|
Greece
[With regards to Article 8 - The right of employed women to protection; Paragraph 1 - Maternity leave]. The Committee noted with interest the information contained in the Greek report. It noted that the situation of women civil servants who gave birth to a stillborn child had been brought into line with this provision of the Charter under Act No. 208511992, which prescribes the same leave for such civil servants as for those giving birth to a living child (two months before and two months after the confinement). The Committee also noted that no distinction was made between Greek salaried female workers and foreign salaried female workers from other Contracting Parties, in respect of either maternity leave or maternity benefits. It took note of the repeal, under Act No. 190211990, of Section 4 (1) of Emergency Law No. 184611951. which excluded foreigners working temporarily in Greece from the Social Insurance Institute (IKA); this measure has removed the discrimination against salaried foreign temporary female workers. The Committee noted with satisfaction that the duration of maternity leave had been increased from fourteen to fifteen weeks under the National General Labour Collective Agreement of 1989, which was applicable to all private-sector employees irrespective of their nationality. The Committee wished to know whether all categories of employees from all economic sectors were entitled to such leave. Conversely, the Committee noted that IKA maternity benefits did not seem to be payable to all female employees: firstly. such employees had to have worked a minimum of two hundred days in the two years preceding the expected date of confinement and, secondly, the report indicates that not all activities are covered by the IKA. The Committee wished to know what activities were not covered by the IKA and what maternity benefits were payable to female employees not in receipt of IKA benefits. Lastly, the Committee took note of the fact that female agricultural salaried employees received exactly the same maternity benefits as other female salaried employees. It asked which body(ies) ensured payment of maternity benefits to women in agricultural work, and whether the conditions for such payment were the same as those for other salaried women. It also requested information on the regulations governing maternity leave, regretting that the report had not answered the question as. to whether, in all cases, even where childbirth occurred later than expected, women in agricultural work were granted six weeks of post-natal leave. The importance of these outstanding questions was such that the Committee was unable to evaluate the overall situation. Since the situation as regards women civil servants who give birth to a stillborn child was brought into line with this provision outside the reference period, the Committee had to renew its negative conclusion for the current supervision cycle. [With regards to Article 8 - The right of employed women to protection; Paragraph 2 - Illegality of dismissal during maternity leave]. The Committee noted the information in the Greek report concerning the personal scope of Act No. 1483184 on protection for workers with family responsibilities, Section 15 of which prohibited a woman's dismissal during pregnancy or the year following childbirth. The information confirmed that salaried women working at home and domestic servants did indeed benefit from the protection provided by the Act, as did employed women in senior positions. The Committee noted both the very general definition, in Article 672 of the Civil Code, of the "serious reasons" for which a woman could be dismissed during maternity leave, and the clarification provided by Judgement No. 105111988 of the Supreme Court, which stated that by "serious reasons" was meant "non-conformity to the instructions of the employer", "neglected performance of duties" and "repeated unauthorised absence from work". The Committee considered that those grounds of dismissal, as illustrated by the two judgements appended to the report, were equivalent to serious misconduct, which it had recognised as a valid ground of dismissal during the period protected by Article 8 para. 2. It requested, however, that examples from recent practice or case-law be submitted for each supervision period. It regretted that the report did not state, as had been requested (Conclusions XII-1, p. 153), whether the reference in Section 15 para. 2 of the 1984 Act to Act 1302/82 ratifying ILO Convention No. 103 (Protection of Maternity) meant that, in accordance with Convention No. 103, no woman could be dismissed during maternity leave, even for a serious reason. It insisted that the next report answer this question. The Committee appreciated receiving the English translation of Presidential Decree No. 193/88 (1988) from the Greek Government, which Decree brought public sector employees within the scope of the 1984 Act. Noting that the definition of public sector employees in the decree protecting them was not identical to that of Section I para. 2(a) of the 1984 Act excluding them from protection, the Committee asked whether all women employees in the public sector were protected under Section 15 of the 1984 Act. It noted the Government's explanations according to which the provisions of the 1988 Presidential Decree took precedence over all previous contradictory legislation, particularly Section 257 of the Civil Service Code which allowed for more and wider grounds of dismissal. The Committee also noted that it was planned to abolish the contradictions in legislative texts when reforming the Civil Service Code. It wished to be informed of the progress of this reform and in the meantime it asked to be informed of any cases of dismissal of public servants during matemity leave, and the grounds therefore, for each reference period. The Committee noted that there was no provision prohibiting the dismissal of women seafarers which was contrary to Article 8 para. 2 of the Charter, though the report contended that they had the protection of ILO Convention No. 103 (ratified in 1982), Article 28 para. I of the Constitution providing that lawfully ratified international treaties were incorporated into domestic law and prevailed over any legal provision contrary to them. The Committee noted, however, that after the ratification of ILO Convention No. 103, the Greek authorities had adopted, in application of this Convention, new provisions which appear in Act No. 1483/84, which provisions were extended by Presidential Decree in 1988 to include the public sector. As it had done in similar cases, the Committee asked that explicit provisions be introduced which secured to women seafarers the protection required by Article 8 para. 2. In the meantime, as not all employed women without exception had that protection, the Committee again had to reiterate its negative conclusion. [With regards to Article 8 - The right of employed women to protection; Paragraph 4 - Regulation of night work and prohibition of dangerous, unhealthy or arduous work for women workers]. The Committee noted from the Greek report the information concerning the regulations on night work by women in industry. It noted that permits were issued only after verification of the work to be performed and its duration which should not exceed the period of the "night" as defined by law (in accordance with Article 2 of ILO Convention No 89 (Night Work - Women, 1948), the "night" in Greece is defined as "a period of at least eleven consecutive hours, including an interval of at least seven hours and falling between ten o'clock in the evening and seven o'clock in the morning"). The Committee did not consider this information adequate from the standpoint of its case-law which it reiterated: "Such regulations must specify the conditions governing night work, such as the need to secure permission from the Labour Inspectorate (if necessary), the laying down of working hours, breaks, days of rest following periods of night work, etc. These regulations are designed in particular to limit the adverse effects of night work on the worker's health and family life and to prevent abuses." (Conclusions X-2, p. 97). The Committee therefore wished the next report to give more detailed information on the content of the applicable regulations, notably with regard to the conditions laid down in its case law. Having taken note of Greece's denunciation of ILO Convention No. 89 from February 1993 (outside the reference period), the Committee requested information on any new regulations concerning night work which might be adopted, with an indication as to whether the particular situation of pregnant women and women who had recently given birth or women who were breastfeeding was taken into account for the purposes of this provision. With regard to dangerous, unhealthy or arduous occupations for women workers, other than underground mining which is forbidden to women, the Committee noted that almost all other provisions relating to protection against dangerous activities applied to workers of both sexes and that, according to the Greek authorities, these standards did not afford adequate protection to women of child- bearing age. The Committee expressed concern at this situation which appeared to imply that, even in occupations as dangerous to motherhood and future children as those which involved exposure to ionising radiation, benzene or lead, for example, the standards are inadequate. In this connection, the Committee repeated that: "As regards the second part of sub-paragraph b, prohibiting employment of women "as appropriate", on all other work which is unsuitable for them by reason of its dangerous, unhealthy or arduous nature", the expression "as appropriate" permits states bound by this provision of the Charter to limit the prohibition of employment of women in the above mentioned occupations to the sole cases where this is necessary, in particular to protect motherhood, notably pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, as well as future children" (Conclusions X-2, p. 98). Nevertheless, in such cases the prohibition provided for in the Charter still has to be put into effect. The Committee was therefore obliged to conclude that, with regard to this aspect of Article 8(4), the situation was not in conformity with the requirements of the Charter. It hoped that measures would be taken rapidly to remedy the situation and it asked to be informed of any developments in the situation.
|