Hungary

Hungary has a low level of union density – under 10%. Trade unionism is also fragmented, with five confederations, MaSZSZ, SZEF, ÉSZT, LIGA and MOSZ, which compete with one another in some areas.

1. See also: Szakszervezeti stratégia és megújulás (Trade union strategy and renewal) by Ágnes Szabó-Morvai, November 2010

Figures from the 2015 Hungarian labour force survey indicate that 329,000 of the employed workforce are in trade unions, equivalent to 9.0% of all employees.[1] The unions themselves report having significantly more than this – around 400,000, and one reason is that the confederations, especially those which emerged from the union confederation SZOT, which was in existence before 1989 (see below), have a proportion of members who are pensioners.

The five confederations are:

• MaSZSZ (110,000 members);
• LIGA (100,200 members);
• ÉSZT (76,000 members); [2]
• SZEF (59,000 members); and
• MOSZ – also known as Munkástanácsok (50,000 members).

These figures are not official figures but provided by the confederations themselves and in the case of ÉSZT and MOSZ are likely to be an overestimate, as they date from 2014. There are also a number of independent unions outside the confederations.

The five confederations have different histories. Two, SZEF and ÉSZT, emerged as reformed organisations from the unified trade union confederation SZOT, which existed before 1989. MaSZSZ, was created as the result of a merger in 2015 between two confederations, MSZOSZ and ASZSZ, (see below) which had also emerged from SZOT. However, two, LIGA and MOSZ, grew out of a combination of anti-communist activists and local protest movements.

The divisions between the three reformed trade union confederations are essentially that they cover different parts of the economy. MaSZSZ represents workers in manufacturing, transport, energy and private services, while SZEF and ÉSZT cover public service employees, both those with special status as civil servants and normal employees. The difference between the two confederations is that ÉSZT organises employees in higher education and research institutes only, while SZEF organises public service employees in health, social services, other parts of education and local and central government.

LIGA and MOSZ both represent workers across the economy in both the public and private sectors, and are in competition for members, both with one another and with the reformed unions.

All five confederations have industry-based unions affiliated to them. MaSZSZ has 31 affiliated unions, including the metalworkers’ union VASAS, the mining and energy workers’ union BDSZ, which also has members in the clothing and textile industries, and the chemical workers’ union VDSZ. These unions are grouped in nine industry and service sectors. SZEF has 12 affiliated unions, including one of the teachers’ unions (PSZ) and the nursery workers’ union (BDDSZ).[3] ÉSZT has eight affiliates, of which the largest is FDSZ, which organises employees in higher education, including teachers, researchers and administrative staff.

LIGA and MOSZ present the information in a different way on their websites, with both stating that they have almost 100 member organisations, although they do not list their affiliates.

There have been major differences between the confederations, particularly between the reformed confederations on one side and LIGA and MOSZ on the other. This has been particularly noticeable in their relations with the FIDESZ party, led by Viktor Orbán, which has been in power in Hungary since 2010.

In 2006 and 2007, the fact that LIGA and MOSZ supported demonstrations and organised strikes against the austerity policies of the socialist-liberal government at a time of overall political unrest led to a strengthening of links between LIGA and FIDESZ.[4] Following the election of 2010, which produced a landslide win for FIDESZ and its coalition partner, the Christian Democratic Party KDNP, the new government introduced a revised Labour Code that weakened the position of unions. LIGA and MOSZ continued to negotiate with the government, while the other confederations were not included in the discussions, and the existing tripartite structure was dismantled. Although MSZOSZ (now part of MaSZSZ and at that time the largest of the reformed confederations) later joined LIGA and MOSZ in discussions on the proposed new Labour Code, and finally signed an agreement on a revised version with them, the reformed confederations continued to believe that the government gave preference to LIGA.[5]

This was one of the main reasons why three of the reformed confederations, MSZOSZ, another industrial confederation ASZSZ and the public sector confederation SZEF, announced in May 2013 that they planned to merge. Their “unification statement” specifically referred to the “divisive” policy of some governments towards the unions, and said that since 2010 the FIDESZ-led government had given “exclusive preference” to some unions, while others were “ignored”.[6]

In fact, in the end only two of the three confederations, MSZOSZ and ASZSZ, finally agreed to merge, with the congress of the third confederation, SZEF, narrowly voting against a merger in November 2014. In addition, a number of unions within MSZOSZ and ASZSZ, including the postal workers’ union, were unhappy with the merger plans and switched confederation to LIGA or became independent.[7] As a result, MaSZSZ, the new confederation which result from the merger (completed in February 2015), included many fewer members than initially planned.

The years since the merger have seen some of examples of cooperation between the confederations, but also ongoing differences. In 2016, all five confederations issued a joint statement protesting against government plans to close a number of professional government-linked institutions.[8] In 2017, there was further joint lobbying of the government, with a common push for pay increases at state-owned companies, and it seemed as though a strategy might be emerging of using the two confederations with the best links to the government – MOSZ and LIGA – to push for jointly agreed objectives. [9]

However, in 2018 and 2019, the differences between the confederations became more evident over three separate issues: legislation changing the taxation of some non-wage benefits (the so-called cafeteria law), where a joint position had been agreed, but the leadership of MOSZ and LIGA then held separate meetings with the government; an agreement increasing the national minimum wage, which was signed at the end of 2018 by MOSZ and LIGA but not by MaSZSZ; and new legislation on overtime, dubbed the “Slave Act”, which led to a series of major demonstrations, which were backed by MaSZSZ, SZEF and ÉSZT and some individual unions, but not supported by MOSZ.[10]

These policy differences coupled sometimes with personal and organisational disputes led some unions to change their allegiances in 2018, with a police union FRSZ leaving LIGA for MOSZ, while teachers’ union PDSZ left LIGA without joining another confederation.[11]

In formal terms, the confederations emphasise their political neutrality. The merger document of MaSZSZ states that it “does not carry out direct political activities, is independent of parties and does not provide financial support to them”.[12] LIGA lists “independence from political parties” as one of its principle values in its statutes.[13] SZEF states on its website that, it is “open to dialogue with all political parties and other organisations… but does not commit itself to any political force”.[14] And ÉSZT describes “party political independence” as a basic founding principle of the organisation.[15] MOSZ is slightly different as it states that its policies are based on Christian values.[16]

Union membership declined sharply over the 1990s and the decline has not ended. The labour force survey figures show a continuing fall in overall union density since the start of the millennium dropping from 19.7% in 2001 to 16.9% in 2004, 12.0% in 2009 and 9.0% in 2015.[17]

There are, however, significant differences between industries in in terms of union organisation, with the highest density rates in the energy industry (electricity, gas and steam) at 29.0%, transportation and storage – 22.3%, education – 19.0%, health – 17.7% and mining and quarrying – 16.7%. Unusually public administration is not among this group. Union density here is only just above average at 10.7%.One reason for this is that the Ministry of the Interior ended the automatic deduction of union subscriptions by the employer (the check-off system).[18] Between 2009 and 2015 union density in public administration halved from 22.4% to 10.7%.

Union density is higher among women – at 9.3% – than among men – at 8.8%.

[1] HCSO, Labour Force Survey 2015. II. quarterly supplementary survey

https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_evkozi_9_1 (Accessed 01.08.2019)

[2] Other than the LIGA figures which come from the LIGA Website http://www.liganet.hu/page/2/html/kik-vagyunk.html (Accessed 01.08.2019), the source of the figures is Annual Review 2018 of Labour Relations and Social Dialogue: Hungary, by László Neumann, FES 2019 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/bratislava/15357.pdf (Accessed 01.08.2019). The figure from the SZEF website https://szef.hu/rolunk/kik-vagyunk (Accessed 01.08.2019), relating to 2015 is 70,000

[3] Union websites MaSZSZ: https://www.szakszervezet.net/hu/tagszervezetek SZEF: https://szef.hu/tagszervezetek-es-retegszervezetek/tagszervezetek ÉSZT: https://www.eszt.hu/rolunk/szervezetunk/tagszervezeteink.html

[4] See: Tóth, András: The collapse of the post-socialist industrial relations system in Hungary. SEER, 2013. No. 1. pp 5-19

[5] See The New Hungarian Labour Code - Background, Conflicts, Compromises by András Tóth, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Budapest, 2012

[6] See Unification statement http://www.autonomok.hu/hirek/unification_statement/

[7] Hungary - labour relations and social dialogue annual review 2014 by Ildikó Krén, FES 2015 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/bratislava/11547.pdf (Accessed 04.08.2019) and Hungary - labour relations and social dialogue annual review 2015 by Ildikó Krén FES 2016 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/bratislava/12444.pdf (Accessed 04.08.2019)

[8] Annual Review 2016 of Labour Relations and Social Dialogue: Hungary, by László Neumann, FES 2017 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/bratislava/13196.pdf (Accessed 04.08.2019)

[9] Annual Review 2017of Labour Relations and Social Dialogue: Hungary, by László Neumann, FES 2018 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/bratislava/14470.pdf (Accessed 04.08.2019)

[10] Annual Review 2018 of Labour Relations and Social Dialogue: Hungary, by László Neumann, FES 2019 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/bratislava/15357.pdf (Accessed 01.08.2019).

[11] ibid

[12] MaSZSZ website – Foundation https://www.szakszervezet.net/hu/rolunk/a-szovetseg-celja (Accessed 08.08.2019)

[13] LIGA Statutes http://www.liganet.hu/news/5543/ASZ_2017.nov.30.pdf (Accessed 08.08.2019)

[14] SZEF website – Who are we? https://szef.hu/rolunk/kik-vagyunk (Accessed 08.08.2019)

[15] ÉSZT website – History https://www.eszt.hu/rolunk/tortenelem.html (Accessed 08.08.2019)

[16] MOSZ website – Who we are https://munkastanacsok.hu/about/ (Accessed 08.08.2019)

[17] See Szakszervezeti stratégia és megújulás (Trade union strategy and renewal) by Ágnes Szabó-Morvai, November 2010 and HCSO, Labour Force Survey 2015. II. Quarterly supplementary survey

https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_evkozi_9_1 (Accessed 08.08.2019)

[18] See Neglected by the state: the Hungarian experience of collective bargaining by Szilvia Borbély and László Neumann in Collective bargaining in Europe: towards an endgame, edited by Torsten Müller, Kurt Vandaele and Jeremy Waddington, ETUI, 2019

Collective bargaining covers around a fifth of all employees and takes place primarily at company/organisation level, despite considerable efforts by both unions and previous governments to encourage industry level bargaining. The tripartite discussions on the minimum wage continue to be important to the unions, although they are no longer binding on the government.

The framework

There are two sources of statistics on the coverage of collective bargaining: those from the labour force survey; and those from the register of collective agreements collected by the Ministry of National Economy (Nemzetgazdasági

Minisztérium).

As a recent study undertaken for the ETUI points out, the figures based on the register of collective agreements may be an over-statement, as negotiators often do not provide up-to-date information, particularly when agreements end.[1] The Ministry of National Economy figures show that in August 2019 there were 2,869 current collective agreements registered.[2] In total these agreements covered 6,023 companies and organisations and 815,000 employees. [3] With the average total number of employees in 2018 at 4,003,900,[4] this produces a collective bargaining coverage rate of 20.4%.

The labour force survey figures are very similar, with 20.6% of employees aged 15 to 64 indicating in 2015 that there was a collective agreement at work.[5] However, this figure is unlikely to be precise, as a further 22.1% of those responding indicated that they did not know whether there was a collective agreement at their workplace.

Although the exact degree of coverage of collective agreements is uncertain, there is no doubt about the relative importance of industry and company/organisation level bargaining. The register shows that the vast majority of the 2,869 agreements were signed by a single organisation, either a company –1,008 agreements – or a single state institution (budgetary authority, as it is described in the statistics), like a school or a museum – 1,773 agreements. In the non-state sector, there were only 85 multi-employer agreements, most signed by groups of companies but some signed by employers’ associations, like the chemical industry or the water industry. In the state sector, there were only two multi-employer agreements, including one for public hospitals, signed in December 2017.

Single employer agreements also dominate in terms of employees covered. In the company sector, single employer agreements covered 449,000 employees compared with 196,000 employees covered by multi-employer agreements. In the state sector, single-employer agreements are even more dominant. The figures from the register show that multi-employer agreements covered only 320 out of the 245,000 employees covered by state-sector collective agreements, although these figures do not include the hospital agreement.

The central role of single employer agreements comes despite efforts by past governments to strengthen industry-level bargaining. There are 23 official sectoral social dialogue committees, known as ÁPBs, made up of employers’ associations and unions. However, the FIDESZ-led government has been less supportive of this structure and has significantly reduced funding to the committees leading to their virtual collapse.[6] The prevailing attitude of employers is a reluctance to join employers’ organisations or to authorise them to conclude industry agreements.

The government is able to extend collective agreements to all employees in an industry in certain circumstances – the request must be made by both parties and they must be able to show that the agreement already covers a majority of employees in the industry. However, this power has not been widely used and currently only two agreements, covering the construction industry and hotels and catering are extended in this way. These two extensions together cover 188,000 employees (112,000 construction and 76,000 hotels and catering), 42% of all private sector employees covered by collective bargaining.[7]

At national level, until 2011, unions were able to influence bargaining developments through a tripartite body called the National Interest Reconciliation Council (OÉT). Unions, employers and government met in the OÉT to agree the national minimum wage rates for the coming year and the OÉT also had an important role in making recommendations on the proposed level of pay increases to lower-level negotiators, although these recommendations were not binding. However in 2011 and against the opposition of the unions, the FIDESZ-led government replaced the OÉT with a new body, the National Economic and Social Council, NGTT, consisting of a much wider range of organisations, including chambers of commerce, civic organisations and churches, alongside the unions and employers.

Direct tripartite discussions were to some degree restored with the establishment in 2012 of a new body, the Standing Consultative Forum (VFK), to discuss employment issues in the private sector. All three union confederations with membership in the private sector, MaSZSZ, LIGA and MOSZ, are members. Its role is more limited than the former OÉT, but it provides a forum in which negotiations on the minimum wage can take place, although, if there is no agreement, the final decision is taken by the government (see below). In 2018 a comparable consultative body was established for the state sector (KVFK)

Who negotiates and when?

Negotiations at both company and industry level are in most cases between employers or employers’ associations and the unions. However, under the revised Labour Code, introduced in 2012, works councils can negotiate agreements with the employer where there is no union at the workplace and it is not covered by a collective agreement. The one important exception is that these agreements cannot cover pay.[8]

The revised Labour Code also altered the rules on which unions have a right to bargaining. It is now union membership, and no longer support in works council elections, that is the key to representativeness. Trade unions can now only conclude collective agreements at company level if their membership exceeds 10% of those employed at the company. The same 10% rule also applies to industry level agreements, where unions must have 10% of those employed in the industry to be able to reach an agreement. Where there are several unions with at least 10% membership, they must cooperate to reach a single agreement

Collective agreements setting a range of issues normally last for two years, although they are sometimes for an unlimited period. However, agreements on pay increases at company level, where these exist, are usually annual.

The subject of the negotiations

Collective agreements typically cover pay, working conditions and procedural issues. However, a significant proportion of company collective agreements in Hungary do not deal with pay, which may be dealt with through local less formal deals, and is also heavily influenced by increases in the national minimum wage (see below). Many agreements simply reproduce the terms of the Labour Code.

One indication of the limited impact of collective agreements is provided by the labour force survey. This asked those covered by a collective agreement whether it had an impact on their pay or their working conditions. In total, just over half (56.8%) stated that collective bargaining affected their pay and almost the same proportion (56.1%) said that it affected their working conditions.[9]

The 2012 Labour Code introduced significant restrictions on what can be negotiated in companies owned by the state and local government bodies. In many areas, including working time, severance pay and notice periods, it is impossible for a collective agreement for these public bodies to include terms which improve on the minimum set out by law. This limitation also applies to trade union representatives’ rights to time-off and protection against dismissal (see section on workplace representation).

Hungary’s national minimum wage is set by government decree, after formal consultation with the NGTT, the consultative body, which includes churches and other civic bodies, as well as unions and employers. In practice, the key negotiations take place in the VFK, the company-sector tripartite body, which includes representatives of the private sector unions, employers and the government (see above). It there is an agreement on the rate, it is presented to the NGTT for formal consultation, and then implemented by the government. If there is no agreement, the government will make its own proposal to NGTT. In all cases the final decision lies with the government.

The minimum wage arrangements in Hungary are unusual because they set both a basis and a higher minimum rate. The higher minimum rate, known as the guaranteed minimum, must be paid to all employees in jobs requiring at least completed secondary education.

[1] Neglected by the state: the Hungarian experience of collective bargaining by Szilvia Borbély and László Neumann in Collective bargaining in Europe: towards an endgame, edited by Torsten Müller, Kurt Vandaele and Jeremy Waddington, ETUI, 2019

[2] Munkaügyi Kapcsolatok Információs Rendszer: Kollektív szerződések elektronikus nyilvántartó könyv (Labour Relations Information System: Collective agreements electronic register)

http://mkir.gov.hu/ksznyilv.htm (Accessed 09.09.2019)

[3] Munkaügyi Kapcsolatok Információs Rendszer: Kollektív szerződések tartalmára vonatkozó online lekérdezések Nyilvántartásba vett kollektív szerződések (Labour Relations Information System: Registered collective agreements) http://www.mkir.gov.hu/lcinternet.php (Accessed 19 August 2014)

[4] HCSO Table 2.1. 9 Employed persons by status in employment

[5] This and the subsequent figures are from HCSO, Labour Force Survey 2015. II. quarterly supplementary survey https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_evkozi_9_1 (Accessed 01.08.2019)

[6] Annual Review 2018 of Labour Relations and Social Dialogue: Hungary, by László Neumann, FES 2019 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/bratislava/15357.pdf (Accessed 01.08.2019).

[7] Munkaügyi Kapcsolatok Információs Rendszer: Kollektív szerződések tartalmára vonatkozó online lekérdezések: KSZ lefedettséggel kapcsolatos listák (Labour Relations Information System: Collective agreement coverage lists) http://www.mkir.gov.hu/lcinternet.php (Accessed 19 August 2014)

[8] See The New Hungarian Labour Code - Background, Conflicts, Compromises by András Tóth, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Budapest, 2012

[9] HCSO, Labour Force Survey 2015. II. quarterly supplementary survey https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_evkozi_9_1 (Accessed 01.08.2019)

Workplace representation in Hungary is provided by both local trade unions and elected works councils with the balance between the two varying over time. Under the revised Labour Code, introduced in 2012, unions retained negotiating rights but lost their monitoring powers and their right to be informed and consulted. Works councils have information and consultation rights but in practice often find it difficult to influence company decisions.

Works councils, drawing heavily on the experience in Germany, were first introduced in 1992. However, they had fewer powers than in Germany – joint decision making (codetermination) was limited to the use of company social funds. In addition, to take account of the existing Hungarian situation, local workplace unions were left with some rights in the area of information and consultation. The powers of both local unions and works councils have fluctuated with the changing political complexion of governments since 1998, with left-wing governments favouring the unions and right-wing governments giving greater rights to works councils. The revised Labour Code, introduced by the FIDESZ-led government in 2012, removed rights from the unions, although in some areas the position of the works councils was also weakened.

In practice there must be some doubt as to whether the difference has been as great is it appears. A survey published by a Hungarian researcher Béla Benyó in 2003 found that representation through works councils went hand in hand with a union presence. Only 9% of works councils were at workplaces without a union and 70% of works councils were either entirely made up of trade unionists or overwhelmingly made up of them.[1] In evaluating these figures it is important to bear in mind the fact that until 2012 Hungarian legislation based union recognition for bargaining on the results of works council elections.

Figures from the 2015 labour force survey show that a union presence at work was more widespread than the existence of a works council. One in four respondents (25.1%) said that there was a union at their workplace, compared with just over one in six (17.9%) who said there was a works council or a works representative.[2]

Figures from Eurofound’s 2013 European Company Survey show that 16% of establishments in Hungary with at least 10 employees have some form of official employee representation. This may be either through the union or through the works council. The Hungarian figure is precisely half the EU28 average of 32%. As elsewhere in Europe, larger organisations are much more likely to have such a structure than smaller ones. The survey shows 81% of establishments with more than 250 employees having representation, and 45% of those with between 50 and 249 employees. However in smaller workplaces in Hungary, those with between 10 and 49 employees, only 11% have employee representation.[3]

Numbers and structure

The structure of the workplace trade union body depends on the internal rules of the union. However, the number of union representatives protected against dismissal is now laid down in the Labour Code (see below).

Works councils, which are entirely employee bodies, are to be set up in any company or any part of a company operating independently with more than 50 employees. In companies or workplaces with between 15 and 50 employees a works representative is to be elected. Numbers are calculated using the average over the previous six months on a headcount basis, with both full-time and part-time employees counting equally. Agency workers are not included in the total.

The number of works council members increases with the size of the workforce as follows:

Number employed	Number of members
51-100	3
101-300	5
301-500	7
501-1,000	9
1,001-2,000	11
2,000+	13

The legislation does not say how often works councils should meet and most meet relatively infrequently. However, the law says that the employer must provide the works council with information on a range of issues at least twice a year, which means that there should be at least two meetings a year.

Tasks and rights

The workplace trade union representatives have a range of rights, although the revised Labour Code gave some of their previous rights to the works council. The union continues to have the sole right to negotiate collective agreements covering wages, although works councils have more limited negotiating rights where there are no trade unions present (see section on collective bargaining).

Until the changes introduced by the 2012 Labour Code, the union workplace representatives had to be consulted over major issues affecting employment, including job cuts and organisational changes, including the “transfer of undertakings”. However, under the current rules, union representatives only have a right to request information and express their views. There is no longer an obligation for them to be consulted.

The union has the right to represent its members, including before the courts, to protect their interests. However, the local union representative is no longer responsible for monitoring compliance with the provisions of employment regulations as was the case in the past. Under the terms of the revised Labour Code, this responsibility has passed to the works council.

The employer must provide the works council with information about the following issues at least twice a year:

• fundamental issues affecting the employer’s economic position;
• developments in wage and salary payments, and the impact of these payments on the company’s cash position, the characteristics of the workforce, the use of working time and working conditions; and
• the number of teleworkers and agency workers and the tasks that they perform.

The works council can ask for documents relating to these issues and more generally about concerns relating to the economic and social interests of the employees.

The employer must also consult the works council in advance about plans for measures that will have an impact on a large number of employees, in particular:

• restructuring, outsourcing or privatisation;
• the introduction of new investment, including new technology;
• the processing and protection of personal data on employees;
• the implementation of employee surveillance;
• health and safety;
• new methods of work organisation and the setting of performance norms;
• training and education plans;
• job assistance subsidies;
• rehabilitation for disabled workers;
• working arrangements;
• pay principles;
• measures to protect the environment; and
• measures to support equal treatment and the coordination of work and family life.

However, while there is an obligation to consult on these issues and the Labour Code states that consultation should take place “with a view to reaching agreement”, there is no obligation to reach agreement. The provision which stated that action taken by the employer without consultation was invalid and could be taken to court, has been removed in the revised Labour Code. It also shortened the period between the start of consultation and the action being taken from 15 to seven days, although the timescale is different for redundancies and business transfers.

In the case of redundancies, the employer is obliged to give notice of the plans at least seven days before starting negotiations and not to take a decision for at least 15 days after the negotiations have started. For business transfers the employer must provide information 15 days before a transfer.

In practice, works councils have only a limited opportunity to influence company decisions. Information is often provided only at the meeting, giving the works council little opportunity to respond.

The works council has a right to decide jointly with the employer on the use of any social funds. However, the right also to decide jointly on the utilisation of buildings or equipment for social purposes (holidays, canteens etc), was removed in the 2012 Labour Code.

The works council must inform employees about its activities at least twice a year.

Election and term of office

The choice and term of office of workplace union representatives is an internal issue for the union.

The arrangements for the works council elections, on the other hand, are meticulously regulated by the law. Members must be nominated by either 10% of the employees or at least 50 employees, or by the local union organisation at the company. Members are elected in a secret ballot run by an election committee organised by the employees. All employees at the workplace have a right to vote, but only those with six months’ service are entitled to stand as candidates. Employers and those with rights to appoint and dismiss employees may not stand as candidates.

The term of office is five years. (It was three years under the previous Labour Code).

Protection against dismissal

Before a trade union representative can be dismissed or moved the employer must get the approval of the higher trade union body to which the representative is responsible. The situation is similar for the chair of the works council. He or she can only be dismissed or transferred with the consent of the works council. However, the 2012 Labour Code reduced the number of trade union representatives and works council members protected in this way.

Whereas in the past all elected trade union officials at the workplace were protected, under the 2012 Labour Code the union must designate specific individuals who will be protected and the number varies with the size of the workforce (see table). It is possible to negotiate improvements in this area (other than in state and local government owned companies – where the limits apply absolutely), but in most cases unions are unlikely to be strong enough to do so. A study published in 2013 suggested that these limits had a substantial impact on the number of trade union representatives at company level, with the numbers falling in one case from 110 to six.[4]

Number of employees	Number of union officials protected
Fewer than 500	2
500 to 1,000	3
1,001 to 2,000	4
2,001 to 4,000	5
More than 4,000	6

In the case of the works council, protection against dismissal and transfer has also been reduced by the 2012 Labour Code. It formerly applied to the whole works council. It now only applies to the chair.

Time off and other resources

Under the 2012 Labour Code the designated union representatives at the workplace are entitled to one hour per month release from normal duties for every two members. (This is a reduction of a quarter, compared with the situation previously, when it was two hours a month for every three members). In the past, the union could be compensated in cash if these hours were not taken up, although only up to a maximum of half of the available time, and this was a significant source of union income. Under the 2012 Labour Code, this possibility has been abolished.

The union should also be given access to rooms on the premises for trade union activities.

Works council members are to be released from their normal duties for 10% of their monthly working time, with 15% for the chair of the works council. (Chairs in companies employing more than 1,000 are completely released from their normal duties.) The employer should also pay for the necessary costs of the works council on a jointly agreed basis.

Training rights

The Labour Code does not provide any specific training rights for either local trade union representatives or works council members.

Representation at group level

A central works council at the headquarters of a company can be set up if there are several works councils covering the same employer. In the past, this only applied if the different works councils were in the same legally registered company. However, under the 2012 Labour Code a corporate-level works council can be set up in a group of companies. The members are designated by the works councils (central works council), or by the central works councils and/or works councils (corporate-level works council).However, these higher-level bodies cannot have more than 15 members.

Links between local union representatives depend on the union.

[1] See Works councils examined by András Tóth, Youcef Ghellab and László Neumann, EIRO, February 2004 http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2004/01/feature/hu0401106f.htm

[2] HCSO, Labour Force Survey 2015. II. quarterly supplementary survey

https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_evkozi_9_1 (Accessed 01.08.2019)

[3] Eurofound (2015), Third European Company Survey – Overview report: Workplace practices – Patterns, performance and well-being, Figures for Table 44

[4] See: Nacsa, Beata – László Neumann: Hungary: The reduction of social democracy and employment. In: Lerais, Frédéric et. al.: Social democracy under the strain of crisis. An essay of international comparison. Paris: Institut de Recherches Économiques et Sociales (IRES). 2013, pp. 94-108. http://www.ires.fr/images/files/DocumentsTravail/Rapport04.2013/Rapport04.2013%20Anglais.pdf

Employee representatives make up one third of the members of the supervisory board in companies with more than 200 employees. But new legislation, passed in 2006, allowed single tier boards for the first time, and here employee rights are much weaker.

In companies with a two tier board system – both a supervisory and a management board – the works council has the right to nominate one third of the members of the supervisory board where the company has more than 200 employees. The one exception, introduced through legislation passed in 2006,[1] is where there is an agreement between the works council and management to the contrary. Before making the nomination the works council must consult with the unions in the company.

The supervisory board is responsible for the general direction of the company, while the day-to-day business is in the hands of the management board. (In practice, most supervisory boards only meet rarely.) However, the 2006 legislation (and the 2013 legislation which has replaced it) leaves the procedures of both the supervisory and management board to companies themselves to regulate. Previously there was more detailed legislative regulation.

In companies with a single tier board system – just a board of directors – employee participation at board level must be regulated by an agreement between the works council and the company. This marked a change – before the 2006 legislation only two tier board structures were possible – and it represents a potential weakening of employee representation at board level, as there are no minimum requirements.

Employee representatives must be company employees have the same rights and obligations as other members of the supervisory board. However, under legislation passed in 2013 they have lost their right to protection against dismissal. All supervisory board members are elected for a period of five years.

[1] The 2006 legislation has been replaced by new legislation passed in 2013 (Civil Code: Act V of 2013 Section 3:119 to 128), but this has not altered the basic principles of employee representation at board level.

European representatives from Hungary for both European Works Councils and the European Company are chosen by the works council, or central works council, if there is one. Only the appointment of board members to a European Company is different – they are chosen by the SE representative body.

European Works Councils

Hungarian members of the special negotiating body (SNB) for the EWC are appointed by the works council, or by the central works council, if there is one (jointly by all the central works councils if there is more than one). If there is no works council the workforce elects an employee representative.

The situation is the same for Hungarian members of the fallback EWC set up under the annex to the directive.

European Company

Hungarian members of the special negotiating body (SNB) for the European Company are appointed by the works council, or by the central works council, if there is one (jointly by all the central works councils if there is more than one). If there is no works council the workforce elects an employee representative. Trade unionists who are not employees of the companies concerned – that is full time officials – may be members of the SNB.

The situation is the same for members of the SE representative body set up under the annex to the directive, except that membership is limited to employees of the SE.

Employee representatives at board level in a European Company, under the terms of the annex to the directive, are chosen by the SE representative body and must also be employees of the SE.

Further information on the national SE legislation can be found here.

Elected health and safety representatives are the main way that the interests of employees are represented in the area of health and safety in Hungary. However, in larger employers there is also a joint health and safety committee, made up of representatives of both sides.

Basic approach at workplace level

The employer has a duty to ensure the existence of healthy and safe working conditions. However, employee health and safety representatives should cooperate with the employer in order to achieve this.

Employee health and safety bodies

The main structures representing employees in the area of health and safety are health and safety representatives (munkavédelmi képviselő), who can come together in their own employee-only health and safety committee (munkahelyi munkavédelmi bizottság), and, in larger employers, the joint health and safety committee (paritásos munkavédelmi testület) made up of representatives of both employees and the employer.

Numbers and structure

There is an obligation to have health and safety representatives in all organisations with 20 or more employees. (The threshold was reduced from 50 to 20 in July 2016 and had to be implemented in companies previously without health and safety representatives by April 2017. The change followed a sharp increase in the number of accidents at work.) In smaller organisations health and safety representatives must be elected if the local union organisation, the works council or a majority of employees want this. If there are no health and safety representatives, the employer should inform and consult the employees directly on health and safety issues.

Where there are three or more health and safety representatives, they can set up an employee-only health and safety committee, which the employer must attend if requested. This committee has the same rights as the health and safety representatives and is different from the joint health and safety committee – see below.

In organisations with 200 or more employees and where there are health and safety representatives, the employer should set up a joint health and safety committee with an equal number of representatives of the employer and the employees. The legislation states that the committee chair should alternate between a representative of the employees and the employers, but it leaves other matters, such as the number of the members, the rules of procedure and the precise activities of the committee, to be agreed between the employer and the employees’ representatives. Health and safety specialists employed by the company should also participate regularly in this joint committee.

Research by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in 2014, before the change in the law, found that 45% of workplaces in Hungary had health and safety representatives, somewhat below the EU-28 average of 58%. However, the proportion of workplaces in Hungary with a health and safety committee, at just 3%, is far below the EU-28 of 21%. This is not surprising given the relatively high threshold in Hungary before a health and safety committee must be established. (The figures are for workplaces with five or more employees.)[1]

Tasks and rights

The health and safety representatives or members of the employee-only health and safety committee have the right to monitor compliance with the appropriate health and safety obligations, and in particular to monitor:

• whether workplaces, work equipment and personal protective equipment are in safe condition;
• whether measures to safeguard health and prevent accidents have been carried out;
• whether employees have been trained and prepared to enable them to work safely.

In particular health and safety representatives or members of the employee-only health and safety committee may:

• enter the workplaces they cover during working hours and obtain information from employees working there;
• participate in the preparation of decisions by the employer that might have repercussions on employees' health and safety;
• request information from the employer concerning any issues related to healthy and safe working conditions;
• express opinions and make proposals to the employer;
• participate in accident investigations of occupational accidents and, where appropriate, in the investigation of the causes of occupational diseases;
• refer justified cases to the health and safety inspectorate.

They can also discuss health and safety issues with the labour inspectorate and, subject to the employer’s agreement, ask for experts for advice.

The employer must respond to any request for information or proposal for action within eight days. If the employer decides not to provide the information or agree to the proposal, this refusal must be explained in writing.

The health and safety representatives can also propose that the employer draws up a health and safety programme. If the employer refuses to do this and is of a certain size (this varies according to the nature of the hazards in the company), the health and safety representatives can initiate a collective labour dispute, which involves the intervention of a mediator.

Internal health and safety rules can only be issued with the agreement of the health and safety representatives or the employee-only health and safety committee.

The joint health and safety committee should:

• assess the health and safety situation in the company and measures that could be taken to improve it at least once a year;
• discuss the company’s health and safety programme and monitor its implementation; and
• comment on any internal health and safety regulations.

The joint health and safety committee should not affect the operation of the health and safety representatives.

Frequency of meetings

The legislation does not lay down rules on the frequency of meetings other than stating that the joint health and safety committee should review the health and safety situation at least annually.

Election and term of office

Where there are 20 or more employees an election by secret ballot must be organised to choose one or more health and safety representatives. In organisations with fewer than 20 employees an election to choose a safety representative must be organised if this is requested by the local union or by the works council or by the majority of the employees. The employer is responsible for organising the election, as well as providing the appropriate conditions for it to take place.Candidates must have at least six months’ service, although this does not apply in newly established companies.

The term of office is five years.

Members of the joint heath and safety committee (both full members and substitutes) are chosen by secret ballot of the health and safety representatives from among themselves. They also serve for five years.

Resources, time off and training

Health and safety representatives and committee members are entitled to sufficient paid time off to undertake their duties. Members of the joint health and safety committee are entitled to paid time off equivalent to a least 10% of their monthly working hours.

Health and safety representatives are also entitled to 16 hours of training in the first year following their election and eight hours annually in subsequent years. This training is paid for by the employer and should be conducted during normal working time.

Protection against dismissal

Health and safety representatives should not be disadvantaged because of the exercise of their duties and have the same protection against dismissal as local union representatives or members of the works council. This means that they can only be dismissed if the health and safety committee agrees or, if there is no committee, with the agreement of the employees who elected them.

Other elements of workplace health and safety

All employers must have access to the services of a health and safety expert, either by employing someone directly or by making use of an external health and safety organisation. However, in all organisations employing fewer than 10 people and in organisations employing 10 or more but fewer than 50 and operating in industries with a lower level of risk, the employer can take on this role, provided that he or she has the appropriate knowledge, skill and experience. In larger organisations, the level of qualifications of the health and safety expert, the number of such experts and the time they should spend on health and safety issues all depend on the number of employees and the level of hazards that can been expected.

The employer must also provide employees with access to an occupational health service, which can only be provided by qualified medical staff. As with the health and safety expert, this can be provided either internally or externally, and the skill and number of staff required vary in line with the number employed and the nature of the risk.

National context

The ministry responsible for health and safety at work is the Ministry for National Economy (Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium - NGM). Monitoring compliance with health and safety laws and regulations is the responsibility of the Department of the Labour Inspection in the same ministry (Munkafelügyeleti Főosztály - NGM-MFF)

Trade unions and employers are able to influence health and safety policy through their membership of the Labour Health and Safety Committee (Munkavédelmi Bizottság).[2]

Hungary has made changes to its main health and safety legislation to take greater account of psychosocial risks. In January 2008 to the Act on Occupational Safety and Health was altered to impose a new duty on the employer to take account of psychosocial risks (§ 54(1d))as well as defining them (§ 87(1h)).

Key legislation

Act No. 93 of 1993 on Occupational Safety and Health, as amended

1993. évi XCIII. Törvény a munkavédelemről a végrehajtásáról szóló 5/1993. (XII. 26.) MüM rendelettel egységes szerkezetben

[1] Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2016

[2] For more information on the national context see OSH system at national level – Hungary by Péter Nesztinger, and Gyula Szabó , OSH Wiki https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/OSH_system_at_national_level_-_Hungary

Hungary has a low level of union density – under 8%. Trade unionism is also fragmented, with five main confederations, MASZSZ, SZEF, ÉSZT, LIGA and MOSZ, which compete with one another in some areas.1

Close

Union density and structure

Union membership and density in Hungary is low. The OECD estimates only 7.4% of employees were union members in 2020.2 This is based on the results of a supplementary element of the 2020 Hungarian labour force survey that indicated that 275,600 employees were in trade unions at that point, equivalent to 7.4% of all employees.3

The unions themselves report having significantly more than this – above 400,000, and one reason is that the confederations, especially those which emerged from the union confederation SZOT, which was in existence before 1989 (see below), have a significant proportion of members who are pensioners.

A Eurofound report on the representativeness of union confederations, published in 2023 and based on data collected in 2021 and 2022, estimated that the total membership of Hungary’s main confederations, was around 437,000 (see Table 1). However, if only active membership is counted, this is much closer to, although still above, the figure from the 2020 labour force survey.

Table 1: Membership of main confederations

Confederation	Total members	Active members
MASZSZ	150,000	104,000
LIGA	100,200	100,200
SZEF	51,925	40,967
ÉSZT	54,800	38,360
MOSZ (Munkástanácsok)	50,000	n.a.
7SZ (Hetedik Szövetség)	30,000	28,000
Total	436,925	Around 330,000
Source: Representativeness of the social partners in European cross-industry social dialogue, Eurofound, November 2023 https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/representativeness-social-partners-european-cross-industry-social-dialogue-1755209388173

As well as having a low level of membership, Hungarian trade unions are also fragmented, with six separate confederations, although one of these, known, confusingly, as the seventh confederation (7SZ), is perhaps better seen as a health and social care union rather than a confederation.

The confederations have different histories. Three, MASZSZ, SZEF and ÉSZT, can trace their roots back to the unified trade union confederation SZOT, which existed before 1989, although in all cases the unions are now substantially different.

However, two, LIGA and MOSZ, grew out of a combination of anti-communist activists and local protest movements.

The history of MASZSZ, the largest confederation, it is slightly different as it was created as the result of a merger in 2015 between two existing confederations, MSZOSZ and ASZSZ, which had emerged from SZOT. At the time, it was hoped that SZEF, another union that emerged from SZOT, would also join the merger, but this failed to go through.4

As well as political differences, the confederations also organise in separate parts of the economy. MASZSZ represents workers in manufacturing, transport, energy and private services, while SZEF and ÉSZT cover public service employees, both those with special status as civil servants and normal employees. The difference between these two confederations is that ÉSZT organises employees in higher education and research institutes only, while SZEF organises public service employees in health, social services, other parts of education and local and central government.

LIGA and MOSZ represent workers across the economy in both the public and private sectors, and are in competition for members, both with one another and with the other unions.

The other confederation, known at the Seventh Confederation, because at the time (before the merger of MSZOSZ and ASZSZ) there were six others, was created in 2011.5 It brought together the main union covering workers in health and social care, MSZ EDDSZ, with a union based in a single local hospital, MDESZSZ. At the time, the leader of the dominant union, MSZ EDDSZ, argued that it was taking this step because her union was not adequately represented in the existing confederations.6 MSZ EDDSZ, had previously been a member of the SZEF confederation before joining LIGA, which it left when it set up the Seventh Confederation. Setting up a new confederation meant that the Seventh Confederation joined the others on the board of one of Hungary two joint union-employer consultation bodies, the NGTT (see Joint employer union body at national level).

Other than setting up a new confederation, the experience of the health and social care union, in moving from one confederation to another, is not that unusual in Hungary (see Individual unions). It reflects the relative weakness of the confederations in organisational and financial terms, as compared with individual unions, as the 2023 study by Meszmann and Szabó pointed out.7

There are also several independent unions outside the confederations (see Individual unions).

Close

Individual unions

The main confederations all have unions affiliated to them, although the structures vary, particularly between MASZSZ, SZEF and ÉSZT, on the one hand and LIGA and MOSZ on the other.

MASZSZ has 26 affiliated unions, grouped in eight industry and service sectors.8 They include the metalworkers’ union, VASAS, which states it has more than 15,000 members and is present in more than 120 companies,9 the mining and energy workers’ union, BDSZ, which also has members in the clothing and textile industries, the chemical workers’ union, VDSZ, which states it has almost 20,000 members,10 the railway workers’ union, VSZ, and the retail workers union KASZ, which was reported in 2025 to have around 7,600 members in 40 workplace organisations.11

SZEF has 13 affiliated unions, 12 including one of the teachers’ unions, PSZ, with a stated membership of between 13,000 and 14,000,13 and the nursery workers’ union, BDDSZ, which states it represents almost 11,000 daycare workers.14

ÉSZT has nine affiliates across the public sector.15 Its largest affiliate is FDSZ, which organises employees in higher education, including teachers, researchers and administrative staff, and states it has 5,000 members.16

LIGA lists 64 affiliated member organisations on its website.17 Some cover whole industries and services, like the metalworking federation, LVFSZ, or the electricity supply union EVDSZ, which states it has nearly 8,000 members,18 but others are more occupationally based, like the engineers and technicians’ union, MTSZSZ, which states it has more than 12,000 members.19 There are also regionally based unions, and many that just cover the workers in a single company, like the union for Kühne workers, making agricultural machinery, and the union for workers at the maintenance and heating company Széphő.

Some of these regional and company unions are affiliated to LIGA’s industry federations. LVFSZ has 12 affiliates in metalworking, including the Kühne Factory Workers' Independent Trade Union and the Rába Foundry Factory Workers’ Union, as well as three regional LIGA union organisations.20

MOSZ states that it has 60 member organisations in the private sector, with the greatest presence in manufacturing, transport, the food industry, trade, postal services, logistics, road freight transport, water utilities, and the media.21 Its affiliated unions in the public sector are particularly strong in armed law enforcement, tax and customs administration, healthcare, and education.

Over time there has been significant movement of individual union between confederations. Examples include:

• the postal workers’ union, PSZ, which switched to LIGA because it was unhappy with the merger between MSZOSZ and ASZSZ, completed in in 2015;22

• the engineers and technicians’ union, MTSZSZ, which was in ÉSZT, before it joined LIGA;

• a police union FRSZ, that left LIGA for MOSZ in 2018; and 23

• the teachers’ union PDSZ, which left LIGA, of which it had been a founder member, in 2018.24

There are also unions outside the main confederations.

One of the most significant non-affiliated unions is the railway workers VDSZSZ. Previously a key member of the LIGA confederation, it left LIGA after an acrimonious dispute in 2015.25

Another breakaway from an existing structure, although at a different time and under different circumstances, is AHFSZ, which represents workers at Audi’s car operations in Hungary. AHFSZ states it had almost 10,000 members in 2020.26 It broke away from the VASAS metalworking federations, now part of MASZSZ, in 1996, and claims to be the largest company-based union in Hungary, representing 70% of Audi’s workforce, with more than 200 local union representatives and eight full-time officials.

ÉTMOS, which presents itself as being more aligned with the needs of today’s employees than existing unions, is another independent union. It states that it has seven basic organisations. 27

Close

Legal framework

Trade union rights are guaranteed under the Hungarian constitution, which states in Article VIII, 5 that, “Trade unions and other interest representation organisations may be formed and may operate freely on the basis of the right to association”.28

There is no single piece of legislation setting out the rights and duties of trade unions.

In terms of their internal organisation, the law treats them as a special form of association, under the Civil Code. They must register with the courts, and the initial registration must include elements like their name, rules, minutes of the founding meeting and details of the management body.29 They are also required to conduct elections for their senior officials.

The rights of trade unions at the workplace, such as to conduct collective bargaining and to have protection against victimisation, are set out in the Labour Code, largely in Sections 270 to 274 (see Collective bargaining and Workplace representation).

There is specific legislation on the right to strike (see Industrial action).

Close

Political position

In formal terms, the confederations emphasise their political neutrality. The merger document of MASZSZ states that it “does not carry out direct political activities, is independent of parties and does not provide financial support to them”.30 LIGA lists “independence from political parties” as one of its principal values in its statutes.31 SZEF’s statutes describe “independence from parties” as one of its “core values”.32 ÉSZT states in its statutes that it is a “non-party organisation and does not engage in or support party political activities”.33 MOSZ’s statutes make clear that it “operates independently of employers and political parties”.34

Despite this, there have been clear political differences between confederations since the early 1990s. The main divide has been between the reformed union confederations, MASZSZ (previously MSZOSZ and ASZSZ), SZEF and ÉSZT, that emerged from the confederation, SZOT, that existed until 1989, and LIGA and MOST which grew from anti-communist protest groups.

For much of the period since 2010, these divisions were played out in the relations between the confederations and the FIDESZ governments led by Viktor Orbán, with the confederations divided in their responses to government proposals.

For example, in 2011 discussions over a revised Labour Code that weakened the position of unions, were initially only conducted with LIGA and MOSZ. Although the largest of the reformed confederations, MSZOSZ (now part of MASZSZ) later joined LIGA and MOSZ in signing an agreement on a revised version, the reformed confederations continued to believe that the government gave preference to LIGA.35

In 2018 and 2019 there were differences between the confederations on three separate issues:

• legislation changing the taxation of some non-wage benefits (the so-called cafeteria law), where a joint position had been agreed, but the leadership of MOSZ and LIGA then held separate meetings with the government;

• an agreement increasing the national minimum wage, which was signed at the end of 2018 by MOSZ and LIGA but not by MASZSZ; and

• new legislation on overtime, dubbed the “Slave Act”, which led to a series of major demonstrations, which were backed by MASZSZ, SZEF and ÉSZT and some individual unions, but not supported by MOSZ.36

More recently, the confederations have been acting together:

• in August 2023, all five confederations opposed a government plan under which public sector employers would no longer be required to collect union subscriptions from employees’ wages;37

• in May 2024, the five confederations expressed their joint concern over changes to the employer’s health and safety responsibilities;38 and

• following the election in 2026, the five confederations were able to present joint demands to the new government.39

Close

Membership trends

Union membership declined sharply over the 1990s, and the decline has not ended. The labour force survey figures show a continuing fall in overall union density since the start of the millennium dropping from 19.7% in 2001 to 16.9% in 2004, 12.0% in 2009, 9.0% in 2015 and 7.4% in 2020. 40

It is difficult to know whether this decline has been felt equally by all the confederations, as they do not publish the figures needed to assess this.

Close

Women

The figure for union density for women and women is the same, 7.4%. In 2015, density among women, at 9.3%, was slightly higher than among men, at 8.8%.41

Close

Collective bargaining covers around a fifth of all employees and takes place primarily at company/organisation level, despite considerable efforts by both unions and past governments to encourage industry level bargaining. The tripartite body where the minimum wage is discussed continues to be important to the unions, and it has recently been given a more formal status. 42

Close

Collective bargaining coverage and structure

There are two sources of statistics on the coverage of collective bargaining: those from the Labour Force Survey; and those from the register of collective agreements collected by the Ministry of National Economy (Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium). Both sources present problems in terms of their accuracy.

The most recent Labour Force Survey figures, taken from the supplementary survey in 2020, show that 691,300 employees aged 15 to 64, 18.5%, stated that there was a collective agreement at their workplace.43 However, this figure is unlikely to be precise, as a larger percentage, 23.8% of those responding, did not know whether there was a collective agreement at their workplace or not.

The Ministry of National Economy figures can be downloaded from their website and provide some information. They show, for example, that at the end of December 2025 326,582 employees in the private sector were covered by 564 collective agreements signed at the level of individual companies, and that 108,058 private sector employees were covered by multi-employer employer.44 The same source shows that in the public sector (known as the budgetary sector) at the end of 2025 there were 234 single-organisation collective agreements, covering 51,147 employees, and three multi-employer agreements, covering 320 employees.

However, the fact that the information is not regularly updated and sometimes not processed (for example, the comparable figures for 2023 show 837 single company agreements but have no information on the number of employees covered) means that this not a reliable source of data on collective bargaining coverage.

In its estimate of collective bargaining coverage, the OECD uses an adjusted version of the Ministry of National Economy figures for 2022, published by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. 45 Based on these figures the OECD estimates coverage at 20.4% in 2022.46

Although the extent of coverage of collective agreements is uncertain, there is no doubt about the relative importance of industry and company/organisation level bargaining. The Ministry of National Economy also provides access on its website to a register of collective agreements, broken down by type.47 Although the problems with updating this database mean that many of these agreements may relate to organisations that no longer exist, it shows that by mid-August 2026, the vast majority of the 5,253 agreements recorded on the register were signed by a single organisation.

They either covered a single company – 2,296 agreements – in the private sector, or a single budgetary institution, like a school or a museum – 2,783 agreements in the public sector.

In the private sector, there were only 139 multi-employer agreements, 115 signed by groups of companies but 24 signed by employers’ associations. However, it is not clear how many of the agreements signed by employers’ associations are still in force.

In the state sector, there were only 10 multi-employer agreements. This includes one for public hospitals, signed in December 2017. However, this no longer applies, as in 2021 legislation came into effect which effectively abolished collective bargaining in the health service.48

The central role of single employer agreements comes despite efforts by past governments to strengthen industry-level bargaining, including the creation in 2004 of official sectoral social dialogue committees, known as ÁPBs. These are made up of employers’ associations and unions, and the government does not participate, although it provides funding. A report from the Hungarian National Assembly in December 2024 noted that there were 21 in 2019.49 However, the FIDESZ-led governments were not supportive of this structure and significantly reduced funding to the committees leading to their virtual collapse in the late 2010s.50

The prevailing attitude of employers, as set out in the report from the National Assembly, is a reluctance to join employers’ organisations or to authorise them to conclude industry agreements.

Close

Variations in collective bargaining coverage

The general lack of reliable information on collective bargaining coverage makes it difficult to estimate how coverage varies between industries. The 2020 Labour Force Survey figures only provide a breakdown between agriculture (3.3%), industry (19.6%) and services (18.8%).51 Overall coverage in 2020 was estimated at 18.5%.

The 2015 Labour Force Survey figures provided a more detailed breakdown, and they indicated that the highest level of coverage was in electricity and gas supply (45.0%), education (38.9%) and transportation and storage (36.7%).52 Overall coverage in 2015 was estimated at 20.6%.

Close

Extending agreements

The government can extend collective agreements to all employees in an industry in certain circumstances. The request must be made by both parties, and the employers must be able to show that they employ a majority of employees in the industry concerned, while the unions must be representative in that industry – have at least 10% of the employees as members.

However, this power has not been widely used and currently only two agreements, covering the electricity industry and hospitality and tourism, are extended in this way.53 The agreement for the electricity has been regularly updated. In August 2026, the most recent agreement was signed in 2025. In contrast, the extended agreement for hospitality and tourism was signed in 2001.

Two other industries, construction and bakeries were covered by an extension in the past, but the extension of the bakery industry agreement was ended in 2013, after the agreement itself was terminated by the parties, and the same thing happened to the construction industry agreement in 2023.

Close

Allowing local variations

The very limited extent of industry-level collective bargaining means that the issue of individual companies wishing to opt-out of higher-level agreements to set worse terms for employees has little relevance in Hungary.

Unusually, under the Labour Code collective agreements can set worse terms that those provided for in legislation in certain areas, with each Chapter of the Labour Code – covering termination, working time pay and so on – setting out the areas where deviation from the Labour Code is not possible.54

Close

Who negotiates?

Negotiations at both company and industry level are in most cases between employers or employers’ associations and the unions.

However, under Section 276 of the Labour Code, unions can only conclude collective agreements if their membership exceeds 10% of those employed. This 10% rule applies to both company and industry-level agreements. Where there are several unions with at least 10% membership, they must cooperate to reach a single agreement.

The membership threshold was introduced in the 2012 Labour Code. Before that, the right to negotiated depended on having at least 10% support in works council elections.

Although most agreements are negotiated with unions, under Section 268 of the 2012 Labour Code, works councils can negotiate works agreements covering a range of issues with the employer where there is no union at the workplace and it is not covered by a collective agreement. The one important exception is that these agreements cannot cover pay.55

Close

Industrial action

The right to strike is guaranteed under the Hungarian Constitution, which states in Article XVII (2) that “employees, employers and their organisations shall have the right, as provided for by an Act, to negotiate with each other and conclude collective agreements, and to take collective action to defend their interests, including the right of workers to discontinue work.”56

The act regulating the right to strike was passed in in 1989.57 Under it, strikes can be called by both workers and trade unions, although only unions can call a solidarity or sympathy strike. Under the terms of the act, workers may only strike “in order to secure their economic and social interests”, which potentially makes political strikes with a broader socio-economic dimension legal.58

There is no legal obligation to ballot members before a strike or provide a specific period of notice before the strike starts. However, a strike, other than a two-hour warning strike, can only begin after the end of the seven-day conciliation period.

The main limitation on strike action is that the obligation to provide minimum services across a range of services provided to the public. The level of minimum services must be agreed with the employer, or, if agreement is not reached, set by the court. The areas covered by the obligation to provide a minimum level of services were extended 2010 to include public transport and telecommunications, as well as in bodies providing electricity, water, gas and other energy services. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, the government further limited the right to strike in healthcare services, air traffic control and education.59

The consequence of these increasing limitations on the right to strike has been a fall in the level of industrial action. In 2022, the Hungarian Central Statistical Office recorded four strikes involving 38,959 workers. In 2025, there were also four, but only 373 workers took part.60

Close

Length and timing of agreements

Collective agreements setting a range of issues normally last for two years, although they are sometimes for an unlimited period. However, agreements on pay increases at company level, where these exist, are usually annual. They tend to be negotiated towards the end of the year.

Subjects covered in agreements

Collective agreements typically cover pay, working conditions and procedural issues. However, a significant proportion of company collective agreements in Hungary do not deal with pay, which may be dealt with through less formal deals, and is also heavily influenced by increases in the national minimum wage (see Minimum wage). Many agreements simply reproduce the terms of the Labour Code.

One indication of the limited impact of collective agreements is provided by the Labour Force Survey. This shows that collective agreements affect pay in for around half of employees covered by collective bargaining (49.6%), and working conditions for a similar proportion (48.6%).61

The 2012 Labour Code introduced significant restrictions on what can be negotiated in companies owned by the state and local government bodies. In many areas, including working time, severance pay and notice periods, it is impossible for a collective agreement for these public bodies to include terms which improve on the minimum set by law. This limitation also applies to trade union representatives’ rights to time-off and protection against dismissal (see section on Workplace representation).

Close

Minimum wage

The arrangement for setting Hungary’s national minimum wage changed in 2024 as a result of new legislation (Government Decree 308/2024 (X. 24.62), aimed at bringing Hungary’s procedures in line with the EU minimum wage directive (2022/2041).63 The decree formalised the tripartite VFK as the body in which negotiations on the level of the minimum wage take place. The VFK is the private-sector tripartite body, which only includes representatives of the private sector unions, employers and the government (see Joint employer union body at national level).

It there is an agreement on the rate, as has normally been the case in recent years, this is then implemented by the government. If there is no agreement, the government takes the decision.64

The minimum wage arrangements in Hungary are unusual because they set both a basis and a higher minimum rate. The higher minimum rate, known as the guaranteed minimum, must be paid to all employees in jobs requiring at least completed secondary education.

In November 2024, unions and employers reached a three-year deal on increasing the minimum wage. This provides for a 9% increase in 2025, a 13% increase in 2026 and a 14% increase in 2027. It is expected that this will move the minimum wage towards the target set out in the 2024 decree that it should reach 50% of average gross earnings.

Close

Trends in collective bargaining

The lack of reliable statistics makes it difficult to be precise about trends in collective bargaining coverage, but it seems clear that coverage is falling.

The OECD estimates, which are based on the administrative data collected by Ministry of National Economy, show coverage declining from 27.3% in 2015, to 20.4% in 2022, after hovering between 24% and 26% between 2009 and 2014.65

The Labour Force Survey figures also show a drop, down from 20.6% in 2015 to 18.5% in 2020.66

These falls are not surprising, given the decline in trade union density, from 12.0% in 2009 to 7.4% in 2020 (see Membership trends) and government measures, which have limited unions’ rights at the workplace (see Workplace representation) and their ability to organise effective industrial action (see Industrial action).

It is possible that this situation may change in the future. One reason is the change of government in 2026, with the new government, led by Péter Magyar, apparently more willing to consider union demands.67 The other is the requirement under the EU’s minimum wage directive (2022/2041), for the government to draw up an action plan, if collective bargaining coverage is below 80%. With coverage in Hungary far below this level, in August 2026, the five main union confederations presented a series of proposals to the government on how this could be done.68

Close

Joint employer union body at national level

Hungary has two main joint employer union bodies at national level. These are:

• the NGTT (National Economic and Social Council) for the whole economy, which has wider representation than just employers and unions; and

• the VFK (Permanent Consultation Forum), which discusses employment issues in the private sector, and consists of representatives of private sector employers and unions and the government.

There is also the National Public Service Interest Conciliation Council (OKÉT) for the public sector, which brings together public sector unions and employers in both central and local government.

The NGTT was set up in 2011 and has 32 members.69 Six of these are from the unions – one each from the five main union confederations, MASZSZ, LIGA, SZEF, ÉSZT and MOSZ, plus one from a sixth, 7SZ which effectively only operates in health and social care (see Trade unions). There are 14 representatives of employers, including from agriculture, but also six representing religious groups, eight representing science, four representing the arts and five representing civil society. The NGTT has no negotiating role.

The NGTT replaced a previous tripartite body, the OÉT (National Interest Reconciliation Council), which was much more significant. Unions, employers and government met in the OÉT to agree the national minimum wage rates for the coming year and the OÉT also had an important role in making recommendations on the proposed level of pay increases to lower-level negotiators, although these recommendations were not binding. The decision to abolish the OÉT was made by the FIDESZ-led government against the opposition of the unions, who felt that their views were lost in the new body with its wider membership.

Direct tripartite discussions were to some degree restored with the establishment in 2012 of the VFK. All three union confederations with membership in the private sector, MASZSZ, LIGA and MOSZ, are members. Its role is more limited than the former OÉT, but it provided a forum in which negotiations on the minimum wage could take place, and in 2024 this role was formalised (see Minimum wage).

The main trade union concern has been that their views are not considered and that various joint bodies do not function properly. This also extends to the public sector body, OKÉT, which did not meet for two years.70

Following the change of government in 2026, the main union confederations indicated that the attitude of government representatives had changed at the meeting of VFK in August 2026.71

Close

Workplace representation in Hungary is provided by both local trade unions and elected works councils with the balance between the two varying over time. The union at the workplace has the right to negotiate collective agreements but can only express opinions on the company’s plans. Works councils have information and consultation rights but in practice often find it difficult to influence company decisions.

The basic structure

Employee representation at the workplace is provided both through local unions and through works councils, although two-thirds of Hungarian employees have no workplace representation at all.

Works councils, drawing heavily on the experience in Germany, were first introduced in 1992. However, they had fewer powers than in Germany – joint decision making (codetermination) was limited to the use of company social funds. In addition, to take account of the existing Hungarian situation, local workplace unions were initially left with some rights in the area of information and consultation. The powers of both local unions and works councils have fluctuated with the changing political complexion of governments since 1998, more left-leaning governments favouring the unions and right-wing governments giving greater rights to works councils. The revised Labour Code, introduced by the FIDESZ-led government under Viktor Orbán in 2012, removed rights from the unions, although in some areas the position of the works councils was also weakened.72

Close

The extent of workplace representation

Figures from Eurofound’s European Working Conditions Survey 2024 show that just one third (33%) of employees in Hungary have any sort of employee representation, either unions or works councils, at their workplace.73 This is considerably below the EU27 average of 53%.

There are similar results from Eurofound’s company survey carried out in 2019. This found that only 11.9% of workplaces in Hungary had employee representation, also well below the EU27 average which was 28.5%.74 (The survey is based on workplaces with 10 more employees.)

As in other countries, Eurofound’s company survey found that larger workplaces were much more likely to have employee representation. In Hungary, 59.4% of workplaces with 250 or more employees had employee representatives, although this was still below the EU27 average of 75.5% for workplaces of this size.

Looking at the type of representation, figures from the national periodic supplementary additions to the Labour Force Survey show that in 2020 a union presence at work was more widespread than the existence of a works council. Just under one in four respondents (23.6%) said there was a trade union at their workplace, compared with one in six (16.4%) who said there was a works council or works representative. However, in both cases there was considerable uncertainty among respondents. One in ten (10.9%) said they didn’t know if there was a union, and an even larger percentage, 18.6%, said they did not know if there was a works council or works representative.75

These figures are similar to those reported five years earlier in 2015, when 25.1% said that there was a union at their workplace, and 17.9% reported a works council or a works representative. 76

In many cases it is likely that a workplace will have both types of representation. A survey published in 2004 found that representation through works councils went hand in hand with a union presence. Only 9% of works councils were at workplaces without a union and 70% of works councils were either entirely made up of trade unionists or overwhelmingly made up of them.77

Close

The role of unions

As the statistics above show, workplace representation is more likely to be through a union than through a works council, and, where there is a works council, there is likely to be union involvement.

The local trade union branch also has the right to nominate candidates to the works council (see Election and term of office).

Numbers and composition

The structure of the workplace trade union body depends on the internal rules of the union. However, the number of union representatives protected against dismissal is laid down in the Labour Code (see Protection against dismissal).

Works councils, which are entirely employee bodies, can be set up in any company or any part of a company operating independently with more than 50 employees, with the details set out in Sections 236 to 249 of the Labour Code). It is for the employees to take the initiative in setting it up.

In companies or workplaces with between 15 and 50 employees a single works representative is to be elected. Numbers are calculated using the average over the previous six months on a headcount basis, with both full-time and part-time employees counting equally. Agency workers are not included in the total.

The number of works council members increases with the size of the workforce as set out in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of works council members

Number employed	Number of members
15 - 50	1 (works representative)
51-100	3
101-300	5
301-500	7
501-1,000	9
1,001-2,000	11
2,000+	13

The operation of the local union and works council

The operation of the local union depends on the rules of the union concerned.

The legislation does not say how often works councils should meet and most meet relatively infrequently. However, Section 262 of the Labour Code says that the employer must provide the works council with information on a range of issues at least twice a year, which means that there should be at least two meetings a year. Section 259 of Labour Code requires that the works council should elect a chair at its inaugural meeting.

Election and term of office

The choice and term of office of workplace union representatives is an internal issue for the union.

The arrangements for the works council elections, on the other hand, are meticulously regulated by the law (Sections 240 to 249 of the Labour Code). Members must be nominated by either 10% of the employees or at least 50 employees, or by the local union organisation at the company. Members are elected in a secret ballot run by an election committee organised by the employees. All employees at the workplace have a right to vote, but only those with six months’ service are entitled to stand as candidates. Employers and those with rights to appoint and dismiss employees may not stand as candidates.

The term of office is five years.

Tasks and rights

The workplace trade union representatives have a range of rights, set out in Section 272 of the Labour Code, although the 2012 revision of the code gave some of their previous rights to the works council. The union continues to have the sole right to negotiate collective agreements covering wages, although works councils have more limited negotiating rights in workplaces without trade unions (see Who negotiates?).

In the area of information and consultation, union representatives have a right to request information on “the economic and social interests of the employees related to the employment relationship” and express their views on these topics (Labour Code Section 272). However, because of the changes introduced by the 2012 Labour Code, the union workplace representatives no longer have to be consulted over major issues affecting employment. These rights now belong to the works council (see below)

The union has the right to represent its members, including before the courts, to protect their interests. However, the local union representative is no longer responsible for monitoring compliance with the provisions of employment regulations. Under the terms of the 2012 Labour Code, this responsibility has passed to the works council.

The powers and responsibilities of the works council are largely set out in Sections 262 to 266 of the Labour Code.

The employer must provide the works council with information about the following issues at least twice a year:

• fundamental issues affecting the employer’s economic position;

• developments in wage and salary payments, and the impact of these payments on the company’s cash position, the characteristics of the workforce, the use of working time and working conditions; and

• the number of teleworkers and agency workers and the tasks that they perform.

The works council can ask for documents relating to these issues and more generally about concerns relating to the economic and social interests of the employees.

The employer must also consult the works council in advance about plans for measures that will have an impact on a large number of employees, in particular:

• restructuring, outsourcing or privatisation;

• the introduction of new investment, including new technology;

• the processing and protection of personal data on employees;

• the implementation of employee surveillance;

• health and safety;

• new methods of work organisation and the setting of performance norms;

• training and education plans;

• job assistance subsidies;

• rehabilitation for disabled workers;

• working arrangements;

• pay principles;

• measures to protect the environment; and

• measures to support equal treatment and the coordination of work and family life.

However, while there is an obligation to consult on these issues and the Labour Code states that consultation should take place “with a view to reaching agreement”, there is no obligation to reach agreement. The provision that stated that action taken by the employer without consultation was invalid and could be taken to court was removed in the 2012 Labour Code. The revision also shortened the period between the start of consultation and the action being taken from 15 to seven days, although the timescale is different for redundancies and business transfers.

In the case of redundancies, the employer is obliged to give notice of the plans at least seven days before starting negotiations and not to take a decision for at least 15 days after the negotiations have started. For business transfers the employer must provide information 15 days before a transfer.

In practice, works councils have only a limited opportunity to influence company decisions. Information is often provided only at the meeting, giving the works council little opportunity to respond.

The works council has a right to decide jointly with the employer on the use of any social funds. However, the right also to decide jointly on the utilisation of buildings or equipment for social purposes (holidays, canteens etc), was removed in the 2012 Labour Code.

The works council must inform employees about its activities at least twice a year.

Protection against dismissal

Workplace representation in Hungary is provided by both local trade unions and elected works councils, and members of both bodies benefit from protection against dismissal and transfer set out in the Hungarian Labour Code, which was fundamentally revised in 2012.

The chair of the works council can only be dismissed or transferred with the consent of the works council (Labour Code Section 260).

The same applies to elected trade union officials designated by the union as its workplace representatives (Labour Code Section 273). These designated union officials may only be dismissed or transferred if the higher-level trade union body gives its consent. The union must respond to an employer’s proposal to dismiss or transfer the union official within eight days, and it must give reasons for its objections. A failure to respond within this period will be taken as acceptance of the dismissal or transfer.

The union can designate an alternative union official if the employee originally designated is either no longer employed or nor longer holds a trade union position.

The number of union officials protected in this way is set out in the Labour Code, Section 273, Subsections (3) and (4), and it varies with the size of the workforce (see table).

Table 2: Number of union officials protected

Number of employees	Number of union officials protected
Fewer than 500	2
500 to 1,000	3
1,001 to 2,000	4
2,001 to 4,000	5
More than 4,000	6

The calculation on the number of employees is made on the first day of the year based on the arithmetical average over the previous 12 months.

It is possible to negotiate improvements in this area (other than in state and local government owned companies – where the limits apply absolutely), but in most cases unions are unlikely to be strong enough to do so.

Protection applies during the period the individuals hold office (both for the works council chair and union officials) and for six months after that, provided the individuals concerned have held office for at least 12 months.

The 2012 Labour Code reduced the number of workplace representatives benefiting from protection. Before 2012 all works council members, not just the chair, and all union officials, not just a set number were protected against dismissal and transfer.

Time off and other resources

Under the 2012 Labour Code (Section 274) the designated union representatives at the workplace are entitled to one hour per month release from normal duties for every two members. (This is a reduction of a quarter, compared with the situation previously, when it was two hours a month for every three members). In the past, the union could be compensated in cash if these hours were not taken up, although only up to a maximum of half of the available time, and this was a significant source of union income. Under the 2012 Labour Code, this possibility was abolished.

The union should also be given access to rooms on the premises for trade union activities.

Works council members are to be released from their normal duties for 10% of their monthly working time, with 15% for the chair of the works council. (Chairs in companies employing more than 1,000 are completely released from their normal duties.) The employer should also pay for the necessary costs of the works council on a jointly agreed basis.

Training rights

The Labour Code does not provide any specific training rights for either local trade union representatives or works council members.

Group representation

A central works council at the headquarters of a company can be set up if there are several works councils covering the same employer (Labour Code Section 250). In the past, this only applied if the different works councils were in the same legally registered company. However, under the 2012 Labour Code a corporate level works council can be set up in a group of companies (Section 251). The members are designated by the works councils (central works council), or by the central works councils and/or works councils (corporate level works council). However, these higher-level bodies cannot have more than 15 members.

The Labour Code states that the provisions on works councils apply to both central and corporate level works councils. However, it is not clear how this should operate in practice.

Links between local union representatives in the same group depend on the union.

Employee representatives make up one-third of the members of the supervisory board in companies with more than 200 employees. In similar-sized companies with a single-tier governance structure, employee representation is negotiated with the works council.

The extent of board-level employee representation

Under the Hungarian Civil Code, employees have a right to representation on the supervisory board of companies with more than 200 employees (Section 3:124).78 The nomination is made by the works council (see Nomination and election of employee representatives), and the works council can also choose to waive the right to have employee representation, although only for a maximum of five years. Where employees have a right to representation, the supervisory board must have at least three members.

The supervisory board is responsible for the general direction of the company, while the day-to-day business is in the hands of the management board. (In practice, most supervisory boards only meet rarely.) Having a supervisory board is not obligatory in all circumstances, although it is required for companies with more than 200 full-time employees and for publicly quoted companies, unless they operate a so-called unified management structure, where the responsibilities of the supervisory and management boards are combined in a single-tier governance structure.

In these companies, with just a single board of directors, employee participation at board level must be regulated by an agreement between the works council and the company (Civil Code Section 3:288. This represents a potential weakening of employee representation at board level, as there are no minimum requirements.

There are no figures on the numbers of companies with employee representation on supervisory boards, but in 2024, there were 1,006 companies employing more than 250 people, a higher threshold that the 200-employee threshold legally required for board-level employee representation.79

Close

Nomination and election of employee representatives

Under the Civil Code, the works council chooses the employee representatives on the supervisory board, although it must “take into account” the opinions of unions operating in the company (Section 3: 125). In practice, this means that the individual or individuals nominated by the works council are appointed by the first general meeting of shareholders after the works council has made its nomination. The individuals chosen must be employees and they lose their position on the supervisory board if they leave the company.

The rights of employee representatives

Employee representatives have the same rights and obligations as other members of the supervisory board. However, under legislation passed in 2013 they lost their right to protection against dismissal. All supervisory board members are elected for a period of five years (Civil Code Section 3:121).

European representatives from Hungary for both European Works Councils and the European Company are chosen by the works council, or central works council, if there is one. Only the appointment of board members to a European Company is different – they are chosen by the SE representative body.

European Works Councils

Hungarian members of the special negotiating body (SNB) for the EWC are appointed by the works council, or by the central works council, if there is one (jointly by all the central works councils if there is more than one). If there is no works council, the workforce elects an employee representative (Act XXI of 2003 on the establishment of a European Works Council Sections 5 and 11).80

The situation is the same for Hungarian members of the fallback EWC set up under the annex to the directive (Act XXI of 2003 on the establishment of a European Works Council Sections 10 and 11).

Close

European Company

Hungarian members of the special negotiating body (SNB) for the European Company are appointed by the works council, or by the central works council, if there is one (jointly by all the central works councils if there is more than one). If there is no works council the workforce elects an employee representative. Trade unionists who are not employees of the companies concerned – that is, full-time officials – may be members of the SNB (Act XLV of 2004 about the European limited liability company Sections 21 and 22)81

The situation is the same for members of the SE representative body set up under the annex to the directive, except that membership is limited to employees of the SE (Act XLV of 2004 about the European limited liability company Section 35).

Employee representatives at board level in a European Company, under the terms of the annex to the directive, are chosen by the SE representative body and must also be employees of the SE. However, they may not be members of the representative body (Act XLV of 2004 about the European limited liability company Section 48).

Close

Elected health and safety representatives are the main way that the interests of employees are represented in the area of health and safety in Hungary. However, there is also a joint health and safety committee, made up of representatives of both sides.

Employee health and safety bodies

The main structures representing employees in the area of health and safety are health and safety representatives (munkavédelmi képviselő), who can come together in their own employee-only health and safety committee (munkahelyi munkavédelmi bizottság), and make up the employee side of joint health and safety committee (paritásos munkavédelmi testület) consisting of representatives of both employees and the employer.

Numbers and structure

There is an obligation to have health and safety representatives in all organisations with 20 or more employees. (The threshold was reduced from 50 to 20 in July 2016 and followed a sharp increase in the number of accidents at work.) In smaller organisations health and safety representatives must be elected if the local union organisation, the works council or a majority of employees want this. If there are no health and safety representatives, the employer should inform and consult the employees directly on health and safety issues.

Where there are three or more health and safety representatives, they can set up an employee-only health and safety committee, which the employer must attend if requested. This committee has the same rights as the health and safety representatives and is different from the joint health and safety committee – see below.

In organisations with 20 or more employees and where there are health and safety representatives, the employer should set up a joint health and safety committee with an equal number of representatives of the employer and the employees. The legislation states that the committee chair should alternate between a representative of the employees and the employers, but it leaves other matters, such as the number of the members, the rules of procedure and the precise activities of the committee, to be agreed between the employer and the employees’ representatives. Health and safety specialists employed by the company should also participate regularly in this joint committee.

Research by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in 2019 found that 48% of workplaces in Hungary had health and safety representatives. This somewhat below the EU27 average, which is 56%. The proportion of workplaces in Hungary with a health and safety committee, at 7% is well below the EU-27 average of 22%. (The figures are for workplaces with five or more employees.)82

Figures from a later survey, Eurofound’s European Working Conditions Survey 2024, which looked at employees rather than workplaces, show that that 47% of employees in Hungary report having an occupational health and safety delegate at their workplace. This percentage is below the EU average of 60%.83

Close

Tasks and rights

The health and safety representatives or members of the employee-only health and safety committee have the right to monitor compliance with the appropriate health and safety obligations, and in particular to monitor:

• whether workplaces, work equipment and personal protective equipment are in safe condition;

• whether measures to safeguard health and prevent accidents have been carried out;

• whether employees have been trained and prepared to enable them to work safely.

Health and safety representatives or members of the employee-only health and safety committee may:

• enter the workplaces they cover during working hours and obtain information from employees working there;

• participate in the preparation of decisions by the employer that might have repercussions on employees' health and safety;

• request information from the employer concerning any issues related to healthy and safe working conditions;

• express opinions and make proposals to the employer;

• participate in accident investigations of occupational accidents and, where appropriate, in the investigation of the causes of occupational diseases;

• refer justified cases to the health and safety inspectorate.

They can also discuss health and safety issues with the labour inspectorate and, subject to the employer’s agreement, ask for experts for advice.

The employer must respond to any request for information or proposal for action within eight days. If the employer decides not to provide the information or agree to the proposal, this refusal must be explained in writing.

The health and safety representatives can also propose that the employer draws up a health and safety programme. If the employer refuses to do this and is of a certain size (this varies according to the nature of the hazards in the company), the health and safety representatives can initiate a collective labour dispute, which involves the intervention of a mediator.

Internal health and safety rules can only be issued with the agreement of the health and safety representatives or the employee-only health and safety committee.

The joint health and safety committee should:

• assess the health and safety situation in the company and measures that could be taken to improve it at least once a year;

• discuss the company’s health and safety programme and monitor its implementation; and

• comment on any internal health and safety regulations.

The joint health and safety committee should not affect the operation of the health and safety representatives.

Frequency of meetings

The legislation does not lay down rules on the frequency of meetings other than stating that the joint health and safety committee should review the health and safety situation at least annually.

Election and term of office

Where there are 20 or more employees an election by secret ballot must be organised to choose one or more health and safety representatives. In organisations with fewer than 20 employees an election to choose a safety representative must be organised if this is requested by the local union or by the works council or by the majority of the employees. The employer is responsible for organising the election, as well as providing the appropriate conditions for it to take place. Candidates must have at least six months’ service, although this does not apply in newly established companies.

The term of office is five years.

Members of the joint health and safety committee (both full members and substitutes) are chosen by secret ballot of the health and safety representatives from among themselves. They also serve for five years.

Resources, time off and training

Health and safety representatives and committee members are entitled to sufficient paid time off to undertake their duties. Members of the joint health and safety committee are entitled to paid time off equivalent to a least 10% of their monthly working hours.

Health and safety representatives are also entitled to 16 hours of training in the first year following their election and eight hours annually in subsequent years. This training is paid for by the employer and should be conducted during normal working time.

Protection against dismissal

Health and safety representatives should not be disadvantaged because of the exercise of their duties and have the same protection against dismissal as local union representatives or members of the works council. This means that they can only be dismissed if the health and safety committee agrees or, if there is no committee, with the agreement of the employees who elected them.

Other elements of workplace health and safety

All employers must have access to the services of a health and safety expert, either by employing someone directly or by making use of an external health and safety organisation. However, in all organisations employing fewer than 10 people and in organisations employing 10 or more but fewer than 50 and operating in industries with a lower level of risk, the employer can take on this role, provided that he or she has the appropriate knowledge, skill and experience. In larger organisations, the level of qualifications of the health and safety expert, the number of such experts and the time they should spend on health and safety issues all depend on the number of employees and the level of hazards that can been expected.

The employer must also provide employees with access to an occupational health service, which can only be provided by qualified staff. As with the health and safety expert, this can be provided either internally or externally, and the skill and number of staff required vary in line with the number employed and the nature of the risk. These obligations were reduced by changes introduced in 2024, which meant that more tasks could be performed by staff who were professionally although not medically qualified.84

Close

National context

The ministry responsible for health and safety at work is the Ministry for National Economy (Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium - NGM). Monitoring compliance with health and safety laws and regulations is the responsibility of the Department of the Labour Inspection in the same ministry (Munkafelügyeleti Főosztály - NGM-MFF)

Trade unions and employers can influence health and safety policy through their membership of the National Occupational Safety and Health Committee (Országos Munkavédelmi Bizottság).85

Hungary has made changes to its main health and safety legislation to take greater account of psychosocial risks. In January 2008 to the Act on Occupational Safety and Health was altered to impose a new duty on the employer to take account of psychosocial risks (§ 54(1d)) as well as defining them (§ 87(1h)).

Close

Key legislation

Act No. 93 of 1993 on Occupational Safety and Health, as amended

1993. évi XCIII. Törvény a munkavédelemről a végrehajtásáról szóló 5/1993. (XII. 26.) MüM rendelettel egységes szerkezetben