Fundamental rights related to social partners

The social partners mentioned challenges concerning labour market legislation adopted under urgency procedures that did not leave time for proper consultation. The five laws governing the labour market were all changed within a month. The coverage of collective agreements was very low. There were also concerns that the justice system was slow in settling cases.

Trade unions mentioned violations of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions C087 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention and C098 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention. Indeed, unions needed written permission from the employer to form, had to meet outdated requirements for representativeness in a changed labour market, and were not allowed to strike while collective agreements were in place – even if they were not respected –, which meant that unions were reluctant to enter into collective agreements.

The business community was interested in the rule of law, as an important factor to improve the business climate and help ensure that business could be done smoothly. This was also an important parameter for attracting investment. They expressed their expectations of greater transparency, accountability and consultation with stakeholders. Some felt that the European Commission’s evaluations in the 2018 Report on Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism raised important challenges. The business community felt a need for better dialogue with authorities in the consultation phase on new legislation, as well as more time to adapt to new legislative requirements. They specifically mentioned the legal introduction of minimum wages.

On 18 October 2018, the Romanian Economic and Social Council replaced 13 Council representatives of civil society organisations in the middle of their term. The official reason for their removal was unjustified absences, however all of these organisation representatives had been removed regardless of their attendance record. The organisation representatives removed believed that the removal was more linked to negative opinions given on a number occasions on legislative proposals, including when proper consultation had not been carried out, and were considering legal action to be reinstated. They had not been given the opportunity to respond to the criticism made.

Some also found it important to underline positive developments and not to focus only on corruption in Romania, when corruption was an issue in many other countries. They also asserted that foreign companies from reputable countries were also responsible for bringing corruption to Romania.