Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

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

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.