The right to strike is one of fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. However, the Constitution does not define when the strike is permissible, leaving this to the legislator, who outlined the reasons for (lawful) strikes in the Labor Act.

The current Labor Act (Official Gazette Nos. 93/2014, 127/2017, 98/2019, 151/2022, 64/2023) prescribes grounds for a strike under Article 205 of the Labor Act, stating (paragraphs 3, 4, and 6 are omitted):

1. Trade unions have the right to call a strike and conduct a strike to protect and promote economic and social interests of their members, and due to unpaid wages, parts of wages, or wage compensation if they are not paid by the due date.
2. In case of a dispute regarding the conclusion, modification, or renewal of a collective agreement, those unions that have, according to special regulations, been recognized as representatives for collective bargaining and the conclusion of collective agreements, and who have negotiated a collective agreement, are entitled to call a strike and conduct a strike.
3. A solidarity strike may be initiated without undergoing the mediation process, but only after two days have passed from the start of the strike in support of which it is being organized.

Although the cited legal provision seems clear, in legal theory and judicial practice, the question has arisen as to whether the promotion and protection of the economic and social interests of workers constitutes a separate reason for a strike, and if so, which economic and social interests of workers would constitute a justified reason for a strike.

These legal questions were addressed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia in its ruling Gž 6/2023 on 19 June 2023, in which the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of strike by civil servants organized by the Union of State and Local Government Employees of the Republic of Croatia. The Republic of Croatia, as the employer in this case, argued, among other things, that the strike in question was unlawful because it was organized by a non-representative union that was not in fact authorized to conduct a strike.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed such objections, explaining that in Article 205 of the Labor Act, the legislator distinguishes between strikes and solidarity strikes as separate categories and divides the reasons for strikes into two main types: (i) protection and promotion of the economic and social rights of union members and (ii) non-payment of wages, parts of wages, or wage compensation if not paid by the due date. Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained that a strike due to a dispute over the conclusion, modification, or renewal of a collective agreement is treated as a separate reason for a strike, for which the legislator has prescribed an additional requirement of union representativeness. As for the definition of the term "economic and social rights" (interests), the Supreme Court believes that such a term should be interpreted broadly to include all economic and social rights protected by the Constitution.

This decision of the Supreme Court has sparked debate within the expert community. Prominent labor law theorist Prof. Dr. Viktor Gotovac*, states that this ruling represents a departure from previous judicial practice and that this decision has created an entirely new reason for a strike—the promotion and protection of economic and social rights for which the condition of representativeness is not required.

However, it is important to note that the legal position of the Supreme Court on the protection of the economic and social interests of union members as a separate reason for a strike was confirmed in a subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court, Gž 14/2023, on 16 August 2023, in which the Supreme Court stressed that the appeal arguments claiming that the first defendant, as a non-representative union, should not have been allowed to conduct a strike were unfounded, as the strike was organized for the purpose of protecting and promoting economic and social interests in accordance with Article 205, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Act, in order to equalize wages and other rights with other workers in state and public services.

Therefore, it should be concluded that, according to recent Supreme Court practice, in addition to solidarity strike as a special type of strike, there are three legal reasons for a strike: (i) protection and promotion of the economic and social interests of union members, (ii) unpaid wages, parts of wages, or wage compensation, and (iii) a dispute over the conclusion, renewal, or modification of a collective agreement.
Such understanding of the legal reasons for a strike reduces the significance of union representativeness in collective labor disputes, as non-representative unions can also organize conduct through the legally prescribed procedure until their demands have been met.
 
*Gotovac, V. (2023). 'Otvorena pitanja reprezentativnosti sindikata za kolektivno pregovaranje: Pravni ekscesi ili izgradnja nove arhitekture kolektivnog radnog prava u Republici Hrvatskoj', Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 73(2-3), pg. 333-371. https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.73.23.7

Photo: Pexels_Jeffrey Czum