drachmas to take responsibility for running the company. When plans went ahead for sale of the company, the employees made a legal offer to buy it, a timely bid higher than any other bidder. The company has not answered the union's proposal, but indicated through third parties that it would be sold to others.
3. 386. According to the complainant, various actions were then taken against the union: management refused to meet and conduct substantial negotiations with the union as required by Act No. 1264 of 1982 and the competent government ministries also refused to meet with it; false charges were filed against the union's executive committee and its ten members were illegally dismissed; Mr. Stelios Koletsis, the Federation president, was also dismissed; the union's office at the workplace was closed and sealed contrary to Act No. 1264.
4. 387. The complainant claims that the 950 dismissals were illegal because Act No. 1876 of 1990 requires that public sector staff declared surplus must be transferred elsewhere in the public sector. Although a committee to discuss such a possibility did meet once, the employer went ahead with the dismissals of employees who have permanent contracts and had been working five to seven years with the company. A number of new staff have been hired to replace them.
5. 388. In its letter of 7 January 1991, the IUF explains further why the dismissals were contrary to freedom of association and the national labour legislation. After only one meeting of the committee formed under section 34 of Act No. 1876 of 1990 to discuss the transfer of surplus staff elsewhere in the public sector, the management stopped participating in the committee and simply sent notices of dismissal to the 950 involved. This action was justified by incorrectly calling Olympic Catering a "private sector" company. In any case the IUF points out that Greek law (Act No. 1387 of 1983) prohibits massive dismissals in the private sector as well. It adds that when the dismissed workers reported to their workplaces, they were forcibly ejected by the police and barbed wire was put up around the workplaces, thus prohibiting the union access to its office in the workplace. It states that neither the union nor the dismissed workers were told why these particular workers were chosen for dismissal. It believes that the entire climate for orderly and effective resolution of disputes through collective negotiations has been poisoned by the arbitrary acts of management in this public sector enterprise. The Government has thus interfered with trade union rights and free collective bargaining, and has refused the protection and facilities to be afforded to workers' representatives in accordance with Convention No. 135 also ratified by Greece.
6. 389. In its letters of 22 April 1991, the IUF provides documentation explaining the ongoing legal proceedings arising from this case, as well as a letter of support for the IUF's complaint from the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GCGT). One of the attachments, a letter of 23 August 1990 from the management to the union, explains why some dismissals would be necessary, given the very poor financial situation of the company and the disproportionately high level of new hirings; it invites the union to a meeting on 27 August to discuss the proposed dismissals in accordance with Act No. 1387 of 1983. Another attachment is a copy of Decision No. 2401 of 1991 of the Athens Court of First Instance rejecting the appeal of Olympic Catering against an earlier temporary injunction ordering the reinstatement of certain dismissed staff members, who had apparently been dismissed for their union activities as members of the executive committee of the concerned union.

B. The Government's reply

1. 390. In its letter of 12 June 1991, the Government states that as regards the dismissals, after obtaining details from the competent authorities the procedure set out in Act No. 1387 of 1983 for monitoring collective dismissals was followed. The company was seeking to dismiss 950 surplus employees as it was facing a deficit of 7,200 million drachmas, due in particular to the excess number of personnel. The Government points out that the criterion used in the dismissals was seniority: recently employed persons were laid off and they were not replaced by other persons afterwards.
2. 391. According to the Government, the cancellation of the employment contracts of union committee members was in accordance with the law because they had committed offences against the company, namely the illegal use of force and major damage to the property of others.
3. 392. As for the complaints concerning the sale of the company, the Government replies that the company's poor financial situation led to the conclusion that it had to be sold off to another company having international prestige and having the relevant specialisation so that it would be able to continue functioning (Olympic Catering did retain some of the shares) and to upgrade the level of services offered.
4. 393. As for the allegation concerning the transfer of the premises made available to the union at the workplace, the Government points out that this was necessary because of the needs of the company and stresses that at the same time other convenient premises suitable for the carrying out of union activities were offered so as to permit the union to have contact with its members while respecting the company's output. It notes that under section 16(8) of Act No. 1264 of 1982 where there is disagreement over the suitability of agreed premises, the competent labour inspector shall decide the matter within ten days of the filing of a complaint relating thereto. However, according to the information at the Government's disposal, no such complaint was ever lodged by the union in question.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 394. The Committee notes that this case concerns alleged anti-union mass dismissals and other anti-union acts, such as the dismissal of the whole of the union executive, withdrawal of the use of some company premises for union work and refusal to bargain, following the partial privatisation of the Olympic Catering company. It notes the Government's explanations that the 950 dismissals were economically necessary, that the dismissal of the ten union officers was for their illegal acts against the company and that the premises made available for union work were changed rather than withdrawn.
2. 395. As regards the 950 dismissals, the Committee notes that the procedure under section 34 of Act No. 1876 of 1990 concerning transfers of surplus staff among enterprises in the public sector did not develop in the present case beyond one meeting of the required tripartite committee. Despite this lack of willingness to meet at the national level which might have shed light on the current situation of the so-called surplus staff, the Committee considers that there was an anti-union motive behind several of the dismissals. In particular, it notes that although the Government specifically relies on the economic nature of the October 1990 dismissals and refers to the seniority criterion used by the employer, it does not deny that other persons were hired to replace some of the permanent unionised staff so dismissed. Neither does it supply details to explain the fact that the timing of the dismissals followed closely on the union's agitation towards avoiding a sale of the company. In addition, the timing left little chance for the discussions referred to above which had been called for in the company's letter to the union dated 23 August 1990 suggesting a meeting on the afternoon of the 27th. Moreover, there are allegations that the competent government ministers refused even to meet with the union on the proposed dismissals which remain unanswered by the Government.
3. 396. The Committee recalls that in situations such as this, where it is often difficult for the workers concerned to furnish proof that the dismissal of which they have been victim had an anti-union motive, it has suggested that one of the possible means of forestalling abusive dismissals would be to make it compulsory for the employer to prove that its dismissal was not connected with the workers' union membership or activities (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, paras. 567 and 569).
4. 397. As regards the dismissal in particular of the ten executive committee members of the union at Olympic Catering, the Committee takes note of the document dated 11 February 1991 supplied by the complainant recording the decision of the Athens Court of First Instance in favour of their reinstatement, on the ground that their dismissals had been unfairly based on their trade union activities. Faced with this clear contradiction of the Government's assertion that they were dismissed for offences relating to the illegal use of force and damage to property, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that no person should be prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of his or her trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities (Digest, para. 538). It requests the Government to keep it informed of the implementation of the Athens Court decision concerning the reinstatement of the union officers in question.
5. 398. The Committee notes that the complainant and the Government give directly contradictory statements concerning the provision of workplace premises at Olympic Catering for the union's work. On the one hand, the allegations indicate that the union's office was closed and sealed and that there are no premises currently made available; on the other hand, the Government stresses that there was merely a change in premises and that the union still has the possibility of access to its members through suitable premises, has facilities to allow it to function, and has not used the legislative procedures available to complain about this matter at the national level. The Committee would accordingly recall in general that Convention No. 135, ratified by Greece, calls on ratifying member States to supply such facilities in the undertaking as may be appropriate in order to enable workers' representatives to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently, and in a manner as not to impair the efficient operation of the undertaking concerned. It asks the Government to keep it informed of the type of facilities made available to the union at Olympic Catering.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 399. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) Given the anti-union bias behind some of the dismissals at Olympic Catering following its partial privatisation, the Committee asks the Government to take measures to review this situation and to keep it informed of the union's position under the new ownership of Olympic Catering.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the implementation of the Athens Court decision confirming the reinstatement order applying to the officers of the Olympic Catering company workers' union.
   • (c) Recalling in general that Convention No. 135 calls on ratifying member States to supply such facilities in the undertaking as may be appropriate in order to enable workers' representatives to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently, and in a manner as not to impair the efficient operation of the undertaking concerned, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the type of facilities made available under the new ownership to the union at Olympic Catering.