Constitutional Rights on Strike – General Practitioner`s Strike Case

Starptautiskajās tiesību normās ir iekļautas cilvēka brīvības un tiesības. Tās ietver vārda brīvību, tiesības uz darbu, tiesības apvienoties un tiesības uz streiku, ja darba tiesisko attiecību laikā pusēm rodas strīdi, u. c. tiesības. Latvijas Republikas Satversmes (turpmāk – Satversme) 108. pantā paredzētas strādājošo tiesības uz streiku kā galējo līdzekli darba strīdu risināšanai. Sistēmiski šī konstitūcijas norma tiek regulēta ar Darba strīdu likumu un Streiku likumu. Varētu šķist, ka Latvijā katram strādājošajam ir nodrošinātas tiesības streikot, kā tas paredzēts Satversmē. Tomēr ģimenes ārstu streiks 2017. gadā parādīja, ka streiku īstenošanā ir problēmas. Pirmkārt, tiesības streikot pašlaik ir attiecināmas tikai uz vienu nodarbinātības veidu – darba tiesiskajām attiecībām. Taču tikai daļai ģimenes ārstu nodarbinātības attiecības balstītas uz darba līguma pamata, tādējādi piemērot valstī spēkā esošo streiku regulējumu savu kolektīvo interešu aizsardzībai var tikai daļa ģimenes ārstu. Otrkārt, Darba strīdu likums streiku kā galējo līdzekli ļauj piemērot tikai kolektīvo interešu aizsardzībai (koplīguma noslēgšanas ietvaros), bet ne publisko tiesību līguma ietvaros. Ģimenes ārstu streiks parādīja, ka Latvijā tikai daļēji izpildītas starptautiskās normas, jo tiesības streikot ir paredzētas, bet šī norma attiecināma tikai uz tām personām, kuras nodarbinātas uz darba līguma pamata un tikai koplīguma domstarpību gadījumos. Lai risinātu situāciju un turpmāk nodrošinātu katras nodarbinātās personas tiesības streikot, nepieciešams grozīt Darba strīdu likumu, paplašinot darba strīdu subjektu loku. International legal provisions provide for human rights and freedoms, and the freedom of expression and the right to work are part of these. Considering that during any employment relationship disputes can arise between the involved parties, international legal provisions for that provide strike as the final means to be utilised for the settlement of a dispute. Paragraph 108 of the Satversme (the Constitution of Latvia) provides that in Latvia, employed people have the right to strike. Systematically, the provisions of the Constitution are being regulated by the Labour Dispute Law and the Strike Law. It might seem that in Latvia, any employed person has been entitled to the right to strike as provided by the Satversme. However, the strike of general practitioners in summer 2017 highlighted a problem of executing strikes. Firstly, at the time being, the right to strike can be only associated with one form of employment, i.e., employment relationship. As only a part of general practitioners is employed on the basis of an employment agreement, the strike regulatory framework that is in force in Latvia can be used only by a part of general practitioners employed under an employment agreement in order to protect their collective interests. Secondly, the Labour Dispute Law provides for that a strike as the final means can be utilised exclusively for the protection of collective interests (within the framework of concluding a collective agreement), but not within the framework of a contract governed by the public law. The strike by general practitioners showed that Latvia has complied only partially with international legal provisions because a strike can only be utilised by people employed under employment agreements and only in disagreements regarding a collective agreement. In order to resolve this problem and so that any employed person is entitled to the right to strike in the future, it is necessary to amend the Labour Dispute Law by expanding the range of labour dispute subjects. The aim of the article is to analyse both international regulatory framework and that in Latvia for the right of employed people to strike and to recommend necessary amendments to laws to solve the detected problems. Materials used for the compilation of the article: international legal provisions and Latvian legal acts, publications and literature. Methods used in this article: descriptive, analysis, synthesis, dogmatic, induction and deduction, graphic as well as legal interpretation methods – grammatical, systemic, historical and teleological.Peer reviewe