Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 98, 1967

1. 18. This case was considered by the Committee at its 36th Session held in February 1964, when it submitted to the Governing Body the interim conclusions contained in paragraphs 108 to 122 of its 75th Report. This report was approved by the Governing Body at its 159th Session (June-July 1964).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 19. The complainants alleged, substantially, that following on a strike ordered by the Staff Association of the Electric Transport Company in support of its claims, the Government had requisitioned the services of the entire personnel of that undertaking in July 1963. In its observations the Government confirmed that it had taken such action and endeavoured to justify it.
2. 20. In considering the case at its 36th Session the Committee recalled, inter alia, that in previous cases having similar or comparable features it had considered that such measures as the requisition of workers on the occasion of a labour dispute could be justified only by the need to ensure the operation of essential services or industries whose suspension would lead to an acute crisis.
3. 21. Noting, however, that the complainants stated that they had appealed to the Council of State in connection with this matter, the Committee, following its usual practice, had recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to communicate the outcome of the proceedings before the Council of State and in particular the text of the final ruling with the grounds adduced therein.
4. 22. This request having been made to the Government, the latter replied by a communication dated 22 February 1967.
5. 23. From the ruling of the Council of State, the text of which was attached to the Government's report, it appears that the conjunction of the alternating strike movement and a continuing lockout ordered by the Electric Transport Company had given rise to a situation the continuation of which deprived a considerable proportion of the population of the country of vital services, thus seriously prejudicing public activities and the economic and social life of the nation.
6. 24. The Council of State points out in this connection that, while the national legislation provides for the possibility of " civilian mobilisation " in case of serious tension in international relations (section 2 (4) of Act No. 1984 of 1939), it also provides for such a possibility " in order to meet abnormal situations of all kinds that might prevent economic reconstruction or perturb public life or labour conditions in the country " (section 1 of Act No. 450 of 1945).
7. 25. Considering that the consequences of the strikes and lockout taking place within the Electric Transport Company were among those contemplated by the provision of the Act just quoted, the Council of State ruled that the civilian mobilisation ordered in respect of the personnel of the company and the requisition of the latter's equipment had been justified and had been carried out in the proper form and to the ends provided for in the Act.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 26. While taking note of the Government's statement that the immobilisation of all electrical transport in Athens and Piraeus was of such a nature as seriously to disturb national activities and that the mobilisation and requisition measures complained of were taken pursuant to the legislation in force, the Committee, bearing in mind the previously expressed opinion referred to in paragraph 20 above, feels it is necessary to draw the attention of the Government, as it has already had occasion to do, to the need for restricting requisition or mobilisation measures in connection with a labour dispute (strike or lockout) to exceptional circumstances, in view of the consequences that such measures could have in certain cases for individual freedom and trade union rights, for both workers and employers.