Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Greece (Ratification: 1962)

The Committee notes the observations provided by the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises and Industries (SEV) received on 31 August 2022, 1 September 2023, 1 September 2024 and 26 August 2025, as well as by the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) received on 30 August 2022, 1 September 2023, 29 August 2024 and 28 August 2025, which refer to matters examined by the Committee below. The Committee also notes the Government’s detailed comments on the observations provided by the SEV and the GSEE in 2021.

Legislation. The Committee notes the GSEE’s observation that several acts relevant to the application of the Convention and mentioned in the Committee’s previous comments, including Acts No. 4808/2021, 4635/2019 and 4093/2012, have been codified in the Code of Labour Law (hereinafter: the Code) by Government Decree No. PD 62/2025, published in the Government Gazette on 11 July 2025.

Article 4 of the Convention. Promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee previously invited the Government to consider all possible options to bring the mediation and arbitration system into full compliance with the obligation to promote free and voluntary collective bargaining, while underlining the necessity for all members of bodies entrusted with mediation and arbitration functions to be and to appear impartial to both the employers and workers concerned, so as to ensure confidence in the system. The Committee notes the Government’s reiteration that, in accordance with section 57 of Act No. 4635/2019 (now codified in section 411(a)(2) of the Code), unilateral recourse to compulsory arbitration, as a last resort to resolve collective labour disputes, is permitted only in the following two cases: (i) if the collective dispute concerns public undertakings or public utility undertakings, the operation of which is vital to the basic needs of society as a whole; and (ii) if the collective dispute concerns collective bargaining which has definitely failed, yet the resolution of which is absolutely imperative due to reasons of general social or public interest related to the functioning of the Greek economy. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the services within the Organization for Mediation and Arbitration (OMED) are provided by mediators and arbitrators who are professionals, recruited following unanimous decision of the OMED’s Administrative Board – which comprises an equal number of workers’ and employers’ representatives. The Government adds that the parties may define the applicable procedure by consensus and select the mediator or arbitrator who will handle the dispute (if there is no agreement, the person is drawn by lot). The Government further stresses that mediators and arbitrators must comply with the relevant laws, the internal rules of procedure for the special bodies and the decisions of the Administrative Board, and that they have the obligation to document their proposals and decisions with data provided by public services and authorities, which ensures their independence, impartiality, neutrality, objectivity and transparency. The Government notes in this respect that technical assistance was provided in 2022 and 2023 for the training of OMED’s mediators and arbitrators, as part of the modernization programme for the OMED services and the Labour Inspectorate.

While taking due note of these indications, the Committee recalls that for several years, the SEV has been expressing concerns regarding the current arbitration system, alleging, in particular, that the scope of application of compulsory arbitration covers a wide range of sectors and a broad set of companies both in the public and private sectors. In its latest observations, the SEV contends that there is a permanent non-compliance with the law as regards the recourse of trade unions to mediation and arbitration, namely: (i) cases are unilaterally referred to compulsory arbitration even when they do not concern situations where such unilateral recourse is allowed by law; (ii) when bipartite collective bargaining is discontinued, trade unions tend to unduly interpret it as a failure of the negotiations, which automatically leads to mediation and compulsory arbitration; and (iii) all applications are processed without checking the requirements set out by the law (i.e. registration in the Register of Trade Unions and Employer’s organizations, provision of a full justification, exhaustion of all means of trade union action). The SEV therefore reiterates its proposal to abolish the current compulsory arbitration system, reform the OMED and transform it into an independent collective body, supervised and managed exclusively by the social partners, and calls for the introduction of an internal verification mechanism to assess whether the recourse to mediation or arbitration meets all the criteria provided for by the law.

Having regard both to the efforts undertaken by the Government to restrict the use of compulsory arbitration and the concerns raised by the SEV, the Committee underlines that the recourse to bodies entrusted with resolving disputes should be voluntary, and recalls that the latter is only acceptable in the following circumstances: (i) in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; (ii) in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State; (iii) when, after protracted and fruitless negotiations, it becomes obvious that the deadlock will not be broken without some initiative by the authorities; or (iv) in the event of an acute crisis (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paras 243 and 247). In line with the above, the Committee requests the Government to take, in full consultation with the social partners, the necessary measures, including of a legislative nature, to bring the arbitration mechanism into full compliance with the obligation to promote free and voluntary collective bargaining, ensuring that the requirements of independence and impartiality of the arbitration bodies are fully complied with. The Committee further requests the Government to reply to the allegations made by the SEV concerning thelack of compliance with the law as regards the recourse of trade unions to mediation and arbitration.

The Committee further notes the GSEE’s observations that the Government’s interference in the OMED, through term-limit constraints on workers’ and employers’ representatives, as well as unfunded mandates, undermines its effectiveness and autonomy. The GSEE therefore asks for the removal of term-limit constraints and a firewall against State-assigned functions unrelated to social partners’ governance, as well as the stabilization of the OMED’s financing through a multi-year budget settlement. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Extension of collective agreements. The Committee recalls that the requirements for the extension of a collective agreement by decision of the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs are set out in section 56 of Act No. 4635/2019 (now codified in section 404(2.1-2.2) of the Code), which stipulates that an application by a party to the agreement must be submitted to the Minister, accompanied by documentation on the extension’s effect on competitiveness and employment. The Supreme Labour Council (a tripartite body) shall then deliver a reasoned opinion to the Minister, taking into account the application for extension, the documented certification that the collective agreement already covers more than 50 per cent of the workers concerned and the conclusions of the consultation of the parties before the Council. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, since 1 June 2021, the scope of ten collective agreements was extended following a favourable opinion of the Supreme Labour Council, that the Government does not adopt decisions to extend following a negative opinion of the Council and that none of these extensions have been challenged in courts.

While taking note of the above, the Committee notes the repeated concerns of the SEV regarding the implementation of this mechanism, and the allegation of the following violations in practice during the period 2018-25: (i) the documentation in order to certify that the collective agreement to be extended meets the legal representativity threshold is not made available to the Council and the Ministry’s representative merely certifies, without providing any evidence, that the requirement is met; (ii) none of the employers to whom the agreement was applicable, were given the opportunity to submit their observations prior to the extension; and (iii) in many cases, none of the employers’ associations concerned were consulted in the process. The Committee further notes that according to the SEV: (i) since the entry into force of Act No. 4635/2019, all decisions for extension that were challenged before the Council of State (Greece’s Supreme Administrative Court) by employers’ organizations were deemed illegal and cancelled; (ii) the extension of local occupational collective agreements as it was done with tour bus drivers is inappropriate; and (iii) the mentioned issues undermine collective bargaining and underline the need to harmonize the Ministry’s practices with the existing legislative framework and the provisions of the Collective Agreements Recommendation, 1951 (No. 91).

The Committee further notes the observations made by the GSEE, alleging that there is a certain lack of transparency as regards the extension of collective agreements and calling for an annual publication from the Ministry of Labour which should include, inter alia, the number of extension applications, the sectors or occupations concerned, the estimated coverage, as well as the grounds for acceptance or rejection by the Supreme Labour Council. Recalling the importance of the guidance provided by Recommendation No. 91,the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the detailed observations made by the SEV and the GSEE and to provide information on the practical application of the procedure of extension of collective agreements set out in section 404(2.1-2.2) of the Code of Labour Law, including on any steps taken to ensure that the procedure follows the applicable legal framework and gives an opportunity to the parties to submit their observations.

Alleged restrictions of collective bargaining processes. The Committee previously requested the Government to reply to the GSEE’s observations concerning the abolition of the determination of pay terms and conditions by the National General Collective Agreement (NGCA). The Committee notes that according to the GSEE, the Act No. 4093/2012 abolished the universal binding force of the NGCA regarding national minimum wage, which means that wage terms negotiated in a NGCA only bind members of the signatory employers’ organizations instead of applying it universally in the country (section 401(1) of the Code), thus leaving it to the State to determine the generally applicable national minimum wage, undermining the NCGA’s institutional and economic role and weakening the national social partners. Noting the absence of information from the Government in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments on these matters.

The Committee also previously requested the Government to reply to the GSEE’s observations alleging new restrictions set out by Act No. 4808/2021 on the right to free collective bargaining by introducing new criteria of representativity and, in case the representativity of a union is legally challenged, by prohibiting the exercise of collective rights until the issuance of a final court ruling. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that the determination of the most representative trade union and the challenge to such representativity before a court are regulated by section 6(2) of Act No. 1876/1990, as amended by section 96 of Act No. 4808/2021 and now codified in section 399(2) of the Code, which stipulates that: (i) the representativity of a trade union or an employers’ organization shall be respectively evaluated according to “the number of union members who voted in the most recent elections to appoint its governing bodies” and “the numbers of workers bound by a dependent employment contract with the organization’s members”; (ii) the said representativity, among other things, may be challenged by bringing an action before the competent court of first instance no later than 10 days after the commencement of negotiations (which shall be deferred until a final judgment is issued) or within 10 days after the entry into force of a collective agreement; and (iii) the decision of the court of first instance is subject to appeal. The Committee further notes that pursuant to section 6(4)(a) of Act No. 1876/1990 (now section 399(4)(a) of the Code), the trade union or the employers’ organization must also be registered in the Register of Trade Unions and Employers’ Organizations. Observing that the only new criterion for being able to engage on collective bargaining seems to refer to the requirement of registration, the Committee refers to its detailed comments on registration under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87). With respect to the alleged impossibility to exercise collective rights until the issuance of a final court ruling in case the representativity of a union is legally challenged, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of such cases before the courts and on the average duration of such procedures.

The Committee further notes the observations provided by the GSEE in relation to Act No. 5131/2024 which, allegedly, allows new subsidiaries of public companies to unilaterally establish internal regulations, therefore bypassing collective bargaining processes. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these observations.

Conflict of collective agreements. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information and statistics on the practical application of section 55 of Act No. 4635/2019 (now codified in section 403(2) of the Code), which provides that enterprise-level collective agreements shall prevail over sectoral agreements exceptionally in the case of enterprises facing serious financial problems or in the process of restructuring, along with any opinions issued by the Supreme Labour Council in this regard. Noting that the Government does not provide any information thereon, the Committee reiterates its previous request in this regard.

Enterprise-level collective agreements and associations of persons. The Committee previously noted that Act No. 4024/2011 stipulates that where there is no trade union in the company, an association of persons is competent to conclude a company level collective agreement and requested the Government to indicate the steps taken to promote collective bargaining with trade unions at all levels. The Committee further recalls that for many years, the GSEE has been raising concerns as to the ongoing endorsement of these associations and their competence to exercise fundamental collective rights which it argues undermine collective bargaining at the enterprise level. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning, inter alia: (i) the competence of associations of persons to conclude agreements on working time arrangement; (ii) their obligation, like trade unions, to register in the Register of Trade Unions and Employer’s organizations; and (iii) their establishment and dissolution. The Committee further notes the statistical information provided by the Government, according to which the rate of enterprise-level agreements concluded by associations of persons decreased significantly (from 30 per cent between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021, to 13 per cent between 1 June 2021 and 30 June 2024). While welcoming the predominance of agreements concluded by enterprise-level unions compared to agreements concluded by associations of persons, the Committee recalls the importance of promoting collective bargaining with trade unions at all levels and requests the Government to indicate the steps taken in this respect, including by considering the possibility of trade union sections being formed in small enterprises.

Digital platform workers. The Committee recalls that it had noted with interest that the law provided for trade union rights for those with independent contractor status and had requested the Government to provide information on the practical application. Noting that the Government does not provide any information thereon, the Committee requests once again the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the collective rights granted to digital platform workers.

Collective bargaining in practice. Evolution of the collective bargaining coverage. The Committee notes that, in its 2025 observations, the GSEE expresses its concern over a decrease in the number of sectoral and professional collective agreements applicable at national level and recommends the adoption of a tripartite road map to gradually increase the collective bargaining coverage in the country. In this respect, the Committee notes from publicly available information that a tripartite social agreement has been signed on November 2025 by the major social partners in the country (including the GSEE and the SEV) aiming at strengthening the collective labour agreements and increasing the share of workers covered by them. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the content and implementation of this tripartite agreement, specifying its consequences on the issues addressed in the present comment and indicating its effects on the overall collective bargaining coverage.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.