DOCSLIB.ORG

Better Defending and Promoting Trade Union Rights in the Public Sector

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Better Defending and Promoting Trade Union Rights in the Public Sector European Trade Union Institute Bd du Roi Albert II, 5 1210 Brussels Belgium Tel.: +32 (0)2 224 04 70 Fax: +32 (0)2 224 05 02 [email protected] www.etui.org ..................................................................................................................................... Better defending and promoting trade union rights in the public sector Part II Country reports — Edited by Wiebke Warneck and Stefan Clauwaert with Marina Monaco, Victorita Militaru and Isabelle Schömann ..................................................................................................................................... Report 108 D-2009-10.574-05 € 20 ISBN 978-2-87452-140-9 ................. 9 782874 521409 Better defending and promoting trade union rights in the public sector Part II Country reports Edited by Wiebke Warneck and Stefan Clauwaert with Marina Monaco Victorita Militaru Isabelle Schömann European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) Brussels, 2009 Brussels, 2009 © Publisher: ETUI aisbl, Brussels All rights reserved Print: ETUI Printshop, Brussels D/2009/10.574/05 ISBN: 978-2-87452-140-9 (print version) ISBN: 978-2-87452-141-6 (pdf) The ETUI is financially supported by the European Community. The European Community is not responsible for any use made of the information contained in this publication. Table of contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Austria ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Belgium ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Bulgaria ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Croatia ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Cyprus ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Czech Republic ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 43 Denmark ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Estonia ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Finland .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 France ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Germany ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Greece ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Hungary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 87 Ireland ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Italy ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 99 Latvia .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 105 Lithuania .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 109 Luxembourg ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 115 Malta ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 119 The Netherlands ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 123 Poland .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 129 Portugal .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 135 Romania ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 143 Slovak Republic ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 151 Slovenia ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 159 Spain ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 163 Sweden ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 169 Turkey ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 175 United Kingdom ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 179 Part II: Country reports 3 Introduction In 2006, the ETUI was asked to provide EPSU with a background paper on European and international norms relating to trade union rights in the public sector. The focus of the research was to be on the obstacles to fundamental trade union rights (freedom of association, collective bargaining, collective action, and information and consultation). The main objective of the report was thus to provide information to EPSU affiliates on: • existing relevant European (EU and Council of Europe) and international (ILO) standards and instruments; • the different enforcement mechanisms applying to these standards and instruments and the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RTS Proofs NH
    THE RIGHT TO STRIKE IN THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR IN EU COUNTRIES Peter Fairbrother, David Hall, Steve Davies, Nikolaus Hammer, and Emanuele Lobina THE RIGHT TO STRIKE IN THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR IN EU COUNTRIES Peter Fairbrother***, David Hall*, Steve Davies**, Nikolaus Hammer***, and Emanuele Lobina* A study commissioned by the Enérgeia Foundation May 2002 *** Critical Research on Economic and Social Transformation, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University * Public Services International Research Unit, University of Greenwich ** Public Services International Research Unit, Cardiff University *** Critical Research on Economic and Social Transformation, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University * Public Services International Research Unit, University of Greenwich Professor Peter Fairbrother, Cardiff University School of Social Sciences, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, CARDIFF CF10 3WT, UK Email: [email protected] Website: www.cf.ac.uk/socsi Tel: + 44 (0) 29 20 875155 David Hall, Director, Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Greenwich, Park Row, London SE10 9LS, UK Email: [email protected] Website: www.psiru.org Tel: +44 (0)208 331 9933 ISBN: 1-872330-71-1 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................5 2 INTERNATIONAL AND EU LAW.........................................................................................6 2.1 ILO Convention
    [Show full text]
  • MOD Police Committee Independant Members
    Ministry of Defence Police Committee -Independent Members- Code of Conduct Author: Clerk to the MOD Police Committee Date created: February 2014 Frequency/Review Due: Quarterly/Review Mar 2015 Version: 1.1 Current version date: 28 Mar 14 1 CODE OF CONDUCT Scope 1. A member must observe the Police Committee’s Code of Conduct whenever they conduct business on behalf of the Committee or act as a representative of the Committee. Conduct and the Seven Principles of Public Life 2. Attention is drawn to the conduct expected under the Seven Principles of Public Life and in the Civil Service Code. A member is expected to adhere to the principles of these even though they are not formally designated as a Civil Servant. 3. The Seven Principles of Public Life is provided at Annex A and the Civil Service Code is at Annex B Confidentiality of information 4. The Official Secrets Act 1989 will apply to independent members of the MOD Police Committee and will continue to apply after their appointments have ended. Members are asked to sign a declaration under the Official Secrets Act, if they have not already done so. 5. In addition, members will be under a duty to keep confidential and not use, except for the purposes of this agreement, any information from any source, acquired by them in confidence. 6. A basic guide to the Official Secrets Act 1989 including a declaration is provided at Annex C Register of Members’ interests 7. It is a condition of this appointment that members must not be able to profit personally or corporately, or to derive benefit for other employers or the like, from information revealed or deduced during Police Committee business.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Birmingham Employment Relations in the UK Civil Service
    University of Birmingham Employment relations in the UK civil service Hodder, Andrew DOI: 10.1108/PR-09-2013-0160 License: Unspecified Document Version Peer reviewed version Citation for published version (Harvard): Hodder, A 2015, 'Employment relations in the UK civil service', Personnel Review, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 930 - 948. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2013-0160 Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
    [Show full text]
  • TOUR DE TABLE (GRECO 34, 16-19 October/Octobre 2007)
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS DIRECTORATE OF MONITORING Strasbourg, 25 March 2007 Greco (2007) 23E English/French Rules and guidelines regarding revolving doors /pantouflage Presentations and summary record TOUR DE TABLE (GRECO 34, 16-19 October/octobre 2007) Règles et lignes directrices en matière de pantouflage/ revolving doors Présentations et compte rendu sommaire Secretariat du GRECO GRECO Secretariat www.coe.int/greco Conseil of l’Europe Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex +33 3 88 41 20 00 Fax +33 3 88 41 39 55 INTRODUCTION At its 34 th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 16-19 October 2007) GRECO held a tour de table on Rules and guidelines regarding revolving doors /pantouflage . The tour de table was structured by presentations by representatives from four countries which have detailed regulations in this field: Serge MAUREL, Service Central de Prévention de la Corruption (France), Inese GAIKA, Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) (Latvia), Sally PUGH and Lisa HARLOW, Propriety and Ethics Team, Cabinet Office (United Kingdom) and Jane LEY, Office of Government Ethics (United States of America). They presented the plenary with the approach taken in their respective countries with regard to definitions, the positions and situations subject to regulations as well as various good practices for regulating this issue. Subsequently, a number of delegations informed the plenary of specific matters which had been examined in their respective countries and obstacles faced when dealing with recommendations on revolving doors /pantouflage issued by GRECO during its Second Evaluation Round. PRESENTATIONS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Jane LEY, Office of Government Ethics In addition to the presentation which can be found in Appendix I , Ms Ley provided the following information: History of Revolving Door legislation/regulation In the mid-19 th Century, the United States began enacting conflict of interest laws applicable to the activities and financial interests of individuals who moved in and out of public service.
    [Show full text]
  • Prerogative in Private and Public Employment
    Prerogative in Private and Public Employment Douglas Stanley * It has often been noted that there is a difference between public and private employment. It is my contention that all the differences frequently cited are but manifestations of one essential difference. That difference is that, though there are elements of contract and status in each, in private employment the contractual element predominates, while in public employment status predominates. One appreciates the full significance of this fact when an attempt is made to trace the history of management's right to direct its employees and the development of what is often referred to as management prerogatives. If management does exercise some inherent authority in unchartered areas, that authority can only come from the exercise of some power or contractual right over employees. In the private sector, management exercises contractual rights over employees but in some instances also exercises a power over em- ployees that has no relationship to the contractual arrangement between the employer and his employee. On the other hand, in public employment, the essence of the relationship resides in the exercise of power inherent in the public employer, with the caveat that there may be contractual or legislative limitations on the exercise of this power. Private Employment The modern law of private employment has evolved as a result of the changing human relationships brought on by the development of a class of freemen, as distinct from serfs, and the Industrial Revo- lution.' The modem, legal concept of employment was a result of applying contract doctrine to the older relationship of master and servant.2 This relationship developed out of serfdom and status rather than contract 3 and some aspects of status remained in the • Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick.
    [Show full text]
  • Incidents of the Crown-Servant Relationship - 427
    Incidents of the Crown- Servant Relationship IVOR L. M. RICHARDSON Christchurch, NZ. Introduction The relation between the Crown and its servants is an employment relation. As we shall see, the public interest in the proper function- ing of the executive government requires certain terms to be implied in the relationship for the benefit of the Crown. Nevertheless, the Crown servant does have some rights with respect to typical inci- dents of an employment relation. It is important for him to know the circumstances in which he may be dismissed from the govern- ment service and the procedures, if any, which must be followed by the Crown in exercising the powers of dismissal. Other aspects of the Crown-servant relationship may be of even greater importance to the civil servant in practice. For instance, what are his legal rights to his salary or to his pension if the government refuses to pay? Can he secure redress if he is transferred against his wishes to another department or ifhe is suspended from the service? Is the government obliged to grant him annual leave? It is the purpose ofthis paper to consider therights ofthe Crown servantwith regardto these matters. Even at the present time there are few statutes which govern the employment of Crown servants_in the United Kingdom. The struc- ture of the civil service in the United Kingdom rests upon regula- tions issued under the prerogative powers of the Crown. On the other hand, in the Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa conditions of service under the Crown are regulated by statute and the rights and duties of the Crown and its servants are mainly questions of statutory construct- ion.
    [Show full text]
  • Law of Crown Privilege in Canada and Elsewhere-Part I
    THE LAW OF CROWN PRIVILEGE IN CANADA AND ELSEWHERE PART 1 * Stephen G. Linstead ** This article examines, with particularreference to Canada, that aspect of the law which permits ministers of the Crown to withhold evidence from the courts. The subject falls under two headings, that of Crown immunity from discovery and Crown privilege proper. Although the doc- trine on Crown immunity was finalized at a fairly early stage in the nine- teenth century, the law of Crown privilege has undergone major fluctua- tions over the last 150 years. Despite these fluctuations, which at one stage resulted in a conflict of views between the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee, Canadian courts have, with some exceptions, tended to follow the current English jurisprudence. A recent judgment of the House of Lords seems likely to reinforce the determination of Canadian courts to place some limits on the exercise of Crown privilege by the executive. After consideration of practice in some other common-law countries and in France, the author suggests a scheme which might satisfy both the need of the executive for administrative secrecy and the need of the litigant to secure evidence vital for his case. I. PROBLEMS AND METHODS OF SECURING EVIDENCE AT COMMON LAW AND EQUITY A. Definition of Terms Of the many problems of administrative law which have occupied judges and lawyers alike throughout the common-law world this century, that of Crown privilege has been among the most controversial. The judge-made law on this subject has now been a matter of dispute for over a hundred years, and the dispute shows no signs of being settled.
    [Show full text]
  • Università Di Bologna DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN
    Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN ISTITUZIONI E MERCATI DIRITTI E TUTELE Ciclo XXVIII Settore Concorsuale di afferenza: 12/D1 – DIRITTO AMMINISTRATIVO Settore Scientifico disciplinare: IUS/10 DIRITTO AMMINISTRATIVO PRINCIPIO DEMOCRATICO E AUTONOMIA DELLA DIRIGENZA AMMINISTRATIVA. PER UN BINOMIO POSSIBILE Presentata da: Dott. Edoardo Nicola Fragale Coordinatore Dottorato Relatore Chiar.mo Prof. Giulio Illuminati Chiar.mo Prof. Luciano Vandelli Chiar.mo Prof. Gianluca Gardini Esame finale anno 2016 Principio democratico e autonomia della dirigenza amministrativa. per un binomio possibile di Edoardo Nicola Fragale “Qui ad Atene noi facciamo così... Noi crediamo che la felicità sia il frutto della libertà, ma la libertà sia solo il frutto del valore”. Pericle - Discorso agli Ateniesi, 431 a.C. “Allora noi daremo agli uomini la tranquilla, umile felicità degli esseri deboli, quali essi sono per natura. Oh noi li indurremo finalmente a non essere orgogliosi giacché tu li innalzasti e quindi insegnasti loro a essere orgogliosi; invece noi dimostreremo che sono deboli, che sono soltanto dei poveri bambini, ma che la loro felicità infantile è la più dolce di tutti” Fëdor Dostoevskij, i Fratellli Karamazov, La leggenda del grande inquisitore INDICE OBBIETTIVI DELLA RICERCA CAPITOLO I LA SEPARAZIONE TRA POLITICA ED AMMINISTRAZIONE:… il dibattito storico dallo Stato liberale all’epoca repubblicana 1. Politica e burocrazia al tempo dello Stato liberale p. 11 2. L’avvento della Costituzione repubblicana p. 32 3. La necessaria discontinuità: verso il superamento del modello accentrato p. 37 4. Prime forme di decentramento nei provvedimenti istitutivi della dirigenza pubblica p. 49 5. Il principio di efficienza nell’organizzazione p.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossario Eipa
    GLOSSARIO EIPA LEGENDA GLOSSARIO EIPA • COLORE NERO = Laddove la traduzione italiana coincide in almeno due lingue Nel caso in cui le traduzioni dalle tre lingue non coincidono, ogni lingua mantiene il proprio colore: • BLU = Lingua inglese • ROSSO = Lingua francese • VERDE = Lingua tedesca Sono stati utilizzati, inoltre, i seguenti simboli e le seguenti abbreviazioni: 1) 2) } Campi semantici diversi 3) / = Sinonimi, dal più generico al più tecnico Corsivo: Termini stranieri mantenuti in italiano Assic. = Assicurazioni Econ. = Economia Inform. = Informatica Previd. Soc. = Previdenza Sociale 1 English French German Italian Abuse of office Abus (m) de pouvoir Amtsmissbrauch (m) Abuso di ufficio Abuso di potere Abuse of public trust Abus (m) de la confiance publique Missbrauch (m) des öffentlichen Abuso di fede pubblica Vertrauens Abuso di fiducia pubblica Accountability Obligation (f) de rendre compte / Rechenschaftspflicht (f)/ 1) Responsabilità "Imputabilité" (f) Zurechenbarkeit (f) / 2) Il dover render conto Verantwortung (f) Accounting officer Comptable ordonnateur (m) Rechenschaftsableger (m) Responsabile della contabilità Active card Carte (f) active aktive Karte (f) Carta attiva Agencification Création (f) d'agences Agenturbildung (f) / Einrichtung (f) Istituzione di agenzie von Agenturen Allocation Affectation (f) Zuweisung (f) Stanziamento / Allocazione / Assegnazione Zuschlag (m) 1) Sussidio Allowance Allocation (f) / Indemnité (f) 2) Indennità 3) Assegno Analytical accounting system Système (m) de comptabilité System (n) analytischer
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Federal Public Sector Lawyer: from Polyester to Silk
    THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SECTOR LAWYER: FROM POLYESTER TO SILK Deborah MacNair* Government lawyers are bound to adhere to standards of conduct as high as those required by rules of professional conduct of lawyers engaged in private practice. Many of the ethical problems they encounter, however, are peculiar to public service. These include such fundamental issues as, who is the client of government lawyers? Are government lawyers limited in their choice of forensic strategies in ways in which lawyers in private practice are not?1 Introduction The role of public sector lawyers has evolved in the last twenty years. There has been a noticeable coming together of professional practices, customs and beliefs for those who identify themselves professionally as public sector, or “government,” lawyers. The image of the public servant lawyer has changed for various reasons, including how government conducts business and the increased awareness of this practise of law as a career.2 While some knowledge and professional standards are shared among all members of the legal profession, whatever is the nature of their practice, there are some differences. The purpose of this paper is to explore these similarities and differences further in order for members of the legal profession to learn more about the role of the public sector lawyer. Why the change? Some might say that the change is the result of the maturing * Ms. MacNair is a Corporate Counsel with the Department of Justice in Ottawa. 1 G. MacKenzie, Lawyers & Ethics, Professional Responsibility and Discipline (Toronto: Carswell, 1993) at 21-1. 2 “Public sector lawyer” is often synonymous with “government lawyer*’ or “Crown lawyer.” The expression includes lawyers employed by municipal, provincial, territorial and federal governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Employment and Industrial Relations in Europe. Volume I
    Employ 22/11/99 1:41 pm Page 1 Employ Relations B5 1/2/99 5:43 PM Page i Employment and Industrial Relations in Europe Employ Relations B5 1/2/99 5:43 PM Page ii The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions is an autonomous body of the European Union, created to assist the formulation of future policy on social and work-related matters. Further information can be found at the Foundation web site: http://www.eurofound.ie/ Employ Relations B5 1/2/99 5:43 PM Page iii Employment and Industrial Relations in Europe Volume 1 Edited by Michael Gold and Manfred Weiss EUROPEAN FOUNDATION for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland. Tel: +353 1 204 3100 Fax: +353 1 282 6456 E-mail: [email protected] Employ Relations B5 1/2/99 5:43 PM Page iv Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998 ISBN 92-828-5386-1 © European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1998 For rights of translation or reproduction, applications should be made to the Director, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland. Printed in Ireland The paper used in this publication is chlorine free and comes from managed forests in Northern Europe. For every tree felled, at least one new tree is planted. Employ Relations B5 1/2/99 5:43 PM Page v Foreword European economic, monetary and social integration have seen substantial progress in the last 15 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Secrecy
    Official Secrecy Standard Note: SN/PC/02023 Last updated: 30 December 2008 Author: Lucinda Maer and Oonagh Gay Section Parliament and Constitution Centre This Note sets out the historical background to the current laws on official secrecy. It also provides a brief summary of notable cases which have involved official information legislation. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Contents 1 A brief history of official secrets legislation in the UK 3 1.1 The main legislation on official secrecy 3 1.2 The Official Secrets Act 1889 3 1.3 The Official Secrets Act 1911 4 1.4 The Official Secrets Acts 1920 and 1939 4 1.5 The Franks Report 1972 5 1.6 The Official Secrets Act 1989 5 1.7 Security Service Act 1989 8 1.8 ‘Whistle-blowing’ and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 8 2 Notable cases involving official secrets legislation or
    [Show full text]