Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 330, March 2003

Case No 2212 (Greece) - Complaint date: 11-JUL-02 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant alleges that the Government violated its trade union rights by issuing a civil mobilization order to end a lawful strike.

1. 721. In a communication dated 11 July 2002, the Pan-Hellenic Seamen’s Federation (PNO) presented a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Greece. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) associated themselves with the complaint in their communications dated 16 and 30 July 2002 respectively.
2. 722. The Government furnished its observations in communications dated 27 August and 12 November 2002.
3. 723. Greece has ratified 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 724. In its communication of 11 July 2002, the Pan-Hellenic Seamen’s Federation (PNO) which is the highest level of trade union organization for seafarers with 14 affiliates, alleges that the Government violated its trade union rights by issuing a civil mobilization order to end a lawful strike.
2. 725. The PNO states that on 11 December 2001, its General Council (which is the Federation’s second constitutional body in order, the first being the Congress and the third the Executive Board) mandated its Executive Board that unless the fair and just demands of seafarers, acknowledged as such by the Government, were not resolved within a period of six months, the PNO should call a national strike. The PNO adds that its demands concerned the enhancement of pensions and provident fund benefits and more specifically included: (a) the formulation of a clear timetable for the readjustment of the main pensions of retired seafarers to 80 per cent of salaries paid to active seafarers (instead of 60 per cent) calculated on the basis of all allowances and benefits for which deductions were made in favour of the Seafarers’ Retirement Fund; (b) an increase in the supplementary pension by 1.5 per cent per year in order to reach 30 per cent of the principal pension paid; (c) the doubling of the lump sum benefits of the provident funds for all officers and ratings; and (d) the creation of an independent unemployment fund.
3. 726. The PNO states that since no resolution of the above-mentioned demands was achieved within the six-month period, its Executive Board called a 48-hour rolling national strike from 6.00 a.m. on 11 June 2002 to 6.00 a.m. on 13 June 2002. According to the PNO, following the announcement of the strike, a series of meetings between the Minister of Mercantile Marine and the PNO Executive Board took place, and on 6 June 2002, the Minister sent to the PNO the text of draft legislative provisions, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, to be incorporated in the Social Security Bill (dealing with the reform of the pension system for shoreworkers) which was being debated at that time in Parliament. The draft provisions addressed the first two of the PNO’s demands by providing in particular, that from 1 January 2003 the main pensions of seafarers would reach 70 per cent of active seafarers’ salaries including the Sunday allowance, and that auxiliary pensions would increase by 1.5 per cent per year in order to reach 30 per cent of main pension levels. The explanatory memorandum provided that inter alia, the draft provisions would be inserted in an addendum to the Social Security Bill and that the increases to seafarers’ pensions would be financed by the State budget in the context of recognizing the particularities of the seamen’s profession and its great contribution to the development of the national economy. The PNO attaches the two documents which were signed by the Minister of Mercantile Marine and the Minister of Labour and Social Security, but not the Minister of Finance and National Economy.
4. 727. The PNO states that considering that the signatures provided and the assurances given by the Ministers concerned were reliable, it decided on the same day (6 June 2002) to call off provisionally the strike scheduled to take place on 11 June 2002. However, the PNO alleges that while it was waiting for the Minister of Finance and National Economy to co-sign the abovementioned draft legislation, the Minister of Mercantile Marine made a statement to the press in which he deviated from the contents of the agreed upon legislation and postponed its implementation indefinitely. The PNO states that in light of these developments, it decided to call a 48-hour national rolling strike from 18 to 20 June 2002 for all types of vessels; the strike action was escalated on 20 June for a further 48 hours, but on 21 June the strike was ended by a civil mobilization order issued by the Government, a move generally reserved for times of national emergency. The PNO adds that its members had no choice but to obey the order, which effectively meant that seafarers would face imprisonment and/or financial penalties if they did not return to work.
5. 728. The PNO attaches the text of the civil mobilization order which relied on the imperative need to prevent the unfavourable consequences of the prolonged strike which had caused a serious disturbance to the social and economic life of the country and to ensure the health of the island residents who were isolated. The PNO holds that the Greek Government’s civil mobilization order issued just three and a half days after a legally organized trade union strike which had the support of 100 per cent of Greek seafarers constitutes an excessively strict order in breach of freedom of association principles and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). It also attaches a statement of support for the PNO’s action by the Workpeople Center of Piraeus, which is a department of the General Confederation of Greek Workers. The statement condemns the civil mobilization order as an antidemocratic and restrictive measure which is not conducive to finding a real solution to the problem.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 729. In its response dated 27 August 2002, the Government states that it replied in a positive and timely manner to all the demands made by the PNO. The Government attaches a special leaflet of the Ministry of Mercantile Marine entitled “The Government’s Decisions Regarding Greek Seamen”, which was distributed after the issuance of the civil mobilization order in June 2002 to seafarers, and contains a detailed statement in this respect. With regard to the first claim of the PNO, that is, the clear determination of a time schedule for the readjustment of all pensions of the retired seamen to 80 per cent of the salaries paid to active seamen, the Government states in the leaflet that it addressed this issue by raising pensions from 60 per cent of the nominal salary to 70 per cent of the actual salary (basic salary plus Sunday allowance). With regard to the second claim, that is, the increase of the supplementary pension at an annual rate of 1.5 units, in order to reach 30 per cent of the principal pension paid, the Government states that it accepted this claim. With regard to the third claim, that is, the doubling of the amounts of the lump sum payment, the Government states that, given that the competent institutions were legal entities under private law, it was decided that the PNO and the Ministry of Mercantile Marine would cooperate for the radical reorganization, reformation and rationalization of the lump sum pay system. With regard to the fourth claim, that is, the establishment of an independent special unemployment fund, the Government states that this demand was accepted and a Committee was formed by members of the PNO, the Ministry of Mercantile Marine, the Ministry of Labour, the Manpower Employment Organization (OAED), the General Confederation of Greek Workers (GSEE), etc., with a view to establishing a special unemployment fund for seafarers. The Government states that an additional claim was accepted to the effect that the Seafarers’ Retirement Fund should not become part of the general Social Securities Fund. As a result, a relevant provision was not included in the Social Security Bill which dealt with the reform of the pension system for shoreworkers.
2. 730. The Government explains that the only issue remaining open and constituting a point of friction was the manner of payment of the 70 per cent increase in pensions, or as the PNO had put it, the “time scheduling” of such increase. The Government specifies in the leaflet that the State budget covers, by paying 161 billion Drachmas, the deficit of the Seafarers’ Retirement Fund, which in 2002 amounted to 188 billion drachmas. In order to satisfy the demands of the PNO, the Government should make available another 40 billion drachmas a year, thus exhausting any further capability to support the Fund. The Government explains that the cost is high, because in the Seafarers’ Retirement Fund (as opposed to other funds) raises are payable to all pensioners, not only those who will retire after the establishment of the new right. The Government states that initially it had been accepted that there might be a possibility for the full percentage increase to begin being paid in 2003. At that time, the cost was estimated somewhere between 9 and 15 billion drachmas. However, the report of the General Accounting Office of the State showed that the cost would be higher and amount to an annual 40 billion Greek drachmas. Thus, the Government states that it decided and proposed a gradual payment within a five-year period. The Government states that although the PNO had said that they would make a counterproposal, they decided to prolong the strike without even replying. The Government announces unprecedented percentage raises in pensions in the period 2003-07.
3. 731. The Government also states in the leaflet that although all three Ministers (of National Economy, Labour and Mercantile Marine) agreed to accept the PNO’s demands, the Minister of Finance and National Economy did not sign the agreed upon draft legislation for the following reasons. Although for four months the Minister of Mercantile Marine had been asking the PNO to have a separate article on this subject in the Social Security Bill, the answer was negative until the day before the introduction of the Bill in Parliament. At that point in time, it was attempted to add an addendum, which, however, was not introduced due to the provisions of the new regulation of the Parliament and the absence of the required report of the General Accounting Office of the State. Therefore, the draft provisions only bear the signatures of the two reporters and not the Minister of Finance and National Economy. The latter, however, stated at that time in Parliament that pensions would increase from 60 per cent to 70 per cent by virtue of another bill.
4. 732. The Government has attached to the leaflet distributed to seafarers an appendix entitled “Raises to [seafarers’] pensions on the basis of the Government’s decisions” with tables on the raises accorded every year from 2003 to 2007. According to these tables, pensions will increase by 2 per cent each year, amounting to 62 per cent of actual salaries (the basic salary plus the Sunday allowance) in 2003, 64 per cent in 2004, 66 per cent in 2005, 68 per cent in 2006 and 70 per cent in 2007. The Government states furthermore in the leaflet that its decisions are valid, that it will support the measures it has announced, which constitute fundamental elements of the Government’s shipping policy, and that it will proceed to the implementation of the decisions adopted through the negotiations, because it believes that these demands are just and support the seafarers and the Greek shipping industry. The Government also makes a statement to the effect that the shipping industry is not the private property of either the shipowners, the trade unionists or the state services, but belongs instead to all the people and the national economy, who support financially the industry.
5. 733. The Government also states that even if the payment of pension raises were to be in the form of a lump sum in 2003 as claimed by the PNO, the differences compared to the total increases would be small and that such a small difference should not have resulted abusively in such great damages suffered by the citizens, the country’s tourism, the producers, businesses and the islands: it cannot be politically and socially acceptable that small differences between unions and the Government, not even discernible to the society, can lead to such disaster and isolation.
6. 734. The Government states in response to the complaint that, despite its positive and timely reply to the demands made by the PNO, the latter issued a notice in writing of its calling of a 48-hour rotating national strike of all crews of all categories of ships, with the prospect to escalate its activities, starting at 6.00 a.m. on 18 June 2002 and lasting until 6.00 a.m. on 20 June 2002. During this strike, the PNO issued another notice to the effect that the strike would continue from 6.00 a.m. on 20 June 2002, to 6.00 a.m. on 22 June 2002. While this strike was in process, the PNO announced that it would continue the strike from 6.00 a.m. on 22 June 2002 to 6.00 a.m. on 24 June 2002. At that point, by virtue of Decisions Nos. Y369 and Y370/20.6.2002, the Prime Minister placed the crews of the ships of the mercantile marine in a state of general civil mobilization and authorized the Minister of Mercantile Marine to declare the mobilization and undertake all necessary measures in order to secure the unimpeded function of the social and political life of the State and to avert the risk to the health of the inhabitants of isolated islands. By virtue of Decision No. 199/21.06.2002, the Minister of Mercantile Marine declared a general civil mobilization of the crews of the ships of the mercantile marine, starting from 4.00 p.m. on 21 June 2002.
7. 735. In its response the Government states that the decision to proceed to the civil mobilization of the seafarers had as its exclusive objective and result the protection of public health. According to the Government, it is a well-known fact that Greece has a large number of inhabited islands and that during the summer season, which definitely includes the last ten days of the month of June, the population of the islands is increased, given that a large number of tourists are added to their permanent inhabitants. Maritime transport is directly, even crucially in the case of certain islands, associated with the smooth and orderly life in the islands. The Government states that merchant ships are the dominant and in some cases the only means of transportation of food, water, pharmaceuticals and other supplies, such as fuel, to the islands, the absence of which places the public health at risk. Furthermore, merchant ships are a vehicle which contributes substantially to the transportation of patients as well as medical personnel to the primary and secondary units of the national health system. These transportations occur on an almost daily basis both among the islands as well as between the islands and the continent. The Government adds that prior to the adoption and implementation of the Decisions in question, almost four days had passed without any maritime transport in the country, with evident risks for the public health.
8. 736. The Government adds that before adopting, implementing and applying these decisions, it had received information from the islands about a multitude of cases of absence of basic provisions and pharmaceuticals. The Government attaches eight letters from local government authorities of the islands, university foundations and private associations which refer to a number of shortages, including shortages of articles of first necessity and the inability to provide medical care.
9. 737. The Government also attaches a document sent by the Ministry of Mercantile Marine and, more particularly, the Chief of the Port Authority, after the PNO had announced its decision to proceed to a strike on 16 June 2002, calling upon the PNO to consent to the performance of at least one coastal route from the ports of Piraeus and Rafina to each island destination (northern Aegean, the Cyclades, the Dodecanese, Crete, islands of the Argosaronikos Gulf), in order to ensure the absolutely necessary minimum level of maritime connection with the islands, with the objective of advancing and securing sustainable living conditions for the island population and considering the truly essential needs which are mainly covered by the maritime transport. It is also stated that irrespective of the fact that the legislation in effect sets forth procedures for the calling of strikes, the exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed right to strike should not be directed against the rights of citizens to order and free transportation, and that, in this framework, the practice implemented widely and with regard to all the means of transportation, is very familiar. The Government adds that the PNO did not respond positively to this effort.
10. 738. The Government adds that the Decisions under consideration of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mercantile Marine are entirely lawful and issued in accordance with the legal formalities and lie within the scope of the Constitution, while under no circumstances can they be characterized as contrary to the obligations undertaken by the country as a result of the ratification of international Conventions and in particular, Convention No. 87. It adds that the Decisions in question were only adopted when the Government found itself before an acute national crisis with a view to vindicating major social goods and securing the health of the inhabitants of isolated islands, having previously exhausted all other available means and taken into consideration the urgent need to prevent the adverse consequences of the extended strike which had caused a serious disturbance to the social and economic life of the State. The implementation of the said Decisions resulted, according to the Government, in the restoration and maintenance of the conditions which are necessary particularly during the summer season for the prevention and deterrence of grave risks to the public health, and is thus directly and substantially connected with reasons of general interest, without impairing the seamen’s insurance, labour or association rights.
11. 739. In a communication dated 12 November 2002, the Government states that the civil mobilization of the crews of the ships of the mercantile marine was lifted on 25 September 2002, by Decision No. 491/2002 of the Prime Minister and Decision No. 283/2002 of the Minister of Mercantile Marine, pursuant to the fact that the reasons for imposing the civil mobilization were no longer present.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 740. The Committee observes that this case concerns allegations of violations of freedom of association arising from the issuance of a civil mobilization order to end a lawful strike.
2. 741. The Committee notes that as early as December 2001, the PNO had announced its intention to go on strike if its demands were not met and in particular the determination of a specific time schedule for the readjustment of the main pensions of retired seafarers to 80 per cent of salaries paid to active seafarers (instead of 60 per cent). The Committee also notes that by early June no agreement had been reached on the PNO’s demands and that consequently the PNO decided to call a 48-hour rolling national strike for 11 June 2002. The Committee observes that pursuant to this announcement, negotiations took place between the Minister of Mercantile Marine and the PNO Executive Board and an agreement was reached on 6 June 2002, when the Minister of Mercantile Marine sent two documents to the PNO addressing certain of its demands, and providing inter alia that as of 1 January 2003, the main pensions of seafarers would reach 70 per cent of active seafarers’ salaries including the Sunday allowance. The documents in question were a proposed draft legislation to be incorporated in the Social Security Bill, which was to be debated at that time in Parliament, and an explanatory memorandum, signed by the Minister of Mercantile Marine and the Minister of Labour and Social Security, but not by the Minister of Finance and National Economy. The Committee notes that the PNO alleges that it decided the same day to call off provisionally the strike, having relied on the signatures provided and the assurances given.
3. 742. The Committee observes that both the complainant and the Government indicate that the implementation of the agreement reached between the Government and the PNO did not take place as planned. On the one hand, the PNO alleges that while waiting for the signature of the Minister of Finance and National Economy, it heard from a statement of the Minister of Mercantile Marine to the press that the implementation of part of the agreement was postponed indefinitely. On the other hand, the Government states that after the conclusion of the agreement, it found out from the General Accounting Office of the State that the cost of the raises accorded in the agreement would be much higher than initially estimated and that under these circumstances, it decided and proposed to the PNO a modification of the agreement in the form of a gradual increase in pensions over a five-year period. The Government adds that it was impossible to follow up on the agreement by introducing the agreed upon draft legislation for discussion in Parliament, inter alia, because the required report of the General Accounting Office of the State was not available. The Committee notes that under these circumstances, the draft proposal was not signed by the Minister of Finance and National Economy and that the latter stated in Parliament that pensions would increase by virtue of another bill.
4. 743. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the PNO decided to go on strike without making a counterproposal, calling a 48-hour national rolling strike from 18 to 20 June 2002 and escalating the strike on 20 June for a further 48 hours. As of 4.00 p.m. on 21 June 2002, that is, three and a half days after the beginning of the strike, the crews of the ships of the mercantile marine were placed in a state of general civil mobilization by the Decisions of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mercantile Marine dated 20 and 21 June respectively. The Committee notes the PNO’s statement that its members had to obey the order or face imprisonment and/or financial penalties.
5. 744. The Committee also notes that after the issuance of the civil mobilization order, the Government published, in a leaflet distributed to seafarers, its decisions concerning the scheduling of the pension raises over a five year period emphasizing its commitment to move ahead with their implementation. The Committee observes that, whereas the initial agreement was to grant a 10 per cent increase in pensions as of 1 January 2003, the Government announced its decision to implement the increases gradually, by granting a 2 per cent increase each year, from 2003 to 2007.
6. 745. The Committee has considered in the past that agreements should be binding on the parties [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 818] and that the reservation of budgetary powers to the legislative authority should not have the effect of preventing compliance with agreements entered into by, or on behalf of, that authority. The Committee considers also that for negotiations to be meaningful, the parties must have access to all the financial, budgetary and other data enabling them to assess the situation on the basis of the facts. The Committee is of the view therefore that, in so far as the budget of the Seafarers’ Retirement Fund depends on the State budget, it would not be a matter for criticism if, at some point during the six month negotiations, the Government had solicited the report of the General Accounting Office of the State, so that the parties could have the possibility to express their views on this report and take it into account.
7. 746. The Committee further notes that it would not be objectionable if, once it became clear that the implementation of the agreement would be practically impossible, and after having exhausted all good faith efforts to achieve the implementation of the agreement, the Government undertook concrete efforts to renegotiate the agreement in order to find a solution that would be commonly acceptable to the parties. The Committee notes in this respect that the Government does not provide any details on the manner in which it made a new proposal to the PNO with a view to renegotiating the agreement and does not indicate whether the bill mentioned by the Minister of Finance and National Economy in Parliament, as an alternative way to implement the agreement, already exists or will be proposed in the future. The Committee is of the view that the fact that the PNO resorted to strike action did not prevent negotiations from taking place in this context and recalls that strike action is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 475].
8. 747. The Committee observes that the increases accorded to pensioners on the basis of the Government’s decisions do not correspond to those initially agreed with the PNO and takes particular note of the Government’s statement that it will support what it has announced. The Committee is of the view that the stated intention of the Government to move forward with the implementation of the announced measures without seeking the agreement of the PNO, constitutes a unilateral modification of the agreement in breach of Article 4 of Convention No. 98. While the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the remaining differences with the PNO were small, it notes that the voluntary nature of collective bargaining requires that such differences should be settled through agreement rather than through unilateral decisions. The Committee requests the Government to undertake negotiations with the complainant as soon as possible in full knowledge of the relevant facts, in order to reach agreement between the parties on a specific time schedule for granting pension raises to seafarers, and to keep it informed of developments in this respect.
9. 748. The Committee notes the Government’s statements that the civil mobilization order aimed exclusively at the protection of the public health, and that it was adopted only because of an acute national crisis, with a view to securing the health of the inhabitants of isolated islands, having previously exhausted all other available means to address the situation. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the population of the islands increases in the summer given that a large number of tourists are added to the permanent inhabitants, while merchant ships are the dominant and, in some cases, the only means of transportation of food, water and pharmaceuticals, and contribute substantially to the transportation of patients and medical personnel between the primary and secondary units of the national health system. The Committee also notes that according to the Government, the fact that almost four days had passed without any maritime transport in the country, created evident risks for the public health. The Committee takes note of eight letters attached to the Government’s response from local authorities (the Prefects of the islands of Samos and Lesbos, the Community Chairpersons of the Cyclades Prefecture, the Mayors of the islands of Milos, Paros and Ios, the Municipal Council of the island of Paros), medical centres (the Chairman of the Medical Centre of Milos and the District University General Hospital of Heraclion, Crete) and a hoteliers’ association (the Hoteliers’ Association of Milos) making reference, inter alia, to the fact that the strike was causing shortages in items of first necessity and fresh products and that it prevented a team of volunteer doctors from carrying out a scheduled visit from a primary to a secondary medical centre in the islands. The Committee also notes from the PNO’s statement, that the scope of the strike must have been rather wide as it concerned all types of vessels and generated a participation of 100 per cent of seafarers. The Committee also notes however, that the strike lasted for only three and a half days and that most of the abovementioned letters focus primarily on the economic effects of the strike in the light of the tourist season, referring to public health issues only as a secondary matter. The Committee is of the view therefore, that the evidence provided affirms the potential risks to the population of the islands, but does not indicate the existence of an acute national crisis.
10. 749. The Committee recalls that the right to strike can be restricted or prohibited: (1) in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; or (2) in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population [see Digest, op. cit., para. 526]. With regard to the public service, the Committee considers that the fact that the Seafarers’ Retirement Fund is supported by the state budget does not place seafarers under the regime of public servants. With regard to essential services in the strict sense of the term, the Committee has noted in the past that the ferry service and the transportation of passengers and commercial goods is not an essential service [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 563, 566]. However, the Committee has also noted that what is meant by essential services in the strict sense of the term depends to a large extent on the particular circumstances prevailing in a country and that the concept of essential services is not absolute, in the sense that a non-essential service may become essential if a strike lasts beyond a certain time or extends beyond a certain scope, thus endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population [see Digest, op. cit., para. 541]. Thus, the Committee has found that in view of the difficulties and inconveniences that the population living on islands along the coast could be subjected to following a stoppage in ferry services, an agreement may be concluded on minimum services to be maintained in the event of a strike [see Digest, op. cit., para. 563] and has moreover noted that the transportation of passengers and commercial goods is a public service of primary importance where the requirement of a minimum service in the event of a strike can be justified [see Digest, op. cit., para. 566]. Thus, the Committee is of the view that the establishment of a requirement to ensure a minimum service in the particular circumstances of this case would not be contrary to freedom of association principles.
11. 750. The Committee notes from the facts of the case however, that the legal regime in the area of minimum service is not clear. The Committee observes in particular from a document attached to the Government’s reply that the Chief of the Port Authority contacted the PNO immediately after the latter announced its decision to proceed to a strike for the second time, on 16 June 2002, and called on the PNO to consent to the performance of at least one route from the two main ports of Athens, namely, Piraeus and Rafina, to each island destination. The Committee notes that instead of making reference to specific legal provisions, the Chief of the Port Authority relies on a practice which is said to be very familiar and widely implemented with regard to all means of transport. Thus, the Committee notes that there seem to be no legally binding rules and procedures in the area of minimum service. The Committee notes moreover that the message in question did not constitute an invitation to negotiate, but rather an invitation to accept a specific definition of minimum service without having consulted the PNO and the relevant employers’ organization, and that no negotiation on the definition of a minimum service had taken place during the six-month negotiations between the PNO and the Ministry of Mercantile Marine, although the PNO had announced its intention to go on strike if its demands were not met. The Committee notes finally, that for many years the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has been expressing concern over the fact that seafarers are excluded from the generally applicable legislation concerning freedom of association.
12. 751. The Committee recalls that it is important for provisions regarding the minimum service to be established clearly, to be applied strictly and to be made known to those concerned in due time [see Digest, op. cit., para. 559]. A minimum service should be confined to operations that are strictly necessary to avoid endangering the life or normal living conditions of the whole or part of the population; in addition, workers’ organizations should be able to participate in defining such a service in the same way as employers and the public authorities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 558]. In case of disagreement, the legislation should provide for any such disagreement to be settled by an independent body and not by the ministry concerned [see Digest, op. cit., para. 561].
13. 752. The Committee notes with regard to the civil mobilization order which put an end to the PNO strike, that the severity of this measure, which imposed an outright prohibition of a strike accompanied by penal sanctions, surpasses its stated aim, namely the protection of public health in the islands. The Committee recalls in this respect the Government’s statement that the carrying out of one route from the two main ports of Athens to each island destination would have sufficed to meet the essential needs covered by maritime transportation. The Committee therefore considers that the civil mobilization order constituted a disproportionate restriction of the right to strike in violation of Article 3 of Convention No. 87.
14. 753. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that restrictions on the right to strike should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage and in which the awards, once made, are fully and promptly implemented [see Digest, op. cit., para. 547]. The Committee notes that the civil mobilization order did not provide for any compensatory guarantees in this respect. On the contrary, after its issuance, the Government announced its intention to go ahead with the implementation of its decisions without seeking the agreement of the PNO. In this context, the Committee observes that the civil mobilization order enabled one of the parties to impose a unilateral solution to a dispute in violation of Article 4 of Convention No. 98.
15. 754. The Committee emphasizes that unilateral measures are not conducive to harmonious industrial relations. The Committee takes note of the decisions of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mercantile Marine dated 25 September 2002 to put an end to the civil mobilization order and requests the Government to refrain from such measures in the future.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 755. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to undertake negotiations with the complainant as soon as possible in full knowledge of all the relevant facts, in order to reach agreement between the parties on a time schedule for the readjustment of seafarers’ pensions and to keep it informed of developments in this respect.
   • (b) Taking note of the fact that the civil mobilization order has now been lifted, the Committee emphasizes that unilateral measures are not conducive to harmonious industrial relations and are contrary to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, and requests the Government to refrain from such measures in the future. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the establishment of a requirement to ensure a minimum service in the particular circumstances of this case would not be contrary to freedom of association principles.