Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2015, Publicación: 105ª reunión CIT (2016)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - Serbia (Ratificación : 2000)

Otros comentarios sobre C098

Observación

Solicitud directa

2022
2018
2015

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 2 of the Convention. Protection against interference. The Committee observes that the Labour Act does not contain any explicit protection against acts of interference of workers’ and employers’ organizations in each other’s establishment, functioning and administration. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to adopt provisions providing for full and adequate protection of workers’ and employers’ organizations against any acts of interference against each other, setting up rapid and impartial procedures as well as sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts, and to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 4. Irregularities in collective bargaining. The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) and the Trade Union of Judiciary Employees of Serbia (TUJES) received on 2 April 2013, in which the trade unions indicate that: (i) the TUJES signed a branch collective agreement and an annex about its prolongation with the Government as the employer, by which it became the employer’s social partner for further negotiations and decision-making; (ii) in line with the collective agreement, the TUJES submitted an initiative to negotiate about the increase of the basis for salary calculation of judicial employees; and (iii) the Government signed a protocol with an unrepresentative trade union, the representativity of which the TUJES asked the Government to re-examine but on which the authorities have not yet ruled. The Committee notes that in its reply the Government indicates that: (i) the Trade Union of Organisations of the Judiciary Authorities of Serbia (TUOJAS) had its representativeness established in 2006, while the TUJES had its representativeness established in 2005 and re established in 2009; (ii) both trade unions are regarded as representative under the Labour Act and may exercise rights belonging to representative trade unions as long as their representativeness is not withdrawn; (iii) under section 233 of the Labour Act, the TUJES applied for a review of representativeness of the TUOJAS and the procedure has been ongoing before the Representativeness Board which has not yet submitted its recommendation on the issue; and (iv) on the basis of the recommendation of the Reconciliation Committee of the Agency for Peaceful Resolution of Labour Disputes, whereby the Committee was deciding on the method of resolution of a collective labour dispute between the Government, the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration and the TUJES, the parties agreed to conclude a special agreement concerning the salaries of civil servants and public employees in the judiciary. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the TUJES and in the Government’s reply.