A jelentes maga
Previous amendments to the Labour Code that weakened trade union rights were repealed. The unions reported many cases of trade unionists being subjected to harassment, intimidation and unfair dismissal.
THE LEGISLATION
The Labour Code recognises the right to organise and the right to strike. Collective bargaining is permitted at the enterprise and industry level. Under a separate law, public servants may negotiate working conditions, but the final decision on increasing public service pay rests with parliament.
Labour code amendment strengthens trade union rights
The Labour Code was amended by Act XIX of 2002, which came into effect on September 1, 2002. This amendment, introduced by the newly elected left-wing government, repeals some of the most controversial changes made under the previous right-wing government, which weakened trade union rights. Under the new provisions, the rights of local trade union sections are strengthened compared to those of the works’ councils. The employers must consult the local trade union sections over measures affecting employees or a group of employees, especially in the event of reorganisation, contracting out and privatisation. Works’ councils no longer have the possibility of concluding workplace agreements with the legal effect of collective agreements if there is no union section at the workplace. The amendment also modifies the regulations pertaining to the check-off system for the collection of union dues. Under the new provisions, the employer must deduct union membership fees from employees’ pay and transfer them to the union concerned, on the basis of a written request by the employee.
Other improvements include the raising of the weekly rest period from 40 to 48 hours, a rise in employees' bonus entitlements for working afternoon shifts, night shifts or Sundays, and an increase in statutory time off for union activists. The unions were expecting to take advantage of the left-wing government’s term of office to push the review of the Labour Code further, hoping that they would be able to bargain for more “worker-friendly” provisions.
RIGHTS IN PRACTICE
Abusive interpretation of Strike Act
The unions reported that the right to strike has been violated as a result of the judicial interpretation of the Act on Strikes. The Act qualifies a strike as unlawful if “it has been declared during the term of a collective agreement for the purpose of altering the provisions in that agreement.” This has been extended in practice to apply to strikes over the renewal of a collective agreement, three of which have been declared illegal, including the February 2000 railway strike. The unions believe government pressure had a lot to do with this.
National survey finds widespread violations
A survey carried out among member organisations of the National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions (MSZOSZ), an ICFTU affiliate, found evidence of violations of the freedom of association, discrimination against trade union officers, intimidation, a lack of protection and breaches of labour law.
International trade union cooperation needed
MSZOSZ found that, particularly when dealing with multinationals or foreign-owned companies, there was a clear need for international trade union cooperation to protect workers’ rights effectively.
Among the most typical examples of violations of trade union rights in Hungary, MSZOSZ cited interference on the part of employers in the establishment of trade unions or in the activities of already established unions, restriction of the right to collective bargaining and holding back information with a view to impeding the protection of workers’ interests.
LIGA - the Democratic Confederation of Free Trade Unions, another ICFTU affiliate - reported that the lengthy nature of the legal proceedings, which could sometimes be attributed to delaying tactics by the employers, was prejudicial to the effectiveness of trade union activity.
Other reported violations of labour laws include unlawful termination of employment contracts, and the failure to observe legislation concerning weekly holidays, working time and the minimum wage.
EVENTS IN 2002
Strikers intimidated
After the Trade Union of Hungarian Air Transport Services started a strike, on January 2, the management of AEROPLEX Ltd. (the limited company linked to the Hungarian airline company MALEV) proceeded to break the strike by calling in security personnel equipped with submachine guns. Furthermore, the employer refused to let the union leader on to the company premises. The workers were claiming pay rises.
Union leader sacked
At the end of June, István Gaskó, President of LIGA and of the Free Trade Union of Railway Workers (VDSZSZ), was sacked with immediate effect by MÁV Hungarian Railways Plc. The company attempted to justify the sacking by referring to the collective agreement, which contained a clause providing for the dismissal with immediate effect of any employee violating the personal rights of another employee. MÁV blamed Gaskó for having violated the privacy and damaged the good name of Ferenc Járási, the former vice-president of the VDSZSZ. In fact, István Gaskó had taken Ferenc Járási to court over financial irregularities within the union, charges that were subsequently proven. LIGA believed that the real reason for Gaskó’s sacking lay in the fact that he had been openly critical of the company’s business practices and treatment of its employees. On July 18, after reaching an understanding with the railway company, István Gaskó was finally reinstated by the new leadership of MÁV Hungarian Railways Plc.
Sacked for denouncing violations
After the Baking Industry Workers’ Trade Union asked the Supervisory Authority for Labour Health and Safety to hold an investigation at the Baking and Commercial Joint-Stock Company in Józsefváros, over a violation of the collective agreement and irregular accounting with respect to wage bonuses, the managing director of the company fired the employees who had helped reveal the violations, including trade union members. The managing director also pressurised the trade union members to leave the union, under the threat of retaliation. As a result, most of the union members cancelled their membership of the union, and those who did not suffered retaliation as announced. Legal proceedings were instituted against the director but in the meantime, all trade union activity ceased at the company.
Unionists sacked without union approval
LIGA reported that the Hungarian Flight Company MALEV refused to continue employing union members. MALEV continued to pay the employees their salaries, but at a lower rate. The airline also withdrew the trade unionists’ entry passes, therefore seriously hampering their trade union activities. The union brought the case to court, but at the end of the year the case was still pending.
Intimidated unionist stops union activity
In another case, an employer sacked one of his employees, a trade union member, without notifying the union. The matter was brought to court and the employer had to pay compensation to his former employee, who had in the meantime found another job, but did not want to engage in any trade union activity in his new company.
Anti-union employer
The union also reported the failure of an employer to cooperate with the newly established union, refusing to provide it with an office where it could hold its meetings and to give the company’s address for the union’s registration.
Sacked for speaking on the radio
In another case, a trade union member was sacked for speaking on a radio programme. The court ruled in his favour.
Sacked for refusing to move to another post
A senior trade unionist was sacked for refusing to accept his employer’s decision to move him to another post, which would have constituted an unfavourable change in his working conditions and gone against the terms of his contract.
Unionist victimised
An employee of a foreign-based company was victimised from the moment he was elected as chair of the newly established union. He was eventually sacked by his employer, who accused him of refusing to perform his job, when he had in fact been asked to sign a piece of paper written in a foreign language. He had asked for a written Hungarian version of the text, but this was refused. The employee appealed to the labour court, which ruled in his favour. However, the employer delayed the employee’s reinstatement, telling him that he would contest the verdict so he should look for another job.
