Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Roumanie (Ratification: 1957)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that, inter alia, Act No. 168/1999 on the settlement of labour conflicts and Act No. 188/1999 on the status of civil servants were under review. The Committee hoped that in the context of the ongoing legislative revision, due account would be taken of the need to: (i) ensure that high-level civil servants are not suspended when choosing to carry out activities in the management of a trade union, and that the payment of wages to public servants on strike is not excluded from the scope of negotiations between the parties concerned (Act No. 188/1999); and (ii) provide detailed information on the practical application of the provisions concerning the right of management to demand the suspension or the declaration of the illegality of a strike (Act No. 168/1999), including copies of decisions handed down under these provisions.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that Act No. 62 of 2011 concerning Social Dialogue (Social Dialogue Act) abrogates Act No. 168/1999. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that it has not been considered necessary to modify Act No. 188/1999, since high-level civil servants or civil servants with budgetary responsibilities have the prerogatives of public authorities and are thus in a conflict of interest, and since the scope of collective bargaining of public servants is restricted. The Committee therefore once again draws the Government’s attention to the need to amend: (i) section 29(3) of Act No. 188/1999, in order to ensure that high-level civil servants or civil servants with budgetary responsibilities are not suspended when they choose to exercise activities in the management of a trade union and that the matter will be the subject of consultations with the union concerned; and (ii) section 30(2) of that Act so as to ensure that the payment of wages to public servants on strike can be the subject of negotiations between the parties concerned. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the practical application of sections 198 to 200 of the Social Dialogue Act (under which the management can request the court to pronounce itself on the cessation of a strike and the court must within two days issue an urgent ruling as to whether the strike is illegal), and copies of decisions handed down under these provisions.

Moreover, concerning the comments made by the National Trade Union Confederation “CNS Cartel Alfa” (CNS “Cartel Alfa”) on 6 April 2010 denouncing that Act No. 144 of 2007 obliges the presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries and treasurers of trade union federations and confederations to publicly declare their wealth and interests every year and grants to the National Integrity Agency (ANI) the power to verify such statements, the Committee notes the Government’s reply referring to the aim of ensuring integrity and avoid corruption and to the existence of a corresponding obligation of employers’ representatives (cf. section 1(1) (Nos 34 and 37) of Act No. 176 of 2010 amending Act No. 144 of 2007). The Committee recalls that, under Article 3 of the Convention, workers’ and employers’ organizations should have the right to organize their administration freely and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. As the autonomy and financial independence and the protection of the assets and property of organizations are essential elements of the right of organizations to organize their administration in full freedom, any legislative intervention in this respect merits the attention of the Committee. While it accepts legislative requirements that the constitutions of organizations should contain provisions relating to their internal financial administration or which provide for external supervision of financial reports, with a view to ensuring the conditions for honest and effective administration, it considers that other interventions are incompatible with the Convention. For example, the Committee considers that such supervision is compatible with the Convention when it is carried out in the following manner (in all cases, both the substance and the procedure of such verification should be subject to review by the judicial authority, affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity): (i) the supervision is limited to the obligation of submitting annual financial reports; (ii) verification is carried out because there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law (which should not infringe the principles of freedom of association); and (iii) verification is limited to cases in which a significant number of workers (for example, 10 per cent) call for an investigation of allegations of embezzlement or lodge a complaint (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work in light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008, paragraph 109). Taking into account the aforementioned principles, the Committee requests the Government to delete section 1(1) (Nos 34 and 37) of Act No. 176 of 2010 amending Act No. 144 of 2007.

The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to report progress in the near future on all the issues raised above.