Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 371, March 2014

Case No 2752 (Montenegro) - Complaint date: 11-JUN-09 - Closed

1. 79. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2012 meeting [see 363rd Report, paras 900–922] when it made the following recommendations:
   • (a) In view of the recent suspension and disciplinary proceedings initiated against Mr Pajovic, President of the new Trade Union of the RTCG, who had previously been dismissed but was then re-engaged, the Committee once again urges the Government to institute an independent investigation into the allegations that these workers were dismissed or suspended for anti-union reasons and to provide full details as to the outcome. Noting that the complainant indicates that Mr Janjic’s downgrading case is now pending before the courts, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant to provide the court judgment as soon as it is handed down, as well as any other additional information relating to this matter. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that Mr Janjic is maintained in his position pending the final court judgment.
   • (b) The Committee requests the complainant to provide more information concerning the allegations of threats against, and pressure on trade union members to withdraw from their union and urges the Government to carry out an independent investigation without delay into these serious allegations. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on its outcome.
   • (c) Concerning the issues of recognition of the complainant organization as representative and the refusal to grant certain facilities to the union, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the proceedings pending before the court. In the meantime, the Committee once again requests the Government to bring the parties – the management of the enterprise and the New Trade Union of the RTCG – together in order to facilitate their reaching an agreement in relation to the facilities to be provided to the representatives of the complainant, bearing in mind the principles above. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
2. 80. In its communication dated 19 July 2012, the complainant provides additional information on the anti-union dismissals, suspensions and harassment faced by its members and officers, as well as the related judicial procedures.
3. 81. As regards recommendation (a), the complainant reiterates its allegations that the dismissed union officers Mr Pajovic, Ms Popovic and Mr Janjic had been reengaged in other positions with lower salary. The complainant alleges that: (i) the High Court has issued a final judgment declaring the reengagement of Mr Janjic, a radio journalist, as an administrative clerk for a much lower salary, as lawful; (ii) the reengagement of Ms Popovic, an adviser to the General Manager, as an administrator paid almost twice less than in her previous functions, was also confirmed; (iii) both Mr Janjic and Ms Popovic have filed appeals against these decisions, which are now pending at the Supreme Court; and (iv) Mr Pajovic who had also been reengaged in a new lower salary position without filing a complaint against this decision and had been suspended in February 2012, was subsequently dismissed following allegedly fabricated disciplinary proceedings on 16 May 2012 and was deliberately not given back his employment booklet, without which he could not apply for health care and other unemployment rights (a complaint was filed in this regard with the labour inspection and the court).
4. 82. As regards recommendation (b), the complainant declares that the Government has failed to conduct an independent investigation on the allegations of threats against, and pressure on trade union members to withdraw from their union, as requested by the Committee. The complainant organization provides various testimonies of members who were allegedly harassed, threatened and pressured to withdraw from the union. In particular, it alleges that: (i) the management repeatedly brought allegedly false criminal charges against Mr Pajovic and Ms Popovic, which have been partly dismissed (e.g. for defamation) or are still pending, including for abuse of authority (a counterclaim was filed) and for secretly recording and eavesdropping, and that Mr Janjic was the subject of disciplinary proceedings due to unjustified absence from work (refuted by the complainant), which were conducted during his sick leave and resulted in a reduction of salary by 20 per cent for three months; (ii) as regards the dispute concerning the return of the documentation belonging to the union, which had been taken away by the management after the dismissals in 2008, the complainant alleges that the proceedings have lasted now for more than two years, and that Mr Pajovic was punished for protesting against the delay with fines amounting to €2,600 (as he is allegedly unable to pay, he will have to serve a prison term of four months); and (iii) bonuses are generally not given to the members of the complainant (only to occasional passive union members or to those performing work as part of a team).
5. 83. As regards recommendation (c), on the issue of recognition of the complainant organization, the complainant indicates that none of its applications to the court, the Ministry of Labour or the enterprise for review and determination of the most representative union was successful, in spite of a judicial order for the complainant union and the allegedly pro-government union to submit copies of registration forms to the court, which were not complied with. The complainant further asserts that the Government has not yet complied with the Committee’s recommendation to bring the management of the enterprise and the complainant together in order to facilitate their reaching an agreement in relation to the facilities to be provided to the representatives of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant alleges that the management continues to confiscate its union dues by deducting them from the wages of 30 of its members and directing the money to the pro government union instead (complaint letters of two union members are attached to the complaint). The complainant organization adds that it continues to be generally banned from meetings of the enterprise and that a lawsuit has been filed in this regard to the Prosecutor’s Office.
6. 84. In its communication dated 2 August 2013, the Government indicates, with respect to recommendation (a), that Miodrag Boskovic, Dragan Janjic and Mirjana Popovic – who had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in 2008 – had been dismissed but that, in accordance with the final decision of the court, they returned to work. On 2 August 2013, the Administration for Inspection Affairs found that Mr Janjic, Ms Popovic and Mr Boskovic were working in the enterprise and performing duties in accordance with their qualifications and job performance. The Government further emphasizes that in 2012–13 neither of these employees nor the members of their union addressed grievances to the Administration for Inspection Affairs.
7. 85. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations that the management of the Radio and Television of Montenegro (RTCG) refused to recognize the New Trade Union of RTCG as the representative organization of the workers, as well as the dismissal of its officers and harassment of its members. The Committee notes the complainant’s additional allegations as well as the information provided by the Government in its previous recommendation.
8. 86. The Committee regrets that the Government did not provide any information as to the requested conduct of an independent investigation into the alleged anti-union dismissals in 2008 of four union officials (Mr Dragan Janjic, Mr Radomir Pajovic, Ms Mirjana Popovic and Mr Miodrag Boskovic). Concerning the allegation that these workers had been reengaged in new positions with lower salary, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that on 2 August 2013, the Administration for Inspection Affairs found that Mr Janjic, Ms Popovic and Mr Boskovic were working in the enterprise and performing duties in accordance with their qualifications and job performance. Noting that the complainant indicates that Mr Janjic and Ms Popovic’s demotion lawsuits were still pending before the courts, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant to provide the court judgments as soon as they are handed down as well as any additional information relating to this matter. Moreover, the Committee deeply regrets the seriousness of the additional allegation that Mr Pajovic, President of the union, who had previously been dismissed, then re-engaged and subsequently suspended, was again dismissed on 16 May 2012 following fabricated disciplinary proceedings. The Committee recalls 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, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. 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 should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 799]. In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to institute an independent investigation into the allegations of repeated acts of anti-union discrimination allegedly committed by the company since 2008, including the dismissal of Mr Pajovic on 16 May 2012, and to keep it informed on the outcome of such inquiry. Should it be found that Mr Pajovic was dismissed due to his exercise of legitimate trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that he is fully reinstated without loss of pay. In the event that the reinstatement is not possible, for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the union member concerned is paid adequate compensation which would represent a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union dismissals.
9. 87. As regards the question of representativeness, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the proceedings initiated to achieve the review and determination of the majority representative union were not successful. The Committee further notes the additional allegations made by the complainant, including the alleged confiscation of union dues by the enterprise and their transfer to another union and requests the Government to respond to these allegations without delay.
10. 88. Finally, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided information on the measures taken to bring the management of the enterprise and the union together in order to facilitate their reaching an agreement in relation to the facilities to be provided to the representatives of the complainant and once again urges the Government to intercede with the parties in order to facilitate their reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement in this regard.