Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Belarus (RATIFICATION: 1956)

CMNT_TITLE_CAS

The Government communicated the following written information concerning measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Conference Committee and the Commission of Inquiry since the last examination of this case by the Conference Committee in June 2010. Over the past few years, the Government of the Republic of Belarus has been taking consistent and targeted steps to promote social dialogue in the country. In 2010, a tripartite Working Group, including representatives of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), was established to draft a General Agreement for 2011–13. This Agreement was signed on 30 December 2010. The chapter of the General Agreement concerning interaction between the parties contains a number of provisions aimed at further development of social dialogue and tripartism in the Republic of Belarus. In particular, the parties to the General Agreement have committed themselves to: building their relations on the basis of the principles of social partnership set forth in the legislation of the Republic of Belarus and the ILO Conventions ratified by the Republic of Belarus; promoting collective bargaining and improving the functioning of sectoral and local councils for labour and social issues; consulting on the development and implementation of socio-economic policies; and taking all the necessary measures to prevent collective labour disputes in the social sphere and foster their settlement. In accordance with its provisions, the General Agreement is applicable to all employers (employers’ organizations), trade unions (trade union associations) and workers of the Republic of Belarus. The two trade union associations acting in the Republic of Belarus (the FPB and the CDTU) can thus benefit from the guarantees stipulated in the General Agreement regardless of their representativeness. Guided by the spirit of cooperation embodied in the General Agreement, the Government decided to restore preferential rental treatment for trade unions. According to the Presidential Decree of 5 November 2010 (No. 569), a reduction multiplier of 0.1 is applied to the basic rental rates for premises rented by trade unions, regardless of their affiliation. Thus, the rental fee is ten times less. This decision was welcomed by all trade unions.

A tripartite Working Group whose establishment was approved at the meeting of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere on 14 May 2010, began its work in October 2010. The Working Group includes six persons – two representatives from each party, i.e. the Government, employers’ organizations and the trade union associations (the FPB and the CDTU). When necessary, the parties are entitled to invite experts and other stakeholders to take part in the Group’s meetings. The Working Group promotes joint efforts of the social partners to elaborate agreed approaches for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as concerns registration. In this respect, the Government recalls that the Commission of Inquiry recommended to remove any obstacles related to the legal address requirement and explains that legal address is an address of premises where the governing body of the trade union is located. In this respect, republican-level trade unions and their organizational structures at regional and district levels do not experience any difficulties since their addresses are not bound to any particular enterprise. Primary trade union organizations, however, seek to have a legal address in the territory of an enterprise where their members work (although no such requirement is established by the legislation and some primary organizations have a legal address outside the enterprise). By providing a primary trade union organization with premises for the purpose of legal address, the employer recognizes it as a partner in the social dialogue including collective bargaining. Thus, the legal address issue is a matter of recognition of a primary trade union organization as a social partner by the employer. As a rule, larger trade unions that can put serious pressure on the employer solve the issue of premises in their favour. It is more difficult to settle this matter for trade union organizations with smaller membership. In order to settle the issue of legal address, the Government suggested that options for an agreement with social partners concerning the provisions of premises be elaborated by the tripartite Working Group. For example, such an agreement could become a part of the General Agreement for 2011–13. In addition, it was proposed to ask the ILO to provide assistance in this matter.

During the 310th Session of the Governing Body (March 2011), the Government and the ILO agreed to hold a tripartite seminar with the participation of the ILO. Following consultations with the ILO, the seminar was scheduled to be held on 13 May 2011. Although the tripartite Working Group has been working actively in March and April 2011 and four meetings of the Working Group with participation of all the stakeholders were held on 3 and 17 March and on 22 and 29 April 2011, the process of reconciling the positions of all the parties has not been completed yet. It was therefore decided to postpone the seminar. The Government together with the social partners and the Office will continue its work in this respect. The Government of the Republic of Belarus continues its work aimed at establishing constructive relations with all the social partners and developing cooperation with the International Labour Office, thus reaffirming its sustainable commitment to social dialogue and tripartism.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative stated that the tripartite National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) had put the elaboration of the new General Agreement on its agenda. A tripartite working group had been set up to work on the General Agreement with the participation of all large trade unions, including the FPB) and the CDTU. The General Agreement had been signed on 30 December 2010 and covered all employers’ and workers’ organizations so that both large trade unions could benefit from the guarantees provided therein. The General Agreement laid down several provisions on the promotion of social dialogue and tripartism. Thus, the parties committed themselves under the General Agreement to strengthen their relationship according to the principles of social dialogue as enshrined in national legislation and the ILO Conventions, to promote the conclusion of collective bargaining agreements, to undertake consultations on the implementation of national economic and social policy and to take the necessary steps to prevent labour disputes. In March 2011, it had been decided to hold on 13 May a tripartite seminar in Minsk with the participation of all interested parties and the ILO. Agreement had been reached that all questions relating to the preparation of the seminar would be discussed in the tripartite working group. On the day following the seminar, a meeting of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere with ILO representatives had been scheduled to discuss the issues of registration and trade union pluralism at enterprise level, taking into account the outcome of the seminar. After several meetings of the tripartite working group and the adoption of a draft seminar programme by the social partners, the CDTU had withdrawn on 29 April its support for the programme although it included agenda items concerning registration and trade union pluralism at enterprise level. It was worth noting in this regard that nearly all disputes relating to collective bargaining agreements in enterprises were due to the fact that national legislation contained no requirements concerning trade union representativeness. Given that the Government did not wish to carry out the seminar without the CDTU, it had been decided to postpone the activity. The Government representative called on all social partners to act sensibly and come to an agreement. The Government would continue to collaborate with the ILO with a view to holding the seminar. In conclusion, the Government had taken steps to develop social dialogue and tripartism by strengthening the institutions of social dialogue, by including the CDTU in the NCLSI where it was currently actively participating, and by treating the FPB (4 million members) and the CDTU (10,000 members) on an equal footing without regard to representativeness. Mindful that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had not yet been fully met, the Government was willing, despite the difficult economic situation, to pursue its cooperation with the ILO, to focus its efforts even more on relating positively with all social partners, to comply with its obligations under the General Agreement and to continue to take consistent steps towards a generalized social dialogue that would benefit all parties.

The Employer members recalled that this case had been discussed by the Committee for the past ten years under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), inter alia as a follow-up to the Commission of Inquiry, and that it was the first time that the case was discussed under this Convention. Given the fact that the statement by the Government was principally based on the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry and did not address the issues covered by this Convention, he emphasized the narrower focus of Convention No. 98 and thanked the Committee of Experts for helping the Conference Committee to concentrate on just a few of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. As regards the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts on the allegations of the continuing – and apparently increasing – discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts for anti-union purposes, the Government should prevent this from happening by putting in place legal as well as practical measures. The Employer members requested the Government to provide specific information, in a subsequent report to the Committee of Experts, on the situation of a member of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU) as well as on allegations of interference in trade union affairs at several plants where workers were represented by BITU, and to indicate if these issues were on the agenda of the NCLSI. As regards the issue of collective bargaining where there were multiple unions in the workplace, the organization of a seminar – which had had to be postponed – was a step to create some understanding. But, fundamentally, the Government had focused its interventions on the overall issue of freedom of association and might have lost sight of anti-union activities that also needed to be addressed within the framework of an overall regime regarding the right to organize and collective bargaining.

The Worker members, referring to the double footnote to the Committee of Experts’ observation, said that the end of the serious violations of freedom of association in Belarus was nowhere in sight. One of the most serious problems was the unquestionable discrimination against the members of free and independent trade unions, who continued to be threatened with dismissal or non-renewal of their fixed-term contracts. Presidential Decree No. 29 of 1999, which authorized one-year contracts for all types of workers, had been extensively used to discriminate against members of independent unions, and the new Decree No. 164 of 31 March 2010 had not put an end to the practice. Authorizing employers to offer indefinite contracts to workers with at least five years’ seniority who observed discipline at work once again gave free rein to anti-union pressure and discrimination for this five-year period. The seven trade unionists whose reinstatement in their jobs the Government had announced in December 2009 had had their dismissal confirmed on appeal on 21 May 2010. In a clear sign that there had been no progress in the matter, the Government had made no mention of that fact or of the anti-union pressure exerted in the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, nor had it said anything about the climate of anti-union discrimination in the country at large. Another very painful issue was that of collective bargaining in enterprises where there was more than one trade union. True, the Government had reported the signing on 30 December 2010 of a General Agreement for 2011–13 which, based as it was on the principles of social dialogue embodied in national labour laws and ILO Conventions, did cover collective bargaining. The very rudiments of collective bargaining were not yet in place however. To begin with, anti-union discrimination continued to exist. Moreover, the system of registration of trade unions was still strictly regulated. For example, unions were required to provide a legal address, and yet primary trade unions could only acquire such an address if they were recognized as a counterpart by the employer. That meant that registration was dependent on the arbitrary decision of the employer. Finally, with the presence of the CDTU on the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere and various working groups, Belarus was experiencing the beginnings of a fragile process of social dialogue. Yet independent trade unions were still confined in a ghetto both in law and in practice, a situation that was not going to end so long as the points raised previously remained unresolved. That in turn presupposed the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of Belarus stated that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry continued to have a positive effect on the Government’s actions to promote social dialogue. All trade unions, whether large or small, including the CDTU, had been afforded the possibility to participate in social dialogue within various national bodies, to have representatives in the NCLSI, to work on the elaboration of the General Agreement and to participate in the tripartite working group dealing with the issue of trade union registration. The rental costs for trade union premises had been significantly reduced and were currently cheaper than for any other organizations. All trade unions enjoyed the rights and guarantees necessary for collective bargaining, and, depending on whether there was a union representing the majority of workers in the company, there were enterprises where only one collective agreement was signed, and others with several collective agreements in force. Moreover, despite a new requirement to ensure that long-term employment contracts were not concluded for a definite period of time, employers sometimes succeeded in putting pressure on workers to accept fixed-term contracts. The speaker concluded that the Government was genuinely trying to find solutions to the existing problems of application and to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. There was no anti-union atmosphere, and several issues remained to be addressed in the NCLSI or through direct negotiations. He urged the whole trade union movement to work together with the FPB in this regard, and with reference to the CDTU, he regretted that this had not always been the case in practice. Finally, the Committee should take account of the real situation and give the Government the opportunity to persevere in its efforts. The ILO should continue to cooperate with the Government with a view to holding the postponed seminar.

The Government member of Hungary, speaking on behalf of the Governments of Member States of the European Union (EU) attending the Conference, as well as the candidate countries (Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Iceland), and potential candidate countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia), and Norway, reiterated the deep concern of the EU that the application of the principles of the right to organize and to bargain collectively was still not guaranteed in Belarus. While welcoming the establishment of a tripartite working group to prepare the new General Agreement for 2011–13, the speaker proposed to further strengthen the tripartite cooperation by using the NCLSI to discuss in substance the issue of the violation of trade union rights. This question remained exceptionally timely given the high number of violations of trade union rights and the anti-union discrimination acts that the CDTU continued to face. The freedom of trade unions to carry out their activities was still not guaranteed and the discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts for anti-union purposes continued. Regrettably, the new Presidential Decree No. 164 of 31 March 2010 had not solved the problem. The speaker called on the Government of Belarus to ensure that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination be thoroughly investigated and perpetrators punished as the case may be. The Government should intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the Convention and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay, in close collaboration with all social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. Finally, the speaker expressed serious concerns about the human rights situation in Belarus which had significantly deteriorated since the violations of electoral standards in the presidential elections of 19 December 2010. The presence of political prisoners in the heart of Europe in the twenty-first century was unacceptable. The situation, including the intensified repressive measures against human rights defenders, members of the media and the democratic opposition, despite repeated calls from the international community, constituted serious violations of numerous international commitments undertaken by Belarus.

The Government member of Switzerland said that her Government concurred with the statement made on behalf of the governments of Member States of the European Union.

The Employer member of Belarus stated that the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been effective and that, although there had been some difficulties, the process had generally been positive. The creation of the working group within the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had contributed to the rapprochement of the position of the parties, and a compromise had been reached with the trade unions at the national level and with the various branches. The CDTU had now been working for five years on an equal footing with other unions in the NCLSI. In addition, the CDTU had participated, with others, towards the adoption of a general agreement for a period of three years. Moreover, the speaker indicated that employers had complied with the labour legislation in cases of the dismissal of union members. Agreement had not been reached on all points, and the ILO’s support and technical assistance was essential in this regard. The employers of Belarus were in favour of the joint resolution of these problems, including through the participation in tripartite seminars on these issues. However, all of this had to be set in a context of the economic problems facing the country. Since 2007, Belarus had been struggling due to the withdrawal of the European Union Generalized System of Preferences which had had an impact on the population as a whole as well as on private enterprises in the country. The employers of Belarus supported the full normalization of the relations between the European Union and Belarus, and hoped that the ILO could help in lifting the restrictions imposed. Hopefully, the ILO would take a realistic approach, not only in the interest of business but also for the country as a whole.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) indicated that the expected changes in Belarus had not taken place and that measures had not been taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Pressure against joining trade unions through dismissals and anti-union discrimination continued. Moreover, the changes envisioned by the Government to the labour legislation was a cause for concern and the removal of references to ILO Conventions as sources of law exacerbated the labour issues in the country. There had been no measures taken to address the registration of independent trade unions, and setting up new organizations would not lead to independent trade unions if this problem was not resolved. In addition, the CDTU had not been given a reduction for the renting of premises. Turning to the general agreement, the speaker emphasized that this would not solve the problems of trade unions in the country, as these organizations continued to be segregated. He expressed the hope that the problem of the registration of trade unions would be solved, but indicated that the Government holding seminars on this issue did not amount to sufficient political will in this regard. Belarusian workers remained deprived of the inalienable right to set up independent trade unions and of their choice to become a member thereof, and measures were needed to move towards the full respect of workers’ rights.

The Government member of India noted the systematic approach adopted by the Government of Belarus with regard to implementing the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. The development of tripartite dialogue, the promotion of ILO standards and the protection of trade union rights constituted some of the encouraging initiatives undertaken by the Government to give effect to Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The general agreement signed in 2010, which the Government had formulated through social dialogue, provided a useful plan of action for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The speaker emphasized that the constructive engagement and cooperation of the Government with the ILO and the progress that had been made in observing the Convention were important achievements.

The Government member of the United States regretted the paucity of substantial progress by the Government of Belarus in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This was especially troubling given the detail with which this situation has been examined throughout the ILO supervisory system, and the extent to which the Office had provided its support. With respect to the application of the Convention, the Committee of Experts had expressed serious concern about the allegations of anti-union discrimination, threats, harassment and interference in internal trade union affairs. If violations of trade unions’ rights were indeed increasing, it was all the more disappointing that these issues were not being adequately addressed by the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. The Government should take, without further delay, the necessary measures to ensure that the right to organize and bargain collectively was effectively guaranteed both in law and in practice. She encouraged the Government to work closely with its social partners and to hold regular consultations with the ILO so that the Committee of Experts would be in a position to confirm substantive, concrete and sustainable achievements at its next session. Considering her Government’s long-standing commitment to enhancing democracy, the rule of law and respect of human rights in Belarus, she looked forward to the day when the right to organize and bargaining collectively would be a reality in Belarus.

The Government member of the Russian Federation emphasized the evident progress made by the Government in the implementation of the Convention and of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. A constructive dialogue had been developed with all the social partners. A general agreement had been concluded for the period 2011–13 and provided, among other measures, for the development of social dialogue in the country. Tripartite seminars had been organized in collaboration with the Office and a plan of action had been adopted with a view to ensuring the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere was empowered to examine the necessary measures for that purpose, as well as complaints from trade unions. Its composition had been modified, and it included representatives of the Government, the trade unions and employers. It had already examined issues relating to the registration of trade unions, complaints lodged by unions and the prospects for the development of the legislation respecting unions. A number of questions still needed to be resolved, such as the facilitation of the registration procedure for unions. A tripartite working group had been established for that purpose and had begun work in October 2010. As a result of this tripartite interaction, the Government had made significant progress in the implementation of the Convention and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government was taking tangible measures, which demonstrated its good will in that respect.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela emphasized the positive aspects, which had to be taken into account in the case of Belarus. This signified progress with respect to the discussions that had taken place in the Committee in 2010. The specific, coherent measures adopted by the Government to continue to promote and implement social dialogue should not be overlooked, such as the establishment of the working group that had developed the general agreement, which had been signed in December 2010 and that applied to everyone in the country. In the context of that agreement, the Government had highlighted the preferential treatment given to trade unions regarding the cost of leasing union premises, the rent for which had been reduced to a tenth of its real value. Furthermore, the tripartite working group had been working since October 2010 to establish methods to enable implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations concerning the registration and legal domicile of trade unions, and technical assistance from the ILO was planned in this regard. Note was also taken of the planned tripartite seminar with the participation of the ILO, which indicated that progress was continuing with regard to social dialogue in the country. In conclusion, in view of the achievements so far and the ongoing technical assistance from the ILO, sufficient time was required to allow specific measures to be taken with a view to applying the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations.

The Government member of China emphasized that since June 2008 the Government of Belarus had engaged in cooperation with the ILO and had made remarkable progress in its work to ensure conformity with regard to its obligations under the Convention, including by the conclusion of a general agreement, the allocation of premises to trade unions at very favourable rents and the establishment of tripartite groups especially to discuss the issue of trade union registration. It was important to acknowledge the sincerity of the efforts of the Government in conjunction with the social partners and to allow sufficient time. The speaker expressed the hope that the ILO would strengthen its cooperation with the Government.

The Government member of Cuba emphasized the positive role of ILO technical assistance in developing the measures taken for the implementation of the Convention. The Government had made significant efforts to establish constructive relations, maintain dialogue with all the social partners and work in close collaboration with the ILO. The Government’s political will had been demonstrated by the agreement to hold a tripartite seminar with a view to the effective implementation of the Convention. The continuation of technical assistance was therefore to be encouraged, together with open and unconditional dialogue and the analysis of the internal situation with a view to achieving the objectives of the Convention.

The Government member of Canada shared the serious concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts regarding the increasing violations of trade union rights and the continued suffering by trade union members from discrimination, including dismissals, non-renewal of labour contracts, threats, pressure and harassment. The continued interference of enterprise managers in the internal affairs of trade unions was also of concern. The Government should investigate these allegations and ensure that violations were remedied and perpetrators punished. The Government should further intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay, with the assistance of the ILO. Her Government urged the Government of Belarus to strengthen social dialogue and use the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere as a mechanism for meeting its commitments under the Convention.

The Worker member of Poland recalled that the Committee had, at its last session, trusted the Government to undertake specific measures to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to submit information on amendments proposed to specific national legislation. Unfortunately, the situation had not changed in law or in practice with regard to the respect of human and workers’ rights or the protection of independent trade unions’ activities. These unions still faced obstacles in registering, the main obstacle for conducting trade union activities. Moreover, the number of violations of trade union rights had been increasing and members of independent trade unions still suffered from anti-union discrimination, including dismissals, the non-renewal of contracts, pressure and harassment, in addition to interference in internal trade union affairs. The Presidential Decree No. 164 (to improve the contract-based scheme of employment) had not solved the problem of pressure on independent trade unions, as members of these unions at many companies were forced to leave their union under the threat of non-renewal of their employment contracts. Short-term contracts also limited workers’ rights to free choice of employment, including the right to not be deprived of work unfairly. The speaker underlined that the Government was expected to: (i) improve legal and administrative measures to ensure that workers enjoyed the rights enshrined in the Convention without any discrimination in law and in practice and implement fully the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry; (ii) provide real and equal opportunities for workers to establish trade unions of their own choosing; (iii) eliminate obstacles to registration of independent trade union organizations; (iv) immediately stop the harassment and discrimination, particularly through the use of short-term contracts, against members of independent trade union organizations; (v) ensure that enterprise managers did not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions; and (vi) instruct the Prosecutor General, the Minister of Justice and the court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination be thoroughly investigated and that measures be taken to punish those responsible. Lastly, she urged the Government to ensure that all allegations of anti-union discrimination be brought to the attention of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere.

The Government representative thanked those who had spoken in the debate, particularly the Government members who had supported her country’s position. The Government was willing to accept constructive criticism and was open to dialogue and an examination of all the matters raised. The content of the discussion would be analysed thoroughly and efforts would be made to implement the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. Some issues had yet to be resolved and for that reason the Government would continue towards the development of social dialogue and tripartism. However, it was incorrect to state that the Government was putting pressure on trade union leaders. No cases concerning wrongful dismissals or pressure had been brought before the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which had full power to examine such matters. Moreover, the labour inspection services were operating actively and had conducted inquiries into any violations of labour legislation. There were very few of the latter, however, as far as trade union rights were concerned. Furthermore, under the Labour Code, employment contracts could be for an indefinite duration or for a fixed term. Fixed-term contracts contained a number of advantages for workers, especially in terms of wages. They were concluded for between one and five years, which was not a short period, contrary to what had been said. The parties freely chose the type of contract that they wished to conclude. By concluding a fixed-term contract, they recognized that the employment relationship ended on expiry of the contract. That practice existed throughout the world and the ending of the employment relationship on expiry of a fixed-term contract was never considered to constitute dismissal. Labour relations depended heavily on trust between the parties and it was to be hoped that the social partners, including the CDTU would adopt a positive attitude. The speaker emphasized that it was the Government that had taken the initiative to organize a tripartite seminar. The Government thanked the ILO and the workers’ organizations which had supported the process and expressed the hope that an agreed position would be worked out shortly with all the social partners in order to resolve the issues relating to trade union registration. The Government was committed to the ILO fundamental principles and was ready to take the necessary steps, with the social partners and the ILO, to ensure their implementation in the country.

The Employer members noted that contract work was a complicated issue and that fixed-term contracts could be used in a manner that led to arbitrary practices. Therefore, a report from the Government was needed containing information on the context in which such labour contracts were used, to evaluate if such contracts were used against the requirements of the Convention. They indicated that the conclusions adopted by the Committee should urge the Government to address specifically the issue of anti-union discrimination, and that these questions should be brought to the attention of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. As information had not been provided on possible employer interference with trade union activities, more information was required on the law and practice in this respect. Complaints of this nature should be investigated, and if the allegations were verified, punished. The Government needed to provide the Committee of Experts with a report on these actions, in addition to steps taken to address the collective bargaining issues and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Recalling that the Government had previously taken steps in this regard, they urged the Government to pick up the pace to become in full compliance with the Convention, as well as Convention No. 87, in law and in practice.

The Worker members observed that, once again, the Government of Belarus had not made sufficient progress in amending its laws and practice as it had been asked to do for years by this Committee, the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government representative had not explained how the new general agreement for 2011–13 was going to change the labour situation, prevent interference by employers, combat anti-union discrimination and organize collective bargaining with the participation of all trade unions at every level. She had given no information on the reinstatement of trade unionists in their jobs after they had been dismissed, as had been announced in 2010. On the contrary, the workers concerned had subsequently had their dismissal confirmed by the courts. A small step forward had admittedly been taken with the invitation of the BITU to engage in a national social dialogue and with the restoration of certain operating facilities for all unions. Nevertheless there was still a very long way to go before all forms of anti-union discrimination in law and in practice could be eliminated and before workers were able to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing. That was why the Worker members insisted that the Government take the following steps forthwith: revision of the system of temporary contracts, or at least putting an end to their abusive use; elimination of all existing obstacles to the registration of new trade unions; cessation of all interference by company managers in the internal affairs of trade unions; and the issuing of an instruction to the Public Prosecutor, the Minister of Justice and the judiciary to examine thoroughly all complaints of interference or discrimination and to punish those responsible. Before the next session of the Committee of Experts, the Government should also submit a report containing all relevant information on allegations of discrimination, on the adoption of measures to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and on the activities of tripartite bodies. Assistance of the Office in explaining the scope of the Convention would be welcome.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative in relation to the developments since the discussion of this case last year. In particular, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that a General Agreement for 2011–2013, covering all employers’ and workers’ organizations in the country, was signed on 30 December 2010 and that, guided by the spirit of cooperation embodied in this agreement, the Government had decided to restore preferential rental treatment for all trade unions. The Committee further took note of the information on the work of a tripartite working group set up by the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere in May 2010.

The Committee noted with regret that no substantial progress had been made by the Government towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry since the discussion of this case last year, nor specifically as regards the concerns raised by the experts under the Convention.

The Committee further noted with regret new allegations of violations of freedom of association in the country, including allegations of interference in trade union activities, pressure and harassment. In particular, the Committee took note of the allegations of the use of fixed-term contracts to pressure workers into withdrawing their membership from the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) and its affiliated organizations.

Observing the Government’s reference to the question of representativeness of trade unions and its refraining from addressing this point as asked by the ILO, the Committee wishes to recall that the concerns in this regard relate to the fact that the determination of trade union representativeness cannot be meaningful until the Government first puts in place the measures necessary to ensure full respect for the freedom of association rights of all workers, both in law and in practice. Such measures include the necessary legislative framework for the registration of freely chosen workers’ organizations and a climate which ensures their effective recognition and the promotion of their collective bargaining rights. The Committee recalls in this respect the importance which it attaches to the need to guarantee the basic civil liberties of workers and employers and the intrinsic link between democracy and freedom of association.

The Committee urged the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure that freedom of association was fully and effectively guaranteed in law and in practice without delay and expressed the firm hope that the Government would continue its cooperation with the ILO and the social partners to this effect. It expected that the Government would submit, after an independent and impartial investigation, detailed observations on the allegations of anti-union discrimination, including as regards the anti-union impact of fixed-term contracts and employer interference in workers’ organization, as well as information on any proposed amendments to the legislation to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year. It trusted that the Government would provide substantive and concrete information in this regard as a demonstration of its political will to implement the Commission of Inquiry Recommendations and thus enable this Committee to be able to note significant and sustainable progress with respect to all remaining matters at its meeting next year.

CMNT_TITLE

Previous comment

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had noted a number of concerns raised by the Belarus Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) with regard to the application of the Convention, in law and in practice, referring to inadequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the system of collective bargaining and the work of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter, tripartite Council).

The Committee notes with deep regret that in its report, the Government once again merely reiterates the information it had previously provided and indicates that the legislation and practice are in compliance with the Convention.

The Committee observes with grave concern the dissolution of the BKDP and all of its affiliates and the effect it has had on the work of the national tripartite bodies, including the tripartite Council under the auspices of which General Agreements are signed and their implementation is monitored, and social dialogue at all levels. The Committee further deplores the continuing deterioration of freedom of association in the country, as described in detail in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87.

The Committee notes that in its Resolution concerning the measures recommended by the Governing Body under article 33 of the ILO Constitution on the subject of Belarus, adopted at the 111th Session (June 2023), the International Labour Conference decided to hold at its future sessions a special sitting of the Committee on the Application of Standards for the purpose of discussing the application of the Convention by the Government and the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, so long as the Government has not been shown to have fulfilled its obligations.

The Committee once again urges the Government to engage with the ILO with a view to fully implement all outstanding recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies without further delay.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) received on 16 and 30 September 2020, respectively. The Committee notes that these organizations allege acts of anti-union discrimination, through non-renewal of employment contracts, and interference in trade union internal affairs, through either non-recognition of primary trade unions established at the enterprise level or pressure exercised on workers to leave the union. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee further notes the BKDP indication that it was not part of the working group established to prepare changes to the General Agreement in force (2019-21), in light of the amendment of the Labour Code, which entered into force in January 2020. Referring to the amendment of section 365 of the Labour Code, which now makes a distinction between clauses of a collective agreement that apply to all workers and those that could apply only to those workers who are members of a trade union, which had negotiated and signed a collective agreement, the BKDP indicates that this reform unduly favours the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) to the detriment of independent unions. The Committee notes that in its report on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Government indicates that the BKDP assertion that its representatives were not invited to participate in the preparation of amendments to the General Agreement are not true. The Government explains that, following the decision of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues of 5 February 2020, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection began preparing draft amendments to the 2019–21 tripartite General Agreement. To that end, on 12 February 2020, it sent a letter to the BKDP requesting it to: (1) nominate its representative to the working group for the preparation of the draft amendments to the General Agreement; and (2) provide proposed drafts amendments, which take into account the amendment to section 365 of the Labour Code. According to the Government, while the BKDP nominated its representative, it did not submit any proposals; it was nevertheless informed of the proposals made by other members of the working group, which basically involved clarification of certain terms used in the General Agreement, taking into account the amendments made to the Labour Code.

Regarding the amendment of section 365 of the Labour Code, which deals with the scope of collective agreements, the Committee notes the Government’s explanation that the amendment aimed at eliminating legal uncertainty that arose in practice. The Government explains in this regard that under the previous section 365, provisions of a collective agreement applied to all employees, including those who are not members of the trade union party to a collective agreement. The practice has nevertheless developed when at some undertakings, the collective agreement was applied to all employees and in others – only to employees who are trade union members. The main innovation of the amended section of the Labour Code is that it now clearly defines the provisions of the collective agreement, which must be applied to all employees, regardless of whether they are members of a trade union or not. These include the most important norms that define working conditions: working and rest hours, internal labour regulations, labour standards, wages, procedure for wage indexation, labour safety, guarantees and compensations provided in accordance with the law. Provisions of a collective agreement regulating other matters will apply to employees who are not members of the trade union if they agree to this in writing. Should a collective agreement provide other procedure for the application of provisions regulating other than the most important norms, the procedure provided for in the collective agreement will apply. The Governments considers that there are no elements of discrimination in this approach. While taking note of this explanation, the Committee recalls that for a number of years, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee on Freedom of Association, it has maintained a dialogue with the Government with a view to encourage it to put an end to various measures, taken in law and in practice, to eliminate independent trade union organizations and obstruct trade union pluralism. The Committee refers to its observation on the application of Convention No. 87 where it noted that the FPB, the largest workers’ organization in the country, enjoys full support of the State. Taking into account the situation of trade union rights in Belarus and observing that the FPB is a signatory to almost all collective agreements in force, the Committee questions the impact that the amendment of section 365 of the Labour Code could have in practice on the freedom of workers to join trade unions not belonging to the FPB structures, including for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to bring the issue of application of this provision in practice to the attention of the tripartite Council and to provide information on the outcome of the discussion in its next report.

Not having received other supplementary information, the Committee, noting with concern the above allegations, which could indicate a fall back on some of the previously achieved progress, as highlighted under Article 4 of the comments below, reiterates its comments adopted in 2019 and reproduced below taking into account certain new information provided by the Government in its 2020 report on the application of Convention No. 87 (see Article 4).

The Committee notes of the observations of the BKDP received on 30 August 2019 and alleging violations of the Convention in practice. The Committee examines them below.

The Committee notes the 385th and the 390th reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Articles 1–3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to reply to the BKDP observations containing allegations of dismissals of trade unionists Ms Oksana Kernozhitskaya and Mr Mikhail Soshko. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these workers were not dismissed, rather, their contract of employment has expired. The Government explains that the termination of employment upon the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract cannot be considered dismissal by the employer. The Government further explains that under the law, the employer is not obliged to justify his or her unwillingness to extend an employment relationship upon the expiry of a contract. Thus, according to the Government, the expiry of a contract is already in itself sufficient grounds for its termination; there are no legal means of compelling an employer to conclude a new contract with a worker. The Committee considers that the legal framework as described by the Government does not currently provide for an adequate protection against non-renewal of a contract for anti-union reasons. It recalls in this respect that the non-renewal of a contract for anti-union reasons constitutes a prejudicial act within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. It also recalls that since inadequate safeguards against acts of anti-union discrimination, including against non-renewal of contracts for anti-union reasons, may lead to the actual disappearance of primary level trade unions, composed only of workers in an undertaking, additional measures should be taken to ensure fuller protection for leaders and members of trade unions, against any such acts. As one of the additional measures to ensure the effective protection against anti-union discrimination, the adoption of provision for laying upon the employer, in the case of any alleged discriminatory dismissal or non-renewal of contract, the burden of proving that such action was in fact justified.  The Committee requests the Government to take, in consultation with the social partners, the necessary measures in order to adopt specific legislative provisions affording an adequate protection against cases of non-renewal of contracts for anti-union reasons. It requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken to that end.

The Committee recalls that it had also noted the BKDP allegation that the management of the Belaruskali promoted the primary trade union affiliated to the FPB at the expense of the BKDP-affiliated union and pressured the members of the latter to leave the union. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that primary organizations of trade unions in Belarus are affiliated to either the FPB or the BKDP. A number of enterprises have several primary trade union organizations. At Belaruskali, there are two primary trade union organizations: the primary organization of the Belarusian Union of Chemical, Mining and Oil Industries Workers (Belkhimprofsoyuz), affiliated to the FPB, and the Independent Trade Union of Miners (NPG) of Belaruskali, which is a primary organization of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BNP), affiliated to the BKDP. The presence in one enterprise of the organizational structures of two different trade unions naturally gives rise to competition for members. The trade unions use various methods and means to strengthen their own position, retain existing members and attract new ones. As provisions of Belkhimprofsoyuz’ by-laws do not permit simultaneous membership in two trade unions, the trade union committee of the Belkhimprofsoyuz primary trade union organization at the undertaking decided to bring its structure into line with the existing rules and to take steps to eliminate dual trade union membership. To that end, it proposed to workers with dual membership (690 workers) to choose between the two unions. According to the Government, an overwhelming majority of workers decided in favour of Belkhimprofsoyuz primary trade union organization; as a result, the BNP-affiliated union membership fell down. Thus, the Government concludes that the sharp fall in membership of the primary trade union was mainly a consequence of the choice made by workers. The Government also indicates that retirement of workers as well as the termination of employment was also a factor in the decline of the union membership. The Government points out that the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter, tripartite Council) received no information about specific instances of members of the BNP primary trade union organization being pressured by the enterprise management to leave the BKDP-affiliated trade union. Workers who believe that they have been subject to anti-union discrimination or pressure by may apply to a court for measures to end the discrimination.

The Committee notes the new allegations submitted by the BKDP regarding interference by enterprise managers in trade union affairs. According to the BKDP, enterprise managers, for the most part, are still members of the FPB. It alleges, in addition, that at most enterprises, employees, when hired, are first sent to the trade union committee, where they are urged to write an application for affiliation to the official trade union to get a job. A citizen is thus deprived of the right to freely choose a union and members of independent trade unions are forced to quit their union organizations. The BKDP refers, in particular, to the situation at the above-mentioned Belaruskali where the director general has joined the Belkhimprofsoyuz to become its official and head the anti-union campaign against the independent union. The BKDP alleges that as a result, between 1 January and 1 April 2019, 596 workers were forced to renounce their NPG membership. The BKDP further refers to a similar situation at the Remmontazhstroy company where the independent union lost 180 members within the same period. The BKDP further alleges threats of termination of contract suffered by Mr Drazhenko, the head of primary trade union at the Borisov “Autohydraulic booster” plant for his active trade union position.  The Committee requests the Government to provide its detailed comments on the above.

The Committee had previously welcomed the Government’s indication that a training course on international labour standards for judges, lawyers and legal educators was to take place with ILO support in 2017 and requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of this activity. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this course allowed judges, lawyers and legal educators to increase their knowledge of the practical application of international labour standards, which they are now applying in their professional work.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that it had also expected that the public authorities, in particular the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General and the judiciary, together with the social partners, as well as other stakeholders (for example, the Belarusian National Bar Association) would continue working together towards building a strong and efficient system of dispute resolution which could deal with labour disputes involving individual, collective and trade union matters. The Committee notes with  regret  the BKDP indication that the work on developing an effective mechanism for resolving non-judicial disputes which could deal with labour disputes, including individual, collective and trade union disputes, is neglected completely.  The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon. The Committee invites the Government to continue to take advantage of ILO technical assistance in this regard.

Article 4. Right to collective bargaining. The Committee had previously noted that a collective bargaining procedure at enterprises with more than one trade union had been agreed upon and included in clause 45 of the General Agreement between the Government and the national organizations of employers and trade unions for 2016–18. Pursuant to this provision, a single body comprising representatives of all unions active at an enterprise would negotiate a collective agreement to which all trade unions could become a party. The Committee notes with  interest  that the same provision is now included in the General Agreement for 2019–2021 (clause 49).

The Committee recalls the BKDP allegation that this procedure was not respected by the management of a glass fibre company in Polotsk, an enterprise producing tractor parts in Bobruisk and a company producing tractors in Minsk. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that as regard the first enterprise, the primary trade union of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (SPB) did not name any representatives for the inclusion in the collective bargaining committee. The Government points out that the collective agreement for 2014–17 applied to all of the enterprise’s workers. On 28 January 2016, the enterprise received a written request for collective bargaining from the SPB primary organization. Pursuant to the legislation in force, it was requested to confirm that it had members at the enterprise and that it was authorized to represent their interests. As no such confirmation followed, the union could not initiate collective bargaining process. The Government indicates that the latest collective agreement was concluded for 2017–20 by representatives of the primary organization of Belkhimprofsoyuz. As regards Bobruisk plant, the Government indicates that a collective agreement was concluded on 26 March 2016 by the chairperson of the primary organization of the Belarusian Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers Union. Representatives of the SPB primary trade union did not participate in the work of the committee established for the purposes of collective bargaining, as the competence of this primary organization had not been confirmed in the proper manner. As regards the Minsk plant, the Government indicates that according to the enterprise management, neither the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronics Workers (REP), nor the trade union group established by this union in February 2016, stated that they wished to join the collective agreement concluded at the enterprise for 2014–16, and no documents were provided confirming that it represented workers at the enterprise.

The Committee notes that the BKDP alleges several other instances where clause 45 of the previous General Agreement was not respected. In this connection, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that taking into account the complaints received from the BKDP, the issue of compliance with the procedure for collective bargaining where more than one trade union exist, as specified in the General Agreement for 2016–18, has been examined a number of times within the framework of the tripartite Council. The tripartite Council drew the attention of all social partners to the need to comply with clause 45 of the General Agreement. Upon the proposal by the BKDP, this issue was once again examined on 6 March 2018. On that occasion, the tripartite Council requested both the employer and the worker members to provide assistance and to carry out work among its member associations to explain and clarify the issues arising from clause 45 of the General Agreement for 2016–18. The Council concluded that clause 45 applies exclusively to representatives of trade union organizations that are actually operating at an organization (enterprise) and that have members from among the workers of that organization (enterprise).  The Committee trusts that any issues of compliance with the General Agreement will continue to be brought to the attention of the Council where they can be examined in the tripartite setting.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the tripartite Council operates effectively in Belarus and is the main forum for stakeholders to discuss issues relating to the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. The Council also decides on proposals of areas of collaboration with the ILO. The Government informs in this respect, that on the basis of such proposals, a meeting of the tripartite Council held with the participation of the ILO representatives in February 2019, discussed the issue of collective bargaining at various levels. It was agreed that the work in this respect would continue with the ILO support with the view to improving legislation and practice in this area. The Committee notes that in its report on the application of Convention No. 87, the Government informs that a follow-up meeting of the tripartite Council was held in November 2019 to discuss proposals on the issue of collective bargaining elaborated in collaboration with the ILO. The Government believes the proposals and recommendations are a good basis for the tripartite parties to develop solutions acceptable to all. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all developments in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

Follow-up to the 2004 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO

The Committee notes of the observations of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) received on 30 August 2019 and alleging violations of the Convention in practice. The Committee examines them below.

The Committee notes the 385th and the 390th reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Articles 1–3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to reply to the BKDP observations containing allegations of dismissals of trade unionists Ms Oksana Kernozhitskaya and Mr Mikhail Soshko. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these workers were not dismissed, rather, their contract of employment has expired. The Government explains that the termination of employment upon the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract cannot be considered dismissal by the employer. The Government further explains that under the law, the employer is not obliged to justify his or her unwillingness to extend an employment relationship upon the expiry of a contract. Thus, according to the Government, the expiry of a contract is already in itself sufficient grounds for its termination; there are no legal means of compelling an employer to conclude a new contract with a worker. The Committee considers that the legal framework as described by the Government does not currently provide for an adequate protection against non-renewal of a contract for anti-union reasons. It recalls in this respect that the non-renewal of a contract for anti-union reasons constitutes a prejudicial act within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. It also recalls that since inadequate safeguards against acts of anti-union discrimination, including against non-renewal of contracts for anti-union reasons, may lead to the actual disappearance of primary level trade unions, composed only of workers in an undertaking, additional measures should be taken to ensure fuller protection for leaders and members of trade unions, against any such acts. As one of the additional measures to ensure the effective protection against anti-union discrimination, the adoption of provision for laying upon the employer, in the case of any alleged discriminatory dismissal or non-renewal of contract, the burden of proving that such action was in fact justified. The Committee requests the Government to take, in consultation with the social partners, the necessary measures in order to adopt specific legislative provisions affording an adequate protection against cases of non-renewal of contracts for anti-union reasons. It requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken to that end.

The Committee recalls that it had also noted the BKDP allegation that the management of the Belaruskali promoted the primary trade union affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) at the expense of the BKDP-affiliated union and pressured the members of the latter to leave the union. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that primary organizations of trade unions in Belarus are affiliated to either the FPB or the BKDP. A number of enterprises have several primary trade union organizations. At Belaruskali, there are two primary trade union organizations: the primary organization of the Belarusian Union of Chemical, Mining and Oil Industries Workers (Belkhimprofsoyuz), affiliated to the FPB, and the Independent Trade Union of Miners (NPG) of Belaruskali, which is a primary organization of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BNP), affiliated to the BKDP. The presence in one enterprise of the organizational structures of two different trade unions naturally gives rise to competition for members. The trade unions use various methods and means to strengthen their own position, retain existing members and attract new ones. As provisions of Belkhimprofsoyuz’ by-laws do not permit simultaneous membership in two trade unions, the trade union committee of the Belkhimprofsoyuz primary trade union organization at the undertaking decided to bring its structure into line with the existing rules and to take steps to eliminate dual trade union membership. To that end, it proposed to workers with dual membership (690 workers) to choose between the two unions. According to the Government, an overwhelming majority of workers decided in favour of Belkhimprofsoyuz primary trade union organization; as a result, the BNP-affiliated union membership fell down. Thus, the Government concludes that the sharp fall in membership of the primary trade union was mainly a consequence of the choice made by workers. The Government also indicates that retirement of workers as well as the termination of employment was also a factor in the decline of the union membership. The Government points out that the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter, tripartite Council) received no information about specific instances of members of the BNP primary trade union organization being pressured by the enterprise management to leave the BKDP-affiliated trade union. Workers who believe that they have been subject to anti-union discrimination or pressure by may apply to a court for measures to end the discrimination.

The Committee notes the new allegations submitted by the BKDP regarding interference by enterprise managers in trade union affairs. According to the BKDP, enterprise managers, for the most part, are still members of the FPB. It alleges, in addition, that at most enterprises, employees, when hired, are first sent to the trade union committee, where they are urged to write an application for affiliation to the official trade union to get a job. A citizen is thus deprived of the right to freely choose a union and members of independent trade unions are forced to quit their union organizations. The BKDP refers, in particular, to the situation at the above-mentioned Belaruskali where the director general has joined the Belkhimprofsoyuz to become its official and head the anti-union campaign against the independent union. The BKDP alleges that as a result, between 1 January and 1 April 2019, 596 workers were forced to renounce their NPG membership. The BKDP further refers to a similar situation at the Remmontazhstroy company where the independent union lost 180 members within the same period. The BKDP further alleges threats of termination of contract suffered by Mr Drazhenko, the head of primary trade union at the Borisov “Autohydraulic booster” plant for his active trade union position. The Committee requests the Government to provide its detailed comments on the above.

The Committee had previously welcomed the Government’s indication that a training course on international labour standards for judges, lawyers and legal educators was to take place with ILO support in 2017 and requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of this activity. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this course allowed judges, lawyers and legal educators to increase their knowledge of the practical application of international labour standards, which they are now applying in their professional work.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that it had also expected that the public authorities, in particular the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General and the judiciary, together with the social partners, as well as other stakeholders (for example, the Belarusian National Bar Association) would continue working together towards building a strong and efficient system of dispute resolution which could deal with labour disputes involving individual, collective and trade union matters. The Committee notes with regret the BKDP indication that the work on developing an effective mechanism for resolving non-judicial disputes which could deal with labour disputes, including individual, collective and trade union disputes, is neglected completely. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon. The Committee invites the Government to continue to take advantage of ILO technical assistance in this regard.

Article 4. Right to collective bargaining. The Committee had previously noted that a collective bargaining procedure at enterprises with more than one trade union had been agreed upon and included in clause 45 of the General Agreement between the Government and the national organizations of employers and trade unions for 2016–18. Pursuant to this provision, a single body comprising representatives of all unions active at an enterprise would negotiate a collective agreement to which all trade unions could become a party. The Committee notes with interest that the same provision is now included in the General Agreement for 2019–2021 (clause 49).

The Committee recalls the BKDP allegation that this procedure was not respected by the management of a glass fibre company in Polotsk, an enterprise producing tractor parts in Bobruisk and a company producing tractors in Minsk. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that as regard the first enterprise, the primary trade union of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (SPB) did not name any representatives for the inclusion in the collective bargaining committee. The Government points out that the collective agreement for 2014–17 applied to all of the enterprise’s workers. On 28 January 2016, the enterprise received a written request for collective bargaining from the SPB primary organization. Pursuant to the legislation in force, it was requested to confirm that it had members at the enterprise and that it was authorized to represent their interests. As no such confirmation followed, the union could not initiate collective bargaining process. The Government indicates that the latest collective agreement was concluded for 2017–20 by representatives of the primary organization of Belkhimprofsoyuz. As regards Bobruisk plant, the Government indicates that a collective agreement was concluded on 26 March 2016 by the chairperson of the primary organization of the Belarusian Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers Union. Representatives of the SPB primary trade union did not participate in the work of the committee established for the purposes of collective bargaining, as the competence of this primary organization had not been confirmed in the proper manner. As regards the Minsk plant, the Government indicates that according to the enterprise management, neither the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronics Workers (REP), nor the trade union group established by this union in February 2016, stated that they wished to join the collective agreement concluded at the enterprise for 2014–16, and no documents were provided confirming that it represented workers at the enterprise.

The Committee notes that the BKDP alleges several other instances where clause 45 of the previous General Agreement was not respected. In this connection, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that taking into account the complaints received from the BKDP, the issue of compliance with the procedure for collective bargaining where more than one trade union exist, as specified in the General Agreement for 2016–18, has been examined a number of times within the framework of the tripartite Council. The tripartite Council drew the attention of all social partners to the need to comply with clause 45 of the General Agreement. Upon the proposal by the BKDP, this issue was once again examined on 6 March 2018. On that occasion, the tripartite Council requested both the employer and the worker members to provide assistance and to carry out work among its member associations to explain and clarify the issues arising from clause 45 of the General Agreement for 2016–18. The Council concluded that clause 45 applies exclusively to representatives of trade union organizations that are actually operating at an organization (enterprise) and that have members from among the workers of that organization (enterprise). The Committee trusts that any issues of compliance with the General Agreement will continue to be brought to the attention of the Council where they can be examined in the tripartite setting.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the tripartite Council operates effectively in Belarus and is the main forum for stakeholders to discuss issues relating to the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. The Council also decides on proposals of areas of collaboration with the ILO. The Government informs in this respect, that on the basis of such proposals, a meeting of the tripartite Council held with the participation of the ILO representatives in February 2019, discussed the issue of collective bargaining at various levels. It was agreed that the work in this respect would continue with the ILO support with the view to improving legislation and practice in this area. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all developments in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

Follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO

The Committee notes the report of the direct contacts mission (DCM) which visited the country in January 2014 with a view to obtaining a full picture of the trade union rights situation in the country and assisting the Government in the rapid and effective implementation of all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee also notes the 379th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2016 on the application of the Convention. It further notes the observations submitted by the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) received on 31 August 2016 alleging violations of the Convention in practice.

Articles 1–3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with concern numerous allegations of anti-union discrimination, including discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts, and interference, threats and pressure put on workers to leave their unions and urged the Government to examine, in the framework of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (the tripartite Council), the issue of effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in law and in practice, in general, as well as all of the outstanding allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference, in particular. In this respect, the Committee notes from the DCM report that it had received information to the effect that “all complaints of violations of trade union rights … were properly and timely investigated either by the prosecutors or dealt with by the courts”.

The Committee notes new allegations of dismissals, non-renewal of contracts and interference submitted by the BKDP. The BKDP refers, in particular, to the cases of Mr Nikolai Sharakh and Mr Anatoly Potapovich, whose contracts were not renewed, and the dismissal of Ms Oksana Kernozhitskaya and Mr Mikhail Soshko. It further alleges that the management of the JSC Belaruskali promotes the primary trade union affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) at the expense of the BKDP-affiliated union and pressures the members of the latter to leave the union. According to the information provided by the BKDP, the case of Mr Potapovich was examined by the court, which decided against his reinstatement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the case of Mr Sharakh was discussed by the tripartite Council, which concluded that Mr Sharakh’s contract was not renewed on the basis of his written request indicating that he wished to retire. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the remaining allegations. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee welcomes the information provided that on 25 February 2016 a tripartite seminar on mechanisms for dispute resolution and mediation was held in Minsk with ILO assistance, which, according to the Government, gave rise to an exchange of opinions concerning the treatment of labour disputes under the existing national system and possible effective new mechanisms, including the tripartite Council. The Committee expects that the public authorities, in particular the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General and the judiciary, together with the social partners, as well as other stakeholders (for example, the Belarusian National Bar Association) will continue working together towards building a strong and efficient system of dispute resolution which could deal with labour disputes involving individual, collective and trade union matters. The Committee invites the Government to take advantage of ILO technical assistance in this regard. Further in this connection, the Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that a training course on international labour standards for judges, lawyers and legal educators is planned to take place with ILO support in the first half of 2017. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of this activity.

Article 4. Right to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the issue of collective bargaining at the enterprise level where unions affiliated to the FPB and the BKDP were active and, in particular, the allegation that, on the one hand, the FPB primary trade unions refused to bargain collectively alongside and co-sign collective agreements with primary trade unions of the BKDP and, on the other, employers refused to bargain with a view to signing a second collective agreement with minority unions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that following the recommendation of the DCM, in May 2015, the ILO, together with the Government and the social partners, held a tripartite seminar in Minsk on “Collective Bargaining and Cooperation at the Enterprise Level in the Context of Pluralism”. On the basis of the conclusions reached by the seminar participants, the tripartite Council agreed on a collective bargaining procedure at enterprises with more than one trade union and unanimously endorsed its inclusion in a General Agreement between the Government and the national organizations of employers and trade unions for 2016–18. The Committee notes with interest that the General Agreement for 2016–18 contains a provision on the collective bargaining procedure at enterprises with more than one union. Pursuant to this provision, a single body comprising representatives of all unions active at an enterprise negotiates a collective agreement to which all trade unions can become a party.

The Committee notes the BKDP allegation that this procedure was not respected by the management of a glass fibre company in Polotsk, an enterprise producing tractor parts in Bobruisk and a company producing tractors in Minsk. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

CMNT_TITLE

Follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in June 2013. The Committee also notes the 369th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee further notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 30 August 2013 detailing violations of the Convention.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with concern numerous detailed allegations of anti-union discrimination, including discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts, and interference, threats and pressure put on workers to leave their unions and urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that these allegations were brought to the attention of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (“the Council”) without further delay and to provide information on the outcome of the discussion and on any remedial measures taken. The Committee had further noted with regret the case of Mr Aleksey Gabriel, leader of a primary-level organization of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) who was dismissed following the non-renewal of his employment contact, and requested the Government to provide information on his current employment status.

With regard to the case of Mr Gabriel, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that he has reached the retirement age and is currently not employed. With respect to the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Government indicates that the submission of allegations to the Committee is not enough for these allegations to be examined by the courts, the Prosecutor’s Office or the Council; the complainant organizations must initiate these procedures. The Committee understands that the Government appears to indicate that no complaints relating to the abovementioned cases have been officially addressed to these bodies. Observing with regret the long-standing nature of these allegations, the Committee recalls that where cases of alleged anti-union discrimination and interference are involved, the competent authorities dealing with labour issues should begin an inquiry immediately and take suitable measures to remedy any effects of anti-union discrimination and interference brought to their attention. The Committee notes with deep regret that despite its numerous requests, the Government appears to have not referred these matters to the Council. Indeed, the Committee observes that the Government’s report does not refer to any discussions on the issue of anti-union dismissals, threats, interference and pressure which had taken place at the tripartite Council within the reporting year. The Committee notes with concern new allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference which have taken place in public sector enterprises (“Granit” and Bobruisk Plant of Tractor Parts and Units) submitted by the ITUC. The Committee urges the Government to examine, in the framework of the tripartite Council, the issue of effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in law and in practice, in general, as well as all of the outstanding allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference, in particular. It requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of these discussions, which it expects will take place without further delay.

Furthermore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take measures to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and instructions are given to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated. Should such complaints prove true, the necessary measures should be taken to put an end to such acts and punish those responsible.

Article 4. Right to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its observations on the allegation by the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) of refusal by employers to bargain collectively with its affiliates at several enterprises. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that this issue had been discussed by the tripartite Council, but following a disagreement, the Council had decided to refer this question to its tripartite working group. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that while the working group discussed the situation, no agreement had been reached as, on the one hand, the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) refused to bargain collectively alongside and co-sign collective agreements with primary trade unions of the CDTU and on the other, employers refused to bargain with a view to signing a second collective agreement with minority unions. The Committee trusts that this issue will be further discussed during the direct contacts mission requested by the Committee on the Applications of Standards in June 2013 with a view to assisting the Government and the social partners in the rapid and effective implementation of all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee hopes that this mission will take place in the very near future.

The Committee strongly encourages the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay, in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee further expresses the firm hope that the Government and the social partners will continue the cooperation within the framework of the tripartite Council and that the latter will have a real impact on ensuring that the rights to organize and collective bargaining are effectively guaranteed in law and in practice.

CMNT_TITLE

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 100th Session, June 2011)

Follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2011. The Committee also notes the 361st Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee further notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 4 August 2011 detailing violations of the Convention, which the Committee had already dealt with in its previous comments. It also notes the comments submitted by the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) in a communication dated 30 August 2011.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with concern the comments made by the CDTU on the discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts. The CDTU had alleged, in particular, that members of free and independent unions were forced to leave their unions under the threat of non-renewal of their contracts, and had provided detailed information on the impact of threats of non-renewal of fixed-term contracts on its affiliates at the following enterprises: “Grodno-Azot”, “Belshina”, “Polimir”, Mozyr Oil Refinery, “Zenit”, Brest Pedagogical University and Hydraulic Power Station in Novolukoml. The Committee had further noted with regret the case of Mr Aleksey Gabriel, dismissed leader of a primary-level organization of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) at the Lukoml Power Station and the allegations of anti-union discrimination suffered by members affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU), threats and interference in internal trade union affairs at “Mogilev ZIV” and “Avtopark No. 1”. It further noted the allegations of pressure put on workers to leave their union at the Bobruisk Plant of Tractor Parts and Units (BFTU primary trade union), “Grodno Azot” company, “Delta Style” company in Soligorsk, “Lavanstroi” construction company and Minsk Automated Lines company (all primary trade unions of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU)). The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all of the abovementioned allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference relating to the CDTU and REWU-affiliated trade unions and their members at all of the abovementioned enterprises, were brought to the attention of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (“the Council”) without further delay. It requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the discussion and on any remedial measures taken should it be found that anti-union discrimination and interference have occurred.

The Committee notes that in its report, the Government indicates that a fixed-term contract is concluded upon an agreement between an employer and a worker and that transfer from a permanent to contractual form of employment can take place only if there are organizational, structural or economic reasons, which can be disputed by a worker in court. The Government also indicates that the contractual form of employment provides employers with more flexible possibilities of human resource management. An employer’s decision not to renew a contract cannot be qualified as dismissal upon an employer’s initiative. The legislation in force does not require an employer to justify his or her decision not to renew a contract with a particular worker: expiry of a contract is the basis of its termination. Therefore, if an employer decides not to renew a contract upon its expiry, no justification is needed and the worker whose contract is not renewed has no legal means to raise the non-renewal in court. The Committee notes that with regard to the allegations concerning Mozyr Oil Refinery, the Government indicates that there are two primary trade unions at the enterprise: one is affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FTUB) and the other, to the BITU. According to the Government, sometimes workers change their affiliation from one union to the other, and in the period from 2009 to March 2011, 648 workers (some of whom were members of the BITU-affiliated union) left the enterprise for various reasons. With regard to the “Grodno Azot” company, the Government indicates that the allegations have been investigated by the Prosecutor’s office on two occasions and that the allegations of pressure have not been confirmed. With regard to Bobruisk Plant of Tractor Parts and Units and Minsk Automated Lines company, the Government indicates that both the BFTU and BITU primary trade unions are signatories to the respective enterprises’ collective agreements alongside the FTUB-affiliated unions.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government with respect to the use of fixed-term contracts. In this respect, it notes with concern allegations contained in the 2011 CDTU communication to the effect that short term contracts at the company level are used by employers to fight independent trade unions and that under this system, numerous trade union activists have been dismissed and that the courts consistently dismiss such cases. The Committee considers that not only dismissal, but also non-renewal of a contract, when imposed as a result of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, would be contrary to the principle that no person should be prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of trade union membership or activities.

The Committee regrets that the Government provides extremely limited information with regard to the alleged cases of anti-union discrimination and interference at the abovementioned enterprises, despite the Conference Committee’s explicit request to the Government to submit, after an independent and impartial investigation, detailed observations on the allegations of anti-union discrimination, including as regards the anti-union impact of fixed-term contracts and employer interference in workers’ organizations, as well as information on any proposed amendments to the legislation to the Committee of Experts. The Committee further notes with regret new allegations of attempts to dissolve the BITU’s primary trade union at Mozyr Oil Refinery through pressure on its members. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with regret that according to the CDTU, the Government refused to use the tripartite working group created by the Council to discuss in substance the issue of trade union rights’ violation. The Committee notes with deep regret that in this regard, the Government has not referred to any discussions on the issue of anti-union dismissals, threats, interference and pressure which had taken place at the tripartite Council within the reporting year. The Committee therefore strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all of the abovementioned allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference at all of the abovementioned enterprises, are brought to the attention of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere without further delay. It requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the discussion and on any remedial measures taken should it be found that anti-union discrimination and interference have occurred. It further requests the Government to provide information on the employment status of Mr Aleksey Gabriel.

Furthermore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take measures to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and instructions are given to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated. Should such complaints prove true, the necessary measures should be taken to put an end to such acts and punish those responsible.

Article 4. Right to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its observations on the CDTU’s allegations of refusal to bargain collectively with its affiliates at the “Naftan” and “Grodno-Azot” enterprises. In this respect, the Committee notes that in its most recent communication, the CDTU alleges that the employer at “Naftan” enterprise has excluded the primary BITU trade union from the collective bargaining process and the agreement for 2011 has been signed with the primary trade union of the FTUB. The CDTU indicates that the union’s appeals to the National Labour Arbitration and the State Labour Inspectorate and other bodies brought no results. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that while the agreement was signed by the FTUB-affiliated union, which is the most representative organization, it applies to all workers, regardless of their union membership. The Government indicates, however, that the CDTU appealed to the tripartite Council and this issue was discussed during the Council’s 1 November 2011 meeting. The Council has decided to refer this question to its tripartite working group. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the discussion in the tripartite working group concerning the case of “Naftan” enterprise, as well as on the situation at the “Grodno-Azot” with regard to the participation of the CDTU-affiliated union in the collective bargaining.

The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government in relation to the conclusion of a General Agreement for 2011–13, covering all employers’ and workers’ organizations in the country, signed on 30 December 2010. The Committee notes the Government’s intention to organize, together with the ILO, a tripartite seminar on the issue of social dialogue.

The Committee strongly encourages the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay, in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee further expresses the firm hope that the Government and the social partners will continue the cooperation within the framework of the tripartite Council and that the latter will have a real impact on ensuring that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed in law and in practice.

CMNT_TITLE

Follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry
(complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2010. The Committee further notes the comments made by the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) on the application of the Convention, in law and in practice, in a communication dated 30 August 2010 and the Government’s reply thereon.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with concern the 2009 comments made by the CDTU on the continuing discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts. The CDTU alleged, in particular, that members of free and independent unions are forced to leave their unions under the threat of non-renewal of their contracts and provided the following statistics on the impact of threats of non-renewal of fixed-term contracts on its affiliates: primary trade union at “Grodno-Azot” enterprise had lost 930 members since 2006; primary trade union at “Belshina” enterprise in Bobruisk – 50 members since 2006; primary trade union at “Polimir” chemical company in Novopolotsk – nearly 400 members since 2006; and primary trade union at Mozyr oil refinery company – at least 50 members since the beginning of 2009. The CDTU further alleged that trade union membership of primary trade unions at “Zenit” company in Vileika (Minsk region), Brest Pedagogical University, hydraulic power station in Novolukoml, and other small union organizations also suffered. According to the CDTU, the scenario of pressure on workers in all these cases was almost the same: the floor managers or managers on ideology would invite trade union members to sign statements indicating that they were leaving independent unions and discontinuing payment of trade union membership dues. Those who refused were threatened with dismissal and non renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The Committee had expressed the firm hope that the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (“the Council”) would examine the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference suffered by the CDTU-affiliated trade unions and their members at the abovementioned enterprises, as well as at “Mogilev ZIV”, “Avtopark No. 1”, with regard to the members affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) and requested the Government to inform it of the outcome of the discussion and of measures taken to redress the damages suffered. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect.

The Committee further notes with concern that in its recent communication, the CDTU alleges that this pressure on independent trade unions, through the short-term contract system, has continued and that Presidential Decree No. 164 of 31 March 2010 (to improve contract-based scheme of employment) has not solved the problem. The Committee understands that this Decree entitles an employer to conclude an employment contract for an indefinite term with an employee who has not violated labour discipline and who has worked for the employer for no less than five years, but does not deal with unfair use of the system.

The Committee further notes with concern the CDTU’s allegation that the number of violations of trade union rights has been increasing and that its members are still suffering from anti-union discrimination, including dismissal, non-renewal of labour contracts, pressure and harassment. In particular, the Committee notes with regret a case where a trade union activist of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU) was dismissed from the Lukoml Power Station. The Committee observes that while at its June 2010 session, the Conference Committee noted the Government’s statement that this person was reinstated in December 2009 following the court decision, it appears now that the dismissal was confirmed on 21 May 2010 following an appeal by the employer and the prosecutor’s office.

The Committee further notes the allegations of threats and interference in internal trade union affairs and a new wave of pressure put on workers to leave their union at the Bobruisk plant of tractor parts and units (Belarusian Free Trade Union primary trade union), “Grodno-Azot” company, “Delta Style” company in Soligorsk, “Lavanstroi” construction company, Minsk automated line company (all BITU primary trade unions).

The Committee notes with regret that according to the CDTU, the Government refuses to use the tripartite council to discuss in substance the issue of trade union rights’ violation. The Committee notes with regret that in this regard, the Government has not referred to any discussions taking place at the Council sitting on 14 May 2010 or at the meeting of 15 October 2010 of a tripartite working group created by the Council, with reference to anti-union dismissals, threats, interference and pressure.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all of the abovementioned allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference relating to the CDTU and REWU-affiliated trade unions and their members at all of the abovementioned enterprises, are brought to the attention of the Council without further delay. It requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the discussion and of any remedial measures taken should it be found that anti-union discrimination and interference have occurred.

Furthermore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take measures to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and, on the other, instructions to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated. Should such complaints prove true, the necessary measures should be taken to put an end to such acts and punish those responsible.

Article 4. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that at its meeting of 26 November 2009, the tripartite council discussed the issue of collective bargaining at enterprises with several trade union organizations, as well as development of social partnership including the conclusion of collective agreements at “Grodno-Azot” and “Naftan” enterprises. It requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this discussion. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the situation with the collective agreement at “Naftan” has been positively resolved and that the CDTU-affiliated trade union had joined the agreement concluded by the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB). The Committee notes with concern, however, the CDTU’s indication that its proposals with regard to social partnership at “Naftan” and “Grodno-Azot” have been ignored or not considered at all. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that a tripartite working group, where trade unions are represented by both the FPB and the CDTU, has been created to prepare a new General Agreement for 2011–13. The Committee requests the Government to provide all relevant information in this respect.

The Committee strongly encourages the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay, in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee further expresses the firm hope that the Government and the social partners will continue the cooperation within the framework of the tripartite Council and that the latter will have a real impact on ensuring that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed in law and in practice.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 100th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2011.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2009. The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice in communications dated 26 and 28 August 2009, respectively.

The Committee also takes note of the seminar on the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations organized jointly by the ILO and the Government of Belarus in January 2009 and welcomes the plan of action to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry subsequently adopted by the tripartite National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI). The Committee further notes with interest that, pursuant to the plan of action, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (“the Council”) evolved into a tripartite body where trade unions could raise their concerns and that the Council’s composition now included three representatives of the CDTU.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee regretted that no information was provided by the Government on the measures taken to carry out independent investigations into the alleged instances of anti-union discrimination and interference suffered by members of the primary trade unions affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) at the “Mogilev ZIV” and “Avtopark No. 1”. It also noted with regret the allegations by the ITUC of instances of anti-union discrimination against members of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU) at the “Polymir” company and the leaders of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) at the Brest State Pedagogical University; as well as an alleged denial of access to the workplace (“Belaruskaliy”) of the leader of the BITU. In these circumstances, the Committee requested the Government to carry out independent investigations into all alleged instances of interference and anti-union discrimination and reiterated its request to immediately  redress all damages suffered from anti-union discrimination by those workers mentioned in the complaint filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, as well as those cases that had come to light the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that at its sitting of 14 May 2009 the tripartite Council discussed cases of termination of employment of Messrs Gaichenko, Dukhomenko, Obukhov, Shaitor, Shcherbo and Stukov (listed in the 352nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association). According to the Government, these workers were invited to the Council’s meeting and the necessary measures were taken to ensure that employers did not obstruct their participation in the meeting and that the workers were given a day off for that purpose. The Government indicates that Mr Gachenko declined the invitation of the Council as he was satisfied with his employment at the “Naftan” enterprise in Novopolotsk. The Committee notes the minutes of the meeting provided by the Government and, in particular, the following conclusions, agreed upon by all members of the Council:

–           The Council noted that the abovementioned workers were not experiencing any pressure from their respective employers.

–           The Council took note of Mr Shcherbo’s desire to work in his previous post and decided to assist him in obtaining a post of an electrical train driver at Minsk Metro.

–           The Council noted that Mr Shaitor left the enterprise on 6 April 2009 and at the time of the meeting was unemployed. It was decided to ask the state employment service for assistance in getting him employed in his previous post or any other acceptable position.

–           The Council noted that Messrs Dukhomenko and Obukhov no longer wished to work at their previous workplaces unless they were reinstated with full compensation. Noting that under the current legislation it was impossible to reinstate them in their previous posts, Mr Dukhomenko was offered assistance with his entrepreneurial activities, while Mr Obukhov, who was satisfied with his current employment, was informed of opportunities for further training.

–           The Council discussed the situation of Mr Stukov who was currently employed at the Polotsk-Steklovolokno company. In April 2004 he was dismissed for causing material loss to his employers as established by the court. He was subsequently allowed back to his previous post in May 2004. Because of his dismissal, Mr Stukov lost his entitlement to a special length-of-service payment. The Council therefore decided to apply to the company for restoration of his full entitlements relating to the length of service which had been interrupted by his dismissal in April 2004.

–           The Council emphasized that it would continue examining the issues relating to the protection of trade union members from discrimination and considered it appropriate to discuss existing legal mechanisms for protecting citizens from anti-union discrimination in the light of national legislation and international labour standards.

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that, following the Council’s decision, an agreement was reached with the Minsk Metro authority regarding the appointment of Mr Shcherbo, that Mr Shaitor has been hired as a driver at the Polotsk Dairy Combine and that full length-of-service entitlement was restored to Mr Stukov.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Office of the Public Prosecutor examined a representation by the BITU leader with regard to the alleged denial of access to the workplace by the management of “Belaruskaliy”. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s statement that, at present, the dispute appears to no longer exist and that the trade union leader has visited the enterprise’s premises on a number of occasions without hindrance.

The Committee notes with concern the comments made by CDTU on the continuing discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts. In its communication, the CDTU alleges that members of free and independent unions are forced to leave their unions under the threat of dissolution or non-renewal of their contracts. The CDTU provides the following statistics on the impact of threats of non-renewal of fixed-term contracts on independent unions (CDTU’s affiliates):

–           primary trade union at “Grodno-Azot” enterprise has lost 930 members since 2006;

–           primary trade union at “Belshina” enterprise in Bobruisk has lost 50 members since 2006;

–           primary trade union at “Polimir” chemical company in Novopolotsk has lost nearly 400 members since 2006; and

–           primary trade union at Mozyr oil refinery company has lost at least 50 members since the beginning of 2009.

The CDTU further alleged that trade union membership of primary trade unions at “Zenit” company in Vileika (Minsk region), Brest Pedagogical University, hydraulic power station in Novolukoml and other small union organizations also suffered. According to the CDTU, the scenario of pressure on workers in all these cases was almost the same: the floor managers or managers on ideology would invite trade union members to sign statements indicating that they were leaving independent unions and discontinuing payment of trade union membership dues. Those who refused were threatened with dismissal and non‑renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Council will examine the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference suffered by the CDTU-affiliated trade unions and their members at the abovementioned enterprises, as well as at “Mogilev ZIV”, “Avtopark No. 1”, with regard to the members affiliated to the REWU, in the near future. It requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the discussion and of measures taken to redress the damages suffered.

Furthermore, the Committee once again urges the Government to pursue vigorously, on the one hand, the instructions to be given to enterprises so as to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and, on the other, instructions to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated.

Article 4. The Committee notes with interest that the CDTU is now a party to the General Agreement for 2009–10. It observes, however, the alleged instances of refusal to sign collective agreements with the CDTU-affiliated trade unions at “Grodno-Azot” and “Naftan-Polimir” enterprises, as described in the CDTU communication. The Committee notes that at its sitting of 26 November 2009, the tripartite Council discussed the issue of collective bargaining at enterprises with several trade union organizations, as well as development of the social partnership including conclusion of collective agreements at “Grodno‑Azot” and “Naftan” enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of this discussion.

The Committee encourages the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government and the social partners will continue the cooperation within the framework of the tripartite Council and that the latter will have a real impact on ensuring that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed in law and in practice.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (352nd Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 303rd Session) and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008. The Committee also takes note of the seminar on anti-union discrimination which was held in Belarus in June 2008, with the participation of ILO representatives and tripartite constituents. The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice in a communication dated 29 August 2008.

The Committee recalls that all of its outstanding comments have raised issues directly relating to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the complaint filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution or had come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee had also requested the Government to ensure an independent investigation into the alleged instances of interference and anti-union discrimination at the “Mogilev ZIV” and “Avtopark No. 1” suffered by the primary trade union affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) and its members and to ensure that the rights of workers who had suffered anti-union discrimination in these enterprises were fully redressed. It had further asked the Government to indicate whether the officials of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) were allowed access to the enterprise to meet their members and to provide information on the outcome of the discussion at the level of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social and Labour Spheres of the case concerning the “Belshina” enterprise. Finally, it had urged the Government to rapidly adopt new, improved mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and to indicate the progress made in this regard.

The Committee regrets that the information provided by the Government is once again limited to the indication that the current legal framework provides for adequate measures to protect citizens from acts of anti-union discrimination, that enterprise labour commissions can examine disputes involving allegations of anti-union discrimination and that aggrieved workers can have recourse to the courts according to the procedures provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the Government, in 2007, no cases involving allegations of anti-union discrimination were lodged with the courts. The Committee notes the Government’s indication concerning the seminar on anti-union discrimination organized in June 2008 with the participation of representatives of employers’ organizations, trade unions, including those not affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus, representatives of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, judges and prosecutors, representatives of the ILO, the ITUC and of the International Organisation of Employers. The Government further states that it will continue its cooperation with the ILO and to that effect, another tripartite seminar on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry is under preparation.

The Committee notes with regret the new ITUC comments on of anti-union discrimination against members of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU) at “Polymir” company and the leaders of the BFTU at the Brest State Pedagogical University and the allegation of denial of access to workplace (“Belaruskaliy”) to the leader of the BITU, as well as a number of comments of interference, anti-union pressure and anti-union dismissals submitted by the BITU and the REWU to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s statement that the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Spheres reviewed complaints concerning specific enterprises. The Committee notes, however, from the recent report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, that the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) considers that this Council fails to play an effective role in eliminating violations of trade union rights. 

In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the measures taken so far by the Government to ensure the full application of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention are insufficient. In these circumstances, the Committee once again urges the Government to pursue vigorously, on the one hand, the instructions to be given to enterprises so as to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and, on the other, instructions to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated.

The Committee further requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments submitted by the ITUC and to carry out independent investigations into all alleged instances of interference and anti-union discrimination and to keep it informed in this respect. It further reiterates its request to immediately redress the damages suffered from anti-union discrimination by those workers mentioned in the complaint filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, as well as those cases that had come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the developments in this respect.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in its review of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry (345th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 298th Session) and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2007. The Committee also takes note of the report of the mission carried out in Belarus in June 2007, in response to the requests made by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2007. The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice. Finally, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that consultations relating to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were held in Geneva in February and May 2007 between the Government’s representatives and the Office.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the complaint filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution or had come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It further urged the Government rapidly to adopt new, improved mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and to indicate the progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that Mr Dolbik, whose contract had not been renewed following his contacts with the Commission of Inquiry, was hired in his position of air traffic controller by the “Belaeronovigatsia” and that a three-year contract was concluded with him. The Committee nevertheless regrets that no information was provided in respect of the other persons and therefore once again reiterates its previous request to redress their situations and to provide information as to their current contractual status.

The Committee notes that the Government once again indicates that the current legal framework provides for adequate measures to protect citizens from acts of anti-union discrimination. The Government once again refers to the tripartite General Agreement for 2006–08 wherein it was recommended that collective agreements include provisions setting out additional guarantees for workers elected to trade union bodies. The Government further indicates that the draft Law on trade unions maintains the rights of trade union members established in the current Law on trade unions. In addition, the new Law would include a provision establishing disciplinary, administrative, criminal and other liability for violations of the rights of trade unions and their associations.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres (Council of Experts), which includes the representatives of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), was assigned a role of an independent body, having the confidence of the parties concerned, to consider complaints of interference in trade union affairs, as well as the cases of workers who believe they have been subjected to anti-union discrimination (without duplicating the work of existing judicial procedures or of the prosecution services and other state supervisory bodies). The Government indicates that, at a meeting held on 25 January 2007, the Council examined a complaint brought by the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU) on the situation at the “Grodno Azot” and the “Belshina” enterprises and adopted unanimous conclusions. As a result, on 2 February 2007, the dispute concerning the accession of the BITU primary organization to the collective agreement at “Grodno Azot” was settled.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that, in its previous observation, it noted the case of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) in which enterprise management received warnings following violations of the BFTU’s rights, and requested the Government to confirm whether, following the warning, the BFTU officials have actually been allowed access to the premises of the enterprise concerned. The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information in this respect. The Committee further notes with regret from the 345th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association new allegations of interference in trade union internal affairs, anti-union pressure and anti-union discrimination at the Mogilev Plant of Artificial Fiber (“Mogilev ZIV”) and “Avtopark No. 1”. In respect of the latter enterprise, the Committee notes with concern that, according to the allegations, the Prosecutor’s Office refused to investigate a complaint alleging the use of anti-union tactics by the management and that, instead of conducting proper inquiries into the matter, the Prosecutor applied to the Ministry of Justice for an opinion as to whether it was legal for workers of “Avtopark No. 1” to belong to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU). The Committee requests the Government to ensure an independent investigation into the alleged instances of interference and anti-union discrimination at the “Mogilev ZIV” and “Avtopark No. 1” and to ensure that the rights of any workers who suffered anti-union discrimination in these enterprises are fully redressed. It also asks the Government to provide previously requested information with regard to the BFTU and the outcome of the discussion at the level of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres of the case concerning the “Belshina” enterprise.

Finally, the Committee notes with interest that, upon an invitation of the Government, a high-level Office mission went to Minsk to attend a seminar entitled “The issues of trade unions’ protection in the activity of Belarusian courts and prosecutor’s authorities of the Republic of Belarus” during which the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were disseminated and discussed. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that, in January 2007, the National Council for Social and Labour Issues (NCSLI) discussed the issue of collaboration between employers and unions at the enterprise level and drew the attention of representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations to the importance of strict observance of the principle of social partnership and to the inadmissibility of interference by employers in the internal affairs of trade unions. While noting the Government’s information on the measures taken to implement the relevant recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (seminar for judges and prosecutors, the use of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social/Labour Spheres to review complaints concerning specific enterprises and the discussion at the level of the NCSLI), in view of the recent allegations submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association, as examined in its 345th Report, the Committee considers that the measures taken so far by the Government are insufficient. The Committee also regrets that the Government has not been able to provide any statistics relating to the cases of complaint of anti-union discrimination and the decisions rendered. In these circumstances, the Committee once again urges the Government to pursue vigorously, on the one hand, the instructions to be given to enterprises in a more systematic and accelerated manner so as to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and, on the other, instructions to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s reports, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in its review of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry (341st Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 295th Session), including the report of the mission carried out in Belarus in January 2006 in response to the requests made by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2005, and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2006. The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice. Finally, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that consultations relating to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were held in Geneva between a high-level delegation from Belarus (including the Deputy Prime Minister) and officials of the ILO (including the Executive Director for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Director and Deputy Director of the Standards Department) and representatives from the ICFTU and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the article 26 complaint or had recently come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the Commission’s recommendations. It further urged the Government rapidly to adopt new, improved mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and to indicate the progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes that the Government once again indicates that there is already sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in the labour legislation and that workers have the possibility of recourse to the judicial system if they consider their rights have been violated. The Government further provides statistics on the number of labour inspections carried out and the number of violations of the labour legislation that were found, yet has not indicated whether any of these related to anti-union discrimination. Finally, the Government refers to the tripartite General Agreement for 2006-08 wherein it was recommended that collective agreements include provisions setting out additional guarantees for workers elected to trade union bodies.

As for the investigation of complaints concerning anti-union discrimination and retaliation, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following the consultations held in Geneva, it understands that the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres, which includes representatives from the Government, trade unions and employers’ organizations, NGOs and academic experts, could be an appropriate place to review such complaints, as could be the NCLSI. The Government also referred to the use of the judicial system by the unions outside the structure of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the various investigations carried out and the conclusions, including one case where the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) was found to have cause for its complaint and the enterprise officials received warnings and another three cases where members of the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) had won their court cases, although no details were provided as to the subject of the complaints.

The Committee nevertheless notes with regret that the Government has not been able to provide any statistics relating to the cases of complaint of anti-union discrimination and the decisions rendered. In addition, the Committee considers that the issuing of warnings in the one case of the BFTU is not likely to serve as a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for the violation committed and requests the Government to confirm whether, following the warning, the BFTU has actually been allowed access to the premises of the enterprise concerned.

The Committee further notes with regret that in none of the cases of anti-union discrimination and retaliation which were the subject of the Commission of Inquiry, nor in respect of the non-renewal of contracts of certain persons who had testified before the Commission, has there been any action to redress the situation or to seriously and independently investigate the claims (see 341st Report, paragraph 48). The Committee does not consider that it is in a position to judge whether either of the national councils referred to by the Government could adequately provide the impartiality necessary to undertake an independent investigation of the complaints raised and thus urges the Government to discuss this matter with the trade unions most directly concerned so as to determine the most appropriate mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and to keep it informed of the progress made in thoroughly reviewing the outstanding complaints and the results achieved.

Article 2. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to transmit a copy of a letter sent to directors of enterprises explaining the norms set by current national legislation and international labour standards. In its reports, the Government indicates that the letter was sent to 47 national government bodies and other state-run establishments. These state bodies then took the necessary steps to ensure that the letter from the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection reached the actual enterprises within their system. The Government adds that the Ministry of Industry forwarded the letter to the establishments under its remit and held a meeting on the issue with management representatives at the largest industrial enterprises. The Government transmitted a copy of the letter and the minutes of meetings showing how the matter was studied at some 57 enterprises. Noting that the information provided by the Government reiterates that which was provided to the Committee on Freedom of Association (see 341st Report, paragraph 47), the Committee, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, asks the Government to pursue these instructions in a more systematic and accelerated manner so as to ensure that enterprise managers and directors do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and that they will respect the autonomy of trade unions.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in its review of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry (339th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 294th Session). The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice and requests the Government to transmit its observations thereon.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that it had established a special experts advisory group, including representatives of Government, trade unions, employers’ associations, non-governmental organizations and academics, to conduct a comprehensive review of its entire system of social and labour relations. The Committee trusted that the advisory group would represent a broad spectrum of society and, in particular, that the trade union representation would include all the national-level trade unions and requested information from the Government as to the composition of this advisory group.

The Committee notes from the Government’s latest report that trade union representatives had been invited from both the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) to participate in this expert advisory group, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres. The Council held its first meeting in August 2005 and considered the following two questions: what form of contract should be used for workers in Belarus; and conceptual approaches for improving the Law on Trade Unions. The Council decided that it would examine these questions further at its next meeting. As regards the comments made by the CDTU on 27 August 2004 with respect to a number of proposed amendments to the Law on Trade Unions, which it considered would lead to the dissolution of independent trade unions and the establishment of a state-controlled trade union monopoly, the Committee refers to its comments under Convention No. 87. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the work of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres and, in particular, of any progress made by this Council in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the Article 26 complaint and to indicate the progress made in putting into place truly effective procedures for protection against such discrimination and other retaliatory acts. The Committee notes that the Government merely refers to the prohibition of acts of anti-union discrimination provided for in the Law on Trade Unions and the possibility of workers having recourse to the judicial system if they consider their rights have been violated. The Government further refers to the constant monitoring it undertakes with respect to application of the contractual form of employment in practice and provides statistics on the number of labour inspections carried out and the number of violations of the labour legislation that were found, the fines imposed and the disciplinary sanctions given.

The Committee regrets, however, that the Government has not provided any information as to the steps taken to review and redress the complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the Article 26 complaint, nor as to the adoption of any new mechanisms to ensure that this protection is effectively ensured in practice. The Committee notes with deep concern from the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in respect of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry that, not only has the Government provided no information as to the measures taken to institute independent investigations into these complaints, but in addition, several persons who had testified before the Commission have subsequently found themselves without employment (see 339th Report, paragraph 83). The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information, in its next report, on the measures taken to review not only the earlier complaints of anti-union discrimination, but also those that have recently come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the Commission’s recommendations. It further urges the Government rapidly to adopt new, improved mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and, in particular, to redress the situation of those who have lost their employment and to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.

Article 2. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that it was taking measures to inform all directors of enterprises, including those who were trade union members, of the inadmissibility of any form of interference in trade union activities. It requested the Government to provide further information on the precise measures taken in this regard, as well as any notable impact such measures might have had in curbing managerial interference in trade union affairs.

The Committee notes that the Government refers to a special letter of instruction that was sent to all parties concerned, explaining the norms set by current national legislation and international labour standards. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of this letter with its next report, as well as a precise indication of those parties to whom it was sent.

Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4. Having noted in its previous comments the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry with respect to the impact of the many acts of interference and anti-union discrimination, as well as the consequences of non-registration, upon the collective bargaining rights of a number of primary-level trade unions, the Committee trusted that the Government would take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment of collective bargaining rights by all these organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it does not have any information regarding actual refusals by employers to conduct collective bargaining with trade unions.

The Committee would recall that the concern expressed by the Commission of Inquiry related not only to direct refusals to negotiate with trade unions, but the evident impact unjustified denial of registration would have on a trade union’s ability to bargain collectively. In this regard, the Committee notes from the recent conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association that no progress appears to have been made in respect of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations to register the primary-level organizations that were the subject of the complaint. In addition, the Committee notes with concern from these conclusions that the spillover of non-registration of these primary organizations has led to the denial of registration of three regional organizations of the Belarussian Free Trade Union (BFTU) (organizations in Mogilev, Baranovichi and Novopolotsk-Polotsk) (see 339th Report, paragraph 76). The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will take urgent measures to ensure the re-registration of these organizations both at the primary and the regional level so that they may once again enjoy the right to bargain collectively.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 95th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2006.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee takes note of the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by the Government of Belarus of the present Convention and Convention No. 87. The Committee further notes the reply of the Government to the report of the Commission of Inquiry by virtue of article 29 of the ILO Constitution, which was noted by the Governing Body at its 291st Session (GB.291/6/1), in which the Government has indicated certain measures it intends to take in order to implement the recommendations of the Commission and refers to its need for ILO technical assistance in this regard. In particular, it notes the Government’s indication that it has established a special experts advisory group, including representatives of Government, trade unions, employers’ associations, non-governmental organizations and academics, to conduct a comprehensive review of its entire system of social and labour relations. The Committee trusts that the advisory group will represent a broad spectrum of society and, in particular, that the trade union representation will include all the national-level trade unions. It requests the Government to specify, in its next report, the composition of this advisory group, and to indicate the progress made in its review.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as regards the allegations of anti-union discrimination, harassment and retaliatory acts. It notes in particular that the Commission considered:

... that the number of cases of workplace harassment and discrimination brought to its attention, the details provided by the individuals concerned, their systematic link to either the CDTU and its national affiliates (in particular the Belarussian Independent Trade Union (BITU), the BFTU and the Free Metal Workers’ Union (FMWU) or the dissident branch trade unions in the FPB (the AAMWU and the REWU), lead to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence available to call for a thorough investigation of all these matters. The Commission regrets that the Government has not taken any steps in this regard, nor does it seem to take any of these allegations seriously. The Commission is particularly concerned that a number of these cases concern the actual livelihood of entire families, where trade union activists appear to have not only lost their jobs, but find it impossible to obtain any further employment. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the Government has not complied with its obligation under Convention No. 98 to ensure effective measures of protection against anti-union discrimination, accompanied by sufficient and dissuasive sanctions, nor has it properly ensured the right of all workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing as provided in Article 2 of Convention No. 87 (see Trade union rights in Belarus, report of the Commission of Inquiry, July 2004, paragraph 617).

It further notes the serious issues raised in the Commission’s report concerning the discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts against certain trade union leaders and members. The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s response that the Commission’s recommendations designed to improve procedures and mechanisms of protection are particularly important. It asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination and the progress made in putting into place truly effective procedures for protection against anti-union discrimination and other retaliatory acts.

Article 2. As regards the findings by the Commission that there had been several important acts of interference in internal trade union affairs at the enterprise level, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is taking measures to inform all directors of enterprises, including those who are trade union members, of the inadmissibility of any form of interference in trade union activities. It requests the Government to provide further information, in its next report, on the precise measures taken in this regard, as well as any notable impact such measures have had in curbing managerial interference in trade union affairs.

Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4. Finally, the Committee notes from the Commission’s conclusions that it has observed that many of the acts of interference and anti-union discrimination, as well as the consequences of non-registration caused by Presidential Decree No. 2 (see observation on Convention No. 87), have resulted in a denial of collective bargaining rights of a number of primary-level trade unions and have further hindered the rights of these organizations even to enter into negotiations with their employer. The Committee refers the Government to its comment under Convention No. 87 and trusts that it will take all necessary measures to ensure that the collective bargaining rights of these organizations are not impeded.

Finally, the Committee also takes note of the observations made by the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) on the application of the Convention and requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

CMNT_TITLE

See under Convention No. 87.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It further notes with interest the entry into force of the Law on Trade Unions of 14 January 2000 and the Labour Code of 30 June 1999. It wishes to raise a certain number of points concerning the application of the following Articles of the Convention.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information concerning concrete sanctions referred to in section 465 of the Labour Code and section 23 of the Law on Trade Union in case of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference as well as additional information about the procedures of redress (legal provisions, effectiveness, rapidness in practice, etc.).

Article 4 of the Convention. Collective bargaining. The Committee notes that under section 354 of the Labour Code the representation of the workers’ interests can be executed by correspondent trade unions and other bodies representing workers, acting according to the legislation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate what "other body" could represent the workers and whether this "other body" representing workers have a right to collective bargaining even in the presence of a trade union.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee takes note of the Government's report. The Committee notes that section 5 of the Act of 24 November 1992 on Collective Agreements, in contradiction with section 238 of the Labour Code, allows non-unionized workers representing 50 per cent of the workforce the right to negotiate even when one or more trade unions exist. The Committee points out that this provision does not promote collective bargaining within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee considers that, when there is no majority, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to amend the legislation accordingly so that collective bargaining with non-unionized groups is only possible when there is no trade union. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this regard.

The Committee notes that it will examine the conformity of the provisions of the Presidential Edicts No. 639 of 1997, No. 252 of 1999 and No. 348 of 1999 with the Convention as soon as a translation into one of the working languages of the ILO is available.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. With reference to the necessity of providing in legislation effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against employers guilty of carrying out acts of anti-union discrimination against workers and acts of interference against workers' organizations, the Committee notes with regret that the Government merely indicates in its report that section 135 of the Labour Code provides for sanctions for violation of the Code. Indeed, the Committee observes that this section is designed to punish workers for breaches of labour discipline and therefore does not apply the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to supply with its next report copies of the other legislative provisions mentioned in its report under which violations of labour legislation are punishable, namely:

- section 41 of the 1984 Code, as amended, on administrative liabilities;

- paragraph 4 of Decision No. 664 of the Council of Ministers of 30 September 1993;

- sections 133 and 134 of the Criminal Code, as amended; and

- sections 442, 444, 456 and 460 of the Civil Code, as amended,

to enable it to ascertain to what extent the Convention is applied to employers who do not respect the provisions of the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the detailed information supplied by the Government in its report and the coming into force of the Act of 22 April 1992 respecting trade unions, the Act of 24 November 1992 on collective agreements and accords and the Act of 15 December 1992 to amend the Labour Code.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that national legislation contains several provisions intended to protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination (sections 4 and 20 of the Act respecting trade unions and section 61 of the Labour Code) as well as to protect workers' organizations against acts of interference (section 19 of the Act respecting trade unions and section 230 of the Labour Code).

However, it recalls that the effectiveness of such provisions depends to a large extent on the way in which these provisions are applied in practice and on the compensation and sanctions which are envisaged. Legal standards are inadequate if they are not combined with effective and expeditious procedures.

The Committee requests the Government to state in its next report whether the national legislation provides for sanctions in the event of violations of the above sections of the Act respecting trade unions and the Labour Code and, if so, to describe their contents.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 4 of the Convention. With reference to its previous request, the Committee notes from the Government's report that the provisions of the Convention are applied by the national legislation.

The Committee also notes that a Congress of Byelorussian SSR trade unions was held in October 1990 at which a draft agreement was adopted on the social guarantees needed as a result of the switch to a market economy.

The Committee asks the Government to provide the text of this agreement. It also requests it to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged with regard to collective bargaining as a result of the profound economic changes now taking place.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous request. It asks the Government to continue sending any new information regarding the application of the Convention.