Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 389, Juin 2019

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

1. 44. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns allegations of refusal by the management of a state-owned enterprise  to recognize the representative status of a trade union, as well as the dismissal of its officers and harassment of its members, at its October 2016 meeting [see 380th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 328th Session, paras 54–59]. On that occasion, the Committee once again urged the Government to institute an independent investigation into the allegations of repeated acts of anti-union discrimination committed by the company since 2008, including the alleged anti-union dismissals of Mr Pajovic in 2012 and Mr Janjic in 2014, and to keep it informed on the outcome of such inquiry, as well as on the outcome of the proceedings regarding Mr Pajovic’s second dismissal. The Committee also requested the Government to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations of anti-union harassment of workers and provide detailed information on its outcome.
2. 45. The Government provides its observations in a communication dated 28 June 2017. Regarding the Committee’s request to institute an independent investigation into the allegations of repeated acts of anti-union discrimination committed by the enterprise, the Government indicates that national legislation does not offer a possibility of establishing an independent body that would have the competence for conducting an investigation into the alleged acts, given that the legal system provides for judicial protection which the complainants used in this concrete case. The Government adds that the Labour Inspectorate is competent to monitor the application of laws and others regulations on work, employment protection and health at work, collective agreements and labour contracts, however, since judicial proceedings have been initiated in the present case, the Labour Inspectorate has no competence.
3. 46. As to the judicial proceedings concerning Mr Pajovic’s second dismissal, the Government informs that, in a decision dated 1 July 2016, the Basic Court in Podgorica annulled as unlawful the 2012 enterprise decision terminating Mr Pajovic’s employment, ordering his reinstatement in a position corresponding to his professional background, education level, and occupation, and obliging the employer to pay compensation of a total of €19,208.85 for reduced salary, unpaid earnings, litigation proceedings and the related unpaid interest. By a decision dated 16 December 2016, the High Court in Podgorica confirmed the first instance court’s judgment declaring Mr Pajovic’s dismissal unlawful and ordering his reinstatement but reduced the amount awarded bringing the compensation to a total of €15,781.45. The Government further informs that the employer appealed this judgment and that, considering that the dispute between Mr Pajovic and the enterprise is within the jurisdiction of the court, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has no jurisdiction to influence the proceedings.
4. 47. Concerning the case of Mr Janjic, who was declared redundant in 2014, the Government indicates that the main hearing was held on 8 February 2017 and that, according to the procedural judge, the decision would be made within the legal deadline and delivered to the parties in accordance with the delivery rules contained in the Civil Procedure Act.
5. 48. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government and notes, in particular, that in July and December 2016, respectively, the Basic Court and the High Court in Podgorica both declared Mr Pajovic’s dismissal unlawful and ordered his reinstatement with compensation but the enterprise appealed this decision, and that the dismissal of Mr Janjic is currently under examination by the judicial authorities. Noting the advancements made in these two cases, the Committee trusts that the pending judicial proceedings will be concluded without further delay and that, should it be confirmed that the trade unionists were dismissed due to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, measures will be taken to ensure that they are reinstated without loss of pay and adequately compensated. Further observing that the Government has not provided any information with regard to the allegations of anti-union harassment at the enterprise, the Committee trusts that the Government will take the appropriate measures to ensure that any remaining issues are properly examined by the competent authorities and solved in accordance with the principles of freedom of association. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.