As an organisation representing workers, we see the problem in particular in the low quality of applications to the labour dispute committees. In order to improve the quality of the applications, the parties to the proceedings should be provided with the services of an interpreter and, to some extent, legal assistance in drafting the applications. The Confederation of Estonian Trade Unions has in the past supported the variant of various solutions proposed by the Ministry of Social Affairs, according to which a workplace tribunal would be set up as a special tribunal, where the procedure would remain quick, cheap and simple. 

As a workers' organisation, we see the problem in particular in the low quality of the applications to the labour dispute committees. This is partly due to the complex wording of the Employment Contracts Act, which is sometimes difficult for lawyers to understand. It is certainly also due to the low level of awareness among employees. An employee who is unable to formulate his or her claims in a statement to the labour dispute committee will certainly be unable to draft a statement of claim when called upon to do so by a court. Many labour disputes remain unresolved simply because workers do not know how to remedy deficiencies in the application or statement of claim. 

The online application proposed in the analysis may contribute to some extent to improving the quality of applications, but it may not solve the situation. There is also currently a form for submitting applications to the industrial dispute committees, but workers do not know how to fill it in. Workers who do not speak Estonian and have to submit the application and all supporting documents in Estonian are in a particularly difficult situation. In order to improve the quality of the applications, an interpreter service should be provided for the parties to the proceedings and, to some extent, legal assistance in drafting the applications. 

Another problem is the so-called four-stage resolution of labour disputes, as the decision of the labour court would replace the decision of the labour dispute committees and the county court, and the final decision would be faster. The current practice of reopening disputes before the labour dispute committees in the county courts is incomprehensible and burdensome for workers. In most cases, the worker has to file a complaint even though he or she is satisfied with the decision of the labour dispute committee. In the district court, the dispute starts all over again, but only in the part that is subject to appeal. On the other hand, there is virtually no appeal against the decision of the labour dispute committee and the dispute is re-examined. 

Jaan-Hendrik Toomel, chairman of the Estonian Trade Union Confederation, says that the Confederation has previously supported a variant of the solutions proposed by the Ministry of Social Affairs, whereby a workplace would be created as a special court with a fast, cheap and simple procedure, where the workplace would be preserved. In the labour court, the chairpersons of the labour dispute committees should continue to act as dispute resolution bodies, involving both employers' and workers' representatives. The industrial tribunals could also settle claims for compensation for injuries caused by accidents at work and occupational diseases, which are not currently settled by the industrial dispute committees. In a situation where there is no insurance against occupational accidents and diseases in Estonia, workers who have to prove the employer's fault for the injury or disease they have suffered are in a very unequal position. 

If, instead of the existing labour dispute commissions, a labour law division of the court were to be set up to settle the same disputes that currently fall within the remit of the labour dispute commissions under the TvLS, it is difficult to assess, without concrete proposals, whether this would make the existing situation easier from the point of view of workers. We can see that even then employees and employers would not be able to present their claims in a correct way and the time taken to resolve disputes would probably increase. Thus, the resolution of labour disputes would no longer be quick or cheap.

If the creation of an industrial tribunal with special procedural rules is not considered appropriate, we do not consider it right to break up the existing system of labour dispute committees and think it would be reasonable to maintain the existing labour dispute resolution in labour dispute committees.

However, the law on labour dispute settlement should be opened up to amendments, the independence of labour dispute committees should be resolved and the powers of the chair of the labour dispute committee should be extended. Consideration could also be given to introducing a procedure similar to the preliminary procedure in court and to giving the right of appeal against decisions of the labour dispute committees directly to the district court.