The Constitutional Court resolves the controversy of “Work for War and Harmings”

The Constitutional Court stated, yesterday, Wednesday, that “Regulatory Law No. 97.15 determines the conditions and modalities of the right to strike the strike is not in violation of the constitution, taking into account the observations related to Articles 1, 5 and 12 ″”, and informing a copy of it to the prime minister, and publishing it in the Official Gazette.

Work for wage

It was stated in the court’s observations after reviewing the aforementioned law, that with regard to Articles 6 and 9 associated with work in exchange for the wage, their content is not contrary to the constitution.

This came after the court found that “the constitution was within the right to strike, and was assigned to a regulatory law to define its conditions and methods, it was made from that that the worker does not harm his rights, status and professional path, when he practiced his right to strike, according to the conditions and conditions established by law, with which he is to define the legislator for the effects of the exercise of the right to strike in accordance with the law also included within the definition of its conditions and characteristics.”

She added that “the legislator provides it on the fact that the worker’s participation in the exercise of the right to strike is a temporary stop from work that does not pay a wage, and to ensure the wages of the wages working for the striking professionals, and the total of guarantees aimed at protecting their status according to the law, he has guaranteed the protection of these people, which may affect their professional status from the effects of their exercise of the right to strike, and did not put an inconsistent restriction on its initiation, and the balance between it and the freedom of the initiative The contracting and free competition guaranteed by the state, in accordance with the provisions of the third paragraph of Chapter 35 of the Constitution.

The negotiation deadline and the powers of the executive authority

The eighth article related to a specified period for a solution between the strikers and the operator, and the court’s decision also found it “there is no violation of the constitution, bearing in mind that what it included is the possibility of the self -list, there is no exception to the ‘invalidity’ to waive the right to strike, which is merely a reminder of the guarantee of the right of the constitution.”

The same source said in this context that “the constitution has approved the guarantee of the right to strike, a mechanism to protect the social and economic rights and interests of workers and professionals, after exhausting the means of mass negotiation without reaching the conclusion of agreements that respond to their rights and interests; Whereas, the material offered subject the validity of the collective agreements aimed at approving the social peace, on certain conditions, as it made its validity take place within a specific period, not as long as it is permanently … ”.

With regard to the tenth article of the aforementioned regulatory law, which “the governmental authority grants the powers of taking measures to reach a solution in relation to the demand file and examine the existence of a state of state of not, and the extent of the employee’s compliance with the law”, and the court found it not to violate the constitution, stating: “It came in implementation of the positive commitment scheduled in the third paragraph of Chapter 8 of the Constitution.”

The one calling for the strike .. Decide the controversy

Article 11, which was related to the authority calling for the strike, which is the device authorized to do so in trade union organizations, the court sees that it came in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Chapter 8 of the Constitution that states that: “The structures of these (trade union) organizations must be and their conduct in accordance with democratic principles”, and therefore the article is not contrary to the constitution.

Regarding the call to strike in the private sector, the constitutional decision found that Article 12, which stipulates the assignment of the ways to apply its provisions to an organizational text, has nothing to violate the constitution, provided that “the organizational text is created or other conditions to call for a strike in the contract or the institution in the private sector by the strike committee other than those specified in the article offered, and that the scope of what the legislator is attributed to this article does not exceed the text of this article Organizational. ”

Constitutional of strikes and penalties

Articles 13, 14, and 15, which determine the hunger strike, the court said in its decision, which also stated its constitutionality that “the legislator, to determine the deadlines for the strike decision, before embarking on its implementation, according to its sectoral and dirt scope, and the provision of immediate notification in the case of the justified strike of the existence of the current risk, as well as the identification of data is obligatory to include the strike decision, it may be restricted in the form of the formula offered To communicate the decision, which does not constitute non -proportional procedural restrictions or urgently with the essence of the truth, as well as its consistency with the constitutional obligations and principles, scheduled according to the third paragraph of Chapter 8, the last paragraph of Chapter 21 of the Constitution and the third paragraph of Chapter 35 of it, and the first paragraph of Chapter 154 of it also.

As for the penalties included in Articles 23 to 30, which concerns practitioners of the strike without adhering to the requirements of the law, the decision of the Constitutional Court sees that it is not violating the constitution, considering that “if the constitution limits the field of regulatory law referred to defining the conditions and methods of exercising the right to strike, adherence to these conditions and qualities, and the procedure for exercising this right and the scope of its application, may not be achieved if this regulatory law is achieved. Addressing its provisions, when not adhering to them, which makes these penalties the character of a regulatory law, and connected to the subject with the conditions and ways of exercising the right to strike. The addressees of its provisions, accordingly, took into account the criterion of proportionality between the nature of the violation and the punishment, and it is not tainted by any exaggeration in appreciation, and it did not put a restriction that affects the right to strike in its essence, and it was also not without the protection of the freedom of initiative and the contracting that the state guarantees, and it is between the exercise of rights and the advancement.

The court does not see that the provision of law in accordance with Article 19 is the authority of the prime minister in light of a number of political and natural conditions and crises to prevent the strike is contrary to the constitution, stressing that “the legislator, while he did not specify what is meant in the significance of this regulatory law with the occurrence of lesions, natural disasters and acute national crisis, what this article provides to the prime minister to order or stop the strike, it must remain limited within some limits It is required by necessity and not exceeding the amount that is commensurate with the requirements of staving off the effects of these situations, that is, whoever prejudice to public order and the rights of citizens, especially those that threaten the rights of individuals in the safety of their people, their relatives and their property, guaranteed by the first paragraph of Chapter 21 of the Constitution.

The decision won the content of Article 18, which allows the contracting to resort to the urgent judiciary in the event of prejudice to the freedom of work during the validity of the strike, considering it constitutionally, and the same case for Article 17 related to the possibility of stopping the strike by the entity calling for it in the event of reaching an agreement and appealing it in the event that the matter is related to its same reasons.

With regard to the first article contained in the first chapter related to “general rulings”, the court said that it was “if it does not focus on the conditions and modalities of the right to strike the constitution as topics of the referred regulatory law, it does not have the character of an organizational law”, and continued: “Just a reminder of it by the references, covenants and international principles related to the practice of the right to strike, and with guaranteed rights in the constitution and goals and goals Benefiting from its rulings, it is not in itself a contradiction to the constitution.