The regulation of collective disputes

Source: Report on the social situation of the population of the Slovak Republic in 2001, Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, Bratislava ,2002.

The figures in the table represent the total number of mediations officially registered, which has declined during the last three years. At the same time, the figures indicate that the effectiveness of the conciliation and mediation process has increased. Apart from 16 successfully settled disputes, there were three additional registered disputes successfully concluded without intervention of a mediator in 2001. A clear majority of disputes arose from disagreements concerning the conclusion of collective agreements and only few of them dealt with breaches of existing collective agreements.

Rules on strikes

Collective disputes may concern the conclusion of a collective agreement or the fulfilment of commitments originating from such an agreement. Disputes regarding rights arising from existing agreements and disputes of interest, or claims for a new collective agreement must, as mentioned above, pass through mediation and, when necessary, also through arbitration proceedings. A strike is expressly referred to in the law as an extreme measure, to be held when, in the process of a dispute over the conclusion of a collective agreement, all other possibilities have been exhausted.

The 1991 Collective Bargaining Act, as amended, regulates strike action. A strike is defined as a partial or complete interruption of work by employees. The law implies a peace clause in collective agreements - ie both parties concerned are obliged to keep 'social peace' after concluding a collective agreement. Strikes can also be organised in solidarity with employees of other enterprises or organisations; such strikes shall provide support for employees on strike in a dispute over conclusion of their collective agreement. A strike notice must be sent in writing at least three working days prior to the strike's commencement. The notice must specify the start date, the goals of the strike, and the names of the trade union representatives leading the strikers.

Until recently, trade unions had to submit a list of the names of the employees participating in a strike at least one day before the strike began. Unions objected to this provision of the law which was, in their opinion, a very serious limitation of employees’ right to strike. According to amendments (Act No. 209/2001 in the Collection of Laws) to the 1991 law, valid from 1 January 2002, the trade union organisation declaring the strike is no longer obliged to submit a list of names. On the other hand, more severe conditions for calling strikes have been adopted. A strike decision (at enterprise or sector/branch level) must be taken by the relevant trade union organisation on the basis of the results of a secret ballot of the workers concerned, in which majority of votes in favour of a strike is required. The ballot is valid only if a majority of all the employees concerned by the strike participate.

A strike may be considered as illegal if it:

• is not preceded by a formal claim for a collective agreement and an attempt at mediation (apart from solidarity strikes);

• takes place during the period of validity of the collective agreement regulating the issue in question, or once the arbitration process has started; or

• is conducted in breach of the notification requirements.

Solidarity strikes may also be illegal if the employer affected by the action cannot influence the course or outcome of the principal dispute. Strikes are also banned at times of emergency or disaster, and in certain occupations, such as employees in nuclear facilities, crude oil facilities or pipelines, and activities where action might endanger life or health (eg firefighters, soldiers etc). The details of public employees’ right to strike are specified in specific legislation on the civil and public services (SK0206102F) - for example, the right to strike is restricted for civil servants in managerial positions.

Trade union representatives must allow access to and departure from the workplace for those employees who wish to work during a strike. They may not threaten them with any detriment, but may discuss with them the aim of the action. Employees may not be forced to participate in a strike, nor be prevented from doing so. The trade union must collaborate with the employer to prevent harm to equipment or processes. The employer is not allowed to replace employees on strike by recruiting other employees. There is no right to pay or to unemployment benefit and sick pay (if the entitlement to sick pay was obtained solely during the strike period) for strikers. Employees wishing to work, but unable to do so due to the strike, are entitled to their normal pay.

Employers may go to the relevant regional court to seek a ruling that a strike is illegal. Participation in a strike which has been ruled illegal is, once the court’s decision has taken legal effect, treated as unauthorised absence. The absence is considered as an authorised absence in the period before the court’s decision on the illegal status of the strike has taken legal effect. Individual employees are not liable for any loss caused simply by the interruption of work due to strike action. However, the trade union involved may be liable for damages sustained by employers as a result of a strike declared illegal.

The 1991 Act allows the employer to conduct a lock-out in a business unit, as an extreme measure during the process of negotiating a collective agreement. The procedural conditions are similar to those which apply to trade unions when calling a strike. Thus the employer is bound to give three days' notice, and a lock-out may be illegal for the same reasons noted above for strikes. Employees affected by a legal lock-out are entitled to be paid at half of their normal rate.

Commentary

In the past 10 years, the settlement of collective disputes has contributed to a great extent to the maintenance of social peace. In this respect, collective disputes have not led to major industrial action, such as strikes or lock-outs by employers because of lack of agreement with trade unions. The majority of collective disputes between the social partners have been successfully resolved. The legal grounds for collective disputes are defined by the Act on Collective Bargaining as disputes regarding the conclusion of collective agreements and regarding the fulfilment of commitments arising from existing collective agreements. The majority of collective disputes have related to the conclusion of collective agreements.

In some cases, the contracting party which had requested a mediator has, after consultation with the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, decided to resolve the dispute and conclude an agreement with the other party without the mediator’s intervention. There are also some cases where mediators have resolved collective disputes by using a specific conciliation procedure, which is not stipulated by the Act on Collective Bargaining. In these cases, the mediators resolved the disputes on the grounds of an agreement which the contracting parties had preliminarily concluded among themselves.

The small number of collective disputes which have not been resolved by a mediator have been resolved by an arbitrator. During the last three years, there were only two officially recorded cases where mediation or arbitration failed and the trade unions proclaimed their preparedness to strike. The unions' actions in both cases led to a solution being found, and the collective disputes were resolved on the grounds of a mutual agreement concluded between the partners.

Some actions organised by trade unions have been neither strikes in a dispute over concluding collective agreement nor strikes in a dispute regarding the fulfilment of commitments arising from such agreements. These have mainly been protest actions. During the last three years, the unions on several occasions placed pressure on the previous government by organising protest actions against its policy. Sectoral trade union organisations criticised the government mainly for its failure to take effective measures to tackle growing unemployment, price increases and real wage decreases. The most hectic period was probably the autumn of 1999, when the influential metalworking sector trade union, KOVO, organised several protest meetings in an effort to prevent the bankruptcies of enterprises where management was not able to pay wages or run their business effectively. A major protest meeting took place in September 1999 in the capital Bratislava - the largest such demonstration since the revolution in November 1989. The participants at the protest meeting called on the government to adopt effective measures in order to improve the worsening situation in companies (mass redundancies, debts, insolvency, bankruptcies etc). A few weeks later, similar protest meetings were organised by regional trade union structures in the counties.

These protest actions were often supported by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic (Konfederácia odborových zväzov, KOZ SR). Since 1999, the teachers' trade union organised protest meetings calling for a higher wage increase in 2000. Similar protest actions were organised by sectoral trade unions, such as those for teachers and doctors, in 2001 and in 2002. Unusually, in 2002, some protest actions were also organised by employers - pharmacies held limited closures to call on the healthcare insurance companies or the government to pay them debts owed for services provided to the public.

Some specialists in industrial relations are of the opinion that Slovak trade unions may not have organised real strikes because they do not have sufficient financial means to pay wage compensation to employees on strike. In spite of these views, it is important to underline that the effective implementation of the Act on Collective Bargaining has in practice contributed significantly to the maintenance of social peace in the country. (Ludovít Cziria, RILSAF)