Due to the events at the Samsung factory in Göd — and, by now, similar reports coming from several battery factories — the protection of workers’ health, and its neglect by certain companies, has once again come to the forefront. For this reason, we would like to present the anomalies surrounding chemical risk assessment in Makó.

At the same time, we would like to express our hope that the change of ownership at the Makó rubber factory will bring about a positive change in the attitude of company management, and that it will finally also regard the workers’ genuine representative body as a partner.

It should be emphasized that, in light of the events observed at battery factories, a peculiar similarity can be identified: there are no trade unions. In Makó, there was one, and we did our job there. Presumably in an attempt to suppress this, a series of lawsuits may have been launched with the aim of breaking and intimidating us. This, however, did not succeed; on the contrary, a number of employer irregularities were revealed in detail. In this case, based on the evidence we submitted and the witness testimonies, according to our own wording and interpretation, the Metropolitan Court made the following findings:

• the trade union has the right to turn to the press, even for the purpose of exerting pressure,
• disputes concerning workers qualify as “public affairs”, and a forceful, critical tone is also permitted,
• if a company’s right to reputation comes into conflict with workers’ right to health, the right to health is clearly the more important one,
• all of this is especially true because the problem arose due to a communication deficiency on the employer’s side.

Excerpt from the first-instance judgment serving as the basis for the summary.

“After all this, it can be stated that the defendants, having perceived these circumstances, had every reason to form the opinion expressed in the disputed newspaper article. Their statement that ‘The company management is therefore no longer willing to communicate about the problems not only with the occupational safety committee and the trade union, but not even with the occupational health physician. For example, about the fact that chemicals are being used without chemical risk analysis […]’ is not merely based on a thin factual basis, but accurately reflects the events that took place prior to the statement.” 3/A.P.20.405/2024/64-I. (78)

“The further question of whether the defendants acted lawfully by bringing this opinion before the wider public must be answered as follows.” 3/A.P.20.405/2024/64-I. (79)

“The plaintiff is mistaken in claiming that, in the case of trade unions, publicity through the press is not a legal means of exerting pressure on the employer. Pursuant to Article IX(1) of the Fundamental Law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression. Thus, so do the defendants; moreover, considering that the first defendant is an advocacy organization as a trade union federation, it is self-evident that one of the means of fulfilling its task is to bring disputes concerning workers’ interests before the public, even for the purpose of exerting pressure. Section 272 of the Labour Code, cited by the plaintiff, does not exhaustively list the additional rights of trade unions vis-à-vis the employer, but rather lists them — among others — as rights supplementing the fundamental right to freedom of expression.” 3/A.P.20.405/2024/64-I. (80)

“The plaintiff is also mistaken in claiming that the subject of the disputed communication is not a public affair. Challenging the practice of chemical risk assessment and its adequacy is not a simple technical or technological issue, but the enforcement of the very objective for which the legislator created the institution of chemical risk assessment and made it mandatory for employers: the protection of workers’ lives and health. Pursuant to Article XVII(3) of the Fundamental Law, ‘Every employee shall have the right to working conditions that respect his or her health, safety and dignity,’ and, more generally, under Article XX(1) of the Fundamental Law, ‘Everyone shall have the right to physical and mental health.’ In the legal dispute at hand, these fundamental rights come into conflict with the plaintiff’s right, guaranteed under Article VI(1) of the Fundamental Law, to have its reputation respected. This conflict of rights can self-evidently only be resolved in favor of the fundamental right to health; therefore, as an employer, the plaintiff is subject to an enhanced obligation of tolerance regarding the public discussion of its chemical risk assessment practices.” 3/A.P.20.405/2024/64-I. (81)

“Independently of this, case law is also consistent in holding that the enforcement of workers’ interests qualifies as a public affair. Debate on public affairs includes the possibility of presenting individual positions and expressing forceful and critical opinions. The employer’s side and the workers’ representative organization necessarily represent differing positions on issues affecting workers, which are to be debated (Curia Pfv.22.176/2017/7. [16]).”

“Based on the established facts, it can be stated that the defendants provided information about the plaintiff’s chemical risk assessment practice objectively and faithfully to the historical facts. The plaintiff is obliged to tolerate the forcefulness and criticism expressed therein — namely that such risk assessment had been omitted in the case of certain chemicals — not only because the topic is of public interest, but also because the defendants, acting in representation of the workers’ interests, were compelled to make their statement precisely because of communication failures attributable to the plaintiff.” 3/A.P.20.405/2024/64-I. (83)

During the lawsuit, documents from the Government Office and the Ministry came to the forefront, revealing a total of 49 irregularities and legal violations in the operation of Continental in Makó in 2021 and 2024. “…the decision No. CS/06-MMO-01/2021 of the Employment Supervision and Occupational Safety Department of the Csongrád-Csanád County Government Office — formerly the Csongrád-Csanád County Government Office — (hereinafter: the Specialized Authority) (56/1), its information notice No. CS/06-MMO-01000103-10-2024 (22/A/17), and its decision No. Cs/06-MMO-01/0001434-14/2024 (45/A/33), as well as the measures No. NGM/5624/4/2024 and NGM/5624/6/2024 of the Ministry for National Economy (hereinafter: the Ministry) (40/A/13-1, -2),”

Another highly concerning aspect of the lawsuit should also be highlighted:

“As documents produced as the result of the chemical risk assessment, the plaintiff submitted several records during the lawsuit — differing in the indicated dates of preparation and validity, and at times also in their titles/addressees (1/F/4, 9/F/10, 28/F/15). Ultimately, the plaintiff settled on the document titled ‘Chemical Risk Assessment 2023’, submitted under exhibit number 28/F/15 and also submitted in paper form under number 42, as the document that was valid and in force during the period affected by the defendants’ litigated statement.” 3/A.P.20.405/2024/64-I. (87)

We do not yet wish to draw far-reaching conclusions in this regard; we are examining the circumstances of this established fact and the possibility of the necessary escalation. However, it is clearly apparent that it was proven at second instance that the Makó factory did not do everything necessary to ensure healthy and safe working conditions and circumstances in accordance with the law. Therefore, we had a well-founded basis for objecting to the absence of risk assessment in respect of certain chemicals in 2023 as well. Based on the above, and taking into account the final and binding decisions of the Government Office and the Ministry referred to above, it can also be established that the risk assessment was not sufficiently comprehensive in 2021 or in 2024 either; therefore, in our view, Continental in Makó may be regarded as a “repeat offender” in respect of this legal violation.

Nevertheless, the Makó Rubber Industry Trade Union and the Rubber Industry Trade Union Federation are not primarily concerned with whether there is documentary background; our concern is simply that workers experienced symptoms during the use of chemicals, and we had to take action against this, because that is our duty.

Sincerely,

Gábor Radics
President of GSZSZ

1 March 2026