The decision of the Tbilisi City Court, by which the right of the employees of Tbilisi Metro (Unity 2013) to strike has been restricted, is a harmful and dangerous precedent for labour rights.

Metro drivers planned a strike on May 3, 2018, but the strike was postponed for a maximum period of time - 30 days by the court’s decision. June 3 was announced as the new date of the strike, although this time, the court restricted the Metro drivers’ right to strike during working hours for an indefinite period of time[1].

First of all, it should be underlined that strike is a temporary voluntary refusal of a worker to fully or partially fulfill duties under labour contract. Workers are not obliged to fulfill duties after working hours and therefore, it is illogical to relate non-fulfillment of duties after working hours to strike. In addition, the Organic Law on Labour Code of Georgia provides for one-time postponement of strike only for a maximum period of 30 days. The Organic law is a superior legal act and it also contains special norms related to strike. The court has not discussed this issue at all and by its judgment, it made the right to strike a somewhat illusive and unrealized right.

The court made a decision to restrict strike based on civil procedural norms, for securing a claim, which has to be preceded by an assumption that the claim (to restrict the right to strike due to its unlawfulness) will be granted. However, the court has not discussed the grounds of such an assumption or the expectations that the claim concerning unlawfulness of the strike would be granted, which casts doubt on the substantiation of the judgment. In addition, the court judgment[2] indicates the possibility that the postponement of strike for 30 days might be overturned by a higher instance court and that Tbilisi Metro might be paralyzed, which contradicts the binding power of the higher instance court and leaves an impression that the aim of the first instance judge was to prevent the consequences of the undesirable decision of the court of appeal.

Bearing the above in mind, the Public Defender considers that the restriction of the right of Metro workers to strike for an indefinite period of time contradicts the law and violates the essence of the right to strike.