What should we know?

Like most European countries, the right to strike is a right recognized under the Constitution of Georgia. The conditions/rules for enjoying this right are  determined mainly by the Labor Code of Georgia. 

How did we get here? 

In 2006, for the first time, an article about strikes appeared in the Labor Code. At that time, strikes were regulated by the Law of Georgia “On the Rules for Settlement of Collective Labor Disputes.” The rules governing the strike have undergone many changes since then, and such reservations as the duration of the strike, its adjournment by the court under the threat of damage to other people’s property, the need for advance notice, and other conditions have been abolished. 

Today, according to the law, 

• Employees have to go through a multi-step procedure for a strike to be considered legal. 
• Both the grounds for the strike and the group of subjects of the right are narrow. 
• The legal definition of a strike does not include solidarity strikes. 
• In practice, we see workers being fired during a strike 
• Also, the cases of limitation of this right by the court. 

In detail, what is a strike:

A strike is:

• In case of a dispute 
• Temporary, voluntary refusal of the employee 
• To fully or partially fulfill the duties stipulated under the labor contract. 

This means that employees have the right to strike only if: 

• There is a dispute between the employees and the employer 

and 

• Its solution is in the interest of the parties to the labor contract.

It is also important that the dispute does not imply any disagreement, but should be related to the following: 

• • Violation of the contract, for example, due to non-payment of wages. 
  • Disagreement on other essential terms of the contract, for example, work and rest time and 

• Violation of human rights/freedoms. For example, violation of personal space/communication of employees. 

It should be noted that the existence of a dispute based on the grounds listed above does not exhaust the prerequisites for a strike. In addition, it is required to: 

• Go through the stage of direct negotiation, mediation or 
• Appeal to Arbitration/Court.

In order to reach an agreement between the parties in the negotiation procedure, the mediators are appointed by the state. Practice shows that it is problematic to administer this mechanism:

• Mediators do not have a prior agreement regarding their mandatory participation in the negotiation process.
• Their remuneration is not appropriate and adequate for the work to be performed.
• Mediators often refuse to participate in the process. 
• Ultimately, their number is insufficient.

These problems, on the one hand, delay the appointment of a mediator and on the other hand, create a shortage of qualified specialists for a specific case.

It is crucial to appoint a mediator on time who knows the specifics of the field because the right to strike automatically occurs 21 calendar days after the mediator’s appointment . 

Finally, it can be said that the strike is permissible only:

• In the event of a dispute between the employee and the employer 

• The dispute must relate to the conditions listed above and  

• The parties must undergo the binding procedures of the agreement before striking.

What does the law say about solidarity or other types of strikes? 

• The law also recognizes a lockout, in which even those employed in vital services can  participate. 
• It does not directly prohibit solidarity strikes, but such a strike is, in fact, impossible if the preconditions written in the Code are met. 

It should be highlighted that according to the government, organizations can take any action that is not prohibited by law, and the legality of such a strike will be assessed by the court. However, the court's practice is scarce and inconsistent. 

The right to participate in the strike is restricted to persons who perform vital services. These are:

• Emergency medical care 

• Water supply or 

• Electricity production. 

• Also, work in municipal cleaning services. However, it is difficult to imagine that a strike by cleaning service representatives would  threaten human life, safety, or health, which is a necessary condition for justifying the restriction of the right. 

It should be underlined that the ILO welcomes the 2021 amendments, which will not restrict their right to strike as long as they ensure the interrupted and safe provision of minimum services to meet the basic demands of consumers. 

Strike, as a fundamental right, loses its meaning in the conditions of its narrow definition. 

Therefore:

• Workers should be able to strike concerning the issues that are not envisaged under the law today, although they are related to decent work.
• The law should allow by direct reference solidarity strikes and/or 
• The Supreme Court should extend the government's directive on the permissibility of solidarity or other strikes. 
• When examining the legality of a strike, courts should be guided by its interpretations. 
• The government should ensure to increase the responsibility of the employer both in the pre-strike and conciliation procedures, as well as after it. 
• Mediators’ number and remuneration must be increased for their timely appointment.