Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 351, November 2008

Case No 2525 (Montenegro) - Complaint date: 23-OCT-06 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 139. The Committee last examined this case, concerning allegations of violation of the right to strike of workers of Podgorica Aluminium Factory (KAP), at its March 2008 meeting [see 349th Report paras 184–189]. On that occasion, it requested the Government: (1) to amend the Law on Strike, in consultation with social partners so as to bring it in conformity with the principles of freedom of association; and (2) to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings with regard to the damages claimed by the employer from the eight members of the strike committee, and to transmit any court judgments handed down in that regard.
2. 140. In a communication dated 25 May 2008, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Welfare has established a tripartite team for drafting amendments to the Law on Strike, and that in the drafting of the amendments, special emphasis will be given to the “minimum service” provisions.
3. 141. With regard to the employer’s claim for damages against eight members of the strike committee, the Government indicates that the proceedings are conducted in the Primary Court and that the judicial process on this claim is under way.
4. 142. The Committee notes the information submitted by the Government. It expects that sections 10 and 10(a) of the Law, which currently provide that the minimum services, where negotiation has failed, are to be determined by the employer, will be amended so as to ensure that any disagreement in respect of the determination of minimum service should be settled by an independent body having the confidence of the parties conceived as previously requested by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the developments in this respect.
5. 143. With regard to the employer’s claim for damages against eight members of the strike committee, the Committee, once again, emphasizes that no one should be penalized for carrying out a legitimate strike and that sanctions could be imposed only in respect of violations of strike prohibitions which are themselves in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee further recalls from the previous examination of this case that the employer’s claim was filed in August 2006 and stresses, in this respect, the importance it attaches to legal proceedings against trade unionists being concluded expeditiously, as justice delayed is justice denied. The Committee therefore, once again, requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings and to transmit any court judgments handed down in this regard.