The Georgian Trade Union Association has issued a statement denouncing the planned amendments to the Georgian Law on Public Service as unacceptable. According to the organization’s statement, the proposed changes contradict Georgia’s Association Agreement with the European Union, which mandates the protection of fundamental labour standards.

“The Georgian Trade Union Association finds the proposed amendments to the Georgian Law on Public Service, currently being expedited through parliament, alarmingly unacceptable. We believe this legislation significantly undermines existing protections for public servants and violates international labour standards, the Association Agreement with the European Union, the Georgian Constitution, national legislation, and established practices of Georgia’s Constitutional and Common Courts. Throughout the drafting process, the participation of the Georgian Trade Union Association—the most representative organization for employees in the country—was entirely disregarded.

As a member state of the International Labour Organization (ILO), Georgia has ratified ILO Convention No. 144 on Tripartite Consultations since 2018, which obligates member states to guarantee effective consultations on labour issues with employers’ associations and trade unions. Following ILO standards, Georgia’s organic labour code contains provisions (Articles 82-84) that require mandatory discussions of labour issues in a tripartite commission format, which did not occur in this case. It is crucial to highlight that the proposed amendments violate Georgia’s Association Agreement with the European Union, which requires the protection of fundamental labour standards and the continuous enhancement of labour rights. This was a primary goal of the public service reform implemented in 2015, aimed at creating a stable and dignified work environment for public servants, following the commitments made during the European integration process. Prepared without regard for international and national standards, the draft law offers an overly broad definition of “reorganization,” effectively categorizing nearly every change as such, except for alterations in an institution’s subordination or name.

This could encompass reorganizations due to the introduction of new functions for employees in a structural unit or alterations to existing functions. Furthermore, during reorganization, if an employee is assigned a new function or if existing functions change, structural units merge, or personnel is reduced, affected individuals will be dismissed, leading to new competition for their positions. This process allows for the hiring of individuals from outside the public system, disregarding the principle of seniority. The reorganization period is shortened from three to two months, and officers dismissed in the course of reorganization will no longer be eligible for mobility. Decisions regarding service termination cannot be appealed, and a favourable court ruling will not guarantee the reinstatement of improperly dismissed employees. In terms of dispute resolution, dismissed officers will receive compensation equivalent to only three months of their official salary.

This approach contradicts the Constitutional Court’s established practice (31/07/2015 №2/3/630), which previously deemed unconstitutional a similar provision that limited compensation for wrongfully dismissed officers. Additionally, the draft law grants the head of the public institution the authority to alter an evaluation prepared by an officer’s direct supervisor within three months of that evaluation. This evaluation impacts an officer’s classification and associated financial supplements. Furthermore, receiving two negative evaluations could lead to dismissal. We believe no justification exists for such measures, particularly when enacted through expedited procedures. We consider these actions will exacerbate an already challenging environment and pose serious risks not only to labour rights but also to a wide range of constitutionally guaranteed rights,” asserts the organization’s statement.