Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Belarus (Ratification: 1956)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2022, Publication: 110th ILC session (2022)

Written information provided by the Government

The Government of Belarus has considered the report of the Committee of Experts of 2022 and has to state again with great regret that, as before, the arguments of the Belarusian side regarding compliance with the Convention, the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the situation after the presidential elections in 2020 have not taken into account.

The position on the Belarusian case is formed solely on the basis of complaints from the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), IndustriALL Global Union and other structures. Their assessments and allegations are often conditioned by political motives, and their leaders’ views regarding the path of development and the geopolitical choice of Belarus are biased, incorrect and should not be used as a guideline for the formation of an objective perception of the situation in the country.

Today, it is obvious that the sharp negative shift in the assessments of the ILO supervisory bodies in relation to Belarus is associated exclusively with the political events that took place in the country.

The Government insists that such an approach is unfair, counterproductive, absolutely unacceptable and can become a serious obstacle to the further development of constructive interaction on the implementation of recommendations, both within the country and with representatives of the ILO.

Events of a purely political nature, not related to the processes of social dialogue in the field of labour, should not be the basis for assessing the situation with respect to the Convention.

At the same time, complaints received by the ILO testify to the desire of their authors to deliberately and unreasonably draw political issues into the sphere of competence of the ILO in order to ensure pressure on the country through this authoritative international organization.

Taking into account the above information, as well as the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, the Government considers it necessary to submit the following comments.

Implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry

The Government notes with deep regret the negative assessments of its ongoing efforts to build constructive interaction with the social partners and the ILO in order to implement the recommendations addressed to the Belarusian side.

The Government pays due attention to the comments and recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies. At the same time, the ILO bodies should take a more critical approach to the content of incoming complaints and should not build their position on the basis of unconfirmed data. Complaints by trade unions are not always caused by an objective situation and do not always reflect the real state of affairs.

We believe that the open position and readiness of the Government for constructive dialogue with the social partners and the ILO are a good basis for continuing interaction on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the essence of which involves the long-term and systematic work of all those concerned to improve social dialogue with the obligatory consideration of realities and national interests of Belarus.

The Government has already taken a number of specific targeted steps, as a result of which some of the recommendations have been fully implemented, and significant progress has been achieved in the implementation of the rest.

Thus, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry have been brought to the attention of the general public. Systematic steps have been taken to inform representatives of the judiciary and prosecution authorities about the need to carefully consider complaints of anti-trade union discrimination. An additional mechanism for the protection of trade union rights has been introduced – the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere has been entrusted with the function of a tripartite independent body that enjoys the confidence of all interested parties. Measures have been taken to liberalize the process of the registration of trade unions – the Republican Registration Commission has been abolished, and the requirement for at least 10 per cent of the total number of employees to form a trade union has been cancelled. The Government constantly monitors issues of interaction between the administrations of enterprises and trade unions, clearly delineating its position on the inadmissibility of interference by enterprise managers in the activities of trade union organizations.

It must be emphasized that all this time the Government has clearly followed the agreements reached and the plans developed jointly with the ILO to implement the recommendations.

As a result of the work of the direct contacts mission in the country in 2014, with the support of the ILO, a number of international technical cooperation activities were carried out aimed at implementing specific recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Despite the fact that at the moment the proposals of the direct contacts mission have been successfully implemented, the Government is interested in continuing interaction with the ILO, both on the implementation of the recommendations, and on a wider range of issues that meet the goals and objectives of the Organization.

The Government reaffirms its commitment to fundamental principles and rights at work and expresses its readiness to continue constructive engagement with the social partners and the ILO on issues of concern, as well as on a wider range of social and labour issues, subject to the obligatory condition of taking into account the realities and sovereign interests of the Republic of Belarus.

Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation No. 8

Bringing to justice those who break the law

The ILO supervisory bodies refer in their recommendations to the Commission of Inquiry recommendation No. 8, according to which adequate protection or even immunity against administrative detention should be guaranteed to trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties.

It should be noted that this recommendation in no way refers to the release of trade union workers from liability in case they commit unlawful acts. Moreover, the need to respect the rule of law in the exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention is enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention.

In this regard, we consider it necessary to emphasize that any allegations that trade union activists were held accountable solely for participating in peaceful protests and legal strikes are untrue and completely unfounded. There were serious legal grounds for bringing to justice citizens whose actions were unlawful.

Accordingly, any calls to release and drop all charges against trade union activists who, it must be emphasized, were held accountable for specific acts of violation of the law, seem to be absolutely unfounded.

Impartial and independent judiciary, fair trial

The principle of the rule of law is respected in Belarus. The State guarantees the rights and freedoms of citizens, enshrined in the Constitution, laws and stipulated by international obligations.

By virtue of the provisions of article 60 of the Constitution, everyone is guaranteed the protection of his/her rights and freedoms by a competent, independent and impartial court.

Judges in the administration of justice are independent and subject only to the law. Interference in the activities of judges is unacceptable and entails liability under the law.

The trial of cases in all courts is open. Hearing of cases in a closed court session is allowed in cases specified by law, in compliance with all rules of legal proceedings.

Justice is delivered on the basis of an adversarial procedure and the equality of the parties in the process.

Judicial decisions are binding on all citizens and officials.

The parties and persons participating in the process have the right to appeal against decisions, sentences and other judicial decisions.

There are no obstacles for citizens to apply to the court.

Registration of trade unions

Consideration of registration issues within the framework of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere

In Belarus, at the level of legislation, everything necessary has been done to ensure that trade unions and their organizational structures successfully pass the procedure of state registration.

Decisions affecting the right of citizens to join trade unions are taken in strict accordance with the current legislation, based on the principle of maximum consideration of the interests and rights of citizens and trade unions.

In order to expand the possibilities of trade unions in terms of obtaining a legal address, they are given the opportunity to be located not only at the address of the employer, but also in any other place.

As practice shows, the need to confirm the presence of a legal address today is not an obstacle to the registration of trade unions.

Denials relating to registration are rare and have objective reasons, in the vast majority of cases not related to the lack of confirmation of a legal address. The main reasons for denials are non-compliance by trade unions with the provisions of the law regarding the procedure for creating trade union organizations and submitting all the necessary information and documents to the registration authorities.

Since, if the procedure for creating a trade union is followed, documents for registration after the elimination of identified shortcomings can be submitted to the registration authorities again, the refusal to register a trade union is not equivalent to a ban on the creation of a trade union (its organizational structure) and is not an insurmountable obstacle to registration.

Issues of registration of trade unions can be considered within the Tripartite Council when this body resumes its work (after the improvement of the epidemiological situation).

At the same time, consideration of any issue within the framework of the Council is expedient only if materials submitted by the parties to the Council really confirm the existence of a problematic issue. Otherwise, the members of the Council will have no reason to consider and discuss the relevant agenda item.

Organization and holding of public mass events

Receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid

The Government notes with regret that its arguments regarding the possible destructive consequences of the implementation of recommendations aimed at weakening state control over funds entering the country from abroad and removing responsibility from trade union structures for violating the law during mass events have not been taken into account.

The procedure established in the country for receiving foreign gratuitous aid is unreasonably linked to Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. These Articles do not contain provisions on the right of trade unions to freely receive financial or other assistance for political and agitation work among the population.

The legislation of the country does not prohibit the receipt of foreign gratuitous aid by trade unions. At the same time, the legislation defines the conditions (purposes) for the use of foreign gratuitous aid, and also provides that such aid must be registered in the prescribed manner. The registration procedure is simple and can be carried out in a short time.

There are no records of refusals for trade unions to receive foreign gratuitous aid. There were no cases of liquidation of trade unions for violating the procedure for its use.

At the same time, providing external forces with the opportunity to sponsor mass events in the country can be used to destabilize the socio-political and socio-economic situation, which, in turn, will have an extremely negative impact on the life of society and the well-being of the citizens.

The ban on receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid for purposes involving political and agitation work is due to the interests of national security, and the need to exclude opportunities for destructive influence by external forces in order to destabilize the socio-political and socio-economic situation.

The current procedure for organizing and holding mass events in the country does not conflict with the principles of freedom of association and is fully consistent with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The norms of the legislation providing for punishment for violating the procedure for organizing and holding a mass event, which entailed serious negative consequences, are aimed at preventing socially dangerous illegal acts that pose a real threat to the life and health of citizens.

When holding mass events, trade unions are obliged to observe public order and, a priori, should not allow actions as a result of which the event may lose its peaceful character and cause serious harm to citizens, society and the State.

The punishment provided by law for organizers of mass events for causing significant damage, harm to the rights and interests of citizens and organizations, as well as to the State or public interests, is not and objectively should not be interpreted as a deterrent for citizens and trade unions to exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

The decision to terminate the activities of a trade union for violating the law on mass events which caused serious damage, significant harm to the rights and interests of citizens, organizations, society and the State, can only be taken in court.

The amendments made to the Law “On Mass Events” do not contain provisions prohibiting citizens from exercising their right to peaceful assembly in order to protect their rights and legitimate interests. The amendment of the Law is directed against organization, preparation and commission of actions encroaching on the independence, territorial integrity, sovereignty of the State, the foundations of the constitutional order and public security through the organization of mass riots, the implementation of acts of vandalism associated with damage or destruction of property, the seizure of buildings and structures, as well as other actions grossly violating public order, or active participation in them.

Taking into account the unprecedented political and economic pressure on Belarus aimed at undermining its economic potential, slowing down development and lowering the living standards of the citizens, we believe that the easing of responsibility for violating the procedure for holding mass events and removing restrictions on the use of foreign financial assistance for political and agitation work will help create the conditions to strengthen external destructive influence on the situation in the country, which does not meet the national interests of Belarus.

Right to strike

The current procedure for organizing and conducting strikes in Belarus does not contradict international labour standards and allows citizens to fully exercise their right to hold a legal strike in order to resolve a collective labour dispute that has arisen.

According to Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, States are obliged to ensure the right to strike, provided that it is exercised in accordance with the laws of each country.

In Belarus, a strike is a temporary voluntary refusal of employees to perform work duties (in whole or in part) in order to resolve a collective labour dispute (article 388 of the Labour Code).

According to section 22 of the Law on Trade Unions, trade unions have the right to organize and conduct strikes in accordance with the law, while political demands are prohibited during strikes initiated by trade unions.

The ban on putting forward political demands during a strike is also enshrined in the third part of section 388 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus.

The unauthorized protest actions that took place in the Republic and the attempts to organize a strike movement at enterprises without taking into account the requirements of the law have nothing to do with the implementation of trade union rights and freedoms to protect the labour, social and economic interests of citizens and are not at all correlated with the tasks that trade unions are called upon to undertake.

The organizers of illegal protest action in enterprises, pursuing purely political goals far from realizing the rights and freedoms of workers, deliberately mislead workers about the legality of such actions, replacing such legal concepts as a strike and a mass event.

For their part, the authorities have repeatedly appealed to citizens with a request to respond in a balanced and prudent manner to incoming calls for participation in mass events called a strike movement, not to succumb to provocations that push to cause economic damage to enterprises and the State and the violation of the rights and interests of other citizens.

The implementation of proposals to legalize political strikes will not so much contribute to the exercise of the right of trade unions to complete freedom of their activities, as create additional opportunities for abuse by various destructive structures and will be used to undermine the economic potential of the Republic, which does not meet the interests of any of the parties to social dialogue.

The information presented in the trade union complaints about citizens allegedly suffering from discrimination, pressure and repression just for exercising their right to participate in a peaceful strike does not correspond to reality.

There were no legal strikes in the enterprises of the Republic.

The citizens, represented in the complaints as workers who suffered from repressive actions on the part of employers and the State, are justifiably subject to disciplinary and (or) administrative liability for specific violations of labour discipline and other provisions of the law.

In this regard, it seems illogical, incorrect and completely unfounded to talk about the fact that these workers were subjected to repressive measures for the mere fact of participating in allegedly peaceful and legal strikes and, accordingly, must be released, reinstated in work (etc.) with the provision of compensatory payments.

Consultations with workers’ and employers’ organizations

In the Republic of Belarus, a system of social partnership has been created and is successfully functioning, within the framework of which government bodies, associations of employers and trade unions interact in the development and implementation of the socio-economic policy of the State.

The development of draft normative legal acts regulating social and labour issues is carried out with the direct participation of the social partners.

With regard to the proposals to amend the Regulations of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus (approved by Ordinance No. 193, of 14 February 2009), we consider it necessary to reiterate that draft resolutions of the Government on issues affecting the labour and socio-economic rights and interests of citizens, in accordance with the above Regulations, are sent for possible comments and (or) proposals to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), as a national trade union centre – the largest republican voluntary independent association of trade unions, representing the interests of more than 4 million people, that is, as the most representative organization of workers.

This approach does not contradict any principles or norms and allows the interests of the workers to be taken into account to the maximum extent during consultations and during the development of legislative acts.

Labour dispute settlement

The Government once again confirms its interest in continuing joint work with the social partners and the ILO to improve the system for resolving labour disputes.

The Government highly appreciates the assistance of the ILO in terms of improving the work of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which was created with the advisory support of the ILO as a body that enjoys the confidence of all parties, to consider the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and resolve other issues of interaction with the social partners, including consideration of incoming complaints.

Thus, at this stage, it is the Tripartite Council that is the body (outside judicial procedures) that considers issues raised by trade unions. At the same time, the Government is ready to move forward along the path of the further improvement of this function of the Council or through the creation of another structure.

The Government looks forward to continuing an open and constructive dialogue with the ILO in order to ensure the further progressive and harmonious development of the Republic of Belarus, and the well-being and prosperity of its citizens.

At the same time, the Government is extremely concerned at the fact that today a number of countries, foreign structures and organizations, instead of developing mutually beneficial cooperation, strengthening global solidarity and coherence of policies in the economic, social and other spheres, are actively contributing to the destabilization of the situation in the Republic of Belarus.

An aggressive and large-scale information attack has been launched against our country, and steps are being taken to form an extremely negative image of the State in the international arena. The purpose of all these actions is to justify the unprecedented and unreasonable sanctions against Belarusian enterprises, organizations and officials.

Much to the regret of the Government, unfriendly countries and various structures are actively using the platform of the ILO to put forward unfounded accusations against the Republic of Belarus that have nothing to do with the real situation.

Taking into account the current situation, the Government would be grateful to ILO bodies for an unbiased attitude towards the processes taking place in the country and for refusing hasty critical assessments of the actions of national authorities aimed at restoring law and order in the country.

The Government calls for objective and comprehensive consideration of the so-called “Belarusian case”, taking into account all the arguments, comments and information presented by the Government.

Discussion by the Committee

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Protection – Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the Committee on Belarus’ application of the Convention and the application of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry.

Last year, criticism was levelled at the Government and recommendations were handed down. I hope that we will be in a position to report progress, and I will endeavour to do so. I am sure that everybody will have familiarized themselves with the findings of the Commission of Inquiry and will understand that the situation is contrasting.

Firstly, with regard to the recommendations, the Belarusian Government informed the ILO that the application of the findings would take into account the real situation and the potential harm to national interests. Indeed, among the 12 recommendations, there are some which did not spark any doubt as to their possible application. They were clearly and quickly applied. For example, we disseminated the findings of the Commission of Inquiry rapidly and widely with steps taken to inform the judiciary and the Prosecutor’s Office of the need for detailed review of complaints of possible anti-union discrimination and to this end, together with the ILO, a series of seminars were organized.

In terms of the simplification of registration, decisions were taken to amend the legal requirement of 10 per cent of employees to create a trade union. Some, among the 12 recommendations, require actions of a more comprehensive nature across the board. For example, the Government of Belarus intends to review the legal system and the dispute resolution system working with the social partners. It is evident that such recommendations involve systemic liaison with the social partners with no definite time frame for implementation. For many countries, not just Belarus, this is an ongoing area of work.

With regard to the recommendations concerning the legislation on mass events, I would underscore that in Belarus there is no separate set of rules. All are equal before the law and all are equally obliged to observe it. With regard to foreign gratuitous aid, there is no legal prohibition on its reception, but the law clearly defines the purposes of its use and its registration. I would underscore that these rules and regulations apply to all legal persons.

An area of concern levelled by the Committee of Experts relates to the fact that the alleged prohibition of the receipt of foreign gratuitous aid is in violation of the Convention. I would like to note that, although there are currently difficulties with the application of the conclusion of the Committee of Experts, the liquidation of trade unions can only be decided upon by court order. Over the last 20 years, there has been no instance of the liquidation of a trade union for misuse of foreign gratuitous aid.

Turning now to the issue of mass events, the current Belarusian legislation in this area does not in fact pose a hindrance to freedom of assembly. There are certain limitations on the purposes and may have their roots in state and public safety and security and are fully in line with international standards on civil and political rights. The liquidation of trade unions for the organization of mass events is also something that has not happened. As such, the practice of the application of our regulation speaks for itself.

I would like to talk now about strikes. The issue of strikes is not covered by the recommendations. However, for various years, the Committee of Experts has called for various amendments to the Labour Code with regard to the regulation of the organization and holding of strikes. Here, the Government’s position is clear-cut and well known. All the necessary guarantees of a citizen’s right to strike in Belarus are provided for by constitutional provisions as well as the Labour Code and the Law on trade unions. A strike is an extreme dispute resolution possibility – a last resort – and there are therefore conditions in place for dispute settlement through talks and conciliation. We believe that the Belarusian legislation in this area does not pose any hindrances to the observance of ILO standards.

Another important issue that I would like to draw your attention to is the following. The issue of the application of the recommendations has always developed in a positive way. In 2009, the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere was set up. Its terms of reference were designed in liaison with the social partners and the ILO. The Council has served as the main forum for discussion of topical issues of application of rights, including freedom of association and the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as well as possible legislative changes. These positive steps were noted by the Committee.

In 2009, progress was found in terms of Belarus’ implementation of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. The direct contacts mission to Minsk in 2014 also noted elements of trade union pluralism. These are some of the positive steps taken by the Government to promote tripartism. Another example concerns the fact that, in 2017, Belarus was not on the shortlist for the first time, and the reporting obligations on the Convention were subject to a regular reporting cycle.

There is an understanding within the ILO that the situation with regard to the implementation of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry has taken a positive turn. Belarus has shown goodwill in terms of further cooperation. In 2019, we marked the ILO Centenary; this major event was followed by the ratification of the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132), and the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176). These Conventions entered into force in February last year.

Two further major events took place – a tripartite conference on social dialogue and a sitting of the Tripartite Council at the regional and branch levels involving consultation with ILO officials on the issues of tripartism. A great deal has been done to further our work with the ILO and the Government’s efforts in this regard have been duly noted by the ILO.

However, unfortunately, in 2020 the ILO supervisory organs changed their tune negatively and it is quite evident that the political events are at the root of this. After the political election in August 2020, the destructive opposition forces attempted to seize power in the country which led to the organization of unlawful street protests. I draw your attention to the fact that such protests had no connection with trade union rights and freedoms and in that situation, the State took all the necessary steps to guarantee law and order and to avoid chaos and the destabilization of the situation in the country.

At the current time, the Republic of Belarus is going through a challenging period. Western countries, first and foremost, members of the European Union (EU) and the United States of America and their representative trade unions, are seeking to impose unilateral coercive measures to cause harm not only to enterprises, but also to ordinary people and to generate tensions in our society.

We are deeply concerned to note that this sort of pressure is being brought to bear on Belarus in the form of the discreditation of our country on an unfounded basis. It is well known that the Belarusian opposition members who are abroad are critically involved in seeking to undermine the efforts of the Belarusian Government by using article 33 of the ILO Constitution to achieve their political objectives.

Such attempts can cause serious harm to the ILO’s authoritative position by indicating that countries or groups of countries are able to manipulate the ILO for their own ends. The Government of Belarus calls upon the Committee to prevent attempts to politicize its work. The Committee should work exclusively within its remit.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus stands ready to engage in constructive partnership that is not just a matter of empty words. The Republic of Belarus is a long-standing Member of the ILO and has been promoting fundamental principles and rights at work. Belarus has ratified all the fundamental Conventions. The country has put in place a comprehensive package of social protection covering all areas of human endeavour and has a very low level of unemployment. It is quite clear that Belarus has been able to achieve significant improvements and developments in terms of upholding the fundamental principles and rights at work.

Worker members – The Government of Belarus continues to violate its obligations under the Convention with impunity. The Committee has already discussed the application of the Convention by Belarus in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2021, and prior to 2005, our Committee discussed Belarus in respect of this Convention in 1997, 2001, 2002 and 2003, leading to the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry by the Governing Body in 2003, and the adoption of the report of the Commission of Inquiry in 2004. Our Committee is called upon to discuss this case yet again.

During our discussions last year, the representative of the Government of Belarus issued ominous threats to the independent trade unions after having called them the enemies of the State. We condemned the threats and brought them to the attention of the Office and the Director-General.

Today, the situation for independent trade unions, their leaders and members in Belarus has deteriorated dramatically. The Government is engaging in the repression and intentional and systematic destruction of independent trade unions in Belarus.

All independent trade unions, their leaders and members are under relentless attack. On 19 April 2022, more than 20 leaders and activists of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) were detained by the State Security Committee, including Alexander Yaroshuk, the President of the BKDP and a member of the ILO Governing Body, Siarhei Antusevich, Vice-President of the BKDP, and Gennady Fedynich, leader of the Radio and Electronic Industry Workers’ Union (REP Union). They and others have been charged under section 342 of Part 1 of the Criminal Code for the organization and preparation of acts seriously disrupting public order or active participation in them, and this charge carries the threat of a prison sentence of up to four years.

On 13 May, the BKDP Council met and appointed the Belarusian Independent Trade Union of Miners and Chemical Workers (BNP) Chairperson, Maxime Pazniakou, as acting President.

On 17 May, Maxime Pazniakou was already arrested by the state authorities. He was sentenced to 15 days of administrative detention on 19 May and that sentence should have expired by today, but he was sentenced to another 15-day period.

On 18 May, the Vice-Chairperson of the REP Union, Zinaida Mikhniuk, was found guilty under section 368 of the Criminal Code of insulting the President of the Republic of Belarus. She was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in a general security penal colony.

On 19 May of this year, prosecutors demanded that the BNP hand over trade union documents, including details of union members; similar requests were sent to other BKDP affiliates, such as the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SPB) and the Free Trade Union of Metal Workers (SPM).

These demands were made, even though all the trade union documents had already been seized by the specialized security forces during searches on 19 April, one month earlier.

On 25 May of this year, security operatives arrived at the office of the BNP located in Soligorsk and Alexander Mishuk, Chairperson of the BNP at JSC “Belaruskali”, was taken away with no further information given. Trade union officers were searched, mobile phones and other devices of union office employees were confiscated, and the employees had to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Earlier, in April this year, the regime designated the REP Union as an extremist organization and banned all its activities. When the REP Union leadership questioned the justification for such designation, the state security apparatus intensified its searches and detentions in response.

This extensive list of intentional, systematic, unjustified and unacceptable attacks on the independent trade unions of Belarus dates only from the last two months and we are deeply concerned for the physical integrity and health of our colleagues. We demand the immediate release of all union leaders and officials and the withdrawal of all charges.

As a matter of urgency, the Government must invite the ILO to visit those colleagues in prison and to ascertain their condition. Colleagues who have been convicted must have their convictions quashed. Moreover, the Workers’ group wishes to highlight the continuing lack of progress with the implementation of the observations and recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies. Workers in Belarus are still denied the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations and to organize trade union meetings.

In the Committee’s discussion of Belarus last year, we came to the firm conclusion that recent developments indicated a step backwards and of further retreat by the Government from its obligations under the Convention, and we urge the Government to take all necessary steps before this Conference to fully implement all the outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and the Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

In a March 2021 report on Belarus, the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) expressed deep regret at the serious retreats on the part of the Government of Belarus from its ILO constitutional obligations and its commitment to implement the Commission of Inquiry recommendations.

We are deeply alarmed that, not only is the Government not implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and indeed the observations of the supervisory system, but it is also undertaking trade union elimination with respect to independent trade unions. A leader of an independent trade union is considered an automatic security threat and hounded by security forces to either go into exile or go to prison.

We can give you an example of the impunity of the Government of Belarus in relation to its obligation under international labour standards: while recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry calls for measures to be taken to release all trade unionists who remain in detention and to drop all charges related to participation in peaceful protests and industrial action, the Government has doubled down and is engaging in mass arrests of leaders and members of trade unions.

Further, workers in Belarus still do not enjoy the right to establish unions without previous authorization, which contravenes the Convention, as well as recommendation 2 of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government is not taking any steps to address previous observations of the Committee of Experts, and the conclusions adopted last year by the Committee.

In relation to obstacles to trade union registration created by the requirement of a legal address, we note that there are new cases of refusals to register primary organizations of the BKDP affiliates since the last sitting of this Committee. The registration of several trade unions was recently revoked. The Government has failed to provide information to the supervisory system, including in its reports to the Committee of Experts on the legislative reforms requested by the Committee last year. There has been no progress at all.

Regressive legislative developments continue to be in place, such as the Presidential Decree that still requires previous authorization for registering gratuitous aid and restricts the use of such aid. The Law on mass activities further restricts the holding of public events and so on. The Criminal Code has been amended with new restrictions and penalties. The Government has done nothing to amend the Labour Code in order to make it compliant with the Convention.

To conclude, 18 years after the Commission of Inquiry, the Workers’ group’s conclusion is that no progress has been made with respect to the implementation of its recommendations. On the contrary, the situation has deteriorated dramatically in both law and practice. The impunity shown to the supervisory system as a whole, needs to be urgently addressed.

Our discussion of this case today must send a clear signal that the Constitution and the supervisory system of the ILO must be respected, and appropriate measures taken in this regard.

Employer members – I would like to thank the Government representative for her submissions on behalf of the Government of Belarus.

As the Worker members have noted, the Committee of Experts has issued 14 observations on this case since 1997 and the most recent discussion of the case of Belarus and its application of the Convention by the Committee took place in 2021.

In its 2021 conclusions, the Committee expressed its deep concern that 17 years following the Commission of Inquiry’s report, Belarus had failed to take measures to address most of the Commission’s recommendations. In its 2021 conclusions, the Committee urged the Government to: restore, without delay, full respect for workers’ rights and freedoms; implement recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry guaranteeing adequate protection against administrative detention for trade union officials in the performance of their duties and exercising their civil liberties; take measures for the release of all trade unionists who remain in detention and the dropping of charges related to participation in peaceful protest action; refrain from the arrest, detention or engagement in violence, intimidation or harassment, including judicial harassment of trade union leaders and members conducting lawful trade union activities; as well as the requirement to investigate, without delay, alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence, through an independent judicial inquiry.

In addition, the Committee’s 2021 conclusions called on the Government to ensure that there remained no obstacles to the registration of trade unions either in law or in practice. Additionally, the Committee’s 2021 conclusions also addressed the issue of the demand by the President of Belarus for the creation of trade unions in all private companies by 2020 and the Committee urged – in the strongest terms – that the Government refrain from interference with the establishment of trade unions in private companies and put an immediate stop to interference with the establishment of trade unions and refrain from showing favouritism towards a particular trade union in private companies.

Furthermore, the Committee’s 2021 conclusions also addressed the issue of the organization of mass events by trade unions and urged the Government to amend the law on mass activities, to repeal Ordinance No. 49 of the Council of Ministers and to address the concerns raised by trade unions in respect of organizing and holding mass events in practice.

Furthermore, the Committee’s 2021 conclusions also included recommendations related to the functioning of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. In 2021, the Committee invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, requested the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken in respect of the implementation of the Committee of Inquiry’s recommendations as well as the recommendations of the Committee from 2021, from previous years prior to 2021, and to transmit this information to the Committee of Experts before its next session. Also, as the Worker members have mentioned, the Committee’s 2021 conclusions placed the discussion of this case in a special paragraph of its report.

This year, the Employer members note that there has been no meaningful progress towards the implementation of either the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations or any meaningful progress towards the implementation of the Committee’s 2021 conclusions. The Employers note that this points to a lack of commitment by the Government to ensure respect for its obligations under the Convention, as well as its obligations pursuant to the ILO Constitution. This is a deeply concerning situation to the Employers’ group. Furthermore, the Employer members are deeply concerned with the new allegations of criminal prosecutions, arrests and imprisonment of trade unionists, especially the allegations of events within the last two months.

The Employer members recall that full recognition of civil liberties, in particular freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary, are basic preconditions for any meaningful exercise of freedom of association for workers and employers and is required for full compliance with the Convention. The Employer members note that, according to the available evidence, these freedoms have been grossly violated by the Government of Belarus following the presidential election in August 2020. Therefore, we must take this moment to express our deep concern with respect to the deterioration of the circumstances concerning the promotion and protection of freedom of association.

In respect of the issue of registration, the Employer members note that there is an absence of further explanations with respect to the registration of the BKDP, the SPB, and the REP Union from the Government and this lack of information is concerning. We turn to the concern identified by the Committee of Experts in respect of the televised meeting between the Chairperson of the FPB and President Lukashenko in which the latter urged the setting up of trade unions in all private enterprises by the end of 2020 under the threat of liquidation of those private companies. The Employers note that, in line with Article 2 of the Convention, freedom of association implies and requires that workers and employers must be able to decide freely, without state interference, whether or not to set up their own organizations. Therefore, the Employers call upon the Government to refrain from any interference in the establishment of trade unions in private companies, in particular with respect to the requirement to set up a particular trade union under threat of the liquidation of such company.

Moving to the issue of financial assistance, the Employers note that the acceptance by a national workers’ or employers’ organization of financial assistance from an international workers’ or employers’ organization without the need for approval by the Government and without sanctions in case of receipt of such financial assistance is part of the right set out in Article 5 to affiliate with international organizations of either employers or workers. The right to organize public meetings and demonstrations constitutes an important aspect of the activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations under Article 3 of the Convention. In view of this, the revised Law on mass activities, along with the accompanying regulation, which limits the use of foreign gratuitous aid for the conduct of mass events, unduly restricts trade unions in the possibility to carry out their public activities. Therefore, the Employers urge the Government to amend the Law on mass activities and the accompanying regulations, in particular, with a view to setting out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events in conformity with freedom of association principles, to widen, not narrow, the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance, can be used and to abolish the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the respective legislation. The Employers also repeat our call on the Government to repeal Ordinance No. 49 of the Council of Ministers, as amended, to enable employers’ and workers’ organizations to exercise their right to organize mass events in law and practice.

We must take this moment to simply point out that we will not address the Committee of Experts’ numerous observations on the right to strike as the Employers’ position is this is not in fact covered under this Convention.

Let me close by reiterating our concern about the deteriorating circumstances in the country with respect to its obligations pursuant to the Convention.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Belarus – The FPB brings together all areas of the economic sphere and is committed to working with the ILO to develop tripartism and with the social partners on improvements to the legislation and practice and its implementation. We now have the opportunity to observe the real condition of workers and employers in the country and we do not agree with the findings of the Committee of Experts with regard to the failure of Belarus to apply the Convention.

We consider that the negative assessment of the situation is politicized and biased. I should underscore, in addition that other European countries have demonstrated instances of harassment of trade union activities involving, for example, the use of tear gas by the police against trade union demonstrators. In Belgium and Germany, there have been various actions taken against trade union movements.

According to the ITUC, there is a violation of the right to strike in many European countries; 41 per cent of European countries violate the right to freedom of association. We have statistics to show that in Western European countries there is a failure to heed such problems at the ILO and at the Conference. It would appear that our case is being reviewed on the basis of false information. A specific example is as follows.

According to information provided by the Committee of Experts, Belarusian workers are denied the right to strike and may be subject to arrest and detention. This information does not accord with reality. The right to strike is enshrined in our Constitution. There are rules of procedure for the organization of strikes as in other countries and this is defined by legislation in Belarus. The trade union is empowered to decide on a strike in the interests of the labour collective. I should underscore that such provisions exist in other countries, such as Germany.

With regard to practice in recent years, works committees have not taken a single strike decision when people were allegedly being detained for strike actions. This is completely untrue. In addition, trade unions are entirely free to declare a strike as can be seen by the fact that in recent times we have had instances of strikes being called by individual workers, but when considered by professional committees at the regional level, the decision was ultimately not made to strike. This attests to the entirely open and democratic approach to freedom of association and the right to organize in our country.

With regard to the alleged state intervention and interference in trade union affairs, as well as alleged favouritism, I would like to say the following: currently, trade union organizations under the BKDP represent fewer than one third of workers. The claim that allegedly any criticism by trade unions of the Government leads to potential punishment is entirely untrue. There have been no incidents of such action being taken. In addition, the Government heeds proposals from trade unions, for example on wage setting, employment guarantees and other crucial issues for workers, as can be attested to and documented.

Regrettably, the ILO is being supplied with unreliable claims for consideration by the Committee with regard to our country’s application of the Convention. On the other hand, actual incidents of the violation of labour rights are not considered. Unfortunately, certain countries in violation of the United Nations Charter have been imposing unilateral measures against Belarus. This runs counter to the principles of ILO Conventions and the ILO Constitution. We consider that such a situation is entirely negative and should be reversed. Our country is simply seeking to ensure decent working conditions and development for all workers and people.

Interpretation from Russian: Employer member, Belarus – We, as Belarusian Employers, cannot agree with the report of the Committee of Experts with regard to the application of the Convention, which is based on unfounded claims stemming from the political events of August 2020 and so-called strike action by a certain part of the population after the presidential elections, which were entirely political in nature. They were not in any way connected with the protection of social and economic interests in labour relations.

There was no calling of strikes by the labour movement as such, and enterprises continue to operate normally. We consider that these events, unconnected with normal labour relations and dialogue, should not serve as the basis for assessing the situation of the country’s compliance with the provisions of the Convention under discussion today.

This is unfortunate and counterproductive. We call upon the ILO to take a more critical approach to complaints and not to build a position on the basis of unconfirmed data. There is a need to take an objective stance with regard to the actual situation on the ground.

The Committee of Experts last year called for an amendment to the Belarusian legislation on the right to strike. I would draw your attention to the discussion in past years on the fact that the Convention cannot be necessarily used for the discussion of the right to strike or invoked for that purpose. It must be stressed once again that the right to strike is not directly evoked in the Convention. This is a matter for the internal affairs of any State and is within the State’s domestic remit.

Belarusian employers also note that very concrete steps have been taken to follow up on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry in order to ensure the application of the relevant Conventions, and I request the participants in the Committee to take note of what has taken place in previous times, as well as over the last year, when more political considerations came to the fore.

I would like to offer some examples of what has been done in practice and the broad use of social dialogue. A number of union members in the various congresses and federations have continued to promote workers’ interests on a tripartite basis. At the same time, employers have endeavoured to honour tripartism to reach collective agreements through tripartite dialogue. These issues have been evoked in the course of the ILO’s missions with the agreements that we reached being put into practice.

Belarus has had to endure unprecedented sanctions from the United States against economic actors, including businesspersons, which has led to a de facto economic war against leaders and their property by hindering the ability to invest and innovate and engage in business with Western partners, leading to reduced revenue, loss of jobs and a worsening of the overall social economic situation.

We, as ever, underscore our commitment to cooperate with the ILO and the Committee in order to secure progress on social issues in a spirit of collective responsibility and respect in order to work on a positive dynamic in the country building on the positive steps taken by the Government with the social partners in order to implement the recommendations of the ILO.

Government member, France – I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania and the European Free Trade Association countries Iceland and Norway, Members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights, such as the fundamental right to organize and freedom of association.

We actively promote the universal ratification and implementation of fundamental international labour standards, including this Convention. We support the ILO in its indispensable role of developing, promoting and supervising the application and implementation of ratified international labour standards and of the fundamental Conventions in particular.

We are deeply concerned at the steep deterioration of the situation of human and labour rights in Belarus in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential elections, which were neither free nor fair. These concerns have worsened further since Belarus’ involvement in the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

Freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of opinion, expression and information, as well as freedom of the media, both online and offline, are increasingly heavily curtailed, and the right to organize is actively oppressed instead of being protected.

The EU and its Member States condemn in the strongest terms the violence used by the Belarusian authorities against peaceful protesters and the numerous cases of detention, imprisonment, torture and sexual violence, in a blatant attempt to prevent workers from associating to resist the authorities’ repression of fundamental labour rights. We are even more concerned as these attacks on trade union activists and leaders have intensified in seemingly direct retaliation of them having stood up against Belarus’ involvement in the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

We fully share the deep concerns expressed by the ILO Director-General at reports of the arrests of trade union leaders, including Alexander Yaroshuk, member of the ILO Governing Body, as well as Siarhei Antusevich, Maksim Pozniakov, Oleg Podolinski and Elena Yeskova. We are also concerned at the reports of searches being conducted by the security forces on the premises of the BKDP and other trade unions, and in the homes of the trade union leaders and employees.

We urge the authorities once again to investigate without delay all human and labour rights violations and abuses, in a truly independent and impartial manner, and to hold accountable all those responsible for these violations. We expect the authorities to ensure full respect for workers' rights and freedoms, protect the right to organize, including the right to strike, and release immediately and unconditionally all arbitrarily detained persons, including political prisoners, trade unionists, workers and members of national minorities. No one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful protest or strike. Moreover, all charges related to participation in peaceful protests should be dropped.

The case of persistent violations of fundamental ILO Conventions by Belarus has been on the agenda of this Committee regularly since 1997. There has been no meaningful progress towards even partial implementation of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry recommendations.

Belarus must step up its efforts without further delay and aim for the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, thereby meeting the obligations that it undertook by being a Member of the ILO and in addition by voluntarily and willingly ratifying all eight fundamental ILO Conventions.

We once again strongly urge the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the Law on trade unions, the Labour Code, the Law on mass activities and the accompanying Regulation, as well as Presidential Decree No. 3 of 25 May 2020 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, to bring them into conformity with the Government’s obligations regarding freedom of association. We also echo the request by the Committee of Experts to the Government to repeal the provisions introducing additional restrictions and associated penalties under sections 342 and 369 of the Criminal Code.

We stress the importance of treating with impartiality all trade union organizations, and of refraining from showing favouritism, including with regard to consultations, from interference in their establishment and of ensuring and protecting the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing.

The EU and its Member States stand with the Belarusian people and support their democratic choice and fundamental freedoms and rights. The EU continues to call for fair and free elections and urges the Belarusian authorities to seek a peaceful and democratic solution to the crisis through an inclusive national dialogue with broader society. We expect the Government to fully engage with the social partners and the ILO to address the issues mentioned above. The functioning of the tripartite Council should also be improved.

We note with deep regret the apparent lack of action and commitment from the Government, the absence of progress and also the urgency of this discussion. We support, if called for by the Committee, a request to refer the matter to the November 2022 session of the Governing Body in order to consider all possible measures foreseen in the ILO Constitution with a view to the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Government representative, Sweden – I am speaking on behalf of the Nordic and Baltic Governments (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden). We align ourselves with the statement by the EU and its Member States.

Belarus has ratified the core Conventions of the ILO and has thus committed itself to respecting freedom of association, including the right to organize and participate in strikes. However, the country has repeatedly been examined in this Committee for failing to comply with the Conventions it has ratified.

We are deeply concerned at reports of the arrests of trade union leaders in Belarus and reports of searches in trade union offices and their leaders’ homes, seizing computers, personal documents, passports, union flags, leaflets and other items.

We draw attention to the fact that among those arrested are Alexander Yaroshuk, President of the BKDP, who is also a Vice-President of the ITUC and a member of the ILO Governing Body. These arrests constitute a grave violation of the principles of freedom of association as protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention.

Last year, this Committee took note of the long-standing nature of the case of Belarus and noted with great concern the numerous allegations of extreme violence to repress peaceful protests and strikes. The Committee of Experts also urged the Government in the strongest of terms to investigate without delay all alleged instances of intimidation and physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry and to provide detailed information on the outcome.

We also want to point out that the ILO Director-General has already requested the Government of Belarus to release all trade unionists who remain in detention, drop all charges related to participation in peaceful protests, and refrain from the arrest, detention or engagement in violence, intimidation or harassment, including judicial harassment, of trade union leaders and members conducting lawful trade union activities.

Belarusian authorities have failed to take the above steps. We call on the responsible Belarusian authorities to immediately release the trade union leaders as well as all the political prisoners, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that trade unions can carry out their activities in a climate free from violence, intimidation, or threat of any kind.

Trade unions are key defenders of human rights, nationally and internationally, which includes fundamental labour rights. They are also a key component in building democracy. The defence of workers’ rights must be welcomed, not criminalized.

We deplore that the Government of Belarus, 17 years after the Commission of Inquiry’s report, has failed to take measures to address the Commission’s recommendations. We note with deep regret the apparent lack of action and commitment from the Government, the absence of progress and also the urgency of this discussion. We support, if called for by the Committee, a request to refer the matter to the November 2022 session of the Governing Body in order to consider all possible measures foreseen, including those envisaged in article 33 of the ILO Constitution aimed at the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Worker member, Germany – I am speaking on behalf of workers in Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, France, Italy, the Nordic countries, Ukraine and Switzerland. The seriousness of the violation of the Convention by Belarus is quantitatively evident in the report of the Committee of Experts. The assessment covers 11 pages of the report and identifies violations – in law and practice – of almost every Article of the Convention.

Eighteen years after the report of the Commission of Inquiry, we see none of its recommendations being implemented. On the contrary, we see a politically motivated, systematic and targeted suppression of the work of independent trade unions, which deprives any critical trade union work of its basis. This was also noted in the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) of March 2022, the United Nations Special Rapporteur’s report of 4 May 2022 and the European Parliament’s resolution of 19 May 2022.

The situation in Belarus is contrary to the fundamental principles that the country has committed to uphold as a Member of the ILO. There is no independent judiciary to review the detentions and physical and psychological repression of trade union representatives. The same applies to the searches of trade union offices, the confiscation of documents, the obstruction of legitimate trade union activity, and includes strikes and public demonstrations. It is precisely a sign that speaks against respect for the principle of a fair and transparent process that the Government cannot provide the underlying court rulings for these measures.

With the recently introduced extension of the death penalty to an unclear offence of “attempted terrorism”, developments in Belarus are particularly troubling.

The situation in Belarus illustrates in a very sad way the importance of ensuring basic civil and political rights for the exercise of the rights set out in the Convention.

We therefore demand an immediate end to anti-union repression and the immediate release of our Belarusian colleagues, who are working for freedom, democracy and peace in the country.

Government member, Cuba – My delegation thanks the delegation of Belarus for the information provided, which is an indication of the Government’s good will to cooperate with the ILO supervisory bodies. We consider that they have to examine impartially, setting aside any prejudice or politicization, the progress achieved in social dialogue in the country. As part of the process of the implementation of the recommendations made within the framework of this Organization, cooperation through technical assistance must offer support for the Government.

The information provided by the delegation of Belarus contains updated elements on various matters and demonstrates the will of this Government to continue making progress in tripartite social dialogue in the country and in its work with the ILO.

It is of the greatest importance to grant governments the necessary time and space to work with the relevant actors within the framework of their national legislation and in compliance with their obligations and undertakings deriving from ILO instruments.

This forum has always been characterized by solutions agreed through broad and inclusive dialogue, in which the views and consent of the countries concerned are essential.

My delegation hopes that the Committee’s conclusions will be objective, technical and balanced on the basis of the information provided by the Government of Belarus.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Georgia – I am speaking on behalf of Georgia and also the President of the Pan-European Regional Council (PERC). The situation in Belarus is the worst in the whole PERC region for trade unions and freedom of association. This is a case that has been ongoing for 20 years and the situation has become worse very recently.

The Government clearly does not wish to implement the ILO’s recommendations and is undermining basic freedoms and any collective action and the voice of the people.

We are shocked at the fact that Alexander Yaroshuk, a member of the ILO Governing Body, as well as Siarhei Antusevich, a leader of the BKDP, who have given evidence before the Committee, are currently being detained, along with ten other trade union leaders. They are denied contact with their relatives. They find themselves under psychological pressure. The Government has failed to heed the numerous notes and efforts from the ILO to secure their release.

Trade unions are declared to be destructive and extremist organizations. It is evident that there has been an order to liquidate the BKDP and its organizations. The Prosecutor’s Office is demanding lists of trade union members and is demanding that members leave unions. The contracts of members of the trade union, and even their relatives, are not being renewed. Certain independent trade unions have already been declared illegal. This is a slap in the face for the ILO. The Government simply does not want to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and this Committee should give a robust assessment of this very negative situation in Belarus as has been done this year by the CFA.

Government member, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – My Government gives thanks for the presentation made by the distinguished delegation of the Government of Belarus on compliance with the Convention. We have noted the Government’s indication that the reasons why this case is once again before the Committee are based on strictly political considerations that are unrelated to social dialogue and should not therefore provide a basis for assessing compliance with the Convention, as they have their origins in the national political climate following the presidential elections held in 2020.

We value the good will of the Government in continuing to make progress and maintaining constructive relations with the social partners and with our Organization on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in relation to the Convention, and developing social dialogue even further within the framework of the national legislation.

We call on the ILO supervisory bodies to set aside political considerations which fall outside the scope of their comments and, as we have said on repeated occasions, which undermine their seriousness and credibility and are prejudicial to our objective as they interfere with the sovereignty of States.

The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela trusts that the Committee’s conclusions, resulting from our discussions, will be objective and balanced with the aim of the Government of Belarus continuing to make progress in compliance with the Convention while also maintaining peace and re-establishing public order, as it must continue to do in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Russian Federation – We note that the systematic non-compliance by the Government of Belarus with the ILO’s recommendations to ensure workers’ rights has led to large-scale arrests of leaders and activists of the BKDP and its branch organizations.

Right now, the President of the BKDP, Alexander Yaroshuk, Deputy-Secretary, Siarhei Antusevich, and Treasurer, Irina But-Gusaim, are under arrest. The representatives of the REP Union have been arrested: Deputy Chairperson, Gennady Fedynich, and activist, Vaclav Areshka. The representatives of the SPM: Deputy Chairperson, Yana Malash, the acting Chairperson of the Council, Vasil Beresnev, the Secretary of the Council, Mikhail Gromov, member of the Council, a labour inspector, Vitaly Chichmarev, and activist, Miroslav Sabchuk, representative of the primary organization at the Minsk Automobile Plant, Artyom Zhernak. The Chairperson of the BNP, Alexander Mishuk, is also under arrest.

Zinaida Mikhnyuk, Deputy Chairperson of the REP Union, as well as Igor Povarov and Yevgeny Khovar, who are activists of the BNP in the Belarusian Metallurgical Plant, have been convicted in criminal cases. Maksim Pozniakov, acting Chairperson of the BKDP, was convicted in an administrative case.

Other trade union members have been released under supervision including: Mikalaj Sharakh, the representative of the SPB, as well as Alexander Bukhvostov, the representative of the Metallurgy Workers’ Union, and Andrey Khanevich, the representative of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union. This is 19 in all.

We call upon the Committee to urge the Belarusian Government to take steps rapidly to release these individuals and bring an end to the administrative and criminal proceedings against them, as well as to put in place conditions for the normal operation of the BKDP and its branch-based organizations.

Government member, China – We have carefully read the report by the Committee of Experts and also its comments on implementation of the Convention by Belarus. We would like to thank the Government representative for her introduction. We note that the Government attaches importance to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It has adopted a series of well-targeted measures to conscientiously fulfil its obligations under the ratified Convention.

It has made enormous efforts and achieved positive progress. The Government has set up mechanisms to protect trade union rights, relaxing registration procedures for trade unions, achieving constructive progress, and also, the national Constitution clearly stipulates that every person’s rights and freedoms are protected by law in an independent and impartial manner. Legislation is in place to guarantee rights, such as trade union rights and the right to strike. We also appreciate the in-depth communication and exchanges with the social partners, technical cooperation with the ILO, and the active resolution of labour disputes.

We believe that the discussion of this case should focus on the implementation of the Convention rather than interfering in the internal affairs of Member States, let alone politicizing technical issues. We hope that when the Committee comes to conclusions on this case, the actual situation in the country, and the progress the Government has made in implementation, can be reflected objectively and fairly, and constructive decisions should be made collectively to help the Government to further strengthen its ability to implement the Convention and promote the comprehensive development of the country.

Worker member, United States of America – The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) strongly condemns the recent escalation of attacks on worker rights by the Government of Belarus and calls for the immediate release of these union members and any others who have been targeted for exercising their fundamental workers’ rights.

Since the rigged presidential election in 2020, the Government of Belarus has persecuted working people engaged in peaceful protests to express their demands for free and fair elections and democratic governance in Belarus. Through strikes and other legal protests, workers and independent trade unions have shown they are key to this grassroots, citizen-driven defence of democracy.

The BKDP has been on the front lines of the struggle for democracy in the country. In response, its members have received harsh prison sentences based on vague, politically motivated charges of “disrupting political order”.

In roughly 11 pages of text, the Committee of Experts’ report lays out the dire situation for trade union rights in Belarus in both law and practice. In a separate 32-page special report to the Governing Body, the CFA also raised deep concerns about the continued harassment and jailing of trade union members. We note with particular concern that the Government has not met even the most basic tenets of due process by failing to produce the written court rulings which supposedly justify the detention of trade union members.

In April 2022, the AFL–CIO sent a public letter to Prime Minister Roman Golovchenko calling for the immediate end to the anti-union repression and the immediate release of trade unionists, journalists and others who have stood up for democracy and human rights in Belarus. We reiterate that demand and call on the Government to address all the recommendations contained in the Committee of Experts’ report.

Government member, Lithuania – Lithuania aligns itself with the statement of the EU and the statement of the Nordic and Baltic countries. Since 2004, the ILO’s Commission of Inquiry has investigated respect of labour rights by the Republic of Belarus. For all these 17 years, Belarus has had countless opportunities to prove its compliance with the ILO’s fundamental Conventions.

Last year, the International Labour Conference noted that the Government of Belarus had failed to address most of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The ILO specifically requested the Government of Belarus to take all recommended steps before the next Conference and to provide detailed and complete information on the measures taken and the progress made before the next meeting of the Committee of Experts. The Belarusian authorities have not only failed to take the aforementioned steps, but over the last year have significantly intensified the repression of independent trade unions, their members and leaders.

Repression, detentions and harassment are facts of last year’s developments. Belarus has clearly failed to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and has knowingly and deliberately exacerbated the situation for its trade unions and workers.

The CFA, in its March 2022 report to the Governing Body, reviewed most of the facts mentioned and decided to draw this serious situation to the attention of the Governing Body so that it may consider any further measures to secure compliance herewith, thus calling for the application of article 33 of the ILO Constitution in respect of Belarus.

In this connection, Lithuania asks the Committee to make recommendations to the ILO Governing Body for the application of strict measures, forcing the authorities of the Republic of Belarus to fully comply with its obligations under the ILO’s fundamental Conventions.

Worker member, Japan – I am speaking on behalf of the Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) of India, workers from Myanmar, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Fiji, Australia, New Zealand and the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO). The Committee has discussed this case more than other cases since 2000. The Government threatened ITUC’s affiliate the BKDP when the case was examined in this Committee last year. Now, we see that these threats are being followed by specific action aimed at the extermination of the union.

In April 2022, more than 20 trade unionists were arrested. Ten of them are still in prison, including the BKDP President, a member of the ILO Governing Body, Alexander Yaroshuk, as many people have noted. He regularly spoke in this Committee. He and other BKDP leaders face charges of preparing mass protests in the police state of Belarus that could lead to four years of imprisonment. Independent unions are being labelled as extremist organizations.

We have clear evidence that the Government of Belarus is not willing to cooperate with the ILO, indeed the contrary. The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry from 2004 are clear and unequivocal. The Government has shown no intention to implement them, even though the CFA repeated the request earlier this year. We consider that it is time for the ILO to take further steps as foreseen in the ILO Constitution.

We demand the immediate release of all imprisoned trade unionists. The Government must drop all charges against them and stop further attacks against them. Workers from Asia and the Pacific stand in solidarity with our sister organization, the BKDP.

Government member, Sri Lanka – The Government of Sri Lanka welcomes the continuing efforts of the Government of Belarus to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the Convention and its commitment to fundamental principles and rights at work.

The Government of Belarus has expressed its commitment to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry by giving due consideration to the agreements reached and plans developed jointly with the ILO. We note that the Government of Belarus has already taken a number of specific targeted steps, as a result of which some of the recommendations have been fully implemented, and significant progress has been achieved in the implementation of the rest.

We request the Committee to adopt a balanced and considered approach to the content of incoming complaints. We believe that the way forward is to foster an open and constructive dialogue between the Government of Belarus and the ILO and the social partners, a process to which the Government of Belarus has already expressed its commitment.

Worker member, Cyprus – As a matter of principle, we would like to underline that we support the full respect and implementation of all ILO international Conventions and Recommendations. At the same time, however, we would like to note that there are different approaches to this specific issue in terms of their implementation. There is no doubt that there are recorded cases of violations of fundamental trade union freedoms which, due to political expediency and prejudice, are not dealt with.

In our view, the ILO has an important role to play in ensuring, on an equal basis and without any political expediency, the full implementation of trade union freedoms and rights.

Government member, Nicaragua – The Government of National Unity and Reconciliation of the Republic of Nicaragua recognizes the will of the Government of Belarus to work with transparency and commitment to international labour standards. We also welcome the information shared by Belarus on the effect that it is giving to the Convention, thereby demonstrating the implementation of its national laws.

As a member of the United Nations, we reiterate that it is the duty of all nations to promote relations of friendship based on respect for the principle of equality of rights and duties imposed by the United Nations Charter and not to interfere in matters that essentially fall within the internal jurisdiction of States.

The Government of Nicaragua calls on the Committee to not develop positions on the basis of unverified data relating to the action taken by Belarus for the implementation of the Convention. Events of a political nature must not be related to processes of social dialogue in the area in which this Organization works and cannot and must not be used as a basis for evaluating the situation of compliance with the Convention.

The respect shown by the fraternal Republic of Belarus is well known in its protection of freedom of association and the right to organize attached to the ILO supervisory system.

We take advantage of the opportunity offered in this important Committee to refute any action that tends to undermine the institutions and sovereignty of ILO Member States. We encourage all the Member States and organizations participating in this 110th Session of the International Labour Conference to intensify their efforts for the establishment of true forms of cooperation, guaranteeing equality of conditions and respect for all participants. We reiterate our support for the position of the Government of Belarus and emphasize its legitimacy and legality as a sovereign State.

Worker member, Colombia – The General Confederation of Labour (CGT), the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the CGT-Argentina express solidarity with the people of Belarus in light of the situation of violence experienced by trade union leaders.

The workers of Belarus are experiencing the worst attacks on freedom of association and the right to organize. Recently, at least 14 leaders of the independent trade union movement in the country were arrested. As workers of the world, we express deep concern at the violence and disappearance of workers.

The Government of Belarus has not brought an end to this policy of violence; indeed, on the contrary attacks are being intensified on the right to freedom of association by refusing to register independent unions and pressurizing members to resign their membership under threat of their employment contracts not being renewed.

The leader of the BKDP has described to this Committee on various occasions the manner in which they have been isolated and discriminated against, and alleged tolerance of their work has been expressed only for their appearance before the ILO. Nevertheless, there is a constant attitude of non-respect, discrimination against and repudiation of independent unions.

It is urgent to make recommendations on this case for a mission to be able to see evidence of the victimization to which unions and their members are subjected when they seek to re-establish their individual and collective rights.

Urgent action is required, as lives are in serious and permanent danger.

Government member, Turkmenistan – Turkmenistan wishes to extend greetings to the distinguished delegation of Belarus at this session of the Committee. We take a positive view of the efforts made by the Republic of Belarus in seeking to give effect to measures intended to develop social dialogue in the country and to ensure that the Government complies with agreements it has reached and other plans that have been developed in coordination with the ILO.

Apart from that, we support the Government’s work on seeking to give effect to ILO standards, and indeed this is something that was commended by the Committee of Experts in its report in 2020 and 2021, with particular reference to the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and the Nursing Personnel Convention, 1977 (No. 149).

In these reports, Belarus was recognized as being a country that had made definite progress. With reference to Belarus, we consider that there is every reason to believe that, at present, trade unions in the country are fully-fledged participants in building a better future for the people there. This choice has predetermined further development of a partnership between the authorities and civil society organizations.

We recommend continuing open and constructive dialogue on all the Conventions that have been ratified and on all issues of social and labour relations with a view to improving the standard of living of people in Belarus. We recommend taking further measures to support the people of Belarus in social matters, to improve employment and protection for workers and to cooperate in all areas of the life of the country, including cooperation in all humanitarian fields.

We further recommend continuing to give greater attention to the work of trade unions within their remit and the need to focus on wages being paid on time and being increased, ensuring full and productive employment, supporting the most vulnerable categories of workers, improving conditions of work, as well as monitoring discipline.

In conclusion, we wish to extend our hopes for every success to Belarus in future.

Worker member, Poland – The situation in Belarus is becoming more difficult day after day. There is a brutal attack on trade union rights, on freedom of association and on freedom of bargaining.

Nine employees have been in custody since September 2021. Most of them belong to the BKDP. They face sentences of several dozen years in prison. The charge is treason and the creation of an extremist group, when they only organized aid for repressed workers and discussed scenarios for possible strikes in workplaces.

On 19 April this year, more than 20 leaders and members of the BKDP were detained. Many of them have not been released to this day, including Alexander Yaroshuk, President, and Siarhei Antusevich, Vice-President of the BKDP. The basis for their detention is the alleged preparation of actions that seriously violate public order.

Union organizations are said to pose a threat to state stability. At the same time, measures are being taken to deprive the independent trade union movement of its autonomy and independence. Many trade union activists are leaving the country because of fear of oppression. We know about searches and surveillance. These are well-known actions that regimes use against the free trade union movement. We know it first-hand, from the history of Solidarność.

In the written information to the Committee, the Government of Belarus states that the information provided by the independent trade union movement is not based on facts, that it is biased and politically motivated. Arguments and conclusions presented by the Government of Belarus perfectly illustrate the Government’s approach to workers’ rights and trade union rights. They also manifest the fear, but also the desire to suppress any sign of freedom and independence.

We call on the Government of Belarus to release the trade union members and to drop the charges against them. We call on the Government of Belarus to fully respect trade union rights, in accordance with the legal framework under the Convention.

Government member, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – This is the seventh day and the 17th case we are discussing before this Committee. Yes, we are discussing compliance with international labour standards, but ultimately we are talking about the impact of these standards on human life. So as other colleagues have done this morning, I would like to take a moment to keep the human beings concerned at the front and centre of our minds.

Alexander Yaroshuk, Siarhei Antusevich, Irina Bud-Gusaim, Vasil Bersenev, Gennady Fedynich, Yana Malash, Mikhail Gromov, Vitaly Chichmarev, Miroslav Sabchuk, Vatslave Hajestch, Zinaida Mikhniuk, Maksim Pozniakov and Alexander Mishuk are just some of the names of trade unionists who are currently being unjustly detained in Belarus. One of them is a member of the Governing Body and Vice-President of the ITUC; two have testified before this very Committee; three are women trade unionists; four of them are elected leaders of the BKDP. All have been detained for exercising their human right to freedom of association.

Not only do the actions of the Belarusian authorities constitute a gross violation of the Convention. They also emphasize the acute regression in the implementation of the recommendations made in 2004 by the Commission of Inquiry and, as a result, Belarusian workers have faced unprecedented levels of repression.

Given the utter deterioration of the situation regarding freedom of association in Belarus and the lack of meaningful progress in the implementation of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, the United Kingdom requests the Committee to refer this issue to the 346th Session of the Governing Body in November 2022, so that additional measures may be applied, including under article 33 of the ILO Constitution. The continued violation of workers’ rights in Belarus is unacceptable. In conclusion, the United Kingdom calls on the Belarusian authorities to immediately release all trade unionists unjustly detained and to take all necessary measures to ensure that they can carry out their trade union activities in a climate free from violence, intimidation, or threats of any kind.

Employer member, France – The case of Belarus is paradoxical in that it is at the same time both simple and complex. Simple, first, because it has been examined on 14 occasions by this Committee since 1997 and has been the subject of 26 observations by the Committee of Experts to date, which unfortunately reflects the Government’s lack of action in bringing the legislative situation into conformity with international standards, particularly as the Committee of Experts has not noted any progress since its 2004 observations. And also complex because the case presented up to now is based on Convention No. 87, whereas all of the violations noted in all the reports go well beyond the simple framework of this fundamental Convention.

Why Convention No. 87? Because the Committee of Experts has on many occasions noted numerous failings in the exercise of freedom of association. In brief, the Government has not replied concerning the allegations of intimidation and physical violence against trade unionists, nor in relation to the cases of criminal prosecutions and imprisonment of demonstrators described as peaceful in the observations of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Should we add allegations of searches of trade union premises and the homes of trade union leaders? Sadly, the list established by the Committee of Experts of the serious failings to comply with the obligations of the Government of Belarus is as clear as it is long.

What is the Committee of Experts asking? It is requesting the Government of Belarus to examine the issue of the registration of unions, to cease any interference in the organization of social dialogue in private enterprises and, finally, in general, to repeal any provision that is contrary to the exercise of civil rights and fundamental ILO rights so as to leave all necessary latitude to the social partners in the system for the settlement of labour disputes.

In conclusion, violations of the requirements of the Convention by the Government of Belarus are causing substantial harm to the partners in social dialogue. Employers need free organizations for themselves, but also for workers, as the indispensable prerequisite for the existence of any social dialogue that is needed for the achievement of decent work.

The situation seen in Belarus is therefore contrary to the principles and the Constitution of the ILO.

Interpretation from Chinese: Worker member, China – We give thanks for the Government for the information provided and agree with the observations made by the Workers’ delegate of Belarus. In our opinion, the information in the report of the Committee of Experts is one-sided and it does not therefore correspond to the real state of affairs in Belarus.

A number of Chinese businesses operate in Belarus and, in this connection, we notice some of the situation related to workers’ rights, and we notice that workers have the right to join together and defend their rights with the help of trade unions. A tripartite agreement between the Government, employers and trade unions has also been signed and entered into force. It should also be noted, in particular, that trade unions are consulted on all Belarusian laws and regulations related to labour and social rights. We regret that the Committee of Experts has made an assessment contrary to the facts. Moreover, according to the feedback from Chinese businesses in the country, practices in the country do meet the requirements of the Convention.

Finally, we believe it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the current unilateral sanctions imposed on Belarus are undermining the well-being of workers and their families. They also damage the stability and vitality of businesses. The ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008) emphasizes the commitment to strengthening the role of businesses and to creating an enabling business environment as businesses are a major force for economic development and job creation. We are confident that the ILO will be contributing to the well-being of workers.

Government member, Canada – Canada is deeply concerned that more than 18 years since the findings of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry, the Government of Belarus has yet to make meaningful progress towards implementing the recommendations and ensuring compliance with the Convention. This demonstrates a lack of respect for the ILO’s supervisory system, which is unacceptable.

Canada is particularly concerned at continued reports of intimidation, physical violence and retaliation against trade unionists, arrests and imprisonment of workers and trade unionists, and searches of trade union premises and the houses of trade union leaders by the police. Canada urges the immediate release of all trade union leaders and representatives who were arrested in April 2022 and are still detained.

We are deeply concerned at the steep deterioration of human rights, including labour rights, in the country, and the repression of key civil liberties, in particular freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, and the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal or judiciary.

We are also concerned at the continued obstacles to trade union registration, government interference with the establishment of trade unions, and the slow to no progress in the various labour law reforms needed to comply with the principles of the Convention.

Canada therefore again urges the Government of Belarus to take immediate, concrete actions to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts, in full cooperation with the social partners and the ILO.

In light of the lack of progress to date, Canada joins other countries in requesting the Committee to refer the issue of the Government of Belarus’ implementation of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations to the November 2022 session of the ILO Governing Body for the consideration of additional measures, including those provided under the ILO Constitution.

Worker member, Nigeria – I am speaking on behalf of the millions of workers who are members of the Organisation of Trade Unions of West Africa (OTUWA). For 20 years, the Government of Belarus has been suppressing freedom of association of workers. It has denied independent unions’ registration, forced members to leave unions under the threat of the induced non-renewal of contracts, exercised workplace pressure and discrimination. As the leader of the BKDP has stated to this Committee several times: “free unions are in ghetto-tolerated situation, but without any space for development or actions”. This tolerance was a symbolic gesture towards the ILO.

Recently the Government has rejected any act or show of tolerance by workers. The Head of State has placed independent unions on the list of destructive organizations, de facto, ordering their intimidation and annihilation by the KGB. By the end of May, all leaders of independent unions in Belarus had been arrested and later released, subject to non-disclosure of any information about their cases, banned from leaving the country, or considered offenders and kept in prison. At least 14 of them are in custody now. Trade union offices are searched, some sealed, documents confiscated, trade union communications labelled extremist and primary groups de-legalized. Union activists can be arrested and put in prison at will, without access to legal protection and placed under psychological and even physical pressure by and through the KGB. Many have had to flee the country, but their relatives are targeted.

No doubt, there is no respect for any freedom of human rights in Belarus. This iron-clad gestapo industrial relations style must be rolled back and the spaces for the enjoyment of civil liberties and fundamental human rights must be restored.

Government member, Switzerland – Switzerland reiterates the concerns that it raised last year in this Committee. It regrets the minimal progress made in the implementation of the recommendations, 18 years after the report of the Commission of Inquiry.

Switzerland is particularly concerned that peaceful collective action is extremely limited, and even non-existent in practice, and that mechanisms such as tripartism and social dialogue are very restricted. Despite repeated requests, my delegation insists that Belarus authorizes collective peaceful demonstrations. The State must not interfere in the organization of independent unions, which should be able to evolve freely.

Freedom of association is one of the fundamental principles and rights at work that are at the heart of a democracy and an essential element of social justice. This principle, through collective action, makes it possible to combat forced labour and to develop measures based on non-discrimination and equality for everyone. Switzerland calls on the Government of Belarus to take all the necessary measures to free trade unionists and to guarantee union leaders immunity against administrative detention in the exercise of their functions and public freedoms. Switzerland encourages Belarus to provide all the information requested by the Committee of Experts in its report.

Worker member, Cuba – Our delegation supports the arguments made by the FPB, which does not share the observations contained in the annual report of the Committee of Experts on the alleged violation of the Convention.

The trade union movement and the Government of Belarus recognize significant progress in recent years in the development of more effective tripartite social dialogue which has enabled the development of socio-economic policies that are consistent with the fundamental principles and rights at work defended by all ILO Member States.

An example is the general tripartite agreement signed by the Government of the Republic of Belarus, national employers’ associations and the trade union movement which establishes the rights, duties and obligations of the social partners, the measures agreed to reach an adequate level of wages, pensions and social benefits which guarantee decent work and quality Jobs and greater access by the population to basic goods and services.

Our delegation also requests the Committee to continue promoting the spirit of dialogue, collaboration, technical assistance and cooperation by the Bureau for Workers’ Activities (ACTRAV) and the ILO with the Government of Belarus on compliance with the Convention so that its statement and those of other delegations which support it in defence of workers’ rights are taken into account.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Russian Federation – The Russian Federation shares the view expressed in the statement made by the representative of Belarus with reference to compliance with obligations under the Convention.

It is clear that the legislation in Belarus is in line with the Convention. For instance, dissolution of a trade union because it has received assistance from abroad or the regulations pertaining to peaceful demonstrations that have been so much criticized are indeed very clearly defined in law and regulations in that country and it is very clear that there are very significant filters in terms of the way that any kind of penalties can be applied. Trade unions can only be dissolved following a court decision, and that is a guarantee of independence.

It is very clear that there has been no violation of the rules while this legislation has been in force, which would surely seem to run counter to the idea that this is an excessively oppressive measure, as some have claimed here today.

We believe then that there is a clear political agenda in the way that complaints are made against Belarus and, if you analyse the domestic political situation there, it is clear that a lot of what is being said goes well beyond the mandate of the ILO. The representative of Belarus called for us to abstain from politicizing the debate and we reinforce that statement.

Government member, United States of America – Over the past 18 years, the ILO supervisory bodies have monitored and engaged with the Belarusian authorities on the country’s application of the Convention in follow-up to the findings of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry.

Although the ILO has provided technical assistance, the Belarusian authorities have failed to fully implement these recommendations and the situation for trade unionists in Belarus is increasingly deteriorating. In April and May, officials of the State Security Committee searched trade union offices and the homes of their leaders and employees, seizing personal documents and other items. Several trade union leaders and labour activists were arrested, including ILO Governing Body member, Alexander Yaroshuk, Siarhei Antusevich, Oleg Podolinski, Elena Yeskova and Mikola Sharakh.

We call for the immediate release of trade unionists who are still in detention and for all charges against them to be dropped. The authorities must cease all arrests and acts of violence, harassment and intimidation against trade unionists exercising their human and labour rights, including to voice opposition to the policies and action of the Lukashenko regime.

We again call on the Belarusian authorities to implement the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation to guarantee adequate protection against the administrative detention of trade union officials when performing their duties or exercising their civil liberties.

There has been no meaningful progress towards the full implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations; rather the authorities have reiterated that they have no intention of amending the relevant legislation and have further retreated from Belarus’ obligations under the Convention.

In the words of the Committee of Experts, the Belarusian authorities’ lack of action to follow up on the conclusions of this Committee also demonstrates a lack of commitment to ensure respect for Belarus’ obligations under the ILO Constitution.

We therefore request this Committee to refer the matter of Belarus’ implementation of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations to the November 2022 session of the Governing Body for the consideration of additional measures to be taken, including under article 33 of the ILO Constitution.

Government member, Azerbaijan – We thank the delegation of Belarus for providing the update on the application of the Convention. Azerbaijan appreciates the efforts made by Belarus to fulfil its obligations arising from this fundamental Convention, including the positive steps taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. We understand some recommendations have been fully implemented, while progress has been secured in implementing the remainder.

We also note positively the technical cooperation activities carried out with the support of the ILO to address specific recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry following the direct contacts mission in close cooperation with the social partners. The tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere continues to play an important role in promoting social dialogue and implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

These actions by the Government of Belarus demonstrate its commitment and willingness to address the concerns raised through the tripartite consultation process and with the active engagement of the ILO.

We encourage the Government of Belarus to continue working closely with the ILO and increasing its efforts to implement ILO standards. At the same time, in fulfilling its labour-related obligations, we invite the ILO to fully support the Government of Belarus by providing any technical assistance that it may seek, including to improve the system for resolving labour disputes.

Interpretation from Arabic: Government member, Syrian Arab Republic – With reference to the examination by the Committee of the case of the application of the Convention in Belarus, the information provided by the Government in relation to the Convention, and cooperation with the ILO, as well as the efforts made within the framework of the Convention, our delegation supports the position of Belarus in terms of cooperating with the ILO and the stakeholders, the continuation of such cooperation and not to adopt an approach which would consist of politicizing ILO action, which would not be in conformity with the principles of the Organization and would not serve the interests of any of the parties.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union – I am speaking on behalf of three global unions: IndustriALL, Public Services International (PSI) and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). For years and years, the Government of Belarus has continued to blatantly ignore its obligations under the Convention, but since the rigged elections, the situation has become catastrophic, with countless attacks against independent democratic unions, particularly over the last two months.

On 7 April, the authorities declared the IndustriALL affiliate, REP Union, as an extremist organization. Zinaida Mikhniuk, ex-Chairperson of the union, has been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Gennady Fedynich, another leader of the same union, is still in prison as we speak. On 11 May, the BNP, the local organization in the city of Grodno, another IndustriALL affiliate, was declared an extremist organization and is now facing dissolution. Just before the start of this annual Conference, on 25 May, Maksim Pozniakov, Chairperson of the BNP, was detained and remains in prison.

Hundreds of ordinary union members have been subjected to various forms of harassment and intimidation. The pressure placed on union members to resign from their unions has become harsh in a very widespread way. Interrogations of activists, illegal installation of video and listening devices in union offices have become regular exercises of the authorities.

Following a seven-hour long interrogation, Alexander Bukhvostau, President of another SPM affiliate, was hospitalized. On 30 May, Vladimir Krysenok, former member of the BNP in Novopolotsk, killed himself because of harassment and threats throughout his 12 years in jail.

The repression of independent trade unions in Belarus is politically motivated and constitutes an assault on democracy and its institutions. The arrest of trade unionists constitutes a grave violation of fundamental trade union and human rights. We urge the Belarusian Government to change course and commit to global democratic standards and to demonstrate this commitment by releasing the union leaders who have been arrested and dropping all the charges.

We call on the Committee to observe the severe deterioration in fundamental trade union rights in Belarus and apply all possible measures under the ILO Constitution to make sure that the Belarusian Government fulfils its obligations.

Interpretation from Russian: Observer, General Confederation of Trade Unions (GCTU) – The question of compliance by Belarus with the provisions of the Convention has come before the Committee several times and it remains the subject of lively discussion. We must note that the reports of the Committee of Experts on this topic over the years have not always fully reflected the situation in relation to the development of the trade union movement in Belarus.

In recent years, we have seen that various international sanctions and prohibitions have been applied to the country with consequent effects on the way in which it is able to exercise its sovereignty. We must recognize that it is not acceptable to harass or persecute trade union officials for their professional duties, for what they do in seeking to defend the interests of workers. If we look at other violations of law, however, that do affect national security interests, then they should be subject to decisions by other judicial bodies.

We must recognize that the information that we have from the Committee of Experts’ report does note that progress has been made. We must also recognize that we do now have a tripartite agreement in that country that involves the social partners in the development of economic development plans and in ensuring that social guarantees are applied in the country.

When it comes to matters relating to labour relationships in the economic interests of the citizens of Belarus, the voices of trade unions are appropriately heard, and they can also make those voices heard at the legislative level. When there have been instances of accusations of failure by Belarus to respect the provisions of the Convention, we must recognize that those have not always been made when looking at the full situation in terms of trying to ensure the economic development of the country. We call on the country to respect the Convention, but we also ask the Committee to take an objective view of developments in Belarus and to craft its recommendations accordingly.

Observer, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) – Our contribution is complementary to the statement of the IndustriALL Global Union and other global union federations.

The ILO has made numerous attempts to offer the Belarus Government support for the implementation of the Convention, but all those efforts over the years failed. The Government has failed to carry out the recommendations contained in the 2004 report of the Commission of Inquiry and continues to manifest its disrespect of the ILO’s fundamental principles and the ILO as an organization.

Last year, this Committee expressed its disappointment at the slow progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and urged the Government to fully implement the outstanding recommendations before this year’s Conference took place. Instead, what is happening in Belarus today indicates a further refusal by the Government to meet its obligations under the Convention. The recent arrest of union leaders, including Alexander Yaroshuk, President of the BKDP, who addressed this Committee at the previous session, is the most obvious illustration of that. We therefore believe that this Committee should adopt conclusions which call upon the Governing Body and the Office to take all and every possible measure under the ILO Constitution to secure the observance by Belarus of the recommendations of the ILO Committee of Experts and the Commission of Inquiry which were issued over 17 years ago.

Interpretation from Russian: Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – The Government of the Republic of Belarus over the last two decades has systematically violated Conventions Nos 87 and 98. However, in many respects, thanks to the opinions of the Committee members that have been expressed, trade unions are the last civil society organizations that have not been destroyed in the country. Trade unions were called destructive organizations before the Conference last year, and that opened the way to a worsening of the situation, leading to the organization of workers’ arrests, raids, liquidation and dissolution of trade union organizations.

The REP Union was deemed to be an extremist organization. We have seen the arrests by the KGB of more than 20 trade union leaders, including the President of the BKDP, a member of the ILO Governing Body, Vice-Chairperson of the ITUC, Alexander Yaroshuk, Vice-President of the BKDP, Siarhei Antusevich. They have been behind bars for one and a half months. We have also seen similar cases against their co-workers.

On the eve of the International Labour Conference, Maksim Pozniakov, President of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union and acting President of the BKDP, and Aliaksandr Mishuk, leader of the Independent Trade Union of Miners, were sent to jail. Zinaida Mikhniuk, Vice-President of the REP Union, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

The Belarus Government is showing that it is not willing to implement the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. It is demonstrating that it does not respect the ILO and its supervisory bodies. We hope that decisions will be taken that are provided for by the Constitution of the ILO in response to repeated violations of the fundamental principles, as reflected in the Convention. It is also essential that all of those leaders in detention are released, and their legitimate trade union activities continued.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Protection – I thank you for giving me this opportunity of addressing you once again to explain the position of the Government of Belarus. I sincerely thank those countries that have expressed support for the Republic of Belarus, your support is very important to us, and it gives us grounds to hope that the assessment of the situation in Belarus by this Committee will be well thought out and well balanced.

I must also say, however, that I categorically reject the politicized statements made by the representatives of the ITUC, the EU and a number of other countries. Such statements are completely groundless, and there is no evidence for what is being alleged at all. We see such statements as trying to drag the ILO into a political game, so that the ILO and this Committee become one more mechanism for exerting pressure on Belarus.

We must recognize that this Organization needs to distance itself as much as possible from such illegitimate actions. We must act in strict compliance with our mandate, and the mandate of the ILO is very clear. It relates to Conventions and Recommendations adopted within the framework of the ILO.

Decent work for all, that is a universal concept, and it brings under the auspices of the ILO all States who are Members of this Organization. That being so, there can be no place for unilateral compulsory measures of any kind. We believe that the politicized statements made run totally counter to the philosophy and fundamental principles underpinning the ILO.

Some countries, in seeking to achieve their foreign policy goals, are willing to enter into a policy of exerting pressure on other countries without paying attention to the appropriateness or not of different forums. I recently drew the attention of the ILO Director-General to the question of exerting pressure or introducing sanctions of some kind against countries that did not comply with ILO standards, and I pointed out that the way that this was being put forward was not in line with the ILO’s fundamental principles. The way in which it is being proposed that unilateral coercive measures be taken is not legitimate. I put that point to the Director-General last year. I have not yet received a response from him.

We believe, however, that we need to focus on the issues that are truly within our mandate and truly in the interests of the Members of the ILO. We need to ensure that we are seen as a centre of excellence internationally for employment issues and the protection of workers.

Secondly, we should be seen as an international organization that does not divide countries but brings them together to serve noble and lofty goals.

When I spoke earlier in my introductory comments, I described in some detail the measures being taken by the Government of the Republic of Belarus in seeking to develop and take forward social dialogue and tripartism in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. I wish to emphasize that success has been achieved in developing social dialogue and tripartism and that was noted by the Committee of Experts and the direct contacts mission. But some of those who have spoken today seem to have forgotten that or just do not want to recognize it.

I would also note that we have made considerable progress over the past 20 years in cooperation with the ILO, and we are working on ensuring that we can now have collective agreements that can be applied in different parts of the country and in different sectors of our economy.

We have indeed succeeded in creating many such agreements, although we have not been able to do as much as we wanted in recent years because of the pandemic. Nonetheless, we have made significant progress.

Belarus cannot be held responsible for anything that it has done in trying to prevent trade unions from carrying out the activities that it is legitimate for them to do, that is to say, being involved in collective bargaining and protecting workers at the enterprise and sectoral levels. Indeed, there is no way that you could accuse us of not respecting that. But when there are trade unions that step beyond their remit and step into other areas, then they must be willing to be accountable for that before the law. We have the law in our country, and it is the same law that applies to all. That is not the situation only in Belarus; it is the situation in all the countries of the world.

Today, the names of a number of persons have been mentioned and, it is true, these persons are at present subject to legal proceedings. But each and every case is being thoroughly investigated and will be thoroughly dealt with through the courts I can assure you. In terms of violations of the Convention, that is simply something not appropriate to the cases that have been referred to and if you wish for more detail on the cases then we are happy to give you that information. Do not jump to unfounded conclusions, I would ask you.

The Government of Belarus is interested in continuing open and constructive dialogue with the ILO. We stand ready to work with you, not just in terms of giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, but also to work on other broader labour and social protection issues. I am sure that our cooperation can make a significant contribution to ensuring that we can improve the standard of living of people in Belarus and to ensuring that the more than 10 million people who live there can enjoy all their human rights, including labour rights.

This is what the ILO is supposed to be about. This is what the Committee is supposed to be about. If this is going to happen, I would ask you not to take a partial one-sided view of our situation and, secondly, do not jump to critical conclusions about what is being done by the authorities in Belarus, when what they are doing is simply seeking to ensure respect for law and order in the country.

Let me once again call on the members of this Committee, representatives of Governments, Employers and Workers not to take decisions now which in future might be a hindrance to developing constructive cooperation between Belarus and the ILO.

I would call upon you to listen to what has been said by all who have spoken and to refrain from a unilateral politicized approach to this issue. Let me remind you once again that decent work for all is a universal concept and the ILO can bring together all the countries of the world in the service of that cause and, in that area, you will find Belarus to be a reliable and committed partner.

Worker members – We note the comments of the Government of Belarus and that the Government of Belarus has failed to implement its obligations under the Convention and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government of Belarus is not just failing to implement the recommendations of the Commission, it has taken escalatory measures of repression and has engaged in the intentional and systematic destruction of independent trade unions.

Without serious measures to address the impunity shown by the Government of Belarus, the whole supervisory system will be seriously weakened. The Government must immediately release all trade union leaders and members arrested for participating in strikes and peaceful assemblies or, for that matter, for exercising their civil liberties pursuant to their legitimate trade union activities, including Alexander Yaroshuk, a member of the Governing Body of the ILO, Siarhei Antusevich and Gennady Fedynich. As a matter of urgency, the Government must give access to visitors, including ILO officials to ascertain the conditions of arrest and detention and their welfare.

We note that several other union leaders arrested in April have been released, but face similar charges, including the SPB President, Mikalaj Sharakh, and the SPM President, Alyaksandr Bukhvastau. The two-year sentence against the Vice-President of the REP Union, Zinaida Mikhniuk, must be quashed and she must be released immediately.

The Government must take immediate action to implement fully the 2004 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the conclusions of the Committee, including the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2021, as well as the recommendations of the CFA.

We take note of the serious and grave deterioration of the conditions for the exercise of trade union rights for independent trade unions, including the breakdown of respect for civil liberties by the Government and the authorities in Belarus, the arrest and detention of trade union leaders, the ongoing interference in trade union affairs and the violation of privacy through searches of trade union property.

We must recall that every opportunity has been given to the Government of Belarus to comply with its obligations under the Convention, without any success whatsoever. We note with deep regret the failure of the Government of Belarus to fully implement the conclusions of the Committee, including its 2021 conclusions, and the failure of the Government to fully implement the 2004 reports and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as well as the recommendations of the CFA, in 2022, after 18 years, this Committee must refer this matter to the Governing Body for follow-up at its June 2022 session so that it can consider at that time any further measures to secure compliance therewith in line with the ILO Constitution. This case must again be included in a special paragraph.

Employer members – We begin by noting the comments of the Government of Belarus and thank it for the information that it has provided to our Committee today. We also thank the participants who joined the discussion today on the case of Belarus and its application of the Convention.

We have listened very carefully to all of the representatives of Workers, Employers and Governments who have taken the floor. The majority of these contributions, in our view, focused on the issue of the application of the Convention in law and practice, taking into account the report of the Commission of Inquiry in 2004, the Committee of Experts’ observations and the Committee’s conclusions, most recently its 2021 conclusions. Therefore, we believe that the issues being discussed in our Committee have fallen within its mandate, and we appreciate the feedback on these issues that the speakers have provided.

The Employer members must note that we regret that there has not been any meaningful progress towards the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, and we also deeply regret that there has been no progress towards the implementation of the Committee’s 2021 conclusions. In fact, based on the information provided by the Committee of Experts, it appears that the situation is in fact deteriorating. This is deeply regrettable.

Furthermore, the Employer members are deeply concerned at new allegations of criminal prosecution, arrest and imprisonment of trade unionists. Therefore, we join the call by other members of the Committee for the immediate release of any individuals arrested or imprisoned because of trade union activities, membership or affiliation. At a fundamental level, employers’ and workers’ organizations must be free to associate and organize their activities freely without intimidation, without interference and at a fundamental level. This is a basic compliance obligation with the Convention. In our view, this principle applies equally whether we are discussing the freedom and security of workers’ or employers’ organizations, but it is the foundational requirement for true compliance in both law and practice with the Convention and so, in our view, it is not possible for a government to take the position that it is in compliance, or substantial compliance, with the Convention while failing to respect this basic right.

In addition, taking into account our deep regret that no meaningful progress has been made regarding the implementation of the Committee’s 2021 conclusions, the Employer members must conclude this case by recalling the detailed recommendations set out in our 2021 conclusions and urging, in the strongest terms, that the Government implement these recommendations without any further delay or excuse.

The Employer members invite the Government to avail itself of technical assistance, where necessary, and request the Government to provide detailed and complete information on any measures taken and any progress made on the issues raised in the Committee’s 2021 conclusions, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations nationally, and to report to the ILO before 1 September 2022. Taking into account the submissions made and the discussion of this case, as well as the Committee of Experts’ observations, the Employers’ group can support the Workers’ call for the inclusion of this case in a special paragraph.

Conclusions of the Committee

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

The Committee noted the long-standing nature and the prior discussion of this case in the Committee, most recently in 2021.

The Committee deplored and deeply regretted the allegations of extreme violence to repress peaceful protests and assembly, and the detention, imprisonment and violent treatment of workers while in custody. The Committee deplored the escalating measures deployed to repress trade union activities, as well as the systemic destruction of independent trade unions.

The Committee expressed its deep concern that, 18 years after the Commission of Inquiry’s report, the Government had failed to take measures to address most of the Commission’s recommendations. The Committee recalled the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry noting the failure to make progress on its implementation and the need for their full and effective implementation, without further delay.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to:

- restore without delay full respect for workers’ rights in respect of freedom of association;

- refrain from the arrest, detention, violent treatment, intimidation or harassment, including judicial harassment, of trade union leaders and members conducting lawful trade union activities;

- investigate without delay alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry;

- immediately release all trade union leaders and members arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies or arrested for exercising their civil liberties pursuant to their legitimate trade union activities and drop all related charges, including for the following persons: Aliaksandr Yarashuk – a member of the Governing Body of the ILO; Siarhei Antusevich, Vice-President of the Belarus Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP); Gennadiy Fedynich, leader of the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronics Workers (REP); Mikalai Sharakh, President of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (SPB); Aliaksandr Bukhvostov, President of the Free Trade Union of Metal Workers (SPM); and Zinaida Mikhniuk, Vice-Chairperson of the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronics Workers (REP);

- give access, as a matter of urgency, to visitors, including officials of the ILO, to ascertain the conditions of arrest and detention and the welfare of the above-mentioned persons;

- take immediate action to implement fully the 2004 report of the Commission of Inquiry and the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, including the conclusions adopted by the Committee in 2021.

The Committee also refers this matter to the Governing Body to follow up at its June 2022 session and consider, at that time, any further measures, including those foreseen in the ILO Constitution, to secure compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

In addition, the Committee reproduces its 2021 conclusions in full:

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

The Committee noted the long-standing nature and the prior discussion of this case in the Committee, most recently in 2015.

The Committee noted with great concern and deeply regretted the numerous allegations of extreme violence to repress peaceful protests and strikes, and the detention, imprisonment and torture of workers while in custody following the presidential election in August 2020 as well as the allegations regarding the lack of investigation in relation to these incidents.

The Committee expressed its deep concern that, 17 years after the Commission of Inquiry’s report, the Government of Belarus had failed to take measures to address most of the Commission’s recommendations. The Committee recalled the outstanding recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry and the need for their rapid, full and effective implementation.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urges the Government to:

- restore without delay full respect for workers’ rights and freedom;

- implement recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry on guaranteeing adequate protection or even immunity against administrative detention for trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.);

- take measures for the release of all trade unionists who remain in detention and for the dropping of all charges related to participation in peaceful protest action;

- refrain from the arrest, detention or engagement in violence, intimidation or harassment, including judicial harassment, of trade union leaders and members conducting lawful trade union activities; and

- investigate without delay alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry.

As regards the issue of legal address as an obstacle to trade union registration, the Committee calls on the Government to ensure that there are no obstacles to the registration of trade unions, in law and practice, and requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments on this matter, in particular any discussions held and outcomes of these discussions in the Tripartite Council.

As regards the demand by the President of Belarus for the setting up of trade unions in all private companies by 2020 on the request of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Committee urges in the strongest terms the Government:

- to refrain from any interference with the establishment of trade unions in private companies, in particular from demanding the setting up of trade unions under the threat of liquidation of private companies otherwise;

- to clarify publicly that the decision whether or not to set up a trade union in private companies is solely at the discretion of the workers in these companies; and

- to put an immediate stop to the interference with the establishment of trade unions and refrain from showing favouritism towards any particular trade union in private companies.

As regards the restrictions of the organization of mass events by trade unions, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, including in the framework of the Tripartite Council:

- to amend the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation, in particular with a view:

-- to set out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, ensuring compliance with freedom of association principles;

-- to widen the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used;

-- to lift all obstacles, in law and practice, which prevent workers’ and employers’ organizations to benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers in line with the Convention;

-- to abolish the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists participating in peaceful protests;

- to repeal the Ordinance No. 49 of the Council of Ministers, as amended, to enable workers’ and employers’ organizations to exercise their right to organize mass events in practice; and

- to address and find practical solutions to the concerns raised by the trade unions in respect of organizing and holding mass events in practice.

As regards consultations in respect of the adoption of new pieces of legislation affecting the rights and interests of workers, the Committee requests the Government to amend the Regulation of the Council of Ministers No. 193 to ensure that social partners enjoy equal rights in consultations during the preparation of legislation.

As regards the functioning of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the Tripartite Council so that it can play an effective role in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and other ILO supervisory bodies towards full compliance with the Convention in law and practice.

The Committee expresses its disappointment at the slow process in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Recent developments indicated a step backward and further retreat on the part of the Government from its obligations under the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take before the next Conference, in close consultation with the social partners, all necessary steps to fully implement all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and complete information on measures taken and progress made on all of the above issues and to transmit all relevant legislative texts to the Committee of Experts before its next meeting in consultation with the social partners.

The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of technical assistance from the Office.

The Committee requests the Government to submit a report to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2022 communicating information on the application of the Convention in law and practice, in consultation with the social partners.

The Committee decides to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of the report and to mention this case as a case of continued failure to implement the Convention.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – The Government of Belarus has carefully considered the conclusions of the Committee with regard to Convention No. 87. We are obliged to note that, once again, these are unfair and politicized and not objective. The Government provided information on the efforts made to give life to the recommendations. These have been ignored. Certain States asserted support for Belarus. Unfortunately, our fears have come to fruition. This ILO forum is being used for political purposes and we believe that such action is unfair.

Belarus has done much to develop tripartism and social dialogue on the basis of social partnership. This fact has not been reflected in the conclusions. We believe that the inclusion of a special paragraph on Belarus is not in line with the reality on the ground. There is no basis pursuant to article 33 of the ILO Constitution for this procedure to be engaged. In four days’ time, this is to be discussed at the 345th Session of the Governing Body. I had already indicated that a detailed report is to be provided by August to the Office.

Belarus has been a long-standing reliable partner of the ILO. We are convinced that those who are calling for the application of article 33 against Belarus are deliberately seeking to misuse the ILO. This should not be permitted. The Government is in favour of constructive and open dialogue with all ILO Members in order to achieve an inclusive, fair and secure labour sphere. All attempts to exert pressure for political ends should be fully and immediately excluded from this type of forum.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2021, Publication: 109th ILC session (2021)

Written information provided by the Government

Measures taken by the Government of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry

General comments

The Government of Belarus takes note that, due to the deferral of the 2020 International Labour Conference session owing to the difficult epidemiological situation, during the first part of the 109th Session of the International Labour Conference in May–June 2021 the discussion in the Committee on the Application of Standards will be based on both the Committee of Experts’ 2020 observations and the additional comments of the Committee, outlined in its 2021 report.

In this regard, the Government regrets that there has been a significant change in the tone of the Committee of Experts’ comments prepared in 2021 regarding the country’s compliance with Convention No. 87 and the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as compared to the position of the Committee set out in its 2020 report. At the same time, in the Government’s opinion, a significant negative shift in assessments of the situation in Belarus in the 2021 report of the Committee of Experts is associated exclusively with the political events that took place in the country after the elections of the President of the Republic of Belarus held on 9 August 2020. As a result, on the basis of unverified information from the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BCDTU) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) regarding the events that took place after the elections, it was precisely in the 2021 comments that the Committee of Experts included the so-called “double footnote”, which means the automatic inclusion of Belarus in the list of countries for consideration by the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 109th Session of the International Labour Conference.

In the Government’s opinion, this approach is unacceptable.

Events that were of a purely political nature and were in no way connected with the processes of social dialogue in the world of work should not and cannot be the basis for assessing the situation with the country’s compliance with ILO Convention No. 87.

The Government emphasizes that external forces interested in destabilizing the situation in the country took an active organizational and financial part in the preparation and conduct of illegal street actions that took place after the elections of the President of the Republic of Belarus. The main demands put forward by the protesters included the resignation of the Head of State and the holding of new elections. The political structures created with support from abroad were actually paving the way for an unconstitutional transition of power in the country.

The Government notes the groundlessness of statements about the peaceful nature of the protests. Those mass events were carried out in violation of the law and posed a serious threat to public order, safety, and the health and life of citizens. During the protest actions, numerous facts of active resistance to the legal demands of law enforcement officials were recorded, associated with the manifestation of aggression, the use of violence, damage to official vehicles, blocking the movement of vehicles, and causing damage to infrastructure facilities.

The State, for its part, took all the necessary measures to ensure law and order, did not allow chaos and destabilization of the situation in the country and ensured the safety of citizens.

The Government draws attention to the fact that, in the information submitted to the ILO, the BCDTU and the ITUC are deliberately attempting to link illegal protest actions with the alleged strike movement in the country. This clearly shows the desire of the BCDTU and the ITUC to unreasonably involve these issues in the sphere of ILO competence.

In this regard, the Government emphasizes that this approach is inconsistent with the real events that took place in Belarus at the end of 2020.

In practice, the protest moods affected only a small part of the workers. The country’s enterprises continued their work; strikes, as a way to resolve collective labour disputes between employers and representative bodies of workers, were not announced.

At the same time, some workers, under the slogan of participation in strikes which were not announced or organized in accordance with the law, skipped work and refused to perform functions stipulated by their employment contracts. The Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus provides for disciplinary measures, up to dismissal, for such actions.

The Government explains that the application of disciplinary measures to employees is attributed by labour legislation exclusively to the competence of the employer.

Thus, the Government informs that the citizens mentioned in the BCDTU and ITUC complaints, who allegedly suffered for participation in peaceful protests and strikes, were imposed administrative and disciplinary penalties for committing specific illegal actions. This has nothing to do with the persecution of workers and trade union activists for the exercise of their civil or trade union rights and freedoms.

The Government insists that using purely political events to assess the country’s implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry is completely unreasonable and counterproductive. This can become a serious obstacle to the further development of well-established constructive interaction both within the country and with ILO experts on the implementation of recommendations.

At the same time, the Government emphasizes that over the past years there has been obvious progress in the development of social dialogue in the Republic. As part of its work on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the Government is strictly following the agreements reached and the plans developed jointly with the International Labour Office (the Office). Thus, together with the social partners and the Office, the Government has fully implemented the proposals of the direct contacts mission, which worked in Belarus in 2014.

Currently, the main platform for making decisions on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry is the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (the Council), the concept of which was developed jointly with the Office. The Government, employers’ associations and trade unions are represented on the Council on an equal basis. On the part of trade unions, the Council includes both representatives of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FTUB), the largest trade union centre in the country, and the BCDTU.

Within the framework of the social partnership system, the Government is taking targeted steps to establish constructive cooperation with all parties, including the BCDTU, which is represented not only in the above-mentioned Council, but also in the National Council for Labour and Social Issues, in the working group for preparation of the draft general agreement.

However, it should be emphasized that the possibilities of cooperation with the BCDTU are limited due to their extremely destructive position. Acting as an open opponent of the state authorities, the BCDTU representatives build their position on rejection and criticism of any measures of the Government in all areas of social and economic policy, regardless of their intended effect. In such a situation, the development of joint mutually acceptable decisions within the Council is an extremely difficult process.

Nevertheless, even in such difficult conditions, the Council plays a significant role in promoting social dialogue and implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. So, for example, it was the Council who developed proposals to abolish the legislative requirement for 10 per cent of employees to create a trade union, and together with the ILO experts developed and implemented proposals of the ILO direct contacts mission, as well as additional measures of technical cooperation with the ILO based on the results of the implementation of the mission’s proposals.

The steps taken by the Government to implement the ILO standards were positively assessed by the Committee of Experts. Thus, in the Committee’s 2020 and 2021 reports, Belarus is noted among the countries in which there are cases of progress. In particular, the measures taken by the Government to implement ILO Conventions Nos 98, 144 and 149 were noted with interest by the Committee of Experts.

The Government would be grateful to the ILO supervisory bodies for their impartial attitude to the situation in the country and the absence of hasty critical assessments of the actions of the Belarusian authorities aimed at restoring law and order.

The Government appreciates the experience and expertise of the ILO and expects to continue an open and constructive dialogue on the implementation of the obligations stipulated by the ratified Conventions, as well as on a wider range of issues in the social and labour sphere in order to improve the level and quality of life of Belarusian citizens.

Article 2 of the Convention. The right to establish workers’ organizations

As practice shows, today the legal address requirement is not an obstacle to the registration of trade unions. The proof is the data on the number of registered organizations; during the last 5 years (2016–20) 6,027 new organizational structures of trade unions and 3 new trade unions were registered in the country. As of 1 January 2021, there are a total of 25 trade unions (20 republican, 1 territorial, 4 trade unions in organizations), 4 trade union associations and 26,522 organizational structures of trade unions operating in Belarus.

The cases of refusal to register the organizational structures of trade unions are rare and have objective reasons, in most cases not related to the legal address requirement. The main reasons for refusal are non-compliance with the legislation regarding the procedure for creating trade unions and the submission of an incomplete package of documents for registration.

Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. The right of workers’ organizations, including federations and confederations, to organize their activities

The procedure for organizing and holding mass events

The procedure for organizing and holding mass events established in Belarus does not conflict with the principles of freedom of association and assembly and is fully consistent with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The exercise of the right of peaceful assembly is not subject to any restrictions, except those that are imposed in conformity with the law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The norms of legislation stipulating punishment for violation of the procedure for organizing and holding a mass event, which entailed serious negative consequences, are aimed at preventing socially dangerous unlawful acts that pose a real threat to the life and health of citizens. Here we are talking about the unconditional need to maintain a balance of interests and rights of individual groups of citizens and society as a whole. Maintaining and keeping this balance is the direct task of the State.

The fundamental point is that the decision to terminate the activities of the trade union for violation of the legislation on mass events, which caused serious damage and significant harm to the rights and interests of citizens, organizations, society and the State, can only be taken in court.

No decisions were made to liquidate trade unions for violating the procedure for organizing and holding mass events in Belarus.

The procedure for obtaining and using foreign gratuitous aid

The legislation does not prohibit the receipt of foreign gratuitous aid by trade unions, including from international trade union organizations and associations. At the same time, the law clearly defines the purposes of using such aid and the procedure for its registration, which is applied to all legal entities.

It should be noted that there have been no refusals to trade unions to receive foreign gratuitous aid, as well as no cases of liquidation of trade unions for violation of the procedure for its use.

The established procedure for obtaining funding from abroad is unreasonably linked to Articles 5 and 6 of Convention No. 87. The prohibition on the use of foreign aid for carrying out political and mass propaganda work is due to the interests of national security, and the need to exclude the destructive influence of external forces on the situation in the country.

Development of the situation in the case of Gennady Fedynich and Igor Komlik

The Government once again draws the attention of the ILO supervisory bodies to the fact that the prosecution of the REP trade union officials, Mr Fedynich and Mr Komlik, took place solely due to their violation of the procedure for carrying out economic activities (tax evasion). The guilty verdict is based on evidence that has passed an objective check during the trial. This case is in no way connected with the activities of the REP trade union and should not be considered as a persecution of trade union activists for the exercise of civil or trade union rights.

The Government has previously submitted detailed information on this issue to both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association. The comments of the Government, among other things, contained information about the position of the BCDTU chairperson, Mr Yaroshuk, who publicly admitted the unlawfulness of the actions of Mr Fedynich and Mr Komlik. In particular, in his interview under the heading “The REP Trade Union Leadership Seriously Set Themselves Up”, posted on the internet on the day of the arrest of Mr Fedynich and Mr Komlik on 2 August 2017, commenting on the arrest of his colleagues, Mr Yaroshuk, among other things, noted the following:

To put it bluntly, all the correspondence that was conducted with the Danish trade union 3F and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in their hands [the investigators of the Financial Investigation Department]. It was a pretty high-profile story that went far beyond the trade union movement.

[The project] works for separatism and splits in the independent trade union movement in Belarus.

I wrote to the investigators that I do not know anything about how the financing was carried out, or about who exactly was bringing or was not bringing the money. I believe that at one time I made a worthy decision not to get into this mud. After all, I will not achieve anything, except that I will create an appropriate reputation for myself. But what I and we all were afraid of – this abscess has burst, to our deep regret. Today the situation seems to dictate to me to say that the “bloody regime” bore down on my people, my organization, but I have to be objective. Today I cannot speak about the “bloody regime” and my “white and fluffy” colleagues. They messed things up.

Currently, in view of the application of amnesty legislation to the convicts, the main punishment in the form of restriction of freedom has been served by Mr Fedynich and Mr Komlik in full.

The further fate of the information storage devices seized during the investigation of the criminal case will be decided after the completion of the check on the fact of committing other crimes of a similar nature by the indicated persons.

The right to strike

In the Republic of Belarus, the right of citizens to strike is enshrined in article 41 of the Constitution. Thus, citizens have the right to protect their economic and social interests, including the right to establish trade unions, conclude collective contracts (agreements) and the right to strike.

The right of trade unions to declare strikes is enshrined in article 22 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On Trade Unions”.

The procedure for organizing and conducting strikes is regulated in Chapter 36 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus.

The legislative provisions that regulate the procedure for organizing and conducting strikes are aimed at creating conditions for resolving a dispute that has arisen through consultations and negotiations within the framework of conciliation procedures. A strike is an extreme way to resolve a dispute if the parties fail to reach an agreement.

In accordance with article 393 of the Labour Code, in the case of a real threat to national security, public order, public health, the rights and freedoms of others, as well as in other cases provided for by law, the President of the Republic of Belarus has the right to postpone the strike or suspend it, but for no more than three months.

The Government considers that the current procedure for organizing and conducting strikes in the Republic of Belarus does not contradict international labour standards.

Consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations

There is a system of social partnership in the Republic of Belarus, and within the framework of this system government bodies, associations of employers and trade unions interact in the process of development and implementation of the socio-economic policy of the State.

The development of draft legal acts regulating issues of the social and labour sphere is carried out with the direct participation of social partners.

The provisions providing for the participation of social partners in the development of draft legal acts are reflected in the General Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus, republican-level associations of employers and trade unions for 2019–21.

So, according to clause 50 of the General Agreement, the Government of the Republic of Belarus:

• submits for preliminary discussion in the National Council for Labour and Social Issues draft legal acts that fall within the competence of this Council;
• when preparing legal acts affecting the labour and socio-economic rights and interests of citizens and the related economic interests of employers, sends to the side of trade unions and the side of employers represented by the co-chairs of the National Council for Labour and Social Issues the relevant draft legal acts for consideration and introduction of comments and proposals, and considers their positions before making a decision.

Despite the fact that the number of workers who are members of trade unions affiliated to the BCDTU and the FTUB is incomparable (the FTUB trade unions represent the interests of 4 million workers), the BCDTU, along with the FTUB, is represented in the main tripartite body of the country – the National Council for Labour and Social Issues, as well as in the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere.

Discussion by the Committee

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Protection – In my statement, I intend to touch upon issues concerning compliance with the Convention by Belarus, and our implementation of recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. Those recommendations were adopted in 2004 and we have often heard people say that, so far, they have not been fully implemented.

I would urge the Committee not to jump to conclusions, however. Anybody who looks carefully at the Commission of Inquiry’s 12 recommendations will see that they instruct the Government and the social partners to work continually and systematically in cooperation with the ILO and they do not give any specific deadlines.

In the recommendations, references are made to the judicial system, to the system for the resolution of disputes and to tripartite cooperation. We are asked to review our system of labour relations to ensure distinct roles for the Government and the social partners. Many countries have to do this. There is not a single country in the world anywhere at the moment that does not have conflicts between its employers and workers. The Government of Belarus is working systematically to further develop its labour relations, its procedures for social dialogue and its tripartism. Over the last few years, we have tackled specific issues covered in the recommendations and we have informed the ILO supervisory system of them.

What has been done? We distributed the recommendations of the Commission so that society could get to know about them. We have also taken systematic steps to brief representatives of the judicial system and the prosecutor’s office about the need for a detailed consideration of any allegations of discrimination against trade unions. Together with the ILO, we have also organized and held several seminars.

In order to simplify the conditions for the registration of trade unions, two major decisions have been taken. First of all, the Republican Committee on Registration has been done away with. Furthermore, the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement for setting up a union has been removed. According to the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry, the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI), our main tripartite body, includes a representative of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP).

Now, let me make it clear that the BKDP does not meet the criteria of representativeness set out in the NCLSI’s regulations. However, the Government and the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), as well as the Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (employers), have shown goodwill and have implemented that recommendation.

I am dwelling on these individual issues covered in the recommendations because we believe that the position of the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts in respect of these issues does not take into account the situation as it is in reality. We believe that the legislation of the Republic of Belarus governing the organization of mass events and strikes, as well as the receipt of foreign gratuitous aid, is in line with ILO standards. It guarantees the appropriate social processes and the safety, health and security of the people. We need to maintain a balance of interests and that between the rights of various groups of society; that is our main task.

As to the reception and use of foreign gratuitous aid, the legislation does not prohibit trade unions to receive it. Rather, the legislation defines the purposes for which it can be used and provides for rules on its registration, which must be complied with by everyone.

I would like to refer to certain machinations involving money received from abroad by representatives of the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronics Workers (REP) – Gennady Fedynich and Igor Komlik. Unfortunately, these facts show that we need more transparency in the system governing the receipt and use of foreign gratuitous aid.

I would like to underline that there is no prohibition on the use of foreign aid to conduct international seminars and conferences, which do take place in the country. The financing of political actions through such aid is, however, prohibited; that is in line with international practice. The current rules for the organization and holding of mass events are not in contradiction with the principles of the freedom of association or assembly. The restrictions set out by the legislation are aimed at guaranteeing the security of the State, society and ensuring the rights and freedom of persons. The provisions of the legislation are fully in compliance with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

It should be noted that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry do not cover the question of holding a strike. However, the Committee of Experts, for a few years now, has been suggesting to the Government that it change certain provisions of the Labour Code governing the organization and holding of strikes. The Government’s position is clear and comprehensible. Any guarantees of the right of citizens to hold strikes in the Republic of Belarus are covered in the Constitution, the Labour Code, and the Law on Trade Unions. We believe that a strike is a very extreme way of resolving a dispute. Therefore, the provisions in the legislation are there to provide the best possible conditions for solving disputes through consultations and negotiations as part of conciliation procedures. This approach is not in contradiction with international labour standards.

As already said, the content of the Commission of Inquiry recommendations provides for long-term and systematic work to improve social dialogue in our country. In doing this, we have set up a tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (tripartite Council). The proposal to set it up was worked out during a tripartite seminar with participation of the ILO, the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the ITUC, held in Minsk in 2009.

Guy Ryder made a personal contribution to the development of this concept. At the time, he was the General Secretary of the ITUC. Now, of course, he is the Director-General of the International Labour Organization, and Mr Kari Tapiola was ILO Deputy Director-General at the time. The Council is a forum in which issues of freedom of association are discussed and compliance with the Commission’s recommendations is monitored.

The Government, and employers’ and workers’ organizations are represented at the Council on an equal footing. I would like to stress that out of seven trade union representatives in the Council, four represent the FPB and three represent the BKDP, regardless of the fact that the trade union membership of the latter does not reach 1 per cent of the FPB membership. I believe that in no country in the world such small trade unions can participate in the decision-making process at the national level. The activity of the tripartite Council was positively assessed by the direct contacts mission which came to Minsk in 2014, and it is an important part of trade union pluralism in Belarus, which was recognized by the mission.

The tripartite Council has coordinated the work to implement the proposals made by the direct contacts mission, including by organizing seminars and training sessions on tripartism, collective bargaining and the settling of labour disputes. All agreements worked out together with the ILO have already been acted upon and this has actually strengthened trade union pluralism in Belarus. The general agreements for 2016–18 and for 2019–21 regulate the conclusion of collective agreements at the enterprise level where several trade unions operate. Concretely, all trade unions active at the enterprise have the right to participate in collective bargaining through a joint bargaining body.

In 2019, at the time of the 100th anniversary of the ILO, we made further progress: we ratified two ILO Conventions – the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132) and the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176). Both came into force in Belarus in February this year.

In February 2019, with the participation of ILO experts, we held another two events: a tripartite conference on issues of tripartism and social dialogue and a session of the tripartite Council on agreements at branch and regional level. This gave a kick-start to a series of consultations with ILO experts on questions of collective labour disputes. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have temporarily had to stop our cooperation with ILO experts in the framework of the Council. Once the situation improves, we will begin to cooperate actively again.

I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Republic of Belarus has not rested on its laurels over the last few years. On the contrary, we have done a great deal to develop social dialogue and tripartism in our country.

We have been recognized in terms of what we have done by the Committee of Experts. In its reports of 2020 and 2021, it put Belarus on a list of countries that had made progress. It noticed, for example, with interest, measures we had taken to implement the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and the Nursing Personnel Convention, 1977 (No. 149). We are happy and ready to go further. For example, the proposal of the Committee of Experts about setting up additional mechanisms for the settlement of labour disputes will be examined by the tripartite Council as soon as the epidemiological situation makes that possible.

We are also going to continue our work on local and branch agreements. I am not going to hide anything from the Committee; the Government is seriously concerned by the change in the tone in the comments made by the Committee of Experts in the report this year. The Committee of Experts seems to be looking at Belarus in a more negative way, simply for political reasons, as a result of the events which took place in our country after the presidential election, which was held on 9 August last year. I am convinced that if politics were not dragged into this, Belarus would not have received this so-called double footnote which has automatically put us on the list of individual cases to be reviewed at the Committee. Such an approach is unacceptable to us. The events which were only political, and in no way related to the processes of social dialogue in the area of labour rights, cannot and should not be a basis for assessing whether or not Belarus is acting in conformity with the Convention. Certain people are going to talk today, I am sure, about trade union leaders and members allegedly being persecuted for their trade union activity. I would like to put it on record that that is not so. These events had nothing to do with trade union activity. They were illegal street protests and attempts of organizations in enterprises and businesses to take protest action for purely political reasons; these had nothing to do with collective labour disputes.

Furthermore, outside forces interested in the destabilization of the situation in the country were involved in the organization of protest action. Certain structures, set up with support from abroad, were basically trying to lay the ground for an unconstitutional overthrow of the Government in Belarus. These actions were illegal, not peaceful and constituted a serious threat to social order and the safety and security of Belorussia’s citizens. The Government will be grateful for the ILO supervisory bodies’ unbiased review of the situation in the country. The Government calls upon the Committee to objectively and comprehensively review the question, taking into account the position and information provided in my statement.

In conclusion, I would like to underscore that the Government of Belarus is very appreciative of the support and assistance of the ILO. We want to continue an open and constructive dialogue with the Organization, not only to meet our commitments under ratified Conventions but also to tackle a wider range of issues which we face in our labour system.

Employer members – This is a discussion of Convention No. 87, which is a fundamental Convention. It was ratified by the Government of Belarus in 1956. It has been discussed 13 times in the Committee, most recently in 2014 and 2015.

I would firstly like to address the follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, appointed under article 26 of the Constitution, and the comments made by the Committee of Experts in that regard.

First, the Committee of Experts noted the ITUC and BKDP allegations of violence in respect of protests that took place following the presidential election in August 2020. We thank the Government representative for her submissions with respect to those issues today. We note that recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry refers to adequate protection against administrative detention to be guaranteed to trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly.

The Employer members note that full recognition of civil liberties, in particular freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, and the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal or judiciary, are basic preconditions for any meaningful exercise of freedom of association for both workers and employers, and therefore, compliance with the Convention.

The Employer members therefore urge the Government to restore, without delay, full respect for workers’ rights and freedoms of association. The Employers urge the Government to implement recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry on guaranteeing adequate protection against administrative detention, for trade union officials, in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties.

The Employer members urge the Government to take measures for the release of all trade unionists who remain in detention and for the dropping of criminal charges related to participation in peaceful protest action. The Employers also urge the Government to investigate without delay alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence, through an independent judicial inquiry.

Turning now to the Committee of Experts’ observations with respect to Article 2 of the Convention. These observations concern an urgent request to the Government in an earlier observation by the Committee of Experts to consider, within the framework of the tripartite Council, the measures to ensure that the matter of legal addresses ceases to be an obstacle to the registration of trade unions in practice. The Government has provided information that the requirement to provide confirmation of legal address is not an obstacle to the registration of a trade union, and the Government has advised that there were no cases of refusal to register trade unions in the first nine months of 2020.

The Employer members therefore note that, in the absence of further explanations to the Government by the affected trade unions, the BKDP, the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SPB) or the REP, it is difficult to say if, and to what extent, the refusal of registration in Orsha or Babruysk was in contradiction with Article 8 of the Convention.

The BKDP and the ITUC have not argued that the refusal of registration in the two cases was linked to the issue of legal address, and they have not claimed that the refusal of the registration in these cases constituted an undue restriction of the right to establish a trade union without previous authorization.

The BKDP, SPB and REP do not seem to have appealed the refusal decisions in court, nor do they seem to have called for discussion on the issue in the tripartite Council. Therefore, the Employers’ group does not think it is for the Government to initiate a discussion on the issue of legal address in the tripartite Council, if those that are potentially affected by it have not asked for such a discussion. Nevertheless, the Employers’ group does point out that the Government should continue to provide information on further developments on this point, in particular any discussions held and the outcomes of these discussions, in the tripartite Council.

The Committee of Experts also noted under this Article the televised meeting between the Chairperson of the FPB and President Lukashenko, in which the President urged the setting up of trade unions at all private enterprises by the end of 2020, under the threat of liquidation of those private companies that did not organize trade unions upon the FPB demands. The Employer members note that, in line with Article 2 of the Convention, freedom of association implies that workers and employers must be able to decide freely, without interference from the State, whether or not to set up their own organizations. In the Employers’ view, exerting pressure to set up workers’ organizations in this way is a clear disrespect and violation of freedom of association and an infringement of Article 2 of the Convention.

The Employers’ group has a different view than the Committee of Experts. We consider less relevant the fact that the President urged the setting up of a particular trade union organization, namely the FPB. Rather in our view, the violation of Article 2 would have been no less serious if the President had demanded, under threat, the formation of any trade union in a private company.

The Employer members therefore call upon the Government to refrain from any interference with the establishment of trade unions in private companies, in particular from urging the setting up of trade unions under threat of otherwise liquidating the respective private companies. The Employer members also call upon the Government to publicly clarify that the decision whether or not to set up a trade union in private companies is solely at the discretion of the workers in those companies.

Turning now to Articles 3, 5 and 6, the Committee of Experts noted concerns with respect to the Commission of Inquiry’s request to the Government to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 of 28 November 2003 on Receiving and Using Foreign Gratuitous Aid. The Employer members note that acceptance by a national employers’ or workers’ organization of financial assistance from an international employers’ or workers’ organization without the need for approval by the Government and without sanctions, in cases of receipt of such financial assistance, is part of the right in Article 5 to affiliate with international organizations of employers and workers.

We also note the Committee of Experts’ comments with respect to the Commission of Inquiry’s request to the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities, regarding setting out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events in conformity with freedom of association principles. The Employer members note that the right to organize public meetings and demonstrations constitutes an important aspect of the activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations under Article 3 of the Convention. In view of this, the revised Law on Mass Activities, along with the accompanying Regulation that limits the use of foreign gratuitous aid for the conduct of mass events, unduly restricts trade unions in the possibility to carry out their public activities.

The Employer members therefore urge the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation, in particular, with a view to set out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events in conformity with freedom of association principles, to widen the scope of activities for which foreign financial aid can be used, and to abolish the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the respective legislation.

The Employer members also call upon the Government to repeal the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers No. 49, as amended, to enable employers’ and workers’ organizations to exercise their right to organize mass events in practice.

The Employers’ group urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners including in the framework of the tripartite Council, to address and find practical solutions to the concerns raised by trade unions in respect of organizing and holding mass events.

The Employer members note that the Committee of Experts has requested the Government to amend various sections of the Labour Code as regards the exercise of the right to strike. The Government has submitted to the Conference Committee that the right to strike is not expressly provided for in the Convention and that national constitutional and legislative provisions provide for the right to strike in line with applicable principles.

The Employers’ group, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions by both the Employers and certain Governments, must take this opportunity to remind this Committee that a right to strike is not regulated in and is not part of the obligations under the Convention. The Committee of Experts’ view that a right to strike is nevertheless covered by the Convention, in our view, does not have the support of the Employers’ group and does not have the support of the Government group of the ILO Governing Body. It is regrettable therefore that the Committee of Experts nevertheless continues to make such extensive observations on the issue and in our view continues to overstep its mandate.

The Employer members therefore must point out that the Government of Belarus in our view is not obliged under the Convention to make amendments to the provisions of the Labour Code or any other changes requested by the Committee of Experts on this topic.

Finally, we note that there are several comments by the Committee of Experts regarding consultations with the workers’ and employers’ organizations, as well as the Committee of Experts’ observations in respect of the unsatisfactory functioning of the tripartite Council.

The Employer members note that according to the submission made by the Government, the FPB appears to be given preferential rights in the process of consultation on legislation affecting workers’ rights and interests. The Employers’ group does not believe this to be justified. The BKDP, we understand, is also considered representative and is a member of both the NCLSI and the tripartite Council. Therefore, any impression of favouritism towards a particular workers’ organization would not be compatible with the Convention and should be avoided. The Employers therefore urge the Government to amend Regulation of the Council of Ministers No. 193 to ensure that all representative employers’ and workers’ organizations enjoy equal rights in consultations during the preparation of legislation.

Finally, the Employer members note that the tripartite Council plays a key role in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and other ILO supervisory bodies. However, its ability to contribute towards full implementation of these recommendations has been unsatisfactory.

The Employer members therefore call upon the Government to take the necessary measures in cooperation with the social partners to strengthen the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere so that it can play an effective role towards full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and other ILO supervisory bodies.

Worker members – The Conference examined the application of the Convention in Belarus in 13 of its 17 past sittings. Since the report released by the Commission of Inquiry in 2004, the Committee of Experts has issued observations on Belarus’s observance of the Convention 15 times. Despite the many extensive examinations of freedom of association and the right to organize, the situation for workers in Belarus is deteriorating.

In 2020, the Committee of Experts double footnoted Belarus with respect to the Convention and noted that, and I quote, “there has been no meaningful progress towards full implementation of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry recommendations”. The ongoing repression and attacks on civil liberties and trade union rights indicate a retreat on the part of the Government from its obligations under the Convention.

Workers in Belarus continue to be denied the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations and meetings. In 2020, security forces unleashed violent attacks during massive democratic and peaceful protests that took place in Belarus. Hundreds of trade union members and leaders were intimidated, arrested and charged under the various laws, which entailed heavy prison charges, and were repeatedly subjected to administrative arrests and fines for exercising their right to peaceful assembly.

The security forces failed to protect peaceful protestors. Workers were dismissed for exercising their right to strike and to peacefully protest. The Government retaliated against trade union leaders by sending them to prison.

On 1 February 2021, the court in Zhlobin sentenced trade unionists from the Belarusian Steel Works (BMZ), Igor Povarov, Alexandre Bobrov and Yevgeny Govor, to three years in prison for organizing a strike on 17 August 2020 in support of democratic protests.

We emphasize that the handling of the protests by the authorities has been condemned by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and by various UN experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus on the freedom of opinion and expression, on the freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, as well as a working group on arbitrary detention.

In its last report, the Committee on Freedom of Association clearly asked the Government to address violations of the freedom of association standards that took place in the aftermath of the 2020 protests.

Accordingly, the Government must immediately stop persecuting trade unionists released from detention, all those participating in peaceful protests and industrial action, and drop all the charges. The affected persons should be adequately compensated for damage suffered. The Government must provide to the Committee of Experts all court decisions upholding detention and imprisonment of workers and furnish the Committee with a list of those affected.

This crackdown on peaceful protesters, once again, demonstrates the failure by the Government to comply with recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry, which considers that adequate protection or even immunity against administrative detention should be guaranteed to trade union officials in the performance of their duties, or in exercising their civil liberties. We also deplore the reported cases of violent mistreatment of workers participating in last year’s demonstrations and the Government’s failure to provide any information to the Committee of Experts in this regard.

Without independent investigations into these serious allegations, the Government of Belarus, yet again, fails to ensure a climate free from violence, threats or pressure against peacefully protesting workers. We strongly urge the Government to immediately commence an independent judicial inquiry into the violent mistreatment of workers and to share the outcome with the Committee of Experts.

Further, workers in Belarus still do not enjoy the right to establish unions without previous authorization. This contravenes recommendation 2 of the Commission of Inquiry.

According to the law, workers are required to provide a legal address as a condition to obtain registration. This prerequisite turns out to be a massive obstacle to the registration of trade unions at enterprise level as previously documented by the Commission of Inquiry and by previous conclusions of this Committee. Unless their employer agrees, enterprise-level unions may not indicate their workplace as the legal address on the registration form.

The ILO supervisory bodies have repeatedly requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that the matter of legal address ceases to be an obstacle to the registration of trade unions in practice.

In its latest report to the Committee of Experts, the Government did not indicate any measures taken to address this concern. We reiterate that the legal address requirement puts organizing efforts in a vicious cycle by blocking legalization of newly created trade union organizations and exposing workers who are trying to establish a trade union organization to anti-union discrimination. Workers are even more exposed to such discrimination and other retaliatory measures when they are on short-term contracts. Furthermore, often their relatives are exposed to similar threats and actions. We recall that in Belarus, up to 90 per cent of workers were shifted from permanent to one-year contracts under Presidential Decree No. 29.

In the absence of any protection, anti-union discrimination and short-term contracts are used as retaliation to deny workers their right to form or join independent trade unions.

This practice was applied to prevent unionization by penalizing worker activists, who tried to legalize unions, over their choice and to dissuade any further attempts by others. Since 2001, only one independent union has been registered.

We note the Government’s response that on 1 October 2020, some trade unions were registered and that in November 2020, President Lukashenko announced that the creation of trade union organizations affiliated to the state-controlled FPB will be required at even single private sector companies. In this light, we are extremely concerned about the exercise of discretion by officers responsible for registration of trade unions. There must not be favouritism to a particular trade union or unions. Favouritism towards a particular union or the exercise of discretion to deny trade union registration creates a situation in which the interference in the free establishment and operation of trade unions is almost absolutely contrary to the Convention.

Moreover, workers’ organizations are denied the right to organize their activities. Presidential Decree No. 3 of 25 May 2020 which replaced Decree No. 5 of 2015, still requires previous authorization for foreign gratuitous aid and restricts the use of such aid. Despite repeated calls for amendment, the Government has not taken satisfactory action on this issue.

The picture does not change much when we turn to the Law on Mass Activities that establishes a stringent procedure for the authorization of mass activities, demonstrations and pickets. Instead of amending the law, as repeatedly requested by the ILO supervisory bodies, the Government has recently adopted regressive amendments that make the exercise of the right to organize public meetings and demonstrations even more restricted. This, coupled with the fact that the executive authorities in several cities failed to grant permission to hold mass trade union events, renders the exercise of this right almost impossible in practice.

There has been equally no progress in relation to the amendment of the Labour Code, which seriously limits the exercise of the right to strike. The ILO supervisory bodies have pointed out numerous shortcomings in relation to this law. Sections 388 and 393 of the Labour Code permit legislative limitations on the right to strike in the interest of rights and freedom of other persons, which could be used in a manner so as to restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to strike.

In section 392, the Labour Code imposes the obligation to notify the strike duration as a prerequisite in order to hold strike action. In addition, section 392 provides for the obligation to provide minimum services during the period of the strike. Minimum services should only be provided in essential public services of fundamental importance where certain strikes could threaten the existence of the population. Even in such cases, the determination of the minimum services should be left to the social partners or be decided upon by an independent body which has the confidence of all the parties.

Lastly, contrary to the tripartite General Agreement for 2019–21, the Government fails to include trade unions in the adoption of new pieces of legislation affecting the rights and interests of workers. Consequently, the tripartite Council, which should serve as a platform for such consultations, is unable to play its role.

We discussed the same issues in our discussion on Belarus in 2015. Seventeen years after the ILO Commission of Inquiry, the Workers’ group fails to see any significant change in Belarus. On the contrary, the situation has deteriorated dramatically, both in law and in practice, over last months. This is unacceptable. The Government is clearly not willing to implement the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations and optimism that this Committee expressed in some previous sittings was short-lived. We hope that today’s discussion will make a difference in finally initiating long-due reforms.

Interpretation from Russian: Employer member, Belarus – The Committee is considering the compliance of Belarus with the Convention and the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. The report on these issues focuses, in our view, on political events that took place after the elections of August 2020. We consider that actions that were purely political in nature, and only affected a small part of the workers, were behind these events. There have been proposals to amend legislation on strikes. The Employer members said today that you should not allow use of the Convention to regulate the right to strike, which is part of national competence, and is a purely domestic issue which applies to sovereign States.

In recent years, there has been progress in social dialogue in our country. The space for considering these issues is the tripartite Council on the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. This is something that was worked on with the Office. The Council includes Government representatives, employers and workers and it is this Council that has come up with proposals to apply dispute resolution and mediation mechanisms.

At the initiative of employers, the Council unanimously agreed to conduct collective negotiations and conclude collective agreements in enterprises in which several trade unions operate. This has been included in the Trilateral General Agreement since 2016 and is working in practice. The technical assistance of the ILO allowed – in 2014, 2015 and 2016 – the carrying out of seminars and later meetings on tripartism and social dialogue covering the tripartite experience of the various bodies, the role of trade unions in enterprise and mechanisms to resolve dispute and mediation.

The Employers are in favour of the involvement of trade unions. Employers in Belarus are categorically against the growing wave of economic sanctions imposed by the European Union and others and new sectoral sanctions for political reasons. This affects and destroys business, economic activity and leads to a reduction in jobs, employment, lower wages, income, and to a worsening situation for workers’ families, especially during a pandemic.

We reaffirm our commitment to working closely with the International Labour Organization and the Committee to achieve progress on social and labour issues on the basis of mutual responsibility and respect. We would ask you to objectively assess the positive dynamics in the development of social and labour relations in the country, positive steps taken by the Government and social partners to implement the recommendations of the ILO and to make a decision in favour of working people and business.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Belarus – We have reviewed very closely the comments of the Committee of Experts, and I would like to state that we do not agree with the position expressed, given that most of the comments are of a biased political nature. Further, we see that there are clear double standards when assessing the labour situation in our, and in other, countries. Let me give you some clear facts.

Firstly, the Committee sees it as a violation that there were illegal strikes in our country, which were of a purely political nature and did not relate in any way to labour and socio-economic issues, and also that various workers were responsible for participating in illegal strikes. I have a very relevant question: why does the Committee not then look at similar situations today in Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where political strikes are also not legal. Why do they not look at France and Belgium, where there were cases of offences by workers in organizing strikes? I would speak to the organizers of the Workers’ group. Would you be willing for the trade-union movement and the right to strike to be used as a political instrument? I would turn to the representatives of the Employers. Would you be happy if there were endless strikes in your enterprises because of the political views of your workers? And I am convinced that every one of you will say “No”. And it is on that basis that we ask you to assess the situation in Belarus.

Secondly, the Committee has made observations about the independence of the trade unions in the country. In 2019, amendments were made to the Labour Code. The social partners disagreed significantly on the drafting of this document, but through negotiations and amendments, the FPB was able to introduce 30 rules improving the situation of workers and getting rid of those provisions that would have worsened their situation. That demonstrates trade union independence.

Thirdly, and with regard to the comment that the FPB has privileges compared to other trade union federations: I can assure you that they are all subject to equal conditions, and because of the work of all trade unions, the work of all trade unions depends upon their determination to achieve their objectives. The federation of trade unions last year was able to return the equivalent of US$8 million to workers which had been illegally withheld; reinstate 500 illegally dismissed workers; and further, hundreds of labour disputes were resolved by labour commissions and through mediation.

The trade unions also represent the interests of workers in court. All of this reflects that workers in Belarus have the right to see their interests represented and applied. I would call for an objective, unbiased assessment of the situation in our country.

Government member, Portugal – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The Candidate Countries, the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area (EEA), as well as Ukraine, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights and the right to organize and the freedom of association. We actively promote the universal ratification and implementation of fundamental international labour standards, including Convention No. 87 on freedom of association. We support dialogue in its indispensable role to develop, promote and supervise the application and implementation of international labour standards and of fundamental Conventions in particular. We are deeply concerned about the steep deterioration of the situation of human rights, including labour rights, in Belarus in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential elections, which were neither free nor fair. Freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of opinion, expression and information, as well as freedom of the media both online and offline, are being more and more heavily curtailed, whereas the right to organize is actively oppressed instead of being protected.

The EU and its Member States strongly condemn the violence employed by the Belarusian authorities against peaceful protestors, including youth and women, and the numerous cases of torture and sexual violence.

We call on the authorities to investigate all human rights violations and abuses in a truly independent and impartial manner, ensure full respect for workers’ rights and freedoms, protect the right to organize and release immediately and unconditionally, all arbitrarily detained persons, including political prisoners, trade unionists and members of national minorities. No one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful protest or strike.

We strongly condemn the detention by Belarusian authorities of journalists Raman Pratasevich and Sofia Sapega and demand their immediate release and that their freedom of movement be guaranteed.

The case of persistent violations of fundamental ILO Conventions by Belarus has been on the agenda of this Committee regularly since 1997. Even before the continuous deterioration of the situation, since the fraudulent elections in 2020, there has been no meaningful progress towards full implementation of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry recommendations, including limited advancements of discussions within the tripartite Council. Belarus must step up its efforts without further delay. Significant progress is needed to fully implement these recommendations.

In this context, we want to recall that the failure of Belarus to implement these recommendations has led to the suspension of Belarus from the European Union Generalized System of Preferences since 2007.

We strongly urge the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the Law on Trade Unions, the Labour Code, the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation, as well as Presidential Decree No. 3 of 25 May 2020, concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, to bring them into conformity with freedom of association principles.

The right to establish workers’ organizations, the right to strike and to organize their activities, including public meetings and demonstrations without any interference of public authorities, constitute fundamental aspects of trade union rights and should be protected.

We stress the importance of treating with impartiality all trade union organizations, including as regards consultations and not only refraining from interference in their establishment but ensuring and protecting the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

The EU and its Member States stand with the Belarusian people and support their democratic choice and fundamental freedoms and rights. The EU continues to call on the Belarusian authorities to seek a peaceful and democratic solution to the crisis through an inclusive national dialogue with broader society, in particular the Coordination Council.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Russian Federation – First of all, I would like to thank the representative of Belarus for the comments on this issue. The Russian Federation fully follows the argument of our Belarusian colleagues with regard to the implementation by Minsk of the provisions of the Convention. Particular attention has been given this year by the Committee of Experts to the application of the Convention by Belarus and the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. There have been significant changes over the position expressed in 2020 and this change has been brought about by well-known political facts not linked to processes in the sphere of labour or socio-economic issues.

At the same time, we would emphasize that, in recent years, the development of social dialogue in the Republic has followed a transparent process implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Minsk has followed the plan put together with the International Labour Office.

The space for drafting and implementing decisions is the tripartite Council in which, on an equal footing, representatives of Government, trade unions and employers’ representatives, among the trade unions, the FPB and BKDP, as well as the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), were represented. It is part of a social partnership.

Minsk is adopting systematic measures to promote constructive cooperation with all parties including the BKDP, which is represented not only in the Council but in other bodies as well.

In conclusion, the intentional fuelling of anti-Belarusian rhetoric including in the UN is worrying. There should be condemnation of linking thematic country reports with domestic political issues in Belarus. This approach leads to politicization of decisions, which makes it practically impossible for Minsk to fulfil. We consider it unacceptable that the ILC and its committees are taking a biased political approach. We would ask to put aside a confrontational approach in favour of cooperation and constructive collaboration in order to address the shared problems relating to improving the situation and rights and interests of workers and employers.

Interpretation from Russian: Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – Belarus is known to be one of the most problematic countries when it comes to labour and trade union rights. Almost all workers and employers have been moved onto fixed-term employment contracts. Along with a system of excessive sanctions, this has resulted in workers being totally deprived of their rights, including the right to freedom of association.

The State carries out a policy of favouritism in relation to trade unions. Workers are discriminated against on the grounds of union affiliation, and are fired for belonging to independent unions. The situation has deteriorated dramatically over the past year. The regime, having lost the presidential elections, has begun brutal repressions and violence against workers who came out to peaceful protest rallies and strikes. Hundreds were sentenced to administrative arrest, or received huge fines, were fired, and three were sentenced to lengthy prison terms for participation in strikes. Pressure on independent trade unions and their members has increased. They are denied registration and cannot therefore carry out their activities or hold mass events.

The social dialogue, which was only really there for show, has been completely swept aside. Employers are also being deprived of their rights, and cannot enjoy their right to the freedom of association. A week ago, amendments were made to the Labour Code that critically limited the rights and freedoms of workers; it made it possible to fire them, punish them for any attempts to express their civil rights and protect their trade union and/or labour rights. In fact, a strike ban has effectively been imposed on unions and their members.

Only by tough and decisive action we can help the workers of Belarus regain their lost rights and freedoms and bring an end to repression and violence against them.

Government member, Cuba – The Government of Belarus has repeatedly shown its willingness to engage in dialogue with the ILO supervisory bodies; not only has it responded to the Committee of Experts’ comments, it has also provided a wealth of information during this Committee.

The Government has reported on the country’s progress as regards social dialogue and on the Government and social partners’ joint measures to move forward with the ILO’s recommendations and proposals. It highlights the tripartite Council, on which the Government, employers’ organizations and trade unions are represented on an equal footing. Together with ILO experts, the Government has introduced additional technical cooperation measures based on the results of the implementation of the direct contacts mission’s proposals.

The measures taken by the Government of Belarus were commended by the Committee of Experts in its 2020 reports and 2021 Addendum, and were listed among examples of progress.

Cuba is convinced that only through respectful dialogue and cooperation can progress be made in fulfilling the ILO’s mandate, by satisfactorily implementing international labour standards and promoting and protecting workers’ rights. Let us focus on a spirit of dialogue and cooperation and cast aside political motivations and interests that are at variance with this Organization’s founding objectives. I conclude by reaffirming Cuba’s solidarity with the people and the Government of Belarus.

Worker member, Canada – I am speaking on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress and this statement is endorsed by the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO). More than 25,000 citizens and workers of Belarus exercising their right for freedom of expression and peaceful public protest have been sanctioned and hundreds imprisoned. Anyone can lose their job, freedom and health for defending democracy, rights and dignity. The short-term contract system and suppression of freedom of association, long criticized by this Committee, are the key means of the state repressive machinery.

Healthcare workers were the first to see the brutality of police violence in protests but were prohibited from speaking about the injuries they treated. Even before the protests, healthcare workers were threatened with dismissal and criminal action for speaking about the gravity of the COVID situation. When universities started suspending and expelling students for joining protests, many teachers tried to intervene to protect the students. For this, they faced reprimands and dismissals. Healthcare workers and university teachers turned to the independent unions, but all the attempts to get union registration were refused and activists faced dismissals and discrimination.

Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are also denied and suppressed. Two journalists, Katerina Bakhvalova and Daria Chultsova, were sentenced to two years for filming and streaming the protests, as a lesson to others.

The International Labour Conference 1970 resolution emphasizes that the civil liberties essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights are freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to a fair trial.

Recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry on Belarus considered that adequate protection against administrative detention should be guaranteed to trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties. The application of this recommendation is essential to prevent human rights violations and ensure full respect for workers’ rights and freedoms.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Russian Federation – The Workers’ delegates of Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and the Republic of Moldova associate themselves with this statement. The Workers’ delegate of the Russian Federation and those other delegations would like to thank the Committee of Experts for their carefully balanced and detailed analysis of the situation of workers’ rights in Belarus.

Fifteen years have passed since the ILO Commission of Inquiry in 2004 adopted 12 recommendations to correct the appalling situation of workers’ rights in that country. Those recommendations have not been complied with in the reasonable amount of time provided by the Committee for that, but the situation has worsened year on year.

Many workers have been put on short-term contracts and pressure has increased appallingly on workers participating in peaceful protest actions. Many of them have been fired. Union activists have been arrested. They have seen their possessions confiscated, such as materials, money, property, etc. Approximately 100 activists of independent unions have been arrested and sentenced to a total of 2,075 days of administrative detention in total. The situation has got worse and worse, particularly with recent amendments to the Labour Code. Those make it much easier to dismiss workers en masse if they try and participate in a strike action. That is now made a criminal offence. Belarus for many, many years now has been paying no attention to, and indeed pouring scorn on, the opinion and the procedures of the ILO. They continue to treat workers harshly and to be stubbornly refusing to respect the rights of over 4 million short contract workers in that country.

Government member, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains concerned about the situation in Belarus and, recalling the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, about the lack of progress made by the Belarus authorities in addressing the recommendations set out by the Committee of Experts.

We note the Belarus delegation’s response to the issues raised by the Committee of Experts. However, there is clear evidence that the Belarus authorities continue to pressure members of independent trade unions and strike committees, through threats on their jobs, salaries, psychological pressure and the removal of parental rights, if they take part in strike action or protests.

The right to establish and join trade unions is enshrined in article 41 of the Belarus Constitution, but individuals are discouraged from joining independent unions and the activity of these unions is hindered by interference from government authorities and managers of state-owned enterprises. This, and wider restrictions on freedom of association, render it difficult for trade unions to engage in collective bargaining.

Following last August’s fraudulent presidential election, we have seen a further infringement of the rights of freedom of association and protection of the right to organize and the independent report by Professor Benedek shows that intimidation and persecution of labour activists has intensified. Strikes and protest activity in state factories and other institutions is met by repressive measures, including people losing their jobs, being detained by security forces, and facing criminal charges.

The recent amendments to the Law on Mass Activities further increase restrictions and make it even more difficult for workers’ committees and trade unions to function effectively.

The United Kingdom encourages the Belarus authorities to engage constructively with the ILO to address the recommendations set out by the Committee of Experts. We also encourage them to take note of, and action, the recommendations set out in Professor Benedek’s report, in particular: to respect legitimate protests – including by labour activists – and refrain from taking reprisals for such action, and to reform the law and registration procedures for public association and other relevant legislation relating to labour unions in line with international standards on the right to assembly.

Worker member, Netherlands – This contribution is also on behalf of workers from Germany, Spain, France and the Nordic countries. We want to express our deep concern over the continuous attack on the civil liberties and trade union rights in Belarus. We have noted that workers who have used their legal rights of union organization and union actions at their workplaces have been met with repression and intimidation by the authorities. These are obvious violations of the freedom of association, a fundamental international human and trade union norm, enshrined in the Convention, ratified by Belarus.

The repressive short-term contract system and trade union registration procedure, meaning in practice the sanctioning of the existence of trade unions by the state authorities, are installed to prevent workers from exercising their rights for freedom and solidarity. Only the loyal can act collectively; those disagreeing are labelled as traitors and enemies. In the 20 years that this Committee has been dealing with this case, only one independent union has been registered.

Last year, many workers joined collective actions in protest at police violence and repressions. Many turned to independent unions, but the authorities responded with new repressions against workers who decided to leave the pro-Government FPB. Since January workers have been reporting being forced to sign a letter to the ILO allegedly by the FPB. Workers, including their family members, were thereby threatened with disciplinary actions, dismissals, cutbacks in pay.

The questioning of the comments and recommendations of the Committee of Experts by the Belarus Government is for us unacceptable. The ILO tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association has clearly condemned the repressions against trade unions and civil freedoms. We consider the Government’s reply as a total rejection of the ILO supervisory bodies.

In its resolution of 1970, the International Labour Conference already explicitly pointed out that the absence and disrespect for civil liberties “removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights”.

Interpretation from Chinese: Worker member, China – We consider that activities related to political situations have nothing to do with social dialogue in the labour domain. Hence, we think that this should not and cannot be the basis on which we formulate comments on the implementation by this country of the Convention. As far as we know, the tripartite Council has equal representation from Government, and employers and workers and, in recent years, this country has made significant progress in social dialogue. We should encourage the country’s Government to advance its constructive cooperation with employers and workers.

Interpretation from Chinese: Government Member, China – In recent years the Government of Belarus has earnestly implemented the Convention and made effort and progress, which was positively assessed in the report of the Committee of Experts. The Government is firmly committed to the fundamental principles and rights at work, has an open attitude to social dialogue and has cooperated constructively with social partners. It plays a critical role in facilitating cooperation between Belarus and the ILO in advancing the implementation of recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry and greatly promotes the compliance of Belarus with the Convention on the basis of work done by the direct contacts mission. The Government, supported by the ILO, has conducted a series of international technical cooperation activities which have bolstered its implementation of the Commission’s recommendations.

On the social dialogue front, the Government has made notable progress. To improve legislation in the social and labour spheres, the tripartite Council was set up in which Government, employers’ associations and trade unions are represented equally. The Council, having overcome difficulties and obstacles, plays an important role in fostering social dialogue and implementing the Commission’s recommendations. Constructive tripartite collaboration is also created.

We believe that the Committee was considering the case to focus on the Government’s compliance with the Convention rather than to politicize the case. We note that the Belarusian Government always values and protects freedom of association and the right to organize. It is worth stressing that it is every government’s responsibility to safeguard domestic social order and rule of law and protect the safety of its citizens. No illegal protest is allowed in any country. If one violates the law while exercising one’s rights, undermining the lawful rights and interests of other citizens, one will have to be sanctioned by the law. The Belarusian Government’s measures in safeguarding rule of law and social order are thus necessary and appropriate.

We call on relevant parties to objectively view the compliance of the behaviours of Belarus and hope that the ILO can continue its constructive dialogue with the Government on this compliance matter so as to invigorate the country’s economic and social development and improve its people’s living standards and qualities.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Turkmenistan – Turkmenistan appreciates the efforts being made by the Republic of Belarus to implement measures to further develop social dialogue in the country, and to comply with agreements and plans signed and recognized with the International Labour Office. We also support what the Government has done to implement ILO labour standards.

The country did get a positive assessment from the Committee of Experts in its reports of 2020 and 2021 on its implementation of Conventions Nos 98, 144 and 149. Those reports put Belarus on a list of countries which had made progress. We think there are perfectly good grounds for recognizing that the trade union movement in the country is operating freely and can contribute to the development of society.

There may well be disagreements between organizations and the authorities, but that happens everywhere. We suggest continuing with a constructive and open dialogue on implementing ratified Conventions and the provisions therein, and on other wider social and labour issues to improve the quality of life and the living standards of the people of Belarus.

We also urge that further measures be taken to support the people of Belarus to enhance levels of employment, to protect workers, and to cooperate in all areas of daily life, including cooperation with international organizations. We believe that focus should be on increasing the level of and timely payment of salaries, ensuring full and productive employment, supporting the most vulnerable workers in society, improving labour discipline, increasing productivity, and therefore increasing the amount of goods produced.

Interpretation from Arabic: Worker member, Egypt – With regard to the consideration of the situation of the case of the Republic of Belarus, I would like to note the following. Some progress has been made in Belarus in recent years with regard to the development of social dialogue. Collegial bodies, with the participation of trade unions, government and employers, were established to address the most pressing issues in the labour sphere. Trade unions have a strong voice in decision-making and decisions that are important for workers. According to our information, trade unions thus achieved the introduction of a number of standards into the Labour Code, which significantly strengthen the guarantees to workers. These did not allow the adoption of decisions at the legislative level which worsens the situation of workers. This is a good practice, which suggests that trade unions in the country have the opportunity to fulfil their main function, that is to protect the labour and socio-economic interests of workers.

In addition, I would like to separately note the close interaction of Belarusian trade unions with authorities and employers’ organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic, which made it possible to avoid massive job cuts in the country and to provide support to the most vulnerable categories of the population. In this regard, we believe that it is necessary to note and support the commitment of the Republic of Belarus for the further development of social dialogue in the country.

Government Member, Switzerland – Switzerland supports the content of the statement by the European Union. Switzerland regrets the lack of progress made in implementing the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations dating back to 2004. Switzerland also refers to the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association in this regard. Switzerland notes with particular concern that collective and peaceful action is extremely limited, or even non-existent, in practice and that mechanisms such as tripartism and social dialogue are highly restricted. Notwithstanding the repeated requests, Switzerland insists that Belarus allow collective and peaceful demonstrations. Independent trade unions must not be subject to repression by the State; they must be allowed to develop freely. The Swiss delegation calls for the release of all arrested trade unionists.

Equally, it expects improvements to the legislation on social partners’ rights and interests. Freedom of association is one of the four fundamental principles and rights at work, is central to a democracy and an essential aspect of social justice. This principle makes it possible, through collective action, to fight against forced labour, to help protect children and to develop measures based on non‑discrimination and equality for the benefit of all. Switzerland calls on the Belarusian Government to amend its legislation in collaboration with the social partners and to include in its report all information requested by the Committee of Experts.

Government member, United States of America – I am speaking on behalf of the Governments of the United States of America and Canada.

The ILO supervisory bodies have consistently monitored the Government of Belarus’s application of Convention No. 87 in follow-up to the findings of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry. After 17 years, the Government has yet to address the underlying issues and recommendations covered by the Commission. At the same time, new issues have emerged.

The Committee of Experts notes with concern that recent developments constitute a retreat by the Government from its obligations under the Convention. The Committee reports the use of extreme violence to repress peaceful protests and strikes, and the detention, imprisonment and torture of workers while in custody. Government interference in the activities of trade unions continues, as evidenced recently by a high-level official who expressed a preference for a particular trade union while making a televised statement.

Respect for worker rights in Belarus has deteriorated in both law and practice. We urge the Government of Belarus to fully implement all measures recommended by the ILO supervisory bodies, in particular:

• to release all trade unionists who remain in detention and drop all charges related to peaceful participation in industrial action;
• investigate all alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence against trade unionists through an independent judicial inquiry;
• immediately cease acts of favouritism and interference in the establishment of trade unions;
• amend the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation to ensure individuals and trade unions are able to freely exercise their right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly;
• repeal the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers No. 49, which makes the exercise of the right to organize public meetings and demonstrations nearly impossible in practice;
• make all necessary amendments to the Labour Code, following genuine consultation with the social partners, to allow workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom;
• ensure the BKDP and the FPB enjoy equal rights to consultation on legislative issues; and
• to engage with the social partners, the ILO, and relevant national institutions to improve the functioning of the tripartite Council.

The Government of Belarus needs to take immediate action to resolve these long-standing issues. To that end, we strongly urge the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to ensure full compliance with its obligations under the Convention.

Government member, Nicaragua – The Government of Reconciliation and National Unity of Nicaragua recognizes the will of the Government of Belarus to work transparently and with commitment to international labour standards. We also welcome the information shared by Belarus on the application of the Convention. We regret that this Committee is assuming a role that exceeds its authority, of working impartially, with political motivations. Belarus has indicated that it responded in line with the powers granted to it in law by restoring order and guaranteeing the safety of citizens, who were affected by the violent demonstrations, which were political in origin. Those protests were not linked to problems of unionization or other related matters.

The Government of Nicaragua appreciates the ILO’s experience and specialist knowledge and looks forward to continued constructive, open dialogue on compliance with the obligations set out in ratified Conventions. We wish to take advantage of the forum provided by this important Committee to reject any action that encourages the erosion of the institutions and sovereignty of ILO Member States. We also encourage the Member States and organizations participating in this 109th Session of the International Labour Conference to redouble their efforts to establish true cooperation mechanisms, ensuring equal conditions and respect for all participants.

We reiterate our support for the position of the Government of Belarus and emphasize its legitimacy and legality as a sovereign State.

Government member, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela thanks the distinguished Minister of Labour of Belarus for her presentation on compliance with the Convention. We welcome the attention drawn by the Government of Belarus to the country’s progress and constructive interaction with the social partners, as well as with ILO Committee of Experts on the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations in relation to the Convention, particularly the development of social dialogue.

We have duly noted the information from the Government of Belarus that in the last five years the number of trade union organizational structures, trade unions and workers’ associations in the country has increased within the framework of its labour legislation.

We welcome the emphasis placed by the Committee of Experts in its 2020 report on the progress made in Belarus with regard to activities to ensure compliance with the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. It is regrettable that in the 2021 Addendum to the report, the Committee of Experts comments extensively on the country’s political situation following the presidential elections of August 2020 and does not express appreciation for the Government’s actions and arguments to maintain peace and restore public order.

We value the Government of Belarus’ commitment to continue making progress in giving effect to the Convention, and we call on the ILO supervisory bodies to distance themselves from political considerations as, if they go beyond the limits in their comments, that will undermine their seriousness and credibility and harm our Organization’s noble objective.

Lastly, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela hopes that the Committee’s conclusions, resulting from this debate, are objective and balanced so that the Government of Belarus may continue making progress in giving effect to the Convention.

Government member, Sri Lanka – The Government of Sri Lanka believes that the Government of Belarus is making every effort to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the Convention. We understand that the Government of Belarus has implemented the proposals of the Commission of Inquiry by giving due consideration to the agreements reached and the plans developed jointly with the International Labour Organisation. Recent developments in social dialogue with the participation of employers’ associations and trade unions including the largest trade union in the country, have helped to bring some important changes in the labour and social domain. We note that the Committee of Experts in its reports has acknowledged the positive developments in Belarus with regard to the measures taken by the Government of Belarus to implement ILO Conventions.

We note the removal of obstacles for the registration of trade unions and the increasing number of registrations of trade unions in the recent past. In this regard, recently developed proposals to abolish the legislative requirement for 10 per cent of employees to create a trade union, is a move that needs appreciation. Furthermore, a training course on international labour standards for judges, lawyers and legal educators as well as a tripartite conference, “Tripartism and Social Dialogue in the World of Work”, has been held, giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. We also would like to indicate that a country should be given enough time to implement the recommendation made by the Committee of Experts by giving due consideration to the fact that it takes time to bring changes to local legal systems and practices. We hope that with the passage of time, the enhanced social dialogue system has the potential to address the issues raised by the Committee of Experts. We request in this context a balanced and comprehensive approach with regard to the situation in Belarus. We support efforts of the Government of Belarus to improve the labour standards of its citizens and encourage an open and constructive dialogue on the implementation of the ILO Conventions.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union – I am speaking here on behalf of IndustriALL Global Union representing more than 50 million workers worldwide in the mining, manufacturing and energy industries, including in Belarus. Every day, IndustriALL affiliates and their members in Belarus face dismissals, intimidation, raids of their offices, interrogations, beatings, arrests, fines and heavy prison sentences under any reason. The systematic denial to register independent unions and the extended use of fixed-term contracts seek to eliminate the presence of independent union leaders and activists in all enterprises of Belarus.

Since 2000, at least 100 independent union organizations were denied registration there. In August last year, 200 workers joined the newly established local union branch of Belarusian Independent Union (BNP). The union was denied registration and all the activists who initiated the creation of the union were dismissed. Three activists, Igor Povarov, Alexander Bobrov and Yevgeny Govor, were sentenced to two and a half and three years in jail for striking at the same company in August 2020 and many other workers were subjected to administrative arrests.

The BNP reported at least two other denials of registration in 2020. SPM, the free trade union of metalworkers, reported that in a wave of mass layoffs in Minsk, 400 union members were fired from at least five companies for joining the union of their choice between November 2020 and to February 2021.

Police forces raided the offices of another independent union, the REP, on 16 February this year seizing everything they could get their hands on, including personal money of staff, union properties, communication devices, union documents and campaign materials. The official refused to give a copy of the search record or to supply an inventory of the seized items.

All these recent facts show that the Government has not implemented the majority of the recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry released in 2004, 16 years ago. We consider that the situation has actually dramatically deteriorated for workers and civil society. In the light of these continued and systemic violations denying workers’ rights and freedom, stronger measures need to be applied in order to secure compliance of the Belarusian Government with the ILO Constitution.

Observer, International Union of Food and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) – For the first time, the issue of violations of workers’ rights was considered by the ILO in March 2001, 20 years ago. For 20 years since then, the ILO has been calling on the authorities of the Republic to recognize in practice the principles described in the ILO Constitution and fundamental documents to which Belarus must adhere as an ILO Member. Recommendations were formulated by the ILO Commission of Inquiry back in 2004. The Commission set a time frame. They were to be completed at the latest by 1 June 2005. Sixteen years later, we can see that not only there has been no meaningful progress in implementation of these recommendations, but there are obvious steps backwards.

The reports of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, Committee of Experts, UN Human Rights Council and UN Special Rapporteur on Belarus provide shocking numbers of mass repressions against civilians, including labour leaders and workers’ activists in peaceful actions. The escalation of human rights violations is not only the issue of workers. Employers cannot establish their own independent associations and, at the same time, are now forced to violate workers’ freedom of association by forcing their employees into state-controlled trade union structures.

In the recent reply, the Government goes as far as to accuse the Committee of Experts of using supposedly unverified information in the report. This is not only a refusal to accept the obvious fully confirmed facts, but also a manifestation of the Government’s disrespect for the process and attempt to depreciate the Committee and its recommendations. What happens in Belarus today indicates a retreat of the Government from its obligations under the Convention. The above would warrant the adoption of conclusions calling upon the Governing Body, the Committee of Experts and the Office to continue taking all possible measures to secure the observance by Belarus of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This contribution of the IUF is complementary to the statement of the IndustriALL Global Union and represents a common position of four global unions, including Building and Wood Workers’ International and UNI Global Union.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Tajikistan – First of all I would like to note the positive developments in the area of the application of the Convention by the Government of Belarus. There has certainly been movement in the last few years, moving towards a positive social dialogue and with regard to the application of recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, there has been agreement achieved and, together with the ILO, a road map has been produced. The ILO and the social partners have fully implemented the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, which took place in 2014. We note the work of the tripartite Council. This is a space for development of suggestions on legislation and policy, which is done with the powerful participation of worker, employer and government representatives. We consider that there should not be a linking of the ILO report with any political issues.

Government representative – Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the position of the Government of the Republic of Belarus and thank you to the representatives of those countries that have supported Belarus. Everything that has been said today will be closely considered by us, analysed and taken into account in our future work to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

I do not want to set out to oppose those critical voices we have heard. I will only draw attention to some issues which we believe can help Members to understand in a more objective way the situation in Belarus. Every country has issues between employers and workers, that is unavoidable, and the objective of the Government of Belarus is to form fair and balanced systems of labour relations in which the interests of workers and employers are given equal weight. Representatives of trade unions are allowed to fully participate in the development of provisions in the social and labour sphere. Nobody in Belarus can be brought to responsibility for participating in legitimate trade union activities. However, any person participating in illegal mass events will have to face legal consequences; the law applies equally to all.

Once again, I would emphasize that during the events of 2020, no strikes were called at the enterprise level pursuant to the rules set forth by the legislation. Therefore, if a workers did not come to work because he or she participated in an illegal political protest, for an employer this meant that the worker did not show up for work without providing a reasonable excuse. In this regard, Belarus is the same as many other countries.

With regard to changes in the Labour Code, I would say the following: the Republic of Belarus is an independent sovereign State and has full authority to improve national legislation in accordance with the current interests of residents and the State and social partners. These rules are applied in the specific areas and in this particular case, the Convention would apply. There are requirements that apply to the organization of strikes and those are covered in international instruments. However, it is important to recognize the role that the interests of citizens play when there is a threat to life and health.

With regard to amendments made to the Law on Mass Activities, they set up additional conditions to ensure social safety when it comes to the holding of mass events. There is no contradiction in this legislation with the Convention and we have informed the Committee of Experts in our report in accordance with article 22 of the ILO Constitution.

I took the floor initially to inform the Committee about the efforts that have been undertaken by the Government of Belarus in developing social dialogue and tripartism. We have had some success. That is something that has been recognized by the Committee of Experts and the direct contacts mission but, unfortunately, this is a situation that does not please everybody. There are forces within and beyond the country who want to undermine the existing labour system in Belarus. The BKDP speaks out against the Government. It does not adopt a balanced position and takes steps against the interest of the State and Government, calling for a boycott of Belarusian goods and application of sanctions. The Government is trying to hold dialogue with the BKDP and has allowed it to participate in the tripartite bodies, the NCLSI and the tripartite Council. However, all we have heard is criticism relating to the policies of the Government regardless of the effect. The BKDP is lobbying its destructive position in the ITUC, which unquestionably accepts all of this criticism and takes it as truth about the situation in Belarus. The ITUC has attempted to tie the illegal protest to the question of strikes. There is an unfounded attempt to link questions which fall outside the ILO with the work of the ILO.

Once again, allow me to emphasize that these attempts are exclusively political in nature and they are not linked to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This can become a serious obstacle to constructive cooperation in the future, within the country, as well as with the ILO’s experts regarding the question of implementation of the recommendations. We count on the Committee to take the Government’s concern into account.

In conclusion, once again allow me to reaffirm the commitment of the Republic of Belarus to the fundamental principles of the ILO and our willingness to work together with social partners and the ILO on the essential developments to ensure that we continue applying these recommendations.

Worker members – We note the comments of the Government of Belarus and indeed there has not been any progress regarding freedom of association in practice in Belarus, despite the fact that the case has been before our Committee for many years.

The Government has failed to make any meaningful progress to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Workers are facing constant repression. Independent unions are not able to conduct their activities freely, facing restrictions in holding demonstrations and public meetings and in receiving foreign financial aid. Trade union offices are raided by the law enforcement forces. Leaders and members who take part in peaceful demonstrations and strikes are dismissed, criminally charged and subjected to administrative arrest and fines. Independent unions are not consulted during preparation of legislation. The Government actively interferes in freedom of association by favouring establishment of the FPB-affiliated unions in both public and private sectors. The requirement of a legal address is still an obstacle to the registration of independent unions in the country, contrary to the statements made by the Government.

These violations on freedom of association constitute a completely unacceptable continuation and escalation of anti-union repression in Belarus. The Government needs to ensure that unions that chose not to be part of the FTB can be created and registered and are able to operate freely. Legislation must be finally brought into line with the principles of freedom of association. Independent unions must enjoy equal rights. The Government must implement all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as well as the Committee of Experts and the recent report by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

In response to the Government’s comments this afternoon, we are extremely concerned that the Government outright rejects the concerns expressed by the experts related to civil liberties. The supervisory bodies of the ILO have emphasized that the rights conferred upon employers’ and workers’ organizations must be based on respect for civil liberties. We must emphasize that the Government of Belarus has an obligation to respect international labour standards and the independent guidance provided by the Committee of Experts in line with their mandates. The Government must respect the guidance provided by the Committee of Experts. We must recall that democracy and respect for civil liberties, including freedom of assembly, protest strikes, expression and opinion, is fundamental to the free exercise of trade union rights.

The BKPD and other free trade unions must be free to undertake their trade union activities without intimidation or threats. We urge the ILO to monitor the development and to consider any other appropriate measures to make sure that the Government respects freedom of association and the independence of trade unions. We urge the Government to welcome ILO monitoring in this regard.

Given the absence of progress after many years, the failure to fully implement the Commission of Inquiry recommendations and the gravity of recent developments, the Committee should include the country in a special paragraph.

Employer members – I would like to thank Madame Minster for the Government’s detailed submissions to the Committee today. The Employers’ group takes note of both the written and oral information made by the Government representative, and the discussion that followed.

The Employer members express deep concern about the violations of civil liberties and the rights of workers following the 20 August 2020 elections. The Employers urge the Government to restore, without delay, full respect for workers’ rights and freedoms, to implement recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry on guaranteeing adequate protection against administrative detention for trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties. We urge the Government to take measures for the release of all trade unionists who remain in detention and for the dropping of all charges related to the participation in peaceful protest action. We urge the Government to investigate, without delay, alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judiciary inquiry.

As regards the issue of legal address as an obstacle to trade union registration, the Employer members request that the Government keep it informed of further developments on this matter, in particular any discussion held, and outcomes of these discussions, in the tripartite Council.

In respect of the demand by the President of Belarus for the establishment of trade unions in all private companies by 2020 on the request of the FPB, the Employer members urge the Government to refrain from any interference with the establishment of trade unions in private companies, in particular from demanding the establishment of trade unions under the threat of liquidation of private companies as a penalty. The Employer members urge the Government to clarify publicly that the decision whether or not to set up a trade union in a private company is solely at the discretion of the workers in those companies.

In respect of the restrictions of organization of mass events by trade unions, the Employer members urge the Government, in consultation with the social partners including in the framework of the tripartite Council, to amend the Law on Mass Activities and accompanying Regulation, in particular, with a view to set out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, in conformity with freedom of association principles, to widen the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used, to abolish the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the respective legislation.

The Employer members urge the Government to repeal the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers No. 49, as amended, to enable employers’ and workers’ organizations to exercise their right to organize mass events in practice. The Employers urge the Government to address, and work to find practical solutions to the concerns made by trade unions in respect of organizing and holding mass events in practice.

In respect of consultations regarding the adoption of new pieces of legislation affecting rights of workers, the Employer members request the Government to amend the Regulation of the Council of Ministers No. 193 to ensure that all representative organizations of employers and workers enjoy equal rights in consultation during the preparation of legislation.

In respect of the functioning of the tripartite Council, the Employer members urge the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the tripartite Council so that it can play an effective role in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and other ILO supervisory bodies, such as the Conference Committee, toward full compliance with the Convention.

Recent developments have indicated a step backwards, much to our deep regret and a further retreat on the part of the Government with respect to its obligations under the Convention. The Employer members therefore urge the Government to take, at its earlier convenience, in close consultation with the social partners, all necessary steps to fully implement all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Employer members invite the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance where that would be useful and helpful.

Finally, the Employer members request the Government to provide detailed and complete information on all measures taken, and progress on all of the above issues and to transmit all of the relevant legislative texts to the Committee of Experts before its next meeting.

Conclusions of the Committee

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

The Committee noted the long-standing nature and the prior discussion of this case in the Committee, most recently in 2015.

The Committee noted with great concern and deeply regretted the numerous allegations of extreme violence to repress peaceful protests and strikes, and the detention, imprisonment and torture of workers while in custody following the presidential election in August 2020 as well as the allegations regarding the lack of investigation in relation to these incidents.

The Committee expressed its deep concern that, 17 years after the Commission of Inquiry’s report, the Government of Belarus had failed to take measures to address most of the Commission’s recommendations. The Committee recalled the outstanding recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry and the need for their rapid, full and effective implementation.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urges the Government to:

1. restore without delay full respect for workers’ rights and freedom;
2. implement recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry on guaranteeing adequate protection or even immunity against administrative detention for trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc);
3. take measures for the release of all trade unionists who remain in detention and for the dropping of all charges related to participation in peaceful protest action;
4. refrain from the arrest, detention or engagement in violence, intimidation or harassment, including judicial harassment, of trade union leaders and members conducting lawful trade union activities; and
5. investigate without delay alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry.

As regards the issue of legal address as an obstacle to trade union registration, the Committee calls on the Government to ensure that there are no obstacles to the registration of trade unions, in law and in practice, and requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments on this matter, in particular any discussions held and outcomes of these discussions in the Tripartite Council.

As regards the demand by the President of Belarus for the setting up of trade unions in all private companies by 2020 on the request of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Committee urges in the strongest terms the Government:

• to refrain from any interference with the establishment of trade unions in private companies, in particular from demanding the setting up of trade unions under the threat of liquidation of private companies otherwise;
• to clarify publicly that the decision whether or not to set up a trade union in private companies is solely at the discretion of the workers in these companies; and
• to put an immediate stop to the interference with the establishment of trade unions and refrain from showing favouritism towards any particular trade union in private companies.

As regards the restrictions of the organization of mass events by trade unions, the Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, including in the framework of the Tripartite Council:

• to amend the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation, in particular with a view:
  • . to set out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, ensuring compliance with freedom of association principles;
  • . to widen the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used;
  • . to lift all obstacles, in law and practice, which prevent workers’ and employers’ organizations to benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers in line with the Convention;
  • . to abolish the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists participating in peaceful protests.
• to repeal the Ordinance No. 49 of the Council of Ministers, as amended, to enable workers’ and employers’ organizations to exercise their right to organize mass events in practice; and
• to address and find practical solutions to the concerns raised by the trade unions in respect of organizing and holding mass events in practice.

As regards consultations in respect of the adoption of new pieces of legislation affecting the rights and interests of workers, the Committee requests the Government to amend the Regulation of the Council of Ministers No. 193 to ensure that social partners enjoy equal rights in consultations during the preparation of legislation.

As regards the functioning of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the Tripartite Council so that it can play an effective role in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and other ILO supervisory bodies towards full compliance with the Convention in law and practice.

The Committee expresses its disappointment at the slow process in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Recent developments indicated a step backward and further retreat on the part of the Government from its obligations under the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take before the next conference, in close consultation with the social partners, all necessary steps to fully implement all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and complete information on measures taken and progress made on all of the above issues and to transmit all relevant legislative texts to the Committee of Experts before its next meeting in consultation with the social partners.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of the report.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – We have listened closely to the Committee’s comments with regard to the fulfilment of the Convention. The conclusions are not objective and they are not fair. The information provided by the Government is not taken into account. We provided it before the Conference and on the hearing of the case during the Committee.

Everything that was done by the Government in previous years has been ignored. Nor has the position of countries who supported Belarus been taken into account, including two countries who have been permanent members of the Governing Body of the ILO. Our fears were confirmed. Those who oppose our Government used the Committee to level unfounded accusations.

Protests took place in violation of the law, putting the health and security of citizens in danger. That was the reason for the response. We do not believe that this approach, in the Committee, is acceptable. It is political in nature, not linked to the process of social dialogue in the sphere of labour, nor can it be a basis for an assessment of the situation with regard to the application of the Convention.

A lot has been done in Belarus to develop tripartism and social dialogue in recent years and I talked about this when I addressed the Committee. However, this has not been reflected in the Committee. What is in the recommendations is a recommendation for a special paragraph. We do not believe this is fair.

Today, a number of countries are seeking to destabilize our Republic. A mass information attack has been unleashed against our country, bringing us to answer unfounded accusations in the international arena. Therefore, in this regard, I would like to recall that in accordance with the resolution on combating the pandemic, all countries have to fight against the consequences of the crisis by developing local and regional cooperation, strengthening global solidarity, and increasing the effective policies in the economic and social spheres.

It is clear that we will only be able to overcome this crisis by working together. Only in that way, can we achieve decent work for all. The effects of sanctions run opposite to this objective and harm the health and security of citizens and in that way, undermine the principles of the ILO. We are convinced that the ILO should not be using its authority to allow such unfounded approaches.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2015, Publication: 104th ILC session (2015)



The Government provided the following written information.

With regard to the measures adopted by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, in accordance with recommendation No. 2, the Government has adopted measures to abolish the requirements for the mandatory presence of at least 10 per cent of the total number of workers to establish a trade union organization. Presidential Decree No. 4 of 2 June 2015 was adopted, which amended Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999 on some measures to regulate the activities of political parties, trade unions and other public associations (hereinafter, Decree No. 2), and excluded the above requirement. Thus, under Decree No. 4 of 2 June 2015, at least ten workers are enough to establish a trade union at an enterprise. The Government considers it appropriate to note the positive role played by the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which proposed amendments to Decree No. 2.

With reference to the implementation of the proposals of the direct contacts mission, since the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference, work on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry has been organized in accordance with proposals of the direct contacts mission, approved by the ILO Governing Body at it 320th Session, in March 2014. The objective of the mission was to obtain a comprehensive picture of the trade union rights situation in the country and to assist the Government in the rapid and effective implementation of all the outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government accepted the proposal of the June 2014 Conference Committee and took the necessary steps to enable the direct contacts mission to carry out its tasks in full. The direct contacts mission visited the Republic of Belarus from 27 to 31 January 2014. Having held a number of meetings and having studied the situation on the ground, the mission noted that there had been some progress regarding implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Moreover, the mission noted that there were elements of trade union pluralism in Belarus. The direct contacts mission paid special attention to the role of the tripartite Council, which was composed of all the parties concerned: representatives of the Government, employers’ associations and trade union associations (the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FTUB) and the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BCDTU)). Over the past years, the Council has been the main body in which dialogue between the Government and the social partners on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry has been taking place. At the same time, the mission expressed the need to improve the work of the Council. The direct contacts mission made a number of proposals, including for joint activities with the participation of the Government, the social partners and the ILO in the following areas: the work of tripartite consultative bodies; collective bargaining at the enterprise level; dispute resolution and mediation; and the training of judges, prosecutors and lawyers on the application of international labour standards. During the discussion at the 103rd Session of the Conference in June 2014, the Committee noted the fact that the Government had supported those proposals and expressed willingness to work together with the social partners and the ILO to implement them. The Government emphasized that the activities planned in accordance with the mission’s proposals would contribute to implementation of a number of recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, in particular recommendations Nos 4, 8 and 12.

In accordance with the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2014, the Government together with the Office and with participation of trade unions and employers’ associations made concrete steps to implement the proposals of the direct contacts mission. For example, the Office, with the assistance of the Government, held a seminar to review the experience of work of tripartite consultative bodies of the social partnership (9–10 June, Minsk). The purpose of the seminar was to assist the Government and the social partners to develop proposals for improving the work of the tripartite Council. The seminar was attended by members of the tripartite Council and other interested representatives of the Government, associations of employers and trade unions (FTUB and BCDTU). International experience of the work of tripartite bodies was represented at the seminar by ILO experts, as well as by experts from Lithuania and Finland. The participants at the seminar developed proposals aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Council, which were discussed in detail at the meetings of the Council held on 23 January and 23 April 2015. Following the discussion, the parties represented in the Council reached a common position on amending the Regulations on the Council in order to enhance its efficiency. The new version of the Regulations on the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere was approved by Order No. 48 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Republic of Belarus of 8 May 2015. The new version of the Regulations has significantly expanded the mandate of the Council. In particular, the Council now has the right to analyse the existing legislation, draft laws and regulations in the sphere of social and labour relations for their compliance with ILO Conventions and Recommendations and international practice to ensure the application of international labour standards at the national level. The Council is empowered to send to legislative bodies its proposals on the implementation of the provisions of the ILO Conventions and Recommendations in the national law, and the amendment of laws and regulations on labour and trade unions, in accordance with the ILO Recommendations. The Council has the right to initiate a review of proposals for amendments and additions to laws and regulations on labour and trade unions made by the National Council for Labour and Social Issues. Also, the new version of the Regulations on the Council provides for more active involvement of international experts, including ILO experts in consideration of issues within the Council. In order to facilitate consideration of the issues, the Council can hold extraordinary sessions.

In 2015, the Government carried out the work related to the second area identified in the proposals of the direct contacts mission. On 13–14 May 2015, the Office, in cooperation with the Government and the social partners, held a tripartite seminar Collective Bargaining and Cooperation at the Enterprise Level in the Context of Pluralism. In this regard, it should be noted that, in the context of trade union pluralism, there are several trade union organizations in a number of enterprises in the Republic of Belarus, and each of them, regardless of its size, wants to participate in collective bargaining with the employer. According to the practice established in Belarus, only one collective agreement is concluded within an enterprise. The employer shall enter into collective bargaining with a single workers’ side, represented by trade unions. However, the procedure of interaction between different trade unions within the single trade union group set up for negotiations with the employer is not clearly defined. In fact, the issue is solved by agreement between the trade unions affiliated to the FTUB and the BCDTU. For example, at the largest enterprise of the republic, JSC “Belaruskali” (Soligorsk), three trade unions participate in collective bargaining with the employer to conclude a collective agreement (primary trade union organizations of the Belarusian Trade Union of Workers in the Chemical, Mining and Petroleum Industries and the Trade Union of Workers of Agriculture, affiliated to the FTUB, as well as the primary trade union organization of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union, affiliated to the BCDTU). However, in practice agreement between trade union organizations at other enterprises is not always achieved. This usually entails conflict between the trade unions, which in turn has a negative impact on collective bargaining process at the enterprise.

It should be emphasized that, given the current situation in the trade union movement in Belarus, the Government has been repeatedly informed by ILO experts that at this stage a most acceptable solution was not creating a legislative procedure for the formation of a united trade union group (as new legislative provisions were not likely to be accepted in a positive way by all the participants), but rather reaching an agreement by all the interested parties on the guidelines of interaction of the social partners during collective bargaining, including situations where there were several trade unions acting at an enterprise, and reflecting those principles in an agreement or some other document, which could be supported and approved by the social partners. The seminar, which took place on 13–14 May 2015 in Minsk, was attended by members of the Council and representatives of the employers’ and trade unions’ associations (including the heads of the FTUB and the BCDTU), as well as representatives from a number of enterprises (trade unions and employers), where several trade unions exist. As a result of the two-day debates, moderated by ILO representatives, the participants drew up conclusions, which provided for inclusion of representatives of all the trade unions, acting at the enterprise, into the Commission on Collective Bargaining. In the near future, the conclusions of the seminar will be discussed in the Council, which is to prepare a document to be presented to the social partners for approval expected.

The next activity in relation to the proposals of the direct contacts mission will be a tripartite seminar on dispute resolution and mediation. It is expected that the exchange of views by all the parties concerned will improve the situation for the settlement of labour disputes in the framework of the existing national system, and generate new effective mechanisms in the framework of the tripartite Council. Thus, the work to implement the proposals of the direct contacts mission is being carried out in full compliance with the agreements reached between the Government and the ILO. The joint activities are aimed at solving specific problems, directly arising from the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government considers it is also necessary to emphasize the fact that the intensification of cooperation between the ILO and the Government, as well as joint activities involving all the parties concerned, have a positive impact on the nature of relations between the social partners within the country. Thus, despite certain differences, the Government has noted positive trends in the development of relations within the trade union group. The issue of the participation of BCDTU representative in the work of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues has been resolved. The BCDTU leader Mr Yaroshuk participated in all of the last three meetings of the National Council, which took place on 25 September 2014, 13 January 2015 and 1 April 2015. The Government assesses positively the level of cooperation between the parties to social dialogue reached at this stage within the social partnership system. The National Council for Labour and Social Issues is carrying out its work. Along with the Government, all the associations of employers and trade unions are represented within the National Council. A General Agreement between the Government, national associations of employers and trade unions for 2014–15, in the development of which representatives of both the FTUB and the BCDTU had been taking part, was signed on 30 December 2013. As well as the previous General Agreement, this General Agreement shall apply to all employers, workers and all trade union organizations in Belarus. Both trade union associations (the FTUB and the BCDTU), regardless of their representativity, have an opportunity to take advantage of the guarantees provided by the General Agreement. Thus, at present, the principles of trade union pluralism are fulfilled in practice in the Republic of Belarus.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative, after referring to the written information provided, informed the Committee of the steps taken, in collaboration with the social partners and the ILO, following the direct contacts mission to the country in January 2014 for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. As reflected in the written submission, concrete results had been achieved since the discussion in the Conference Committee in 2013, particularly concerning the removal of the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement through the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 2, and the implementation of the proposals made by the direct contacts mission. She highlighted the positive role played by the ILO in this regard and emphasized that the country was open to dialogue and discussion in relation to all outstanding issues.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the thorough oral and written information provided and welcomed the constructive tone of the Government, as well as its willingness to continue to engage in collaboration with the ILO and the social partners. The case was complex and had a long-standing history, with 21 observations made by the Committee of Experts on the application of the Convention since 1998 and 11 discussions of the case in the Conference Committee since 1989. Recalling the developments since the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry following a complaint submitted under article 26 of the ILO Constitution in 2003, the Employer members recalled the discussion and conclusions on the case adopted in June 2014, and noted that there had been positive developments recently. In its 2015 comments the Committee of Experts noted four primary concerns. First, the Government had not taken measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 of January 2009 to remove obstacles to trade union registration (specifically relating to the legal address and the 10 per cent minimum membership requirements). In this regard, noting the Government’s explanations that the 10 per cent minimum requirement had now been abolished through the adoption of Presidential Decree No. 4 of June 2015, the Employer members requested the Government to provide the Committee of Experts with more detailed information. The second issue concerned the situation in which authorization for demonstrations by trade unions had been denied and the fact that they constituted a violation under the Act on Mass Activities, as well as the absence of a stated intention by the Government to amend the Act. Recalling that peaceful protests organized by either workers’ or employers’ organizations were protected by the Convention, they encouraged the Government to amend the Act on Mass Activities, particularly the provisions relating to the penalty of liquidation of an organization for a single breach of the Act, which corresponded to recommendation No. 10 of the Commission of Inquiry. The third issue related to Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of gratuitous aid and the absence of any stated intent by the Government to amend the Decree. According to the Government, in practice, trade unions had not been prevented from receiving financial assistance. The Employer members recalled that the prohibition on national employers’ and workers’ organizations from receiving financial assistance from international employers’ or workers’ organizations, unless approved by the Government, was not in conformity with the Convention. In this regard, they urged the Government to repeal or amend the Decree, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that employers’ and worker’s organizations could effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from international aid, if they so chose. Concerning the fourth issue, which related to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the Government had explained the steps taken for their implementation as a result of the direct contacts mission that had visited the country in January 2014. The direct contacts mission had welcomed the role of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere in this regard, as well as the Council’s role relating to the implementation of the proposals of the direct contacts mission. They welcomed the fact that, with the participation of the social partners, concrete steps had been taken to implement the proposals of the direct contacts mission. They particularly welcomed the Government’s explanations on the expansion of the mandate of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, including its role in amending labour laws. This Council was a useful platform for discussions and exchanges of views, and efforts should be made to transform the Council into an effective and established forum with the full participation of the social partners. They urged the Government to provide more information to the Committee of Experts in this regard, to continue to engage in social dialogue within the Tripartite Council, as well as in other forums, and to continue to cooperate with the Office. The adoption of Presidential Decree No. 4 repealing Presidential Decree No. 2, in accordance with recommendation No. 2 of the Commission of Inquiry, was also to be commended. The Employer members expressed the firm hope that this positive engagement would mean that the Government was also committed to addressing the other outstanding issues without further delay, and in particular the implementation of the outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker members noted that, although a decade had passed since the ILO Commission of Inquiry had adopted its conclusions and recommendations regarding the situation of freedom of association in Belarus, only two of the 12 recommendations made had been fully implemented, while for most there had not yet been any action at all. The consolidation of power by the present regime had only resulted in increased repression of trade unions. Workers were forced to renounce membership in democratic unions, and leaders and activists of free unions faced discrimination and dismissal. Union registration continued to be denied, and demonstrations organized by independent unions were still prohibited. The workplan designed in 2009 with the participation of the ILO and social partners had not been implemented, and the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere was merely a facade, as it lacked any genuine functions. The BCDTU, which comprised free and independent unions, had submitted proposals for improvements to the legislation and had raised concerns about violations of trade union rights in several enterprises. These calls had been entirely unheeded. They noted that, although the Committee and the Committee of Experts had repeatedly called for the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 2, which created obstacles to the establishment of trade unions, nothing had yet been done. Thus, to register, trade unions still had to provide the official address of their headquarters, which was often the premises of the enterprise concerned, as unions were not allowed to submit their leaders’ home addresses as the legal address. A letter from management confirming the address was also usually required, making trade unions dependent on the goodwill of the employer. A list of names of the founding members of trade unions also had to be sent to the Ministry of Justice. All of these obstacles, combined with the brutal repression of and reprisals against trade union activists, had made the development of the independent trade union movement virtually impossible. Indeed, no independent union had been registered for years.

In accordance with Ministry of Justice Instruction No. 48 of 2005, the registration of a trade union could be cancelled, without the possibility of judicial review, if its charter or structure was deemed not to be in compliance with the law. A union could also be dissolved by the Registrar if its data had not been correctly registered. Presidential Decree No. 29 had introduced a short-term contract system covering 90 per cent of workers. This system served to repress the trade union movement, principally through the refusal of contract extensions to union activists and their families. There was no adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, and many union members had been forced to leave independent trade unions. Additionally, the law imposed severe restrictions on the organization of protests and meetings and any violation could result in a union’s dissolution. The Worker members emphasized that, under such grave circumstances, workers were forced to take extreme measures, including hunger strikes, to protest the continued acts of reprisal and repression against trade unionists. With regard to these acts, they cited the example of one tractor parts company, where over 200 members had been obliged to leave their union to join the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SPB). The union leader, Mr Mikhail Kovalkov, had not been allowed to enter the enterprise, despite a decision by the Bobruisk district and city court ordering the employer to unblock Mr Kovalkov’s permanent pass. In 2014, the contracts of Alyaksandr Varankin, Alyaksandr Hramyka and Victor Osipov had not been renewed in retaliation for having participated in union activities. Since 2008, the local union of an oil refinery affiliated to the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BNP) had been subject to a harsh anti-union campaign by the management of the refinery. Members of that union regularly received disciplinary punishments due to the fact of their membership, over a six-year period more than 700 workers had been forced to give up their membership. In October 2014, the union leader, Mr Yuriy Shvets, had initiated a hunger strike, but that had not changed the situation. They also cited the example of the trade union of the “Granit” enterprise, established in 2012, which had not been registered. All 200 of its members had been forced to renounce their membership, and its leaders, including Mr Oleg Stakhaevich, Mr Nicolay Karyshev, Mr Anatoliy Litvinko, and Mr Leonid Dubonosov had been dismissed. They observed that in 2014 Belarus had once again been included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report, and that other laws had been adopted which further violated the rights of Belarusian workers. At the end of 2014, Presidential Decree No. 5, intended to “strengthen labour discipline” in both public and private companies, had been adopted. This Decree allowed employers to unilaterally change working conditions and facilitated the blacklisting of union members. Presidential Decree No. 3 of April 2015 also imposed severe fines on citizens who were able to work, but who had been unemployed for several months. The Worker members expressed their deep concern at the situation with regard to freedom of association in Belarus and condemned the Government’s continued failure to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, which had been adopted ten years ago. The current process of trade union monopolization and the use of the state-controlled FTUB to suppress the independent trade union movement were also cause for deep concern. As long as the FTUB remained under Government control, the free exercise of workers’ rights would not exist in the country.

The Employer member of Belarus emphasized that, in the context of the follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and following the visit of the direct contacts mission, the social dialogue system in his country was improving significantly, with the active participation of employers. The regular functioning of the National Council for Labour and Social Issues and the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, in which both the FTUB and the BCDTU participated, was evidence of that improvement. Sectoral accords and enterprise collective agreements had been concluded under the General Agreement. The employers of Belarus aimed to adopt an even-handed approach towards all trade unions and all issues, and it was important to hold open and impartial discussions in order to identify mutually acceptable solutions to those issues. Nevertheless, more objective criteria should be established to determine the extent to which the submission of certain complaints met the requirements for examination by the ILO. The seminar on trade union pluralism and collective bargaining held in May 2015 in conjunction with the Office had strengthened the relationship of trust between the social partners and fostered a better understanding of how to implement the provisions of the Convention. In view of the fears aroused by the current economic crisis, which had been exacerbated by the sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation by western countries, collaboration between employers and workers had become increasingly important. In that context, the employers of Belarus would make every effort to ensure that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were implemented.

The Worker member of Belarus expressed support for the statement made by the Worker members concerning the need to examine each situation in both law and practice. The current legislation posed no insurmountable obstacles to registering trade unions. In that regard, the most important fact was that the provisions of Decree No. 2 had been amended by Decree No. 4 with the aim of facilitating the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations in respect of the requirement that at least 10 per cent of the total number of workers must be members in order to form a trade union. The problem had been resolved through the common efforts of all the social partners within the framework of the country’s tripartite dialogue system. That was clearly demonstrated by the fact that only over the past six months in Belarus some 30 first-level trade union organizations had been registered in the private sector. Altogether, there were currently some 24,000 registered trade unions in the country. However, some employers in the private sector were actively raising obstacles to the creation of trade unions by their workers. That situation was unacceptable for the workers of Belarus and the issue had been raised in the FTUB Congress in May 2015 and had received some understanding and support from the Government. Today the country had two trade union federations, the FTUB and the BCDTU, both of which were able to cooperate with the Government and employers in the framework of the supreme social partnership body, the National Council on Labour and Social Issues, as well as in the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which had been established at the recommendation of the ILO. This was a clear sign that trade union pluralism existed in Belarus. The FTUB was participating actively in improving legislation on workers’ social and economic rights and interests and was ready to participate further in discussions on bringing it into conformity with international labour standards. The Law on Mass Activities contained no significant restrictions on peaceful trade union events. This had been demonstrated in practice by the fact that the FTUB had held over 80 public events in 2015 alone. There might have been occasional exceptions, but there was no systematic restriction on carrying out peaceful activities. The Committee of Experts and the ILO direct contacts mission to Belarus had indicated in their reports that complaints from trade unions concerning the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 24, which governed the use of foreign donations, were unfounded, as in practice trade unions were able to make use of financial assistance. He added that current legislation on trade unions guaranteed the right for 1 per cent to be paid by union members’ from their monthly wages as union dues and those funds should in most cases be enough for unions for their activities if the budgets of trade unions were used properly and their finances were managed properly. In conclusion, he noted that the Government was systematically taking measures to apply the recommendations made by the ILO supervisory bodies, was creating an opportunity for social dialogue with all interested social partners in the country and was establishing all the necessary institutions, mechanisms and standards to apply the Convention effectively. The Committee on the Application of Standards and the ILO supervisory bodies could acknowledge the significant progress made on the issue of respect by the Government for the rights of trade union organizations in Belarus.

The Government member of Latvia, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Montenegro, Serbia and Norway, said that the EU attached great importance to its relations with Belarus and intended to maintain its critical engagement with the country. She expressed deep concern at the lack of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. She recalled that the case had been on the agenda of the Conference Committee since 1997 and regretted that the follow-up to the direct contacts mission remained slow, despite the significant progress needed to achieve compliance with the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry. In this context, she recalled that the failure of Belarus to implement the recommendations had led to its suspension from the EU Generalized System of Preferences since 2007. While acknowledging the change in the minimum requirement for the establishment of trade unions, she expressed concern with regard to the actual improvement in practice. She reiterated the call on the Government to eliminate the other obstacles which hindered the establishment and functioning of trade unions in practice, and in particular the requirement imposed by Presidential Decree No. 2 of 1999 on their legal address. She also once again urged the Government to provide the information requested by the Committee of Experts, particularly concerning the refusal to authorize the holding of demonstrations and the restrictions on assembly imposed by the Law on Mass Activities. She again urged the Government, in line with the request of the Committee of Experts, to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid. This was essential to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations could benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers. She also urged the Government to provide all the information requested by the Committee of Experts and to intensify its efforts in cooperation with all the social partners concerned to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. She noted that the Government had accepted no technical assistance. She expressed the hope that the renewed engagement with the Office and cooperation with the social partners would give rise to concrete results for the rapid and effective implementation of the outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) emphasized that ILO action in Belarus was of particular importance on account of the authoritarian nature of its political system. Respect for freedom of association remained a critical issue and the adoption of Presidential Decree No. 4 had not improved the situation. Independent trade union representatives had been subject to extreme pressure and discriminatory dismissals to such an extent that for some of them the only option was to resort to hunger strikes. Other representatives had sought refuge in anonymity to avoid repression, which had resulted in many members of the BCDTU not being able to participate in collective bargaining. The protests of 7 October 2014 and 1 May 2015 had not been not authorized. Presidential Decree No. 3 allowed for executive salaries to be reduced in retaliation for any trade union activities. Similarly, the requirement to provide a certificate of employment when applying for a new job made recruitment less certain for members of the independent trade union movement. During a meeting with the FTUB on 22 May 2015, President Lukashenko had said that the FTUB constituted a pillar of government action and that all workers should join it. If that was the case, it would be difficult to achieve compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Infringements of the right to freedom of assembly were of particular concern.

The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic noted that the Government of Belarus had undertaken several measures to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. For instance, in response to the second recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry, the previous requirement of 10 per cent of the total number of workers to form a trade union had been abolished; under Presidential Decree No. 4 of June 2015, a minimum of ten workers presently sufficed for the establishment of a union. In addition, the ILO direct contacts mission of January 2014 had been able to note some progress in the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, including the existence of some elements of trade union pluralism. He recalled that the direct contacts mission had made several proposals to facilitate the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, which involved activities in the areas of enterprise-level collective bargaining, dispute resolution and mediation, the operation of tripartite consultative bodies, and training for judges and lawyers on the application of international labour standards. The Government had taken concrete steps to implement these proposals, thus demonstrating its commitment to resolving the issues raised by both the Committee of Experts and the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of Poland recalled the conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee in 2014 and regretted that the number of violations of human and trade union rights had increased since then, and that members of independent trade unions still suffered from anti-union discrimination. She drew attention to the abolition of the requirement of at least 10 per cent of the total number of workers to establish a trade union organization. However, she observed that these measures had been undermined by a presidential decree under which new trade unions must be established in all private companies and must affiliate by 2016 with the FTUB, which was under the strict control of the Government. According to the President, as the protection of workers was his prerogative, it therefore depended on his good or bad will, but not on a guaranteed legal basis on which workers could rely. With reference to the denial of workers’ rights in Belarus, she called on the Government to honour the commitments made to social dialogue and cooperation with the ILO, and to implement effectively all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in order to improve the situation of all workers in the country, beginning with a system which guaranteed civil liberties for all and their respect.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela emphasized that the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in relation to the Convention represented significant progress in comparison to previous discussions of the situation. Trade union pluralism existed in Belarus, social dialogue had been strengthened, there had been improvements in social and labour legislation, and seminars and meetings had been held on freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. The Committee should take account of the willingness shown by the Government and the efforts it had made, as reflected in its explanations and arguments, and its conclusions should be objective and balanced, so that, the Government could take them into consideration.

The Worker member of the United States regretted that, despite the fact that this case had been discussed by the Committee several times over the years, the repression of independent trade unions continued. For instance, in October 2014, the management of an enterprise in Slonin had launched a campaign of harassment against over 30 workers for having joined the independent Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REP). The workers concerned had been subjected to various discriminatory acts, including reductions in wages and threats of dismissal. Another worker, in a different enterprise, had been disciplined for having encouraged colleagues to join the REP. Recalling the comments of the Committee of Experts on the systematic suppression of the BNP in the Granit enterprise, she noted that yet another trade union activist had been dismissed in December 2014, in keeping with a pattern of dismissals of virtually all BNP activists in the enterprise. That this dismissal had occurred despite the dispute having been examined by the enterprise tripartite council, and despite the Government having accepted ILO technical assistance on improving social dialogue, was a cause for serious concern. She also noted the various acts of discrimination and harassment in 2014 against workers in a tractor factory who had chosen to join the SPB. With regard to Presidential Decree No. 5 of January 2015, which gave managers additional rights to unilaterally modify working conditions, she stated that the law had been heavily criticized for providing employers with expanded means of punishing workers for engaging in trade union activity. These developments showed that the repression of trade unionists remained severe and widespread. In conclusion, she called upon the Government to make serious and thorough efforts to honour its obligations under the Convention.

The Government member of Switzerland recalled that the case had already been discussed on several occasions by both the Governing Body and the Conference Committee. The Government of Belarus had been encouraged to take all necessary steps to guarantee freedom of association and expression and the right to peaceful assembly, including, in particular, amending the Law on Mass Activities, as requested by the Committee of Experts. With assistance from the Office and international social partners, Switzerland hoped that the Government would implement all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In particular, employers’ and workers’ organizations must be able to organize their activities freely, and in this regard international social partners could provide valuable support and share relevant experience. Such steps could contribute to strengthening the role of civil society in Belarus and to creating a more favourable environment for respecting human rights.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the trade unions of the Nordic countries and Estonia, regretted that once again the Committee had to discuss the violation of the Convention in Belarus. Although the Commission of Inquiry had adopted its recommendations over ten years ago, and the Government had appeared before the Committee several times, no significant progress had been made. She noted that trade union rights were still violated due to the Government’s lack of political will. Trade union leaders and activists in independent unions faced dismissal and discrimination, harassment and arrest, as well as the prohibition on participating in meetings and strikes. The establishment and registration of an independent union was burdensome because of the requirement of providing the legal address, which was often the premises of the enterprise. A letter from the management of the enterprise confirming the address was usually required, which made registration dependent on the support of the employer. Another serious concern was the short-term contract system that covered over 90 per cent of workers. This system was used as a mechanism to prevent people from joining independent unions and to punish union activists in independent unions. Their contracts would not be extended if the workers became members of independent unions. In addition, she noted that Presidential Decree No. 3, adopted in 2015, established severe fines for citizens who were unemployed if they were able to work. Recalling that Nordic workers enjoyed the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing and to bargain collectively, she urged the Government to ensure in law and practice the right of workers to freely join and establish organizations, and to organize their activities free from any interference by public authorities. Finally, she called on the Government to comply with the obligations deriving from ILO membership and to implement all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government member of the Russian Federation noted the efforts that had been made, the substantial progress that had been achieved and the willingness shown by the Government to cooperate constructively with the ILO to guarantee all workers the right to freedom of association, in accordance with the Convention. He highlighted the workshops that had been organized in accordance with the recommendations of the 2014 direct contacts mission. Belarus had created favourable conditions for social dialogue and the implementation of the right to freedom of association. The Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere was the most important body for guaranteeing tripartite dialogue. Its competencies had been substantially increased in May 2015 to take into account the relevant ILO recommendations. The Tripartite Council now had additional competencies for evaluating national and draft legislation with a view to ensuring compliance with ILO Conventions and Recommendations, and also had the right to submit proposals on the application of international labour standards to the state authorities. A big step had been taken towards the practical application of the recommendations made by the ILO. He called on the trade union organizations of Belarus to cooperate with the Tripartite Council and utilize it in a constructive manner with a view to defending workers’ rights. In view of the range of measures that had been taken to improve social and labour legislation, the accusations made against the Government were not justified. He requested the ILO to continue providing technical assistance to Belarus on the application of the Convention with a view to removing the issue from the Committee’s agenda.

The Worker member of India said that recent developments clearly demonstrated the progress achieved by the Government of Belarus. The law regarding minimum membership requirements for forming a union had been amended, and the Committee of Experts had noted signs of progress in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Furthermore, the fact that two national trade union confederations now existed was further proof of the Government’s commitment to realizing trade union rights in Belarus. Recalling that this case had been discussed by the Committee on several occasions, he wondered whether this was necessary or just, or perhaps driven in part by political considerations. Regardless, recent developments were clear proof of the Government’s willingness to address seriously the issues raised by the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts, and these efforts deserved due recognition from the ILO supervisory bodies.

The Government member of Cuba said that the Government had shown its willingness to cooperate with the ILO supervisory bodies by accepting the Commission of Inquiry, receiving a direct contacts mission, carrying out technical assistance activities and providing information at sessions of the Governing Body and the Conference Committee, which demonstrated its respect for and commitment to the principles of freedom of association and the right to organize. It had also provided sufficient information on the functioning of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, and on activities to improve social dialogue and cooperation among the tripartite constituents and to raise awareness of the right to freedom of association. To arrive at an objective and impartial analysis of the case, it was necessary to take into account the conclusion of the direct contacts mission that the situation of trade unions had changed, and the Committee should acknowledge the progress that the Government had made. This would make the activities of the supervisory mechanisms more effective while fostering an atmosphere of cooperation with the Government.

The Worker member of the Syrian Arab Republic expressed the support of Syrian workers for the workers of the FTUB in Belarus with regard to the violations of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had found that there had been significant progress in the diversity of trade unions in the country. The Syrian Arab Republic’s trade unions had been cooperating for many years with trade unions of the FTUB in Belarus and had learned a great deal from their activities, such as their defence of trade union rights and social dialogue. Belarus did have tripartite social dialogue, although there were still some problems with respect to the application of the Convention, and the steps taken by all the social partners to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry was evidence of a real willingness on their part. Belarus had two national trade union federations and 30 industrial and national unions, which were able to hold meetings without government involvement. Workers in Belarus could therefore ensure that the Convention was applied, as they had been able to do in the past. He was certain that, through dialogue with the other social partners, those workers would be able to cope with the problems identified by the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government member of Canada recalled the concern expressed in 2013 and 2014 at the overall situation of human rights, including the rights of workers. He was concerned by the continued reports of numerous violations of the Convention, including interference by the authorities in the activities of trade unions. The Government had improved its degree of cooperation with ILO supervisory bodies, including through the direct contacts mission in 2014. While some measures had been taken by the Government in 2015, the follow-up to the recommendations of the direct contacts mission remained slow and incomplete. Significant progress was needed in implementing the remaining recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He regretted that, despite the numerous requests by the ILO supervisory bodies, few tangible measures had been taken to address discrimination against trade union members and the violations of workers’ rights in the country. The Government should take the necessary measures to address these allegations and the outstanding recommendations, accelerate its responses and make efforts to eliminate human rights violations, including the right to participate in peaceful protests and to associate freely to protect occupational interests. He called on the Government to fully follow up on the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry of 2004, respect its obligations under the Convention, refrain from measures that inhibit the effective exercise of trade union activities, and cooperate fully with the ILO.

An observer representing the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) said that her Federation was proud to count the FTUB among its members. The FTUB had made a tremendous contribution and the Government should not be appearing before the Committee. The FTUB wanted trade unions in the country with a fixed address and without foreign funding. All the social partners concerned were participating in the process of the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the Commission of Inquiry. The EU should focus on European countries, where there were numerous anti-union practices, a staggering number of unemployed and cuts in rights and wages imposed in the context of austerity policies.

The Government member of China congratulated the Government on its close cooperation with the ILO and on its progress in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, notably by the conclusion of a tripartite agreement. It was still necessary to apply ratified Conventions. The Government had shown a willingness to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and the ILO should provide Belarus with technical assistance to enhance its capability to apply the Convention.

The Government representative recalled the positive work being undertaken in the country, including measures to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and said that such efforts would continue. The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been implemented through the adoption of amendments to Presidential Decree No. 2, and statements regarding pressure on independent trade unions had no factual basis. The direct contacts mission had noted several developments, including that some recommendations had been implemented and that trade union pluralism existed in the country. The recommendations of the direct contacts mission were being implemented with the involvement of all parties. It was necessary to focus on these positive changes in order to continue dialogue. The tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere was the relevant platform to examine the issues raised, and the direct contacts mission had supported this Council. The country had enforcement mechanisms to which workers could have recourse if they felt they had been discriminated against. Dismissals that had taken place had been linked to issues related to production, and the dismissals had been carried out in accordance with the legislation. An analysis of the workers who had been dismissed revealed that 7 per cent had been members of the FTUB and 5 per cent of the BCDTU, so such dismissals were not linked to trade union membership. The new realities of the country required a new approach, and the Government had taken measures in that regard, including steps relating to overtime and the promotion of small enterprises. The Government actively consulted the social partners when adopting measures to regulate labour matters. The Government was also required to send any draft legislation on labour issues to the social partners, and to examine their proposals, prior to its adoption. The Government had taken measures to implement the past recommendations of the Conference Committee, including the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 2 and the promotion of tripartite seminars. It had achieved concrete results in giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Nonetheless, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had not been fully implemented, and the Government would continue with its work, with the social partners and in cooperation with the ILO.

The Employer members recalled that interference in the freedom of association of workers’ or employers’ organizations was unacceptable. They recalled that this was a long-standing case. They noted the measures that had been taken since the Committee’s last discussion, and welcomed the fact that these measures included the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 2, through Presidential Decree No. 4 of June 2015, and urged the Government to provide detailed information to the ILO on this legislative amendment. They welcomed the Government’s willingness to collaborate with the ILO on issues related to the reform of labour legislation, and issues of freedom of association and its promotion within the national context. They noted that a number of recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry of 2004 had still not been implemented. They therefore hoped that the Government’s positive engagement the previous year with the ILO and the national social partners would also mean that it was committed to implementing the outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The recommendations should be implemented without further delay and in full cooperation and consultation with the social partners at the national level.

The Worker members said that it had taken too long to see progress regarding freedom of association and that the case had been before the Committee for many years. The Government refused to make any meaningful progress to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Workers were facing constant repression and independent unions were not able to conduct their activities freely. Leaders and activists were dismissed without recourse and the short-term contract system was used to force workers to leave independent unions and dissuade them from joining them. The requirement of a legal address was still an obstacle to the registration of independent unions in the country. The Government had only made symbolic steps and the abolition of the 10 per cent membership requirement had hardly made a difference in achieving free trade unionism, as it had not been a key obstacle. In this regard, the Government should provide specific information on the number of new unions registered. The Government needed to ensure that unions that chose not to be part of the FTUB could be created and registered. On that basis, the Committee would be able to assess the extent to which the reported changes could contribute to the implementation in practice of recommendation No. 2 of the Commission of Inquiry. ILO activities in the country, particularly the two seminars held in 2014 and 2015, could help to improve the situation of independent unions in certain enterprises. There was a need to continue to strengthen the capacity of all the social partners in relation to freedom of association and collective bargaining. However, cooperation was limited and did not allow for systematic follow-up. A strengthened presence in the country was necessary if ILO technical assistance was to have an impact. The situation in the country remained a matter of concern. The Worker members called for full compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, but so far no meaningful steps had been taken.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that ensued. The Committee took note of the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions on the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing in Decree No. 2, obstacles to the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations under the Law on Mass Activities and certain prohibitions on the use of foreign gratuitous aid under Presidential Decree No. 24. The Committee recalled the outstanding recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry and the need for their rapid and effective implementation.

The Committee noted that the Government has continued to follow up concrete proposals formulated by the direct contacts mission through ILO technical assistance related to a series of activities aimed at improving social dialogue and cooperation between the tripartite constituents at all levels, including most recently through the seminar on collective bargaining and cooperation at the enterprise level in the context of pluralism. The Committee noted the indication that Presidential Decree No. 4 was adopted on 2 June 2015, amending Decree No. 2 to replace the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement with only ten workers. The Government emphasized the positive role played by the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere in this regard. The Government further spoke of the amendments agreed to the Regulations of the Tripartite Council on 8 May 2015, which would significantly expand its mandate. The next activity within the framework of the direct contacts mission’s proposals is expected to be a tripartite seminar on dispute resolution and mediation mechanisms.

The Committee expresses its deep concern that, ten years after the Commission of Inquiry’s report, the Government of Belarus has failed to take measures to address most of the Commission’s recommendations. Workers continue to face numerous obstacles in law and in practice to the full exercise of their right to form or join trade unions of their own choosing. The Committee expects full compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry urgently.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urges the Government to:

• comply in full with the rest of the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry before the next Conference, and to report to the Committee of Experts prior to their 2015 Session;
• provide information to the Committee of Experts related to the functions and role of the Tripartite Council;
• ensure, in light of reports of discrimination and harassment of trade union leaders and activists, that such activity is immediately brought to an end; and
• accept substantially increased technical assistance in the country, the aim of which is to assist in compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in the shortest time possible.

A Government representative took note of the Committee’s conclusions and indicated that his Government would consider them and subsequently provide the requested information. The Government of Belarus would continue to cooperate with its social partners to promote the rights of workers. The Government representative also indicated that his Government would welcome ILO technical assistance and would continue to cooperate with the Organization.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2014, Publication: 103rd ILC session (2014)



The Government provided the following written information.

With regard to the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry concerning the registration of trade unions, as of 1 January 2014, 37 trade unions had been registered in the Republic of Belarus, including 33 national trade unions, one local trade union and three plant-level trade union organizations. Some 23,193 primary trade union organizations were registered. In the past few years, only isolated instances have been noted of refusal to register trade unions. Only four such refusals occurred over the period 2010–13. On several occasions, the Government of the Republic of Belarus has considered improving the law on the registration of trade unions. Together with the social partners, the Government will continue working to secure the rights of citizens to free association in trade unions.

With reference to the development of collective labour relations and tripartite cooperation, as of 1 January 2014, 556 agreements were in force in the Republic (one general agreement, 46 sectoral wage agreements and 509 local agreements), and 18,119 collective agreements. The law of the Republic of Belarus does not restrict the rights of trade unions (irrespective of their membership) to take part in collective bargaining. By way of example, there are large enterprises in our country, such as “Belaruskalii” or the “Mozirsky Oil Refinery”, in which the parties to a collective agreement include both trade unions belonging to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and trade unions belonging to the Belarus Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP). One of the most important elements of cooperation in the social partnership system is the shared preparation of general agreements between the Government of the Republic of Belarus, the national employers’ associations and the trade unions. A general agreement regulates the most significant aspects of economic and social policy: the criteria for the living standards of workers and their families, and the policy on wages, employment, pensions and benefits. In addition, a general agreement contains provisions for the development of social partnership and for contributing to the collective bargaining process. Beginning with the general agreement that was concluded for 2006–08, it is specified that such an agreement applies to all employers (and employers’ associations), trade unions (and their federations) and workers in the Republic of Belarus. Accordingly, both trade union federations (the FPB and the BKDP), regardless of their representative character, can enjoy the guarantees provided in the general agreement. In line with a decision by the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI), work was in progress in Belarus in the second half of 2013 on drafting the new General Agreement for 2014–15. All the trade union federations and employers’ associations took part in its drafting. The General Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the national employers’ associations and trade union federations for the period 2014–15 was signed on 30 December 2013. With regard to the application of the law governing the receipt of foreign assistance, the arrangements for receiving and using foreign assistance in the Republic of Belarus were laid down in Decree No. 24 of 28 November 2003 of the President of the Republic, “on receiving and using foreign assistance”. This Decree does not prohibit the receipt by trade unions of foreign assistance, including assistance from international trade unions. The Decree defines the conditions (purposes) of using such assistance, and also provides that it must be registered in the established manner. However, the procedure for registering foreign assistance granted free of charge is not complicated, and does not take long to carry out. From 2010 until the end of the first half of 2013, the receipt of foreign assistance was registered in the Department for Humanitarian Affairs of the Office of the President of the Republic. It must be emphasized that for the whole of the period in which Decree No. 24 has been in force, there has not been one instance of trade unions being refused registration of foreign assistance.

On the basis of its consideration of the question of Belarus in June 2013, during the 102nd Session of the International Labour Conference, the Committee on the Application of Standards invited the Government of the Republic of Belarus to accept a direct contacts mission “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 Government of the Republic of Belarus accepted the Committee`s proposal and took the necessary steps to enable the direct contacts mission to carry out its tasks in full. The direct contacts mission visited the Republic of Belarus from 27 to 31 January 2014. The mission met with the Republic’s Council of Ministers, the Administration of the President of the Republic, the Office of the Procurator-General of the Republic, and the Ministries of Labour and Social Protection, Justice and Foreign Affairs. The views of the Government were supported by the social partners, who also showed considerable interest and held their own constructive and fruitful meetings with the mission. The direct contacts mission paid special attention to the work of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. The mission held a meeting with the members of the Council, during which all the parties represented on it emphasized its importance as a necessary forum to enable all those involved to express their opinion and make proposals for resolving current problems. None of those on the Council expressed any doubt of the usefulness and necessity of this tripartite body. As the outcome of the work in Minsk, the direct contacts mission suggested pursuing a number of future options which, in its view, should enable the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry to be implemented. The Government of the Republic of Belarus, together with the social partners, is conducting an active dialogue with the International Labour Office on the organization of measures to implement the proposals of the mission. It has now been agreed to hold a seminar on 10–11 July 2014 to study international experience of the work of tripartite bodies (with a view to increasing the potential of the Council on the improvement of legislation in social and employment matters). In addition, the International Labour Office has prepared a “roadmap” for the accomplishment in 2014 of the remaining measure on: collective bargaining; dispute resolution and mediation; and instructing judges, prosecutors and lawyers in the application of international labour standards. All the measures will be carried out on a tripartite basis, with the participation of all those involved.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative said that the direct contacts mission had had a positive effect on the strengthening of constructive relationships between the Government and the social partners and had facilitated a number of steps to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry made in 2004. The Government was profoundly convinced that the development of social dialogue, tripartism and the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining was only possible with joint and constructive interactions between the Government, employers’ and workers’ organizations. The implementation of many of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry required a complex approach and involved work over a longer period. For this purpose, it was necessary to take into account the views of all interested parties, which was why the Government had proposed the establishment of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which had been supported by the social partners, both at the national and international levels, and by the ILO. The Council was composed of trade union representatives of both the FPB and the BKDP and provided a basic forum for carrying out mutually agreed steps and recommendations. In the Council, questions concerning registration, dismissals, collective bargaining and other issues had been discussed. However, the adoption of decisions was a complex process. Each party had their own vision of the problems and their solutions and, as a result, not all of the decisions adopted were understood as optimal solutions by everyone. Despite having made some criticisms, the trade unions had never been called into question and had been perceived positively. The Council permitted enhanced interactions between the interested parties and their active participation in discussions, in a spirit of social dialogue. Problems were discussed and participants had often adopted decisions on an agreed basis. This had also promoted constructive cooperation between the parties in other areas, such as the regular conclusion of general agreements between the Government and the trade unions concerning important issues, for instance in relation to standards of living, wages, pensions and other benefits. On 30 December 2013, a new general agreement for 2014–15 had been concluded with the participation of the FPB and the BKDP, which was applicable to all employers and workers, regardless of their level of representativity. The Council had a special role to play in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. During the direct contacts mission in January, the ILO experts had also held meetings with members of the Council. Discussions on further improvements of the activities of the Council had been held. The Council was of high importance, as it gave all interested parties the possibility to express their views and solve problems, and its usefulness had never been called into question. The good relationship between the Government and the social partners was a direct result of a consistent policy of implementing trade union pluralism. As a result of the work of the direct contacts mission, there had been proposals concerning some promising outlets in the future, with a view to the further implementation of the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry, including for the improvement of legislation and collective bargaining processes through the enhancement of the potential of the social partners, the training of judges, public prosecutors and other public representatives in the area of freedom of association. The proposals had been made in the course of the direct contacts mission in the Tripartite Council, and had been supported by the Government and the representatives of the social partners. The Ministry of Labour had received from all the trade unions and employers an expression of their interest and readiness to implement the proposals. The Government was carrying out effective dialogue with the ILO to organize events aimed at improving and implementing these proposals, among others, to improve the potential of the Council in the future. The Government fully respected the principles of the ILO, and appreciated the cooperation with the ILO, including the work of the direct contacts mission in January to further improve the situation and implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government was aware of the interest of the ILO in trying to help the Government and the social partners bring about a solution and for the further development of social dialogue and tripartism. The implementation of the proposals made during the direct contacts mission would certainly pave the way for further progress.

The Worker members observed that the case, which was being examined because of the Committee of Experts’ double footnote, was still about the violation of the fundamental right of the workers of Belarus to organize and of their trade unions to conduct their affairs. Legal obstacles to the establishment of new organizations were still in force, in the form of provisions regarding their legal address, and of a requirement that their members comprise at least 10 per cent of the companies’ workers. In 2013, the Government had indicated that those provisions were to be amended, but nothing had happened since then. On the contrary, it was no longer considered to be a priority. Meanwhile, the Government was making it more and more difficult for trade unions to register, with the result that newly constituted organizations were completely discouraged from registering. Moreover, in addition to the fact that unions not affiliated to the official trade union federation continued to encounter difficulties, the generalized system that had been introduced of resorting to fixed-term contracts, which served as a means of bringing pressure to bear on the members of independent trade unions, who ran the risk of not having their contracts renewed. In addition, independent unions were systematically denied the right to demonstrate and hold peaceful meetings in defence of the workers’ interests; and the provision of assistance free of charge by international workers’ or employers’ organizations not only required prior authorization, but was also greatly restricted. For years the Government had failed to send the Committee of Experts any information on amendments to the provisions governing the registration of trade unions, free international aid, mass collective action or the right of unions to organize their activities freely. Nor had it provided any information on cases of the refusal of registration or authorization to demonstrate. The plan drawn up with the participation of the ILO and of the social partners in 2009 had not been implemented, and the country’s Tripartite Council served no real purpose at all. As a result, the Committee of Experts had been obliged to note the total absence of progress.

The Committee had already examined the measures taken by the Government to comply with the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations on eight occasions, had also noted the lack of progress in 2013 and had decided to include Belarus in a special paragraph of its report. According to the report of the direct contacts mission in January 2014, the Government had indicated that it was aware of its international obligations, but that the country’s interests also had to be taken into account and that some of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations were no longer relevant. The mission had indicated that, even if some recommendations had been implemented, after ten years the underlying problems had still not been resolved, as free and independent trade union activities could not be conducted at every level, and workers could not join independent unions for fear of losing their jobs. The direct contacts mission had therefore concluded unequivocally that, although the union rights situation had evolved, there had been no fundamental change and no notable progress in the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry recommendations. According to the Worker members, the situation was ever worsening. For instance, the Secretary-General of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BNP) regional organization in Soligorsk had been arrested and fined for infringing the law on collective action, whereas she had merely met up with some of her fellow workers near the enterprise on the way to work. Independent trade unions continued to suffer discrimination. At a Bobrisk tractor factory the management had evicted the Belarus Free Trade Union (SPB) from its premises in the factory, despite the refusal of the regional economic tribunal to authorize such a measure. The leader of the trade union had been denied access to the enterprise despite the tribunal’s ruling that it constituted anti-union discrimination. He now had to be accompanied by two guards when entering the enterprise, but his union was no longer allowed to take part in collective bargaining and its members were threatened with dismissal. Given the situation, five workers had gone on a hunger strike. Consequently, the Worker members were very suspicious of the announcement by the President of Belarus of a plan to prohibit agricultural workers from leaving their place of work without official permission from the authorities, which could develop into a generalized use of forced labour.

The Employer members appreciated the positive and constructive tone of the Government. They were pleased that the Government had accepted a direct contacts mission and welcomed the explanation of the Government representative concerning some of the outcomes of the direct contacts mission and the follow-up measures that were to be adopted. The Employer members had not yet had the occasion to assess the information of the direct contacts mission, but looked forward to the assessment by the Committee of Experts. The majority of the information provided by the Government related to the Tripartite Council and they were pleased to hear that, according to the Government, as a result of this Council, cooperation between the Government and the social partners had improved. They also noted that promises had been made in relation to the direct contacts mission to further the implementation of the 2004 recommendations, which related to legislation, legislative processes and the training of judges on freedom of association principles. Convention No. 87 was a fundamental Convention, which had been ratified by the Government in 1956. The status of double footnote showed the seriousness that the Committee of Experts had attached to this case. The Employer members thought that it was important to note that a 2003 complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution had resulted in the 11 recommendations made by the 2004 Commission of Inquiry, which had called for free and independent trade unions to be able to play their proper role in the country’s social and economic development. In 2013, almost one decade later, the Committee of Experts had noted with regret that no new information with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been made. In 2013, the Government had indicated to the Conference Committee that no cases of registration had been refused and no trade unions had been charged with criminal or administrative offences in 2012. The Government had expressed its commitment to bringing its legislation into conformity with the Convention and to social dialogue, and had emphasized the positive role of the Tripartite Council since its operation in 2009, where several issues including freedom of association rights had been discussed. The Government had further stated that the Tripartite Council was best suited to making progress on legislative matters and had committed to amending Presidential Decree No. 2 as part of the required amendments.

At the 2013 discussion of the Conference Committee, the Employer members had welcomed the indication by the Government that the Tripartite Council had been operating since 2009, that the relations between the Government and the social partners had stabilized and that a number of collective agreements had been concluded. However, the Employer members had requested the Government to intensify its cooperation with the social partners and to avail itself of the expert advice and assistance of the ILO, and had supported the request by the Worker members that the Government should accept a direct contacts mission. In 2013, this had resulted in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report. In its conclusions, the Conference Committee had urged the Government to immediately take all the measures necessary to ensure that employers and workers could fully exercise their rights of freedom of expression and association. The Conference Committee expected detailed information on the proposed amendment to be provided to the Committee of Experts and had trusted that the Committee of Experts would be in a position to note significant progress in 2014. The 2013 observations of the Committee of Experts were a follow-up to these conclusions of the Conference Committee. In its latest observation, the Committee of Experts urged the Government to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 and to address the registration of trade unions in practice. The Committee of Experts noted with deep regret that no progress had been made with the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the application of the Convention in practice. The Employer members recalled that the case had been examined almost every year since 2001, and they had seemed to sense progress after 2007. They had appreciated the efforts made by the Government after that date. Now, however, the Employer members noted that, despite the opportunity to do so, it appeared that the Government had not provided information on the amendment to Presidential Decree No. 2, nor had it addressed the requirement of registration, and there also seemed to be a lack of information on the Act on Mass Activities and how this Act related to freedom of association, among other concerns. Furthermore, no information relating to measures regarding the amendment to the relevant section of the Labour Code appeared to have been provided. The Employer members wished to emphasize the obligation of the Government to provide additional information to the Committee of Experts regarding all these issues. In light of the 2013 conclusions of the Conference Committee and the observation of the Committee of Experts, now was the time when progress had to be intensified beyond what had been seen up to the present. They encouraged the Government to commit itself to the full and effective implementation of the 2004 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without further delay, taking into account the full participation of the social partners. They took the opportunity to indicate that they would be disappointed if progress were not intensified in the short term.

The Worker member of Belarus emphasized that the recommendations adopted ten years ago by the Commission of Inquiry had considerably helped in promoting the trade union movement and encouraging social partnership in Belarus. He paid tribute to the direct contacts mission that had taken place in January 2014, which had met all the parties concerned, and particularly the trade unions, without encountering any obstacles. It might be considered that all the recommendations made by the Conference Committee in 2013 had continued to be implemented, with ILO assistance. With regard to the legal provisions concerning the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement, it should be recalled that the rule applied to all trade unions without exception. Nonetheless, the FPB was open to the idea of attempting to do away with this requirement, despite the fact that it did not cause any real problems in Belarus. With regard to the recommendation concerning foreign financial aid, the FTUB opposed its implementation because it could cause problems for workers in the country. The direct contacts mission of January 2014 had found that five recommendations had been implemented, but this matter had not been raised during the Committee’s discussion. The FPB had organized a large demonstration on 1 May and all trade unions had participated in the preparation of the general agreement with the Government, which proved that the trade unions could operate freely in Belarus. It was undeniable that progress had been made by the Government. Finally, with regard to the allegations of forced labour, he said that they were not true and needed to be substantiated before they were made by any parties. The Employer member of Belarus considered that the measures taken by the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had helped to alleviate the seriousness of the issues under discussion. The situation regarding the observance of trade union rights had improved, as had been noted by the direct contacts mission in January 2014. The platform for social dialogue had been extended, the BKDP and the FPB were now participating in the implementation of the general agreement with the Government and in collective bargaining in enterprises. Employers in Belarus supported the principle of equal treatment for all trade unions. Cases of dismissal were handled within an established legal framework. Most allegations of anti-union dismissal had been rejected, although cases had been brought before the ILO arguing that the decisions handed down were unjust. Belarusian employers supported a discussion of these issues and of mutually beneficial solutions regarding objective criteria for the admissibility of complaints, but they recalled the proposal made in this regard by the Employer Vice-Chairperson to the November 2013 session of the Committee of Experts. The development of social dialogue depended on all the parties concerned, and it was undeniable that the authorities in Belarus, as well as the employers and trade unions, had endeavoured to give effect to the principles contained in the ILO Constitution, such as a guaranteed wage, decent living and working conditions, and combating unemployment. The meetings which had taken place with the direct contacts mission had paved the way for constructive dialogue. Belarusian employers were in favour of holding a seminar, with ILO assistance, to gather the experiences of other countries with regard to collective bargaining and trade union pluralism. Lastly, account should be taken of objective indicators to illustrate the positive dynamic in the development of labour and employment relations in Belarus and decisions should be taken in the interests of both workers and employers.

A representative of the European Union (EU), speaking on behalf of the EU and the Governments of Albania, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine, said that the EU attached great importance to its relations with Belarus and remained gravely concerned about the lack of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. He welcomed the fact that an ILO direct contacts mission had managed to visit Minsk and met with stakeholders from both governmental and non-governmental sides, but remained gravely concerned that the mission had shown that there had been no fundamental change or significant progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry. In this context, he recalled that the failure of Belarus to implement the recommendations had led to its suspension in 2007 from the EU Generalized System of Preferences, which was still effective. He asserted that the development of bilateral relations under the Eastern Partnership was conditional on the progress of Belarus towards respecting the principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and indicated the EU’s willingness to assist Belarus in meeting its obligations in this regard and that it would continue to closely monitor the situation in the country. He called on the Belarus authorities to eliminate the obstacles to trade union registration, which hindered the establishment and functioning of trade unions in practice, and particularly the requirements imposed by Decree No. 2 of January 1999 on the legal address and the minimum membership of 10 per cent of the workforce. He also urged the Government to provide the information requested by the Committee of Experts, notably concerning the refusal to authorize the holding of demonstrations and the restrictions imposed by the Act on Mass Activities, and to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, which was essential in ensuring that workers’ and employers’ organizations could benefit from international assistance. He urged the Government to intensify its efforts to implement the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry, in cooperation with all concerned social partners. He also encouraged the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), (President of the Belarusian BKDP), said that in the ten years since the Commission of Inquiry had formulated its recommendations, Belarus had become one of the worst places in the world for the rights of workers and the social partners, particularly due to dismissals and reprisals. Presidential Decree No. 2 had made it impossible for trade unions to develop, union activists were immediately dismissed and workers were threatened unless they returned to state-supporting unions. He emphasized that the State had huge legal and administrative resources which left no chance for worker and union rights to be protected and had denied them the right to picket or participate in 1 May demonstrations for many years. He asserted that the Presidential Decree had created a system of modern-day slavery and, as the direct contacts mission had been able to note, State efforts were all directed towards this. He maintained that since the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been ignored, it was essential for the ILO to send a clear message to the Government in order to ensure the return to trade union rights and to put an end to discrimination and forced labour.

The Government member of Canada recalled that in 2013 Canada had expressed grave concerns at the overall situation of human rights, including labour rights, in Belarus. His Government was still disturbed by continued reports of numerous violations of the Convention, including interference by the authorities in the activities of trade unions and continued barriers to the registration of independent unions. Canada recognized that the Government of Belarus had improved its degree of cooperation with the ILO supervisory bodies by facilitating a direct contacts mission, which had reported to the last session of the Governing Body in March 2014, but which had been unable, in the same way as this year’s report by the Committee of Experts, to report significant progress on any follow-up to the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry. His Government therefore urged the Government of Belarus to take the necessary measures to address these serious allegations and to make a real effort to eliminate violations of trade unions rights, including the right of workers to participate in peaceful protests to defend their occupational interests. The Canadian Government also called on the Belarus Government to follow-up on the 2004 Commission of Inquiry recommendations and to fully cooperate with the ILO, while respecting its obligations under the Convention.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation indicated that he was an adviser to his Government and had participated in efforts to form a customs union in the Urals. He noted the agreement between the Governments of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation and the involvement of workers in those efforts. There were two trade unions representing the Russian Federation at the International Labour Conference, which had different histories and membership, among other things, but which had a shared perspective on what was happening in Belarus. He regretted the failure to make headway and that workers’ opportunities to make progress in the area of collective bargaining were diminishing. In the tripartite conference held under the auspices of the ILO and with the participation of the ITUC and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), there had been hope of progress, but those expectations had come to nothing. He recalled that the case had been dealt with at the 2013 session of the International Labour Conference. The case concerned a common forum for workers in the Urals to discuss legislation, workers’ rights, etc. Workers in that forum had called on the Government of Belarus to end the violations of workers’ rights and, as a result of the direct contacts mission, certain measures had been adopted, but no further progress had been made. He considered that ILO assistance should be based on the steps taken by Belarus and requested the Conference Committee to take them into account. He concluded by referring to a recent statement by the President of Belarus in which he had considered plans to reintroduce a right of serfdom in agriculture.

The Government member of China noted the strengthened cooperation between Belarus and the ILO since June 2011, which had led to progress regarding the application of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Particular mention should be made to the easing of the minimum requirements with respect to the exercise of trade union rights, signing tripartite and wage agreements, and undertaking a direct contacts mission. The member States which had ratified ILO Conventions were obliged to implement them and the measures taken by Belarus with a view to applying the Convention should therefore be taken into consideration. In that context, cooperation with the ILO should continue.

The Worker member of Finland, speaking on behalf of the Worker members of the Nordic countries, recalled the tradition of trade union pluralism in the Nordic countries, where the trade unions represented 9 million workers, and the strategic partnership between the BKDP and the Baltic Sea Trade Union Network (BASTUN), which had existed since 2006. This network consisted of representatives of 22 democratic trade union confederations around the Baltic Sea region. The Government had only partially implemented the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry in 2004, without any significant progress being made. Belarusian workers faced obstacles to union registration, and intimidation and pressure when they wanted to join unions. Workers were afraid to lose fixed-term contracts when joining unions. The other repressive legislation in force consisted of the Act on Mass Activities and the legislation concerning foreign gratuitous aid, which were not in conformity with the Convention and could be used against independent trade union activities. She urged the Government to implement effectively all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as the right to organize freely went hand in hand with true democracy.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated that the measures taken by Belarus represented considerable progress with respect to the discussions which had previously taken place within the Committee. She was convinced that dialogue would continue to be strengthened, and had already resulted in the full recognition of trade union rights, the improved registration of trade unions and the development of collective agreements and general agreements, in particular the general agreement for 2014–15, which was designed to encourage collective bargaining and dialogue. The acceptance of the direct contacts mission showed good faith on the part of the Government and dialogue had started with the social partners on the mission’s conclusions. The Committee’s conclusions should emphasize the progress and commitments of the Government in relation to compliance with the Convention.

The Worker member of Sudan recalled the various discussions concerning Belarus that had been held over previous years in the Committee and noted the many activities recently carried out by the country’s tripartite partners. The number of trade unions, which represented over 4 million members, was on the rise. Trade union pluralism was a reality, as demonstrated by the existence of trade union federations with different points of view, which allowed them to cooperate by means of social dialogue. Certain aspects of labour law had been revised, particularly relating to the minimum wage. The initiatives taken by the Government were encouraging and deserved to be supported in the future.

The Government member of the Russian Federation noted the significant progress made with regard to the measures taken to ensure full compliance with the Convention and the views expressed by the FPB regarding the effect given to the majority of the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. The ILO direct contacts mission that had taken place in January 2014 had led to consultations with eminent bodies such as the Council of Ministers, the President’s Office and the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which clearly reflected the cooperative spirit of the Government to collaborate with the ILO. Substantive discussions had taken place to solve outstanding individual issues. Necessary conditions had been created to promote freedom of association and social dialogue, which was confirmed by the discussion in this Committee. The Tripartite Council was fully committed to improving labour legislation and all organizations representing Belarus workers and employers had taken part in the general agreement between the Government and the social partners for the period 2014–15. The tone of the Committee’s discussion was therefore artificially inflated, as many accusations against the Government were either unfounded or outdated. Constructive proposals now needed to be taken into account. The ILO should continue providing technical cooperation to resolve the outstanding matters with respect to the application of the Convention.

An observer representing the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) emphasized the achievements attained by the workers in the country with the strong and decisive intervention of the FPB. It should also be emphasized that, although the major European powers were experiencing widespread opposition to adjustments imposed by the EU, Belarus continued to grow and guarantee public health, social security and an unemployment rate of barely 1 per cent. This demonstrated the strength of a planned economy in which the State accepted its role and imposed rules and limits on monopolies. It was for this reason that the EU and the United States wanted to condemn Belarus and the discussion of the present case was merely a pretext. It was inadmissible that the efforts and positive changes achieved had not been recognized by the ILO and that the ILO criticized a country that should serve as an example. Meanwhile, no reference was made to the events in Ukraine, where an attack on trade unions had caused 200 serious injuries. She reaffirmed her complete confidence that Belarus would refuse any aggression similar to that taking place in Ukraine, especially since Belarus had signed the agreement setting up the Eurasian Economic Community with the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan, which would strengthen the integration of those countries. The Government member of the United States recalled the consistent message of the ILO supervisory bodies over the past decade that the Government should intensify its efforts to ensure the application of the Convention in law and practice, and to fully and immediately implement the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry. Although pleased that the Government had accepted the ILO direct contacts mission in January 2014, she noted that its findings were disappointing. Although the direct contacts mission had found that the trade union situation had evolved and some of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been implemented, many underlying issues that had been raised remained unresolved. New problems had arisen, and the direct contacts mission had concluded that no fundamental change or significant progress had been made. Workers in Belarus continued to encounter significant difficulties when trying to organize outside the existing trade union structure and lacked effective protection against anti-union discrimination and interference, which made genuine trade union pluralism impossible. She recalled her request made to the Government in the ILO Governing Body in March 2014 for it to engage in meaningful and sustained cooperation with the ILO aimed specifically at the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. She urged the Government to make good on its stated commitment to trade union pluralism and social dialogue in the country and to implement the suggestions made by the direct contacts mission.

The Government member of Cuba considered it positive that the Government had accepted the visit of a direct contacts mission and assistance from the ILO with a view to the effective implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Recognition should be given to the progress that had been made in strengthening social dialogue, improving the indicators relating to trade union registration, developing collective labour relations and tripartite cooperation, in particular the participation of the social partners in the drawing up of the general agreement for 2014–15 concluded at the end of 2013. The efforts made should be complemented by greater technical assistance from the ILO and support from other countries that were in a position to help, adopting a respectful approach of collaboration and dialogue that was conducive to genuine international cooperation. Furthermore, if the supervisory machinery was to contribute towards enhancing the culture of compliance with the Conventions, special attention had to be given to the need to take steps to prevent considerations not directly linked to the issues concerned from obstructing the cooperation and interchange that should take precedence within the Committee.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed his concern and interest in the workers’ situation in Belarus. The two countries maintained productive exchanges following the installation of Belarusian factories in his country and the training of Venezuelan workers in technology in Belarus. He therefore endorsed the position of the FPB and of other members of the Committee regarding the Government’s progress in applying the Convention. The participation of the social partners in the dialogue at the national level and with the ILO was a welcome development, and there was reason to hope that the situation would continue to improve.

The Worker member of Poland recalled the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry ten years ago and the hope raised by the acceptance by the Government of the direct contacts mission held in January 2014. She expressed her disappointment that the report of the direct contacts mission indicated that the Government did not intend to amend acts and decrees of crucial importance, and that obstacles to the registration of new workers’ organizations remained. Statements made by the Government indicating that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were outdated and should be reviewed in the light of the country’s realities, showed its unwillingness to implement any recommendations whatsoever. Since the direct contacts mission, realities in the country had become worse. The Government was expected to fulfil its outstanding obligations if it wanted to be taken seriously and obtain respect. Under the current conditions, permanent requests by the Government for ILO technical assistance without a simultaneous commitment to produce results were inappropriate and not justified. The Government should therefore stop benefitting from ILO technical assistance unless it guaranteed full and immediate implementation of all the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. If not, the possibility of applying other provisions of the ILO Constitution could be considered by the Committee. She also commented on a remark made by the Employer member of Belarus who had claimed that there was equal treatment of unions in Belarus. While employers negotiated with all trade unions, the final collective agreement was signed only by the most representative trade union, and thus in most cases only covered its members. This constituted an explicit example of anti-union discrimination and had nothing to do with equal treatment between trade unions.

The Government representative called for the discussion concerning the case in question to be carefully considered by the Committee and for its members to demonstrate greater objectivity with regard to the situation in his country. In that respect, the statement that respect for union rights continued to deteriorate was without grounds and the direct contacts mission had moreover indicated that the situation was improving. In addition, while there were differences between the interested parties concerning the number of recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry that had already been implemented, no one had disputed that some recommendations had been effectively applied. In all industrial relations systems, it was natural that tensions arose in certain enterprises and in that regard Belarus was no exception. However, the Government was in no way the source of those disputes and the allegations of interference were especially unfounded. Furthermore, while dismissals were carried out throughout the country, cases of anti-union dismissal were isolated and qualified for redress through both the courts and the Ministry of Labour. In that regard, it would also be helpful for the social partners to examine contentious cases in the Tripartite Council. It should also be noted that the conclusions of the direct contacts mission conducted from 27 to 31 January 2014 by experts in industrial relations had been supported by all the social partners. The Government and the social partners had undertaken work to implement them, particularly through seminars to facilitate the application of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Therefore, in respect of recommendations Nos 5 and 7 of the Commission of Inquiry, seminars on tripartite conflict resolution would contribute to the more efficient operation of the Tripartite Council; seminars for judges and members of the prosecution services would contribute to the application of recommendations Nos 4 and 8; and activities relating to collective bargaining within enterprises would allow relations between the social partners to be more effectively regulated and would contribute to the implementation of recommendations Nos 6 and 11. The full benefits of the practical application of the conclusions of the direct contacts mission would only be reaped, however, if all the social partners participated. In that regard, the BKDP had shown its inconsistency by being the only body to contest the holding of an international tripartite seminar on compliance with international labour standards. Lastly, the Government called on the Committee to support cooperation with all the social partners and the ILO, and reaffirmed its adherence to fundamental ILO principles, for the implementation of which it would take all the necessary measures.

The Worker members expressed their deep concern regarding the current case and shared the concerns of the BKDP on the following points: of the 12 recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry ten years ago, only three, one of which was of minor importance, had been implemented; the harassment endured by the independent trade unions had never stopped and had become more sophisticated; and state policy continued to prevent trade union pluralism and independent trade unions were sidelined. New organizations were no longer registered, the pervasive use of fixed-term contracts (through which current and potential independent trade union members were denied employment) impeded trade union affiliation, and the official trade union federation was being used as a tool to prevent the participation of independent trade unions in social dialogue and collective bargaining. The Government, for its part, claimed that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were no longer relevant, about which it would be interesting to ask the opinion of the Commission itself, and which reflected, above all, the lack of will by the Government to give them effect. Faced with that attitude, the Worker members called on the ILO to stand by its recommendations and asked the Government to finally implement them through the following actions: adapting legislation and regulations in force concerning, in particular the Decree on trade union registration, the Decree on foreign gratuitous aid, the Act on Mass Activities and the provisions in the Labour Code affecting the rights of trade unions to organize their activities in full freedom; assigning concrete responsibilities to the Tripartite Council, which should also be competent to deal with cases of anti-union discrimination and registration of trade unions; and increasing social national dialogue and collective bargaining with the full inclusion of independent trade unions. In those circumstances, the Government should send a detailed and comprehensive report to the Committee of Experts on the development of the situation for its next meeting in 2014. Lastly, the depth of concern expressed during the discussion meant that the Committee’s conclusions on the case should once again be included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

The Employer members thanked the Government for its submissions, noted the diversity of views heard, and reaffirmed the seriousness of the case regarding the application of the Convention in Belarus. In 2013, the Employer members had been optimistic about the developments that had taken place since 2007, and by the desire expressed by the Government to move forward on the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry in 2004. The Employer members had hoped to remain optimistic after the acceptance by the Government of the direct contacts mission held in January 2014. Progress related to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been noted, although it was very slow, despite the conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee in 2013 calling for progress in law and practice. They called on the Government to seize the opportunities following the direct contacts mission and to accelerate its efforts to achieve full compliance with the provisions of the Convention. They recalled the essential role of social dialogue, which should be continued in the framework of the Tripartite Council based on updated legislation. Full legislative compliance with the Convention should be complemented by intensified tripartite contacts and full participation of social partners, as well as ILO technical assistance. While looking forward to hearing from the Government on the efforts made to resolve the issues raised by the Commission of Inquiry, the Employer members did not oppose the inclusion of the Committee’s conclusions in a special paragraph of its report, as proposed by the Worker members.

Conclusions

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

The Committee took note of the comments of the Committee of Experts and of the report transmitted to the Governing Body in March 2014 of the direct contacts mission, 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 noted that in the light of the findings and concrete proposals formulated by the direct contacts mission, the Government has accepted ILO technical assistance to conduct a series of activities aimed at improving social dialogue and cooperation between the tripartite constituents at all levels, as well as enhancing knowledge and awareness of freedom of association rights. The Committee took note of the Government’s statement that these activities would contribute to the effective implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government considered, in particular, that: a seminar for the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere would improve its effectiveness and thus assist in addressing Recommendations Nos 5 and 7; training for judges, prosecutors and lawyers would assist in implementing Recommendations Nos 4 and 8; and an activity on collective bargaining would allow the elaboration of a set of guidelines on collective bargaining to ensure that trade union pluralism is respected in practice, thus addressing Recommendations Nos 6 and 12.

Noting the Government’s stated commitment to social dialogue and cooperation with the ILO, the Committee expressed the hope that these activities would give rise to concrete results. The Committee hoped, in particular, that the Tripartite Council would evolve into a forum where solutions could be found at the national level, including as regards cases of anti-union discrimination and issues relating to trade union registration. The Committee expected that amendments would be made to Presidential Decree No. 2 dealing with trade union registration, Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, the Law on Mass Activities and the Labour Code, in line with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee called upon the Government to continue engaging with the ILO, to intensify its cooperation with all the social partners in the country and to accelerate its efforts towards rapid and effective implementation of the outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee invited the Government to submit detailed information on the results of the abovementioned activities and all other measures taken to implement the outstanding recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year and trusted that it would be in a position to note significant progress with respect to all remaining matters at its next session.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of the report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2013, Publication: 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Government provided the following written information.

In recent years, relations between the social partners have substantially stabilized. As at 1 January 2013, 554 agreements (one general agreement, 47 sectoral wage agreements and 506 local agreements) and 18,351 collective agreements were in force in Belarus; at the various levels (national, sectoral, provincial, district and municipal), there were 319 councils for labour and social issues. In the last ten years, the number of agreements has increased by 50 per cent and the number of collective agreements by 40 per cent, while the number of councils has doubled.

All interested parties are involved in work on the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry, including the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) and employers’ associations. In this regard, it is particularly necessary to highlight the positive role played by the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter the Council), which has met twice in 2013, on 26 March and 30 May.

In 2012 there were no cases of trade unions being refused registration. There have been no instances in the Republic of Belarus of citizens being punished by being charged with administrative or criminal offences in respect of trade union activities. This issue is under special state supervision. All complaints are examined carefully. The results indicate that the cases of individual trade union activists being charged with administrative offences, to which the CDTU refers, are in no way connected with the trade union activities of the individuals concerned. With regard to the cases of Mr M. Kovalkov and Mr P. Stanevsky referred to by the CDTU, Mr Kovalkov was charged with an administrative offence and fined 35,000 Belarus rubles (around €3) for committing an administrative violation under section 18.14 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Belarus (failure to observe road traffic signals and breaking rules on carrying passengers). Mr Kovalkov was not held in administrative detention. Mr Stanevsky, according to information from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was in a public place near 38 Serdich Street (in Minsk) when he started being openly disrespectful to those around him and swearing obscenely at passers-by. Mr Stanevsky failed to react to repeated warnings from police officers and became aggressive. In order to put a stop to Mr Stanevsky’s unlawful actions, the police officers used force and special measures (handcuffs). On 21 April 2011, the Frunzensky district court in Minsk found Mr Stanevsky guilty of an administrative offence under section 17.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (petty hooliganism) and sentenced him to administrative detention for eight days.

With regard to trade union compliance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 24 “On receiving and using foreign direct aid” (28 November 2003), in 2012, the FPB and the Mogilev provincial organization of the Belarusian Agricultural Sector Workers’ Union (ASWU) registered foreign direct aid for social assistance amounting to US$23,031 with the Department of Humanitarian Activities of the Office of the President of the Republic of Belarus. There have been no instances of trade unions being refused registration of foreign direct aid. Thus, despite a number of unresolved disputes, recent years have seen a clear tendency towards stabilization in Belarus. Tension between the social partners has eased. There are still a significant number of controversial issues. It is obvious, however, that this is an integral part of the process of social dialogue, which is not free from disputes in any country.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus and the social partners are devoting the utmost attention to improving legislation, in line with the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. In this regard, at a meeting of the Council for Improving Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, held on 30 May 2013, the issue was raised of the need to abolish the requirement that at least 10 per cent of the total number of workers in an enterprise was needed to found a trade union, during discussion of the measures being taken in the country to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and suggestions for further work. This requirement is contained in Presidential Decree No. 2 “On various measures to regulate the activities of political parties, trade unions and other public associations” of 29 January 1999 (hereinafter “Decree No. 2”). The Council supported the proposal made by the Government that it would be appropriate to exclude this provision from Decree No. 2 and instructed the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, in its capacity as secretariat to the Council, to inform the Government of the Republic of Belarus accordingly so that the necessary action could be taken. The Ministry of Labour and Social Protection transmitted this suggestion to the Cabinet on 4 June 2013. A definite step has thus been taken towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in terms of improving legislation on registering trade unions. It should be emphasized that the Government of Belarus is open to dialogue and the discussion of all problematic issues with the social partners and the ILO. In this regard, the Government of Belarus would favour holding a seminar, in conjunction with the social partners and the ILO, on developing social dialogue in the Republic of Belarus, at which future steps towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry should be identified. The Government of Belarus has repeatedly suggested such a seminar to the ILO, and also to the social partners within the framework of the Council for Improving Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative, referring to the written information provided concerning the application of the Convention, wished to add that trade unions were the most important organizations in society and represented 90 per cent of the economically active population. Her Government supported and applied the principles of trade union pluralism. The right of every person to join any trade union without prior authorization, provided that they respected the union’s by-laws, was guaranteed in law. The two trade union federations operating in the country were the FPB and the CDTU. They participated in social dialogue and advisory bodies and in the preparation and conclusion of collective agreements. Unions, whether large or small, could take part in collective bargaining, as demonstrated by bargaining in two large enterprises, where the two organizations had been involved in preparing the collective agreement. The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry provided guidance for the Government and the social partners with the aim of developing constructive cooperation. A positive trend had been seen in recent years, with no cases in 2012 of a trade union being refused registration. The Government paid particular attention to issues relating to the non interference by enterprise managers in the internal affairs of trade unions, irrespective of the size or affiliation of trade unions. The Trade Unions Act was a guarantee of trade unions independence in exercising their prerogatives, and any violation in that regard involved liability to criminal sanctions. If it was so provided for in a collective agreement, the law authorized an employer to work with trade unions to regulate certain matters.

With regard to social dialogue, the positive role played by the tripartite Council, which had been operating in its new format since 2009, should be emphasized. It consisted of seven members from each of the three sides, including representatives of the FPB and the CDTU. The Council functioned as an independent body, founded on the principle of pluralism and providing a forum in which each party could propose topical issues for inclusion on the agenda concerning the right to freedom of association, with a view to resolving them. The meetings held in 2013 had taken into account the proposals made by the FPB and the CDTU. The FPB’s proposal to amend legislation on the conclusion of collective agreements had resulted in the creation of a tripartite working group that had been asked to make proposals in that regard. For its part, the CDTU had asked for the situation at the enterprise Granit to be discussed. The meetings had provided an opportunity for a constructive exchange of views and had again demonstrated the complexity of the current situation. Amending legislation was not a straightforward process, as it required balanced solutions to be found that were acceptable to all parties. Nevertheless, the Government realized that it was necessary to make progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on legislative matters. The tripartite Council was the body best suited to do that. It had examined the issues at its last meeting, on 30 May 2013, at which it had supported the Government’s proposal to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 by revoking the requirement for a minimum of 10 per cent of workers in an enterprise to establish a trade union. The Government and the social partners now needed ILO support to hold a tripartite seminar on developing social dialogue and tripartism. It had been proposed by the Government in 2011, but it had not yet proved possible to organize, as the CDTU was opposed to holding a seminar with the participation of the ILO. Such a seminar could, however, make a useful contribution to the development of social dialogue in Belarus, in the same way as the 2009 Minsk seminar, organized jointly by the ILO, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), had done in enabling the creation of the tripartite Council.

The Government respected the principles on which the ILO was founded and the procedures relating to international labour standards. It also greatly appreciated the cooperation with the ILO, which had often helped to bring the parties closer together. The Government was open to dialogue and ready to discuss any problematic issues. It was fully aware of the fact that it had not yet fully carried out the tasks set out in the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It therefore did not wish to delay, but would make all the necessary efforts to develop constructive relations with the social partners and cooperation with the ILO.

The Worker members said that it was discouraging to have to discuss once again a case on which the Committee of Experts had been commenting for over 20 years concerning the failure to comply with Convention No. 87 and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Conference Committee had also adopted a number of conclusions in view of the Government’s failure to intensify its efforts to ensure that freedom of association and civil liberties were fully ensured. Numerous complaints had also been made to the Committee on Freedom of Association. In 2003, a complaint under article 26 of the Constitution had resulted in a Commission of Inquiry, the report of which contained 11 recommendations calling, inter alia, for free and independent trade unions to be able to play their proper role in the country’s social and economic development. In 2010, when the situation in Belarus, in relation to the Convention, had been examined, the Conference Committee had noted a number of apparently positive developments involving the Council and the registration of some trade unions. At the time, the Conference Committee had nevertheless regretted that there had been no concrete proposals to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 on trade union registration, the Act on Mass Activities or Presidential Decree No. 24 on the use of foreign gratuitous aid, as requested by the Commission of Inquiry. In 2011, the Conference Committee had again discussed Belarus in the context of Convention No. 98 and had noted with regret new allegations of interference in trade union activities, pressure and harassment. It had expressed its concern that the determination of trade union representativeness could not be meaningful until the Government first put in place the necessary measures to ensure full respect for freedom of association for all workers, and guarantees for the registration of freely chosen workers’ organizations and the promotion of their right to collective bargaining. The European Union (EU) had also voiced its concern at the failure of Belarus to respect human rights and had emphasized the need to put a stop to the harassment of members of the opposition and civil society and decided to take restrictive measures so as to maintain the pressure on the country at least until October 2013. Because the rights guaranteed by Conventions Nos 87 and 98 were human rights, Belarus would have to respect them before those restrictions could be lifted.

They noted the Employer members had emphasized, that in 2012, the Government had been unwilling to send a report of its own accord in response to the many observations made by the Committee of Experts. This year’s report again contained no new information concerning the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in 2004. The Committee on Freedom of Association had also expressed its deep concern at the Government’s lack of cooperation. The situation was therefore deteriorating after the glimmer of hope that had emerged from the discussion in 2010. There was a lack of willingness to cooperate with the ILO and there was more of a tendency to destroy independent trade unionism.

The request to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 on the registration of trade unions and its implementing regulations had not been welcomed by the Government, thereby perpetuating the minimum threshold of 10 per cent of the workforce. Under the new interpretation of paragraph 3 of Decree No. 2, other obstacles seemed to be raised for registration, the right of trade unions to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration. Other cases should also be noted. The management of the Granit enterprise had refused, in violation of the Convention, to grant the legal address required by Presidential Decree No. 2 to a new first-level organization, the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU); registration had been denied to independent trade unions, such as the Razam Union and Delta Style, and the leaders of the independent trade unions in several enterprises had all been dismissed; the CDTU had referred a case to the National Council of Labour and Social Issues concerning the refusal to register a first-level union in light of the 10 per cent membership threshold, even though the rule requiring a minimum of 10 per cent of the workforce was not applicable to first-level unions; temporary employment contracts were being used systematically to exert greater control over workers in order to obstruct the development of independent unions; and practices tantamount to forced labour existed in the wood processing industry.

The Worker members emphasized that the case merited the Committee’s full attention since both the credibility of the ILO supervisory mechanisms and respect for the workers who belonged to independent trade unions were at stake. The EU, which had expressed its dismay with regard to the issues under discussion, was also concerned by the work of the Committee, which should take a firm stand regarding the Government’s obligation to intensify its efforts to ensure that freedom of association and respect for civil liberties were fully guaranteed in law and practice.

The Employer members recalled that when the present case had been discussed by the Committee in 2007, they had noted an apparent change in the attitude of the Government towards the issues raised. On that occasion, the Government had recognized that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry did not need to be adjusted to national conditions, had dropped the legislative proposals that went in the wrong direction, and had instituted social dialogue. Following the discussion of the case in 2010, the Employer members had considered that the Government had been cooperating with the ILO and that there was a positive social dialogue process. However, they had noted that much still needed to be done as fundamental legislative issues had not yet been addressed. Although the Government was faced with the diverging interests of employers and workers, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry addressed issues relating to anti-union discrimination and the registration of trade unions. At that time, it had then been the opinion of the Employer members that it was time for the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in law and practice.

The Employer members noted that the most recent comments by the Committee of Experts consisted of a follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, although they wished to recall that the Committee of Experts had made comments on provisions of the Labour Code dealing with the right to strike, even though there was no consensus in the Conference Committee that the right to strike was recognized under Convention No. 87. The position of the Employer members on that issue had been stated clearly during this year’s discussion of the General Survey and the General Report of the Committee of Experts, and it was their view that those points could not be reflected in the conclusions of the Conference Committee. The Committee of Experts had noted with regret that the Government’s report contained no new information on the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry or the requests made by the Conference Committee. The Committee of Experts had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2, to eliminate the obstacles to trade union registration, although no information had been provided in that respect. The Employer members expressed deep concern at the failure of the Government to provide information concerning the status of Presidential Decree No. 2 and therefore assumed that no tangible measures had been taken for its amendment. However, they welcomed the indication by the Government representative that the tripartite Council had been operating again since 2009, that the relations between the social partners had stabilized and that a number of collective agreements had been concluded. They also noted that there had been no cases of the refusal to register trade unions in 2012 and that the Government had indicated an openness to enter into dialogue with the social partners and the ILO, as well as suggesting the holding of a seminar which could examine future measures to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Employer members noted with deep regret that it appeared that no substantial progress had been made in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. They therefore urged the Government to take the necessary steps, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that freedom of association was guaranteed in law and practice. They called upon the Government to intensify its cooperation with the social partners for that purpose and to avail itself of the expert advice and assistance of the ILO. It was also imperative for the Government to provide a report on the measures implemented. They regretted to note that the progress hoped for, when the case had last been addressed by the Conference Committee, had not been achieved and emphasized that it was now time to move from words to action. They hoped to be able to note changes in the situation in the immediate future.

The Employer member of Belarus indicated that progress had been made with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, particularly with regard to the national legislation, including more detailed regulations regarding the relations between the social partners. He referred to the equal treatment of all trade unions by employers; the eligibility for collective bargaining of all trade unions, including the CDTU; and the coverage of all workers by the law on unjustified dismissal irrespective of their membership in a particular trade union. Trade unions were being actively involved in the improvement of legislation in the National Council on Labour and Social Issues, and had participated in the development and implementation of the national policy on wages and working conditions. He considered that social dialogue was now systematically applied in the country and indicated that further technical assistance would contribute to a better understanding of social dialogue. In the current conditions and the problems the country was facing, sanctions were not justified. He would therefore welcome the decision of the United States Labor Department and the European Union to lift sanctions. Referring to the cooperation project “Eastern Partnership” he hoped for the normalization in the relationship between Belarus and the European Union. The Employers recognized that the 10 per cent threshold to establish a union was an issue, and indicated that a decision should be made taking into account the interests of both employers and workers. He requested a realistic assessment by the Committee concerning the development of social dialogue in the country.

The Worker member of Belarus recalled that the ILO had been making recommendations with regard to freedom of association in Belarus for almost ten years now, and the Government had been working on them constantly. He indicated that the FPB had more than 4 million members, which was almost half of the population of the country and could not be compared to very small unions. While in 2002, neither social dialogue nor collective agreements had existed, more than 550 wage agreements and more than 18,000 collective agreements were now in force in the country. However, despite invitations from the FPB, other trade unions participated very little in collective bargaining. In order to defend the interests of workers and the population, the FPB was working with the Government to further its claims, particularly in terms of employment creation and social protection. He drew attention to the similarities between several elements of the ILO Director-General’s Report and the action of the FPB, and expressed surprise at the criticisms that had been levelled at his Federation by the smaller unions in the country on the pretext that it had achieved wage increases in some sectors only. The Worker member spoke out against the sanctions the EU had imposed on several bodies in Belarus. Those measures were harmful, particularly for the well-being of the population. He highlighted the fact that the ILO and the EU were radically different institutions and any confusion in that regard should be avoided. He then stated that ten of the 12 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had already been implemented and that the Government was currently working on the 10 per cent membership threshold required to form a union in an enterprise. Turning to the general issue of the registration of unions, he noted that the issue had been discussed for ten years and was no longer on the agenda. As illustrated by the fact that there were 45,000 private enterprises solely in Minsk which did not require a legal address to create a trade union organization, although small trade unions not affiliated to FPB did not use this opportunity, though they had such right. He also asked the Conference Committee to support the efforts being made by the Government, and supported the proposal of the Government to organize a meeting in Minsk, which would provide the opportunity to address the issues that still had to be discussed.

A representative of the European Union, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Croatia, Iceland, Montenegro, Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Norway, indicated that they remained gravely concerned about the lack of respect for human rights, democracy and rule of law in Belarus. Democracy could not exist without freedom of expression, opinion, assembly and association. They called on the Government to cooperate fully with the ILO to provide information on the follow-up given to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to eliminate obstacles to trade union registration, in particular the requirements imposed by Decree No. 2. Necessary measures had to be taken in consultation with the social partners, so as to ensure that the right to organize was effectively guaranteed. Presidential Decree No. 9, signed on 7 December 2012, which prevented the employees in the wood-processing sector from resigning unilaterally until the end of the modernization of their companies, was concerning. Also the legislation that further restricted the Belarusian citizens’ freedom of assembly gave raise to great concern and any penalization or discrimination against those exercising their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly had to be ended. They requested the authorities to amend or repeal legislation not in conformity with the right of workers to organize, in line with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry made in 2004. The speaker expressed the commitment of the countries on behalf of which he spoke to a policy of critical engagement, including through dialogue and participation in the Eastern Partnership, and recalled that the development of bilateral relations under the Eastern Partnership was conditional on progress towards respect by Belarus for the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. They were willing to assist the Government to meet its obligations in this regard and would continue to monitor closely the situation in the country.

The Employer member of Uzbekistan considered that significant progress had been made with the strengthening of social dialogue in accordance with ILO standards, for instance through the conclusion of collective agreements in all sectors and the registration of the CDTU. The technical assistance provided by the ILO had proved beneficial in this regard. He insisted that sanctions undermined social partnerships and were unacceptable, not suitable to solve the problems, and only exacerbated the situation for workers and enterprises. Constructive dialogue should be continued.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) emphasized that in Belarus state control over the trade union movement was total and it was impossible to establish independent trade unions. He cited several examples of mass dismissals of workers who had taken part in the formation of trade unions, and those practices had subsequently been endorsed by the courts. Administrative sanctions were also used as a means of pressure without provoking any response from the public prosecutor. Moreover, work meetings aimed at expressing solidarity during the 1 May celebrations had been banned. In more general terms, the mechanisms for implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been used in a manipulative way and the real issues had not been tackled at all. The observer hoped that the ILO would persist in its efforts to ensure that freedom of association would finally be respected in Belarus. The defenders of freedom had to pay a very high price in Belarus but no price could be put on democracy.

The Government member of the Russian Federation stated that the report submitted and the statements made by the Government were comprehensive and showed its commitment to cooperate and maintain a dialogue with the ILO. He understood that the Council of Ministers of Belarus was currently considering proposals for the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 2, particularly with a view to abolishing the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement for the registration of trade unions. The allegations of numerous violations, harassment, denial of registration and arrest were not supported by facts. He was also surprised by the fact that the Committee of Experts had not taken into account the explanations of the Government with regard to the situation in the two enterprises mentioned in the Committee of Experts’ report. His Government called on this Committee to strive for an objective and unbiased assessment of the situation with regard to the implementation of ILO Conventions.

The Government member of Cuba stated that ILO technical cooperation had played a key role, making a tangible contribution to the implementation of the Convention. There had been progress in social dialogue, as illustrated by the increase over the previous ten years in the number of collective agreements and the fact that in 2012, no cases had been submitted concerning the denial of trade union registration. The Government, together with the social partners, attributed great importance to improving the legislation, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Recently, there had been specific proposals and measures in that regard, particularly on registering trade unions. Her Government welcomed the Government’s willingness and its efforts to maintain constructive relations, social dialogue and to work in close cooperation with the ILO, and called for the continuation of technical assistance in order to achieve the objectives established by the Convention.

The Government member of Canada indicated that his Government was gravely concerned by the overall situation of human rights, including labour rights, in Belarus. His Government was disturbed by continued reports of numerous violations of the Convention, including interference by the authorities in the activities of trade unions, arrests and detention of members of independent trade unions, anti-union dismissals, threats and harassment. His Government urged the Government to take the necessary measures to address these serious allegations and to make a real effort to eliminate violations of trade union rights, including the right of workers to participate in peaceful protests to defend their occupational interests, in their country. His Government was also gravely concerned by the very minimal degree of cooperation exhibited by the Government with the supervisory bodies of the ILO. The Government was failing to provide follow-up information to the 2004 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The observations of the Committee of Experts also detailed numerous other instances where the Government had failed to provide responses or had failed to cooperate in other ways. Cooperation with the ILO supervisory mechanisms was a critical component of good faith membership in the Organization. His Government urged the Government to respect its obligations and to cooperate fully with the ILO.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation stated that freedom of association could not be freely exercised in Belarus. The close ties between the two countries allowed Russian trade unions access to reliable information sources revealing police pressure, mass dismissal of union leaders and an absence of social dialogue. Furthermore, there had been reports of some instances of forced labour. He regretted that a kind of feudal system still existed in the heart of Europe and that the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations remained empty words. He said that a proper system to monitor the situation should be put in place and requested the Government to present concrete evidence which might refute the ongoing allegations of violations of the Convention.

The Government member of China indicated that the issue of trade union registration improved every year and that no complaint in this regard had been presented in 2012; Decree No. 2 should be applied. She stressed the important role of the Council and requested that the Government’s efforts to implement fully the Convention be supported in the context of technical assistance.

The Worker member of Poland considered that no progress had been made towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and improving the application of the Convention. She regretted to inform the Committee of new cases of violations of trade unions rights which had occurred in several companies. The violations of trade union rights included the denial to register the independent unions, harassment and dismissal of new union leaders and activists, interference in the union activities, excluding the independent trade unions from collective bargaining, the denial of the right to run meetings and manifestations, and prosecuting trade union leaders under criminal pretexts. In addition, the existing legislation was also being used against workers and members of the independent trade unions, as illustrated by the difficulties encountered by the newly established independent union at the Granit Company in Mikashevichi to register and pursue claims of reinstatement of their leaders who had been dismissed on the basis of the provisions of the Labour Code. The requirement of a legal address and the 10 per cent threshold for trade union registration were some of the main obstacles for the independent trade unions to act freely. From the reports of the Committee of Experts and the statements made by the Government, it could be concluded that no concrete, effective measures had been taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government’s declarations on social dialogue were empty and improved in no way the situation of workers and independent trade unions. The Government’s declarations should be reflected in concrete actions. She recalled that freedom of association could not be fully exercised in a context in which civil liberties were not respected. She was therefore convinced that the Government should first introduce a system which guaranteed and would respect such civil liberties for all. As long as the Government failed to comply with its international obligations, the international pressure would continue.

The Worker member of Egypt endorsed the position of the Worker member of Belarus with respect to the positive steps taken by the Government on the Convention. He underlined that tripartite social dialogue was an important tool to ensure the progress of any country and the observance of ILO Conventions and workers’ rights. Referring to the social dialogue system, he described it as efficient through the National Council of Labour and Social Issues which included an equal number of representatives from trade unions, employers and the Government. Most trade unions participated in the negotiation of collective agreements and in the elaboration of legislation which was the basis of social dialogue. In this respect, 18,000 collective agreements had been adopted by workers’ and employers’ organizations in the country. The speaker concluded by expressing his conviction that the continued dialogue between the ILO and Belarus had guaranteed the right to join trade unions in recent years, and that there was progress in implementing Convention No. 87.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that his Government welcomed the strengthening of social dialogue in the country, which had resulted in the full recognition of trade union rights, and an increase in the number of collective agreements and councils for labour and social issues. His Government was confident that the Government would continue adopting measures that would benefit the stability of the country in terms of freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. The Government was committed to that endeavour, as illustrated by the ILO proposal to organize a seminar with the social partners on the work of the Council, with the participation of the FPB and the CDTU. His Government called for the Committee to highlight the Government’s progress in terms of implementing the recommendations the Commission of Inquiry had made concerning the Convention.

The Worker member of Sudan supported the position of the Worker member of Belarus and other members of the Committee about some positive changes that could be noted with regard to the application of the Convention. He was encouraged by the participation of all social partners in a broad dialogue with the ILO, and noted the participation of the trade unions of Belarus in the process of implementing ILO recommendations. Noting with interest the absence of problems with registration of unions since 2012, the positive steps in improving the legislation, and the broad social dialogue, he concluded that compliance with the Convention had improved through the efforts of the ILO.

The Government member of Uzbekistan stated that the written and oral information provided by the Government showed that the situation regarding freedom of association in the country had stabilized and that the Government had been able to collaborate with all trade unions (including the FPB and the CDTU). The Council was working to improve the situation and resolve contentious issues. There had been no issues relating to the registration of trade unions in 2012, which showed that progress had been made. The discussion on the removal of the 10 per cent threshold for trade union registration was also one of the positive steps taken, and all these initiatives should be duly reflected in the Committee’s discussions.

An observer representing the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) fully endorsed the stance of the FPB, which represented 4 million workers throughout the country. She was familiar with the labour and economic situation of Belarus and expressed satisfaction at the significant progress that had been made in the country. Belarus currently had an unemployment rate of just 1.6 per cent, it occupied ninth place in the world in terms of the level of employment and was 13th in the league table of illiteracy-free countries. It was the richest State in the Eurasian Economic Community and one of the most industrialized countries in the region. In her visit to the country in 2012 she had been able to verify the high level of participation in enterprises enjoyed by workers and the guarantees they had with regard to respect for freedom of association and workers’ rights. Moreover, she had been able to confirm the conditions in which more than 30 national trade unions were able to fight for and defend the social and economic rights of workers without any discrimination on the part of the authorities. She emphasized that all the social partners were working to implement the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government member of the United States expressed her Government’s regret regarding the serious lack of progress made by the Government in implementing the 2004 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in view of the time that had passed. This was especially troubling given the detail with which this situation had been examined throughout the ILO’s supervisory system, and the extent to which the ILO Office had provided its technical advice and assistance. Hence, her Government urged the Government once again to take all necessary measures without further delay to ensure that freedom of association was effectively guaranteed, and again strongly encouraged the Government to work closely with the social partners and to hold regular consultations with the ILO, so that the ILO supervisory bodies would soon be in a position to confirm substantive, concrete and sustainable progress. Recalling the joint statement on democracy and human rights made by the Governments of the United States and Belarus in 2010, she noted that free and vibrant trade unions were vital to democracy. Her Government was looking forward to the day when the ILO supervisory bodies could confirm this statement.

The Government member of Switzerland stated that her Government shared the concern expressed by the European Union regarding the democratic situation in Belarus in general and freedom of association in particular. It was, therefore, vital to ensure that the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations were followed up. The Government, in collaboration with the social partners, should do all it could to ensure the effective application of the Convention.

The Government member of India expressed his Government’s satisfaction at the steps taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The role of the Council was particularly noteworthy and the fact that both the FPB and the CDTU were represented in the Council was to be welcomed. All of this showed the positive intentions of the Government to implement the said recommendations and his Government commended the ILO for the technical cooperation and assistance to Belarus in implementing the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations and hoped that this constructive engagement could continue in the future.

The Government representative stated that there were a range of questions that still needed to be resolved and that her Government would continue to take steps to develop pluralism. International labour standards were given a prominent place in national legislation and observance of ratified Conventions was a priority. Her Government fully observed its commitments towards the ILO supervisory bodies and had submitted two reports to the Committee on Freedom of Association as well as the report on the application of the Convention under article 22 of the ILO Constitution. The situation in the “Granit” enterprise had been reviewed and the results had been communicated to the Office. With respect to Presidential Decree No. 2, the proposal from the Council in June of this year related not to the interpretation of the Decree’s standards but amendments to the Decree that would remove the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement. This amendment had been designed to meet the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Industrial relations gave rise to conflicts all around the world, particularly concerning the relationship between employers and trade union organizations in the workplace, and there were different causes for these conflicts independent from national legislation or policy. Recalling a case in which the former vice-president of a trade union had been dismissed from the trade union congress, which was thereafter sanctioned for not respecting the time frame for such dismissal, the speaker stated that when employers clearly violated workers’ rights, even if they were trade unions, the Government was obliged to respond in accordance with the provisions of existing legislation. While speakers had given different assessments of the level of progress achieved in Belarus in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, there were objective facts that could not be denied, including the opportunity for all trade unions to represent workers regardless of the number of workers they represented. All social partners could engage in social dialogue. The Council was in operation and was taking a special decision on the effectiveness of the amendments to the legislation on trade unions. The speaker proposed that a tripartite seminar be held with the participation of the ILO. She assured the Committee that her Government would continue to be a firm advocate of the principles of the ILO in the areas of freedom of association and tripartism.

The Worker members said that the picture painted by the Government representative did not match the reality experienced by the independent trade unions. The situation, far from improving, was getting worse. The tripartite body was no longer meeting and there had been no significant follow-up to the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. Perhaps a decisive point had been reached, but nobody knew in which direction. The only direction that could be taken was towards implementing the Commission’s recommendations. The Council had examined the question of founding trade unions, but there was nothing to indicate that its examination would be followed up, and the independent trade unions doubted the Council’s credibility. With regard to the seminar proposed by the Government, the Worker members expected nothing to come of it. The legislation restricting trade union rights should be revised, taking into account the comments of the supervisory bodies. Given how old the case was, and in view of the Government’s inertia, sending a direct contacts mission was entirely justified in order to obtain a legal and institutional response to the acts suffered by the independent trade unions. The Government should be invited to provide information on progress made in that regard. The Worker members also asked for the conclusions on the case to be included in a special paragraph in the Committee’s report.

The Employer members concluded that this was a serious case in relation to the exercise of trade union rights and issues with respect to the freedom of association but remained optimistic in view of the developments that had taken place since 2007. There had been progress although it was slow. Currently, the situation was at crossroads: the Government could choose to either continue to progress at a gradual rate, or commit to accelerating its efforts in order to achieve compliance with the provisions of the Convention. The social dialogue process that had begun was essential and should continue. The full application of the Convention could only be secured through the adoption and strict implementation of necessary legislation and compliance could only be achieved by beginning to change the situation both in law and in practice. The Employer members requested the Government to intensify its cooperation with the social partners and to avail itself of the expert advice and assistance of the ILO. In this regard, the Employer members supported the request of the Worker members that the Government should accept a direct contacts mission.

Conclusions

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

The Committee recalled that the outstanding issues in this case concerned the need to ensure the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing and organize their activities and programmes free from interference by the public authorities in law and in practice. The Committee further highlighted the long outstanding recommendations from the Commission of Inquiry for amendments to be made to Presidential Decree No. 2 dealing with trade union registration, Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid and the Law on Mass Activities.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government on the work of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation on the Social and Labour Sphere and, in particular, its decision to support the amendment of Decree No. 2 by repealing the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement for the establishment of trade unions at the enterprise level. The Committee further noted the Government’s stated commitment to social dialogue and cooperation with the ILO.

The Committee 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, while observing that the Government stated that there were no registration refusals in 2012, the Committee took note of the allegations of the refusal to register the BITU primary organization at “Granit” enterprise and the subsequent indication by the Government that this matter was addressed by the tripartite Council.

The Committee observed with deep regret that no new information was provided by the Government nor had any tangible result been achieved in implementing the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry of 2004.

Recalling the intrinsic link between freedom of association, democracy, the respect for basic civil liberties and human rights, the Committee urged the Government to intensify its efforts to bring the law and practice into full conformity with the Convention, in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee urged the Government to take immediately all measures necessary to ensure that all workers and employers in the country may fully exercise their rights to freedom of expression and of assembly. The Committee invited the Government to accept a direct contacts mission 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. It expected that the Government would submit detailed information on proposed amendments to the abovementioned laws and decrees to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year and trusted that it would be in a position to note significant progress with respect to all remaining matters at its next session.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of the report.

The Government representative indicated that her Government had taken note of the conclusions but would give its final decision on whether they were acceptable and well-found only after examining very carefully the discussions that had taken place in this Committee.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2010, Publication: 99th ILC session (2010)

The Government communicated the following written information concerning measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Committee on the Application of Standards (“Conference Committee”) of the Commission of Inquiry since the last examination of this case by the Conference Committee in June 2009.

Over the past few years, the Government of Belarus has been taking concrete steps to develop social dialogue in the country. The Government initiated the inclusion of all trade unions, including those not affiliated to the largest trade union association, the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), and employers’ associations into the social dialogue process and intensified negotiations with the ILO regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government, together with the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO, is promoting respect for the ILO fundamental principles and their full observance in Belarus.

In June 2009 during the 98th Session of the International Labour Conference, the Government of Belarus informed in detail the Conference Committee about the work of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere which is empowered to examine the whole set of issues resulting from the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry: from specific situations related to trade union registration or conclusion of collective agreements, to consideration of amendments to the legislation.

Following the wishes expressed by the members of the Council and the recommendations made by the ILO, the Council’s sitting held on 26 November 2009 had an open agenda. All the parties represented on the Council had an opportunity to propose for discussion those issues which they believed were of high importance. During the sitting the Council discussed the issues of legislative regulation of trade union registration and conclusion of collective agreements.

The main topic of the Council’s sitting held on 14 May 2010 was the legislation and prospects of work aimed at fulfilment of the Plan of Action on implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. The Council made an important decision on the improvement of the procedure for preparation and consideration of legislative issues. In particular, the Council decided to establish a working group (six members), which should include the representatives of all parties concerned (the Government, the FPB, the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) and employers’ associations), to examine the issues identified by the Council’s members and prepare suggestions regarding the Council’s decisions, taking into account positions of all parties.

The tripartite Council is carrying out its work relying on fully transparent and democratic principles and taking into account interests of all the parties represented on the Council. In its work the Council is adhering to the principle which has been supported by the social partners and according to which conclusions on the most important and fundamental issues are to be adopted on the basis of a position approved by all members of the Council. At the same time, the Council’s members and other persons invited to participate in its sittings have an opportunity to express their opinion freely and are completely independent as concerns developing their points of view.

In the course of its work aimed at the implementation of the Plan of Action, the tripartite Council managed to resolve a number of issues related to the promotion of trade unions’ rights:

- The primary-level organization of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU) at enterprise “Belshina” (Bobruisk) was rendered assistance in the registration. This primary-level organization was registered on 10 October 2009.

- On the basis of the conclusions made by the tripartite Council, the Ministry of Justice issued an Explanation note according to which the requirement to have 10 per cent of employees to establish a trade union in an enterprise, laid down in Presidential Decree No. 2, does not concern primary trade union organizations. Since, at the moment, there are only primary trade union organizations acting at the enterprise level (which are organizational structures of sectoral trade unions), the Explanation of the Ministry of Justice is to be applied to all trade union organizations acting at the enterprise level without any exception.

- There are no cases of unjustified refusals to register trade unions. In 2009, the competent authorities did not register three trade union organizations (structures of the REWU in Mogilev, Vitebsk and Gomel). Before that, on 14 April 2009, the tripartite Council examined the situation with those three trade union structures and, following the discussion all members of the Council, including representatives of the FPB and the CDTU, unanimously decided that those trade union structures could not be registered as trade union organizations.

At present, there are 35 registered trade unions and more than 22,000 registered trade union organizational structures, including primary-level trade union organizations in Belarus. There are also two trade union associations – the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU).

The work carried out by the Government in cooperation with the social partners and the ILO to implement the Commission’s recommendations creates conditions for the employers to pay attention to the observance of trade unions’ rights and stimulates courts and prosecutors to examine complaints alleging violation of trade unions’ rights in a thorough way. Where violations of the current legislation are confirmed, trade unions and trade union members have their rights reinstated.

In December 2009, following a complaint from the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU), the court of Chashniksky Region (Vitebsk Oblast) examined a case of dismissal for the reason of trade union membership (a complaint of this kind was lodged by trade unions for the first time) and took a decision in favour of the trade union. Following the court decision, Mr Aleksey Gabriel, the dismissed leader of a primary-level organization of the BFTU at the Lukoml Power Station (Lukomlskaya GRES, Vitebsk Oblast), was reinstated in his previous employment.

Positive changes can also be noted in the sphere of collective bargaining. According to the Labour Code of Belarus, the right to collective bargaining can be enjoyed by all trade unions regardless of their representativeness. It means that all trade unions have equal opportunities as concerns their participation in the collective bargaining process. For example, at some of the largest enterprises of the country, the Republican Unitary Enterprise “Belaruskaliy” and Joint Stock Company “Mozyr Oil Refinery” collective agreements have been signed by several trade unions affiliated to both the FPB and the CDTU.

After the International Labour Conference of June 2009, issues of concluding collective agreements at the Open Joint Stock Company “Naftan” and the Lukoml Power Station were settled positively: structures of the BITU and the BFTU joined the collective agreements signed by the employers and trade unions affiliated to the FPB.

Collective bargaining is taking place at the national, sectoral and local levels, as well as at the enterprise level in Belarus. On 1 April 2010, there were: one general agreement, 46 sectoral tariff agreements, 483 local agreements and 18,181 enterprise-level collective agreements concluded in Belarus.

On 8 April 2010, the National Council for Labour and Social Issues decided to start the process of preparation of a new general agreement for 2011–13 to be signed by the Government of Belarus and the republic-level employers’ and trade unions’ associations.

While implementing the Plan of Action adopted on 20 February 2009, the Government of Belarus has made considerable progress as regards the observance of the freedom of association principles. Measures taken by the Government of Belarus were given a positive assessment by the Committee of Experts, which welcomed the commitment to social dialogue demonstrated by the Government.

The Government of Belarus demonstrates its firm attitude and consistency in its work aimed at the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. It is evident that the progress observed during the 98th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2009 is of a stable nature and has a real impact on due observance of the trade unions’ rights in Belarus.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative indicated that over the past few years the Government of Belarus had been taking concrete steps to develop social dialogue in the country. All trade unions, including those not affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the largest trade union organization, and employers’ associations had been participating in this process. The FPB and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) were both members of the National Council of Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI), the main social dialogue body. The following positive developments had taken place in the country in previous years: a General Agreement for 2009–10 had been signed by both trade union organizations, the FPB and the CDTU; at the beginning of 2009, a tripartite seminar on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been held in Minsk with the participation of the Government and the social partners, the ILO, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE); a plan of action on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been adopted and approved by the NCLSI; and the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had been established. The latter had been empowered to examine the whole range of issues resulting from the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In 2009, the Council had held three meetings to discuss the issues of the registration of trade union organizations, anti-union discrimination, collective bargaining and the improvement of trade union legislation. All the members of the Council could express their views freely and the Council’s decisions reflected the opinions of all the interested parties. As a result of the work of the Council, Mr Stukov had been reinstated without loss of benefits and Mr Shaitor had found new employment. Furthermore, the primary trade union organization of the “Belshina” enterprise in Bobruisk had been registered in October 2009.

On the issue of collective bargaining, pursuant to the Labour Code, the right to collective bargaining could be enjoyed by all trade unions, regardless of their representativeness. That meant that all trade unions had equal opportunities in terms of their participation in the collective bargaining process. In practice, at some of the largest enterprises of the country, such as “Belaruskaliy” and the “Mozyr Oil Refinery”, collective agreements had been signed by several trade unions affiliated to both the FPB and the CDTU. After the 2009 International Labour Conference, issues of collective bargaining at the “Naftan” enterprise and the “Lukoml Power Station” had been settled: the structures of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU) and the Belarusian Free Trade Union had joined the collective agreements signed by the employers and trade unions affiliated to the FPB. Those were concrete examples of cooperation between large and smaller trade unions, whether or not they were affiliated to the FPB.

As a result of the collaboration between the Government, the social partners and the ILO, employers had been paying due attention to trade union rights and there had been no complaints alleging interference by employers in trade union affairs. At the same time, the courts and prosecutors had been examining allegations of violations of trade union rights and had imposed appropriate remedies in cases where the violations where proven. In this respect, she referred to the case in Soligorsk where the court had taken a decision in favour of the BITU, ordering the employer to transfer trade union dues using the check-off facility.

In 2009, there had been no cases of unfounded denial of registration. While she confirmed that three trade union structures of the Radio Electronics Workers Union (REWU) had not been registered, she noted that this question had been discussed by the tripartite Council and that all of its members, including the CDTU representatives, had supported the decision. She underlined that there had been no cases of denial of registration due to the absence of a legal address. She added that the issue of trade union legislation was one of the questions that had been constantly discussed by the Council.

At the Council’s meeting of 14 May 2010, it had been decided to establish a tripartite working group, consisting of six people responsible for examining the issues raised by the members of the Council and preparing suggestions for Council decisions taking into account the positions of all the parties concerned.

The Government of Belarus considered that all these positive developments demonstrated its positive attitude and the consistency of its action in the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. This had been already acknowledged by the Committee of Experts, which had welcomed the Government’s commitment to social dialogue. It was evident that the progress observed at the 98th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2009 had been of a stable nature and had a real impact on the due observance of trade union rights in Belarus.

The Worker members thanked the Government for the information provided verbally and in writing. They recalled that the case had been discussed without interruption since 2000 and that the Government had had all the elements for the implementation of freedom of association in accordance with Convention No. 87 since the Commission of Inquiry had made 12 clear and firm recommendations following its visit in 2003. However, despite that, the Conference Committee had re-examined the case on several occasions, including in 2007, when it had taken due note of the progress achieved in relation to certain recommendations, while at the same time expressing concern at the draft Trade Union Law; in 2008, when it had expressed confidence in the Government for organizing a seminar on anti-union discrimination with the participation of the ILO; and in 2009, when it had noted the establishment of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere to deal with future developments in trade union legislation, as well as the Government’s commitment to begin discussions on firm proposals, which would include the members of the CDTU. The Worker members noted that the Government reported holding meetings in November 2009 and May 2010 on, among other matters, a plan of action for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. However, they questioned the establishment within the Council of groups and subgroups.

The Worker members noted that the information provided to the Conference by the Government on trade union rights had already been mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts, which had indicated that the issue of the registration of trade unions had not been resolved due to the lack of dialogue. The Government’s instructions relating to the registration of trade unions, to which reference was made in the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, were unclear and had only resulted in the registration of certain trade unions that had succeeded in obtaining a legal address. The requirement of a legal address raised difficulties and continued to act as an obstacle, according to the CDTU, to the establishment and functioning of trade unions.

The Worker members regretted that the Government had confined itself to reporting the continuation of work on trade union legislation, without specifying the measures taken to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 and the texts issued thereunder, even though it had been criticized by the Commission of Inquiry since 2003. Moreover, despite the repeated expressions of concern by the Committee of Experts, various trade unions, including the CDTU, were still facing a refusal by the Government to authorize picketing and meetings. The legislative provisions which prevented the exercise of trade union rights in accordance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 had still not been repealed, despite the time that had passed. It was therefore difficult to believe the Government’s claims that substantial progress had been made in achieving compliance with the principles of freedom of association or the strength of its conviction in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Worker members regretted that, despite the lack of progress in the situation, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the European Union (EU) would intensify exchanges and cooperation with Belarus without taking into account the violations of fundamental workers’ rights. It was unacceptable for a Government to fail to respect the work of this Committee, or of the Organization in general. The Committee’s conclusions would need to reflect this point.

The Employer members recalled that this serious and longstanding case had been discussed every year since 2001 and had resulted in a Commission of Inquiry. In 2007, the Government’s position had changed: the Government had recognized that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry did not need to be adjusted to national conditions, had dropped legislative proposals going in the wrong direction and had instituted social dialogue. At present, the Government cooperated with the ILO and a positive social dialogue process was ongoing. However, there was still a long way to go, since fundamental legislative issues had failed to be addressed. While noting that the Government was faced with the diverging interests of employers and workers, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry concerned, among others, issues such as anti-union discrimination and registration of trade unions, that could be addressed regardless of the difference of opinion between the social partners. The Employer members therefore believed that it was time for the Government of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in law and in practice. They were looking forward to discussing at next year’s Conference Committee the substance of legislative proposals submitted to the ILO for review.

The Employer member of Belarus stated that, in the opinion of employers in Belarus, the action taken by the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry to improve relations with workers and to normalize the trade union situation had been constructive and had resulted in tangible improvements in the situation with regard to social dialogue. In particular, the tripartite Council had been functioning on the basis of consensus and mutual understanding and all trade union organizations could participate and conclude collective agreements. While not all the problems had been resolved, he considered that there had been sustained progress on the major points. While there were cases of dismissals, they were due to the non-renewal of contracts and workers could seek protection against anti-union discrimination in the courts. There was still friction between the FPB and the CDTU, but that was normal trade union life. The employers wanted to see the Government improve the climate for enterprise activity and create more favourable conditions for foreign investments. Belarus was a member of the European Union Eastern Partnership Programme and it was to be hoped that its membership would continue. He emphasized that partnership with the EU was of great importance in developing the economy of Belarus and in helping workers find employment. The sanctions imposed by the EU had been preventing small and medium-sized enterprises from flourishing. He therefore called for the removal of the sanctions in the interests of all the workers in Belarus.

The Worker member of Belarus explained that there were two trade union centres in Belarus. His organization, the FPB, with its 28 member organizations, was by far the largest trade union structure. The CDTU represented not more than several thousand workers and was composed of five trade unions. Despite this, both trade union centres had the same rights. His organization welcomed the opportunity of working together will all trade unions in Belarus. He stressed the following positive developments in his country: despite the recent financial crisis, there had been no major mass dismissals; pensions and salaries had been paid on time; social dialogue had continued; problems with the registration of trade unions and collective bargaining had been solved; there had been no further allegations of interference and abuse; and the tripartite Council had been established and functioned. With regard to the latter, he was pleased that all the members of the Council could freely express their opinions and that the Council had an open agenda, thereby allowing members to bring their issues before it. While the Government could do more and the Council could be more active, substantial progress had been made. The Government would continue working hard to achieve compliance with Convention No. 87 in cooperation with the social partners in Belarus and with its international partners.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) recalled that this year marked the tenth anniversary since Case No. 2090 had been lodged with the ILO. In 2009, the Conference Committee had noted the progress made by the Government of Belarus and, in particular, the plan of action it had adopted and the first steps taken towards its implementation. He noted with regret, however, that the Government had missed the chance given to it the previous year. The number of violations of trade union rights had been increasing. Members of trade unions affiliated to the CDTU were still suffering from anti-union discrimination, including dismissals and the non-renewal of labour contracts, pressure and harassment. In these circumstances, the real problem was to preserve the existing trade union organizations and to establish and register new ones. The Government had deliberately waged a campaign against independent trade unions and thereby confirmed that it was not ready to implement the ILO’s recommendations. The Government refused to use the tripartite Council to discuss in substance the issues of the violation of trade union rights. As a result, millions of workers in Belarus were deprived of the right to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing. Despite this negative background, he would not call on the Committee to deliver a guilty verdict for several reasons. Firstly, the position of the Minister of Labour and Social Protection had remained vacant for some time, which of course affected the implementation of the ILO’s recommendations. Secondly, throughout the year, social dialogue had continued at all levels with the participation of independent trade unions. Thirdly, all interested parties had made common efforts to find mutually agreed solutions. The Government should show flexibility and patience and look for ways to implement all the recommendations.

The Government member of Spain, speaking on behalf of the Government members of the Committee Member States of the European Union (EU), and indicating that the Government of Norway aligned itself with the statement, expressed concern at the situation of freedom of association and the right to organize and collective bargaining in Belarus. He welcomed the seminar held in 2009, jointly with the ILO, on the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, as well as the plan of action adopted by the tripartite National Council on Labour and Social Issues. While noting the positive steps taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the 2009 Conference Committee’s conclusions, the EU considered that the current situation did not yet ensure full compliance with ILO Conventions. It was regrettable that national legislation still did not guarantee the right of workers to organize their activities free from interference by the public authorities and that the requirement of a legal address continued to hinder the establishment of trade unions. The EU also expressed regret at the human rights violations that had occurred since the beginning of 2010, such as harassment of national minorities, several death sentences imposed and carried out, and irregularities during the local elections of 25 April 2010. The Government of Belarus needed to address the concerns regarding democracy, and the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country. The future policy of the EU vis-à-vis Belarus would take into account the conclusions adopted by this Conference Committee.

The EU called on the Government to ensure freedom of association by simplifying the registration procedure for trade unions and removing the prohibition of any activity by non-registered associations. Reiterating its readiness to cooperate with Belarusian authorities, the EU urged the Government to implement Convention No. 87 in close collaboration with the social partners and with ILO assistance.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that due account should be taken of the positive aspects and the significant progress that had been made in the framework of the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. He mentioned the 2009 plan of action that had been adopted on a tripartite basis for implementing the recommendations and the setting up of a National Council of Labour and Social Affairs and of a Council for Improving Social and Labour Legislation, both of which were tripartite. He recalled that at the 98th Session of the Conference, the Committee on the Application of Standards had recognized that progress had been made in the case and that the report of the Committee of Experts published in 2010 noted with interest the improvements in registering trade unions and the positive developments in the country’s legislation as it related to Conventions Nos 87 and 98, all of which had involved tripartite discussions. He stressed that his Government considered that further progress was being made and that the Committee ought to mention the fact in its conclusions, in the firm belief that the advances would continue.

The Worker member of Poland observed that the situation in Belarus had not changed significantly in law and in practice and that the efforts made by the Government were directed at technical issues instead of the substance of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government’s efforts were focused on demonstrating steps rather than making them. This was a case of “process” rather than “progress” as shown by the continuing obstacles to trade union registration under Decree No. 2 and the continuing pressure exercised on independent trade unions through the short-term contract system. In sum, the law and practice in Belarus had not changed in such a way as to ensure a friendly environment for independent trade union activity and social dialogue. Of course, poor social dialogue was better than no dialogue at all, but it still needed to be developed and reinforced. The Government had to do much more to improve the situation of workers, and especially the following: (i) to implement fully the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry; (ii) to amend Decree No. 2 on trade union registration in order to ensure that the right to organize was effectively guaranteed; (iii) to improve legal and administrative measures to ensure that workers enjoyed the rights enshrined in the Convention without any discrimination in law and in practice; (iv) to ensure that social dialogue was authentic and dealt with the substantive issues with the involvement of all social partners, and that the tripartite mechanism set up to address trade union rights was fulfilling its role; and (v) to stop immediately the harassment and discrimination, particularly through massive use of short-term contracts, against independent trade union organizations.

The Government member of the United States noted that, although the Government believed that it had made considerable progress in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, her Government was still awaiting firm evidence and tangible progress with regard to the Government’s commitment to social dialogue. She expressed concern that workers still faced obstacles to the registration of trade unions, particularly with regard to the legal address requirement, and that unions were prevented from holding pickets and meetings, organizing their activities and defending their occupational interests. Notwithstanding the requests by the supervisory bodies, the legal provisions in question had not been amended. The Government was urged to take in due course the necessary measures to guarantee the right to organize in law and practice. To this end, she encouraged the Government to continue working closely with the social partners and the ILO, so that the Committee of Experts would be in a position to assess substantive results next year. Her Government was looking forward to the day that full respect for freedom of association was a reality in Belarus, without barriers to the right of workers to organize, register their unions and express their opinions without threat of interference or reprisal.

The Government member of the Russian Federation noted that it was evident that clear and substantial progress had been made in the implementation of international labour standards and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Constructive dialogue had been taking place with all social partners on a range of issues, including the implementation of the ILO’s recommendations. In cooperation with the ILO, a tripartite seminar on freedom of association, social dialogue and the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been held in Minsk. Pursuant to the Plan of Action formulated with the assistance of the ILO, the Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had been empowered to examine the issues of the registration of trade unions and protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its meetings in 2009–10, the Council had examined several complaints of denial of registration and acts of anti-union dismissals, and considered the issue of trade union legislation. In accordance with the Council’s decision, the procedures for the registration of primary-level trade unions had been improved, certain dismissed trade union activists had been reinstated and a tripartite working group, responsible for making proposals aimed at improving trade union legislation, was established within the Council. Substantive progress had therefore been achieved on the basis of social partnership. The Government had entered into sincere and constructive cooperation with the ILO as it had repeatedly demonstrated through its actions.

The Government member of Switzerland concurred with the statement made by the Government member of Spain on behalf of the European Union.

The Government member of Canada noted with regret that the principles of human rights and democracy, including the rights of workers to organize and defend their occupational interests peacefully, continued to be disregarded by the Government. The Government was urged to amend the legal address requirement in national legislation, which continued to serve as a barrier to the establishment and functioning of independent trade unions. Furthermore, the Government was requested to create a positive democratic environment by abolishing all obstacles to the development of democratic trade unions, and removing the restrictions on freedom of association and speech for all sectors of civil society. The Government should also fully adopt the recommendations of the supervisory bodies and respond to their requests.

The Government member of India stated that 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 of Belarus to give effect to Convention No. 87. The National Council on Labour and Social Issues and the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had both been strengthened and made more representative. Moreover, the general agreement of cooperation for 2009–10 adopted as a result of social dialogue and tripartism provided a useful plan of action for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The manner in which the Government of Belarus had been engaging the social partners in this process represented a useful and participatory approach that needed to be encouraged. He thus concluded that the constructive engagement and cooperation of the Government of Belarus and the progress achieved towards compliance with Convention No. 87 were heartening, and commended the ILO for its technical cooperation and assistance in the Government’s efforts to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran considered that the Government of Belarus had shown its determination to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and comply with the relevant provisions of Convention No. 87, through the prevailing atmosphere of constructive dialogue and consultation with social partners, the efforts to bring national trade union legislation into compliance with relevant ILO Conventions and the constructive cooperation with the various ILO and ITUC missions. Along with the Committee of Experts, her Government therefore welcomed the continued commitment of the Government of Belarus to social dialogue and encouraged the Committee to take positive note of the progress achieved by the Government of Belarus towards compliance with Convention No. 87.

The Government member of China stated that the Government had paid close attention to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and had made significant efforts and progress to strengthen tripartism, social dialogue and freedom of association. The Government’s sincere determination to strengthen cooperation with the ILO to improve implementation of the Convention should be noted by the Committee.

The Government representative emphasized that her Government was very open to dialogue and would consider all the issues discussed today as guidance for its future actions. The Government understood that it had to make further efforts in order to improve the legislation and resolve the difficulties arising in practice. The tripartite Council would play an instrumental role in this regard, and had already discussed the issues mentioned in the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, including the issue of improving the legislation. She acknowledged that it had been difficult to reach unanimous decisions and that certain divergences of opinion existed, particularly with regard to the question of trade union representativeness and the obligation imposed on employers to provide trade unions with office spaces. On these and other matters, while the Government could have taken independent decisions, it preferred to take into account the interests of all the parties concerned. Therefore it had been decided to establish, within the Council, a tripartite working group responsible for examining the issues raised by its members and developing position papers taking into account the views of all the parties concerned. She emphasized that her Government had a great deal of respect for the ILO and its supervisory procedures, had always complied with its reporting obligations, and had cooperated with the ILO, allowing various missions to take place and joint seminars to be organized. The ILO’s support for the constructive dialogue had strengthened the authority of the tripartite Council. The Council, in addition to the regular judicial remedies available, could ensure the protection of workers against acts of discrimination. She called on the social partners to examine such cases in the framework of the Council. Finally, she indicated that the Committee of Experts had welcomed the Government’s commitment to social dialogue and that the Government would continue taking all the necessary measures in order to live up to such a high assessment by the Committee of Experts.

The Employer members stated that there was cause for optimism, particularly in view of the developments that had occurred from 2007 onwards. Nevertheless, the current situation presented a crossroads of sorts: progress could continue as it had, at a gradual, piecemeal rate, or the Government could redouble its efforts to secure compliance with the provisions of the Convention. They stated that the social dialogue process should continue, as it was essential to make progress on the basis of tripartite consensus. Noting nevertheless that social dialogue was time consuming, and at times produced results that were not always solid or broadly applicable, they underscored that full application of the Convention could only be secured through the adoption and strict implementation of the necessary statutes and regulations. They consequently urged the development of legislation as a matter of urgency to implement the 12 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker members indicated that they had noted the offer of assistance made by the European Union and observed that they had originally considered proposing the inclusion of the present case in a special paragraph of the report in view of the numerous promises made by the Government, which had not yet been kept. Nevertheless, they would not be pursuing their request, for one last time, so as to give a little more time to the Government. The elements that could provide the basis for a negotiated solution to the problems included the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry, the consultations held with the ILO up to 2007 and the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government should therefore continue its collaboration with the ILO and should pursue social dialogue with all the social partners, including unions that were not affiliates of the FPB, with a view to making the legislative changes required to give full effect to the Convention.

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 that two sittings of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere were held in November 2009 and May 2010, at which issues of trade union registration, trade union legislation and collective bargaining had been discussed. The Government explained that the members of the Council had recently decided to establish a working group – which would include representatives of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) and employers’ associations - responsible for examining the issues raised by the members of the Council and preparing suggestions for the Council’s decisions taking into account the positions of all the parties concerned.

The Committee noted with interest that as the result of the work of the tripartite Council, the primary trade union organization of “Belshina” enterprise in Bobruisk was registered in October 2009 and that CDTU affiliates and the FPB had concluded collective agreements at “Naftan” enterprise and Lukoml Power Station.

While noting this information, the Committee regretted that there were as yet no concrete proposals to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 dealing with trade union registration, the Law on Mass Activities, or Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, as requested by the Commission of Inquiry six years ago. The Committee recalled the intrinsic link between freedom of association and democracy and trusted, in particular, that Presidential Decree No. 2 would be amended or repealed so as to eliminate remaining obstacles to organizational rights.

In light of the continued commitment to social dialogue expressed by the Government, the Committee encouraged it to intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the Commission of Inquiry recommendations without delay, in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. It expected that the Government would submit detailed information on proposed amendments to the abovementioned laws and decrees, as well as on the time-bound plan requested last year, to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year and trusted that it would be in a position to note significant progress with respect to all remaining matters at its next session.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2009, Publication: 98th ILC session (2009)

The Government communicated the following written information concerning measures taken to fulfil the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Since the International Labour Conference in June 2008, the Government continued to take measures to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry with the participation of all social partners. On 18 June 2008 in Minsk, together with the ILO, the Government organized a seminar on trade union protection against discrimination with the participation of all interested parties: the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FTU), the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), the Radio and Electronic Workers' Union (REWU), the employers' organizations, state bodies, the office of the public prosecutor and the judiciary. In autumn 2008, the Government reduced ten times the price of renting the premises occupied by the trade unions irrespective of their affiliation. In December 2008, a General Agreement for 2009-10 was signed between the Government and the national associations of employers, FTU and CDTU. The Agreement stipulated for the first time that it applied to all employers and all trade unions in the country irrespective of their affiliation. On 21 January 2009 in Minsk, the Government and the ILO jointly organized a tripartite seminar on the fulfilment of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry with the participation of an equal number of representatives from the Government, trade unions (FTU, CDTU and REWU) and employers, followed by the tripartite mission of the ILO, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).

On the basis of the recommendations and with the support of all parties participating in the above seminar, the Government in collaboration with the ILO developed an Action Plan for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, which was officially approved by the National Council on Labour and Social Issues on 20 February 2009. The Plan established an effective mechanism for the protection of trade union rights with the key role played by the tripartite Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere formed by an equal number of representatives (seven) from the sides of the Government, the trade unions and the employers' associations. The Government was represented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, including the Department of the State Labour Inspection, the Ministry of Justice, the Republican Labour Arbitration and the Office of the General Public Prosecutor. The trade unions were represented in the Council by four members from the FTU and three members of the CDTU. The employers had four members from the Confederation of Industry and Entrepreneurs and three members from the Business Union of the employers and entrepreneurs named after Professor Kuniavsky. The Council was headed by the Minister of Labour and Social Protection of Belarus.

The meeting of the Council on 30 April 2009, with the participation of a representative of REWU, discussed the question of the registration of trade union organizations and worked out agreed conclusions concerning regional organizations of the Belarus Free Trade Union (BFTU) in Baranovichi, Mohilev and Novopolotsk-Polotsk, the trade union of individual entrepreneurs "Together", primary-level organization of the Belarussian Independent Trade Union of the workers of OAO "Belshina" (city of Bobruisk), primary-level organizations of the REWU in Rechitsa, Smolevichi, Mohilev and Gomel (two organizations). The Council had confirmed the status of the regional organization of BFTU in Novopolotsk-Polotsk and the primary-level organizations of the REWU in Smolevichi and Rechitsa, which were subsequently registered. The Council had noted that the regional organization of BFTU in Baranovichi had not submitted documents for registration to the competent bodies. It had considered the information of the Ministry of Justice and of the representatives of the CDTU concerning refusal in 1999-2000 to register the regional organization of BFTU in Mohilev, as well as the refusal to register the trade union of individual entrepreneurs "Together" in 2007, and observed that, in the situation which existed at the time, certain problems could not have been overcome. At the time of the Council's meeting only one trade union organization of those under consideration had difficulties in obtaining a legal address - the primary-level organization of the workers of OAO "Belshina", and could not for this reason receive registration. The Council unanimously supported the need for a positive solution to this situation and at present appropriate premises to establish the legal address had been found, which should enable this organization to register in due course.

Having considered the refusals to register primary-level organizations of the REWU in Mohilev and Gomel, the Council had unanimously decided that the refusals in question were justified because these organizations were not genuine trade unions as their members were not united by common professional interests in breach of article 1 of the Law on Trade Unions. The Council had rejected the argument advanced by the representative of REWU that common interests of the members of these organizations resulted from the fact that all of them were salaried employees. It did not, however, infringe on the right of the REWU to freely determine the structure and activities of its organizations and confirmed the legitimacy of creating such organizations inside professions and industries other than the radio and electronic industry, provided that article 1 of the Law on Trade Unions was fully observed.

The same meeting of the Council dealt with the future development of Belarussian legislation on trade unions on the basis of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. It recognized the need for consultations between the social partners on these issues, the priority areas of which concerned the principles and conditions of the creation of trade unions, including their registration, collective bargaining in conditions of multiplicity of existing trade unions and their representativeness. The members of the Council had to submit their concrete proposals on these issues for consideration by the Council by 1 July 2009.

With regard to the application of the existing legislation on trade unions, the representative of the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the requirement to have 10 per cent of the total number of employees in the undertaking does not concern the organizational structure of the trade unions. Primary-level organizations could be formed with such number of members as stipulated in the statute of the trade union (usually from three to ten members). This clarification was included in the minutes of the Council's meeting and transmitted by the Ministry of Justice to the local authorities responsible for registration of the trade unions. In Belarus, trade unions were traditionally formed at the national level, affiliated or not to the FTU, with their primary-level organizations acting at the enterprise level. The decision of the Council concerning the 10 per cent requirement would have a direct impact on safeguarding the principles of freedom of association under the existing national law.

The meeting of the Council on 14 May 2009 dealt with the cases of dismissal of the workers mentioned in the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (Gaichenko, Duchomenko, Obuchov, Shaitor, Cherbo, Stukov), who were invited to and participated in the meeting (except Mr Gaichenko) and given a day of leave for this purpose by their employers. Mr Gaichenko informed the secretariat of the Council that he was satisfied with his present employment at the enterprise "Naftan" (city of Novopolotsk). The Council noted that each of the above cases was settled by a court decision against the worker in question. In this situation any attempt of the Council to reinstate these workers in their previous employment would have been null: reinstatement would have been possible only after revision of the previous court decisions and qualification of dismissals as unlawful, whereas the workers concerned refused to appeal against the court decision taken in 2004. Having considered each individual situation in detail, the Council had taken measures which resulted in finding new employment for Mr Cherbo and Mr Shaitor, confirming an uninterrupted period of employment for Mr Stukov despite his dismissal and subsequent reinstatement in his previous job, and offering other types of assistance to Mr Duchomenko and Mr Obuchov.

The Government of Belarus considered that during the last year there had been radical change and substantial progress in the implementation of the ILO recommendations. Problems with registration of trade unions were being resolved and cases of pressure on trade union members were being dealt with by the tripartite body trusted by the interested parties. It should be noted that all the decisions of the Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere taken on 30 April and 14 May 2009 reflected a concerted opinion of all its members. With regard to future activities, the Council decided to consider the question of improving existing legal mechanisms of protecting persons against discrimination in employment due to their trade union membership on the basis of proposals submitted by the members of the Council not later than 1 August 2009. The Government would continue cooperation with the ILO concerning the activities of the Council.

In addition, before the Committee a Government representative (Deputy Prime Minister) stated that the Government was optimistic about the present situation and that considerable progress had been made in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as a result of the constructive steps taken by the Government. He emphasized that, on the basis of social partnership and in close cooperation with all the social partners, a considerable number of issues had been dealt with. However, he indicated that the Government would not stop there. He therefore called for the Conference Committee to take into account in its conclusions the positive steps that had been made in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to give effect to the Convention.

The Employer members noted that this case had been the subject of a double footnote in the report of the Committee of Experts, and that it was the ninth time that it had been examined by the Conference Committee. They recalled that a Commission of Inquiry had been set up in November 2003 by the Governing Body. They believed that it was important to note the change in the case when compared with the situation in 2005 and 2006. The Government's attitude was now much more positive. It was to be welcomed that where the Government had previously talked of the need to adapt the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry to the national situation, it was now speaking of their direct and full implementation without reservations. Over the past three years, the Government had discussed its cooperation with the ILO, which included seminars and technical assistance, and had resulted in a new draft law which was intended to address the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. However, as the Committee of Experts had pointed out, problems remained with the content of the draft bill, such as: establishing unions at the enterprise level without legal personality; the requirement of a legal address for registration; the link between representativeness and the rights of trade unions; the level of formality of the registration procedure; the power of registration authorities to request and obtain information on the statutory activities of trade unions; and the requirement of 10 per cent membership to be registered at the enterprise level. They emphasized that, to the Government's credit, it had withdrawn the draft bill and had proceeded in another direction.

The Employer members noted that the observation of the Committee of Experts was relatively short, due to the changed approach in this case. However, they emphasized that the next observation should be more extensive, providing further detail on the real situation. As indicated in the written information provided by the Government, there were a number of tripartite processes that addressed key issues, such as the action plan, legislation and the regulation of unions. However, they added that it would have been preferable if the Government had been closer to meeting the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee of Experts, had indicated in its observation that the Government had not provided the information requested on certain substantive aspects of the case. The Committee of Experts would have to determine whether the written information communicated by the Government satisfied its requests for information. In particular, the action plan should be submitted to the Committee of Experts.

In conclusion, the Employer members welcomed the information provided and the constructive attitude demonstrated by the Government. However, they expressed concern that what was described was a procedural process with a tripartite basis, and that the process might overcome the substantive legal and regulatory matters. They considered that what was needed was a clear time-bound plan of action to meet the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and give full effect to Convention No. 87 in law and practice. For example, the process relating to registration of unions was very bureaucratic and needed to be further streamlined in practice. Finally, they called for urgency and speed in the implementation of the Convention.

The Worker members recalled the conclusions adopted when the case had been examined in 2008 by the Conference and the trust that had been extended to the Government. The conclusions had reflected the commitment of Belarus to organize a seminar on anti-union discrimination with the participation of ILO representatives and also to organize a broader seminar in the autumn of 2008 on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established in 2003. The Committee had expressed the firm hope that the Governing Body and the Committee of Experts in November 2008 would be able to observe positive developments and would be provided with full statistics on the registration of trade unions and on complaints on anti-union discrimination.

It should be noted that the representatives of the Office, the ITUC and the IOE had visited Minsk in June 2008 to attend a seminar organized by the Government of Belarus on anti-union discrimination. However, the seminar had not addressed the question of bringing the national legislation on the registration of trade unions, the Labour Code, or the situation of workers who were on strike, into conformity with the Convention. This appeared to be due to the fact that the issue of registering trade unions lay within the competence of the Ministry of Justice, and not the Ministry of Labour. It should also be noted that the seminar had been like a training course and, at least in formal terms, came within the context of the Committee's conclusions adopted the previous year. Moreover, the tripartite seminar on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry of 2003 had been held in January 2009, after the meeting of the Committee of Experts and had been attended by an Executive Director of the ILO, government representatives, trade unions affiliated or not to the Trade Union Federation of Belarus, employers' organizations, the ILO, the ITUC and the IOE. The independent trade unions had had 20 participants out of the 55 trade unionists present at the seminar, which had resulted in the formulation of an action plan that had been approved by the Tripartite National Council on Social and Labour Issues in February 2009. It was within this context that the Government had made a proposal to modify the composition of the Council for the improvement of the legislation in a tripartite manner. The CDTU had been requested to delegate three representatives of independent trade unions among the seats allocated to trade union organizations. The Council had held two meetings and its main function was to receive the requests and complaints from trade union organizations concerning cases of refusal to register trade unions and discrimination against trade union members.

With respect to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, it should be noted that the problems relating to the registration of independent trade unions had not entirely been solved, contrary to the claims made by the Government. This situation was irreparable in cases where trade unions had ceased to exist. Anti-union discrimination had not been completely eliminated as some independent trade unions were still being refused the right to conclude collective agreements, and it was necessary to end harassment against independent trade unions. Finally, no tangible progress had been made concerning most of the recommendations. It was impossible to find solutions in three or four months for matters that had not been resolved for years, as in practice many situations were irreparable. A solution had to be found rapidly, as emphasized by the Committee of Experts, to prevent a degradation of the situation relating to the registration of trade unions.

The Government had shown its will to respond to certain recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as illustrated by the new composition and actions of the Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. However, as indicated by the Committee of Experts, the Government had not provided the detailed statistics requested on the registration of trade unions and complaints of anti-union discrimination.

In conclusion, even if a mechanism had been established, this was only a small first step. The Government's credibility in the implementation of this mechanism would be tested in July 2009, when the Council would address the future development of national legislation on trade unions in the light of the principles and conditions for their establishment, registration and representativeness deriving from Conventions Nos 87 and 98. All trade unions had been invited to submit proposals to that effect. The Worker members did not doubt that the proposals made by the three members of the CDTU would be fully discussed. It was to be hoped that the Government as a whole considered the completion of the adoption of the draft legislation to be a priority. The mechanism that had been set up needed to operate in accordance with tripartite procedures, and ensure the involvement of increasingly independent social partners. It would be unacceptable after so many discussions of this case for the Government to have the feeling that it had fulfilled its obligations.

The Government member of the Czech Republic, speaking also on behalf of the Government members of the Member States of the European Union, and the candidate countries Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey, the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, the EFTA countries, Iceland and Norway, the members of the European Economic Area, as well as the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, indicated that the case of Belarus had been discussed by the Committee eight of the previous nine years, and that the report of the Committee of Experts reiterated major problems remaining in the application of Convention No. 87: the registration procedure of trade unions, and in particular the requirement for a legal address; the prohibition of exercising trade union rights; and the prohibition of receiving financial assistance from foreign sources.

He noted the findings of the Committee of Experts, and the updated information provided to the Governing Body in March 2009, when the European Union had welcomed the tripartite adoption of the plan of action. The plan was scheduled for implementation this year and covered most of the problems that had been highlighted by the Committee of Experts. If implemented fully and in good faith, the plan of action would become an important contribution towards the satisfactory resolution of this case.

He recalled that in previous years, the European Union had expressed concern regarding compliance by Belarus with Convention No. 87. He noted that some positive developments had recently taken place and he thanked the Office and the representatives of the social partners involved in this process. He encouraged all parties concerned to redouble their efforts in pursuing cooperation with a view to eliminating all obstacles for the establishment and operations of independent workers' and employers' organizations. The genuine exercise of freedom of association was an indispensable condition for meaningful social dialogue both at the enterprise and national levels, and consequently for any relevant activity in the world of work.

While the European Union acknowledged indications of the renewed commitment of the Government towards its international obligations, it was of utmost importance that such steps were transformed into tangible practical progress in the near future. He expected that the Government would continue in its current course of cooperating with the ILO in order to ensure the full realization of freedom of association and the right to organize for all workers in Belarus. He also called on the Government to provide in its next report on the application of the Convention all relevant information to enable the Committee of Experts to fully assess the situation in practice and the real impact of the various measures adopted by the Government.

The European Union would continue to monitor closely the situation in Belarus. He called upon the Government to comply fully with all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without further delay.

The Government member of the United States noted that since the Conference Committee last discussed this case and since the observations by the Committee of Experts, there had been some significant developments. Last March, the Governing Body had been informed about a tripartite mission and seminar in Minsk - organized jointly by the ILO and the Government - that had permitted a frank and open discussion of the trade union situation in Belarus and had led to the approval of a Plan of Action for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. She understood that in furtherance of the Plan of Action, the tripartite parties had recently been examining questions relating to the registration of trade union organizations, the future development of the legislation on trade unions and the application of existing legislation. She noted that the Government considered that during the last year there had been radical change and substantial progress in the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations. She welcomed these developments and trusted that the Government would continue to work closely with the ILO, as well as its social partners, in carrying out all the measures envisaged by the Plan of Action. However, she noted that, until the Committee of Experts had assessed the latest developments, she would continue to follow with concern the state of freedom of association in Belarus, particularly with regard to the registration of free and independent trade unions. She looked forward to the day when full respect for freedom of association was a reality in Belarus, when there would no longer be barriers in law or in practice to the right of all workers to associate, organize, register unions and express their points of view without threat of interference or reprisal. She hoped that day would be soon.

The Employer member of Belarus said that, in the opinion of employers in Belarus, the action taken by the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry to improve relations with workers and to normalize the trade union situation had been constructive and had resulted in tangible improvements in the situation with regard to social dialogue. The CDTU, as a member of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI), was a signatory of the general agreement between the Government and workers' and employers' organizations. The NCLSI had discussed and reached agreement on a number of social and economic issues and was promoting agreement between all the parties on national issues. With support from the ILO, an Action Plan had been developed with the support of employers' and workers' organizations. The NCLSI had discussed several issues, including problems relating to the registration of trade unions and the means of overcoming difficulties regarding trade union premises. Employers in the country had also helped trade unions to find premises, which all demonstrated the emerging culture of pluralism. They particularly wanted to see the Government improve the climate for enterprise activity. Belarus was a member of the European Union Eastern Partnership Programme and it was to be hoped that its membership would continue. He emphasized that partnership with the European Union was of great importance in developing the economy of Belarus and in helping workers find employment, particularly those who lived in deprived areas, such as the area affected by the Chernobyl disaster. He therefore called on the Conference Committee to encourage the Government in its action, which would have a positive effect on working and living conditions.

The Worker member of Belarus said that the Government was now taking action to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Although it was not yet implementing them in full, it was showing a certain political will to do so and was making progress. The considerable efforts that were being made were reflected in the written information provided by the Government. The Government was now working closely with all social partners, including all workers' organizations throughout the country. The seminar that had been held in June 2008, with the participation of ILO representatives, had been the first occasion on which all trade unions had been able to attend and speak at such an event. It had also offered them the opportunity to enter into discussions with the authorities, including officials of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Public Prosecutor. Since then, social partnership had developed to the extent that discussions were full and free and the seminar organized in January 2009 had included representation of the ILO, the ITUC and the IOE. An important step forward had been the Action Plan adopted by the National Council on Labour and Social Issues and a very broad range of social partners had been involved in the preparation and implementation of the Plan. For example, the last two sessions of the Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had considered a number of important issues, such as the registration of trade unions and the reinstatement of dismissed trade union activists. The Government had subsequently taken a number of measures to improve the process of the registration of trade unions.

He further emphasized that the legislation respecting the registration of trade unions applied to all trade union organizations throughout the country. It was therefore important to ensure that all the partners were represented on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues, including the CDTU. He urged all unions to work together, in particular for the formulation of the new national plan for the coming years, which had been receiving extensive coverage in the press. Although the situation was clearly not perfect, substantial progress had been achieved and it was to be hoped that this would be recognized by the ILO. Although all 12 of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had not yet been implemented, it was not possible to achieve everything overnight. Belarus was now associated with the European Union Eastern Partnership Programme, and it was important that it became a full member of the Programme. However, there was opposition in certain circles to the inclusion of Belarus in the Programme, which was giving rise to unwarranted criticism of the situation in the country.

In conclusion, he emphasized that the social partners needed to work together to achieve full implementation of the Convention. He therefore hoped that the Government would help to improve and expand opportunities for trade union participation in the country. He urged the Government to allow the representatives of other trade unions to participate in the work of the Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. He also called for workers' organizations to be actively involved in the negotiation of collective agreements and he urged all trade union leaders to work together for the implementation of the ILO's recommendations to give full effect to the Convention.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela congratulated the Government representative for the excellent description of his Government's efforts to implement Convention No. 87. He emphasized the positive aspects that should be duly acknowledged by the Committee. The Government had described in detail the measures that indicated that there had been progress in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In 2006, Belarus had taken action to strengthen dialogue with social partners, including the establishment of the tripartite National Council on Labour and Social Issues and the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, known as the Council of Experts.

At previous sessions of the International Labour Conference, the Committee on the Application of Standards had recognized the progress made by the Government of Belarus; as had the Governing Body. At the 304th Session of the Governing Body, in March 2009, the Report of the Director-General referred to the tripartite seminar on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and which had been held in Minsk in January 2009 with the participation of representatives of the ILO, the ITUC and the IOE together with national trade unions and employers' organizations and high-ranking government representatives. As a result of the seminar, a government Action Plan had been developed for the application of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in relation to trade union rights, which had been adopted by the tripartite partners.

He considered that much progress had been made in Belarus regarding its compliance with Convention No. 87, as confirmed by many of the social partners. He emphasized that the Conference Committee should note in its conclusions that this was a case of progress.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation said that the Russian trade union movement as a whole was monitoring very carefully the manner in which the Government was giving effect to the 12 recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. He emphasized that there were very close political, economic, social and cultural links between the Russian Federation and Belarus, as well as many human and family links, as many Russian workers had relatives in Belarus. The protection of trade union rights in both countries was therefore of great importance to Russian trade unions. In the discussion of the case in the Governing Body in March 2009, the Workers' group had expressed cautious optimism at the positive steps taken by the Government. Russian trade unions were also quite optimistic, as the system of social dialogue appeared to have the support of all the trade unions in the country, although the measures taken were as yet fragmentary and needed to be pursued further. The legislation that was in violation of the Convention had not yet been repealed and therefore continued to limit collective bargaining and to make it very difficult for trade unions in the country to receive support from the international federations to which they were affiliated. However, there had also been positive changes and the Government and the social partners, with ILO support, had adopted an Action Plan, which was a type of road map, and confirmed the intention of the authorities to solve the problems under discussion. The action taken needed to be carefully examined by the ILO supervisory system and it was to be hoped that the Action Plan would be developed in detail and would result in the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, to which effect had not yet been given. In conclusion, he urged the Government to use the various anniversaries that were currently being celebrated, including the 60th anniversary of the adoption of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, and the 90th anniversary of the ILO, as a stimulus to help it achieve fuller and more rapid implementation of the ILO's recommendations.

The Government member of the Russian Federation thanked the Government representative for the information provided on the action that was being taken for the implementation of the Convention. As in the discussions of the case in the Governing Body sessions in November 2008 and March 2009, it was evident that clear and substantial progress was being made in the implementation of international labour standards, and particularly Convention No. 87 and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Dialogue was now being developed with all social partners on a range of issues, including the implementation of the ILO's recommendations in the present case. Work was being carried out for the development of new legislation respecting trade unions which took into account the recommendations of the ILO and the opinions of the social partners. The Government was continuing its cooperation with the ILO and a tripartite seminar had been held in January on freedom of association, social dialogue and the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. ILO specialists had participated in the formulation of the Action Plan that had been approved by the Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. The Council, the membership of which included representatives of independent trade unions, had held two sessions recently in which it had examined issues including the registration of trade unions, employment of the dismissed trade union activists and the prospects for the development of new legislation respecting trade unions. Several decisions had been taken. The procedures had been improved for the registration of primary-level trade unions and certain dismissed trade union activists had been reinstated. Substantive progress had therefore recently been achieved on the basis of social partnership. The Government had entered into sincere and constructive cooperation with the ILO as it had repeatedly demonstrated through its actions.

The Government member of Cuba noted that the activities carried out in 2008 with the ILO were of particular interest and that, in addition to the tripartite seminars that had been organized, a general agreement had been concluded for 2009 and 2010, which applied to all the trade unions and employers in the country, regardless of their affiliation. The tripartite seminar held in Minsk on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been attended by the representatives of the Government, trade unions and employers, and had been monitored by a tripartite mission of the ILO, the ITUC and the IOE.

The National Council on Labour and Social Issues, which was a tripartite institution with broad representation of government bodies, employers and workers, had approved the action plan that had been developed by the Government and the ILO in consultation with the social partners for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Plan established a mechanism to protect trade union rights and entrusted the Council with a fundamental role in improving labour legislation. It should be emphasized that several trade union organizations had been registered and that, according to the Government, positive solutions were being sought for an organization that had encountered difficulties with its registration. Another set of activities had been carried out in the course of this year, which demonstrated the Government's concern to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and reflected the concerted views of the employers and workers.

She considered that the Government had taken positive steps, both in practice and with a view to the preparation of legislation setting out the principles of Convention No. 87, and that a process was being undertaken for dialogue and for the establishment of a tripartite body accepted by all parties concerned, which should be emphasized in the conclusions of the Committee.

The Government member of China thanked the Government representative for the information provided. Since 2005, the Government had been taking effective measures to improve the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, which had resulted in significant progress, which should be fully recognized by the Committee. While the ILO and the Government continued to cooperate and mutual trust and dialogue continued to be strengthened, the issues relating to the implementation of the Convention would be resolved.

The Government member of Canada thanked the Government representative for the information provided. Noting with appreciation the statements made on behalf of the European Union and the United States, he said that his Government was concerned at the Government's continued disregard for international appeals to respect human rights and democratic principles, including the rights of workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing. Although there had been some progress since the last Conference, including the convening of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere and tripartite seminars had been organized, there were still many entrenched legal and bureaucratic obstacles preventing the registration of trade unions and the exercise of their legitimate activities, including the organization of meetings free from interference by the public authorities. His Government would continue to work with other ILO members to encourage reform in Belarus and he called upon the Government to continue to strengthen tripartite cooperation and to bring its law and practice into full conformity with the Convention. He urged the Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and hoped that the ILO would continue to support the Government to bring about tangible results in practice.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) recalled that Case No. 2090 had been under examination in the ILO for almost ten years. But for the first time there appeared to be the hope of light at the end of the tunnel. The previous year, the Conference Committee had reached a compromise with the Government, which had proved to be a good decision. The problem of trade union rights had come into being many years ago and the efforts of the Ministry of Labour on its own had not been sufficient to resolve it. While a plan of action to give effect to the ILO's recommendations had been developed by the Government jointly with the ILO, the ITUC and the social partners, and steps had been taken to implement it, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were still not fully implemented. Unions and their members were still under pressure and anti-union discrimination still existed. The Government's intention to resolve the problem of activists dismissed for their trade union activities was important and it was also essential to remove the mechanisms and practices of anti-union discrimination and to guarantee that members of independent unions were not subject to pressure by the administration of enterprises. If it was important for the Government to start taking measures to overcome the refusal to register independent union organizations, it was even more important to remove the reasons for which such organizations disappeared. The requirement of previous authorization for the establishment of trade unions needed to be abolished.

He added that, in violation of the existing laws, employers refused to conclude collective agreements with independent unions in certain cases and put pressure on their members. Moreover, the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the courts ignored violations of the rights of independent trade unions. The existing legislation made it impossible in practice to organize meetings, marches, demonstrations, picketing and other actions to defend trade union rights. Real progress could only be achieved when ILO principles of freedom of association were fully implemented and workers could freely establish and join the organizations of their own choosing, without fear of reprisals. While considering that the Government was demonstrating a certain level of political will in developing an action plan with the social partners, he emphasized the importance of achieving tangible results in the near future.

The Worker member of China noted the information provided by the Government representative and indicated that he had followed closely the issue of the implementation of the Convention in Belarus and the progress that was being made. He therefore hoped that the Government would strengthen its cooperation with the ILO with a view to safeguarding trade union rights and achieving decent work for the workers of the country.

The Government representative of Belarus thanked all the speakers and emphasized that his Government was very open to dialogue and to discussing any issues raised. The interventions during the discussion would be examined and used to guide the action that would be taken in the future. The success of social partnership depended greatly on full trust being established between all the participants. Experience in the country had shown that many issues were less difficult to address because of the positive participation of the social partners, who had been fully involved in preparing and approving the action plan and who were continuing to consider the issues that arose and to take action on them together. He emphasized that all the participants in the Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere participated as independent members and had the right to express their own views in full freedom. However, they had developed a common position and had all approved the Action Plan and were working together for its implementation. The Government was demonstrating its willingness to work with all parties and, on the basis of social partnership, to develop legislation for the implementation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and to address and resolve all outstanding problems in this respect. It could therefore be seen that work had been carried out steadily and logically on a step by step basis. The Government had held consultations at every stage and had therefore kept all its promises to the Conference Committee and to the social partners. It was also working on further proposals to be put to the social partners. It had worked in close cooperation with the ILO, which had contributed to the organization and financing of the tripartite seminar held in January, in which ILO experts had played a very active role. His Government greatly appreciated the support provided and hoped that it would be continued. He recalled that when the present case had been examined by the Conference Committee the previous year, that had been the first occasion on which it had not been set out in a special paragraph of the Committee's report. For the Government and the social partners this had provided a clear indication that the ILO supported the efforts that were being made to improve the situation and all partners had stepped up their efforts, achieving substantive progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Conference Committee therefore had it within its power to encourage all those involved to make yet further progress.

The Employer members indicated that the Government deserved credit for the rapid and constructive action taken since the last Conference and the step by step approach adopted to the improvement of the situation. However, they were not reassured that all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry would be implemented in the near future. At the very least, the Government should be called upon to provide a detailed report in time for the next session of the Committee of Experts, which should include a copy of the Action Plan. They therefore encouraged the Government to keep up its positive efforts and attitude and to continue taking action for the sustainable implementation of the Convention.

The Worker members indicated that there was no question of concluding that significant progress had been achieved, which would leave the impression that all the 2003 recommendations had been given effect. A mechanism had been established, as emphasized by many speakers, which constituted a first small step, but much remained to be done in practice. The Worker members hoped that the Government would take this measure and develop it in conformity with the Convention, where necessary with ILO technical assistance. Although little was needed for this mechanism to work well, what was lacking was of utmost importance. The Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere needed to develop a road map setting out transparent procedures of which all trade unions without exception were informed and which included the following: the establishment of a timeframe for the investigation of complaints concerning the refusal of trade union registration and anti-union discrimination which offered guarantees of legal security and transparency; laying down rules concerning the timely processing of complaints; and compliance with tripartite procedures by ensuring the involvement of the increasingly independent social partners. They stated that the Government should be asked to provide a report on the operation of the Council in practice, in particular with regard to the items mentioned above, for examination by the Committee of Experts at its next session, including detailed statistics on the registration of trade unions and on cases of complaints for anti-union discrimination, requested previously.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative, the Deputy Prime Minister, on the recent steps his Government had taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the detailed information provided by the Government representative in relation to the developments since the discussion of this case last year and observed with interest the cooperation with the ILO in this regard.

The Committee took note of the seminar on anti-union discrimination held in Minsk in June 2008 and welcomed the fact that it provided for an open and frank discussion of the trade union situation in Belarus. The Committee further welcomed the outcome of a tripartite seminar on the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations organized jointly by the ILO and the Government of Belarus in January 2009. It welcomed in particular 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.

The Committee further noted with interest that pursuant to the plan of action, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere evolved into a fully tripartite body where trade unions could raise their concerns and that the Council's composition now included three representatives of the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU). The Committee noted the detailed information provided by the Government on the two sittings of the Council at which it had discussed issues of trade union registration, dismissals of trade union members and the need for consultations with the social partners concerning further development of trade union legislation. The Committee understood that members of the Council had been invited to submit concrete proposals for legislative amendment by 1 July 2009 for the Council's consideration.

The Committee also noted with interest that the CDTU is now a party to the General Agreement for 2009-10 and that the Government had reduced by ten times the price of rent for trade unions irrespective of their affiliation, a matter which had given rise to an additional impediment for meeting the legal address requirement necessary for registration.

The Committee considered that the measures undertaken by the Government and the will demonstrated by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, now given further force in the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, to address the outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry constituted certain progress which, if sustained and transformed into tangible advances towards freedom of association in practice, could become an important contribution towards the application of the Convention. The Committee expressed its concern, however, that these steps might remain only a matter of process and not give rise to substantive improvements. In this regard, the Committee noted with regret that there were as yet no concrete proposals to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 dealing with trade union registration, the Law on Mass Activities, and Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid. The Committee considered that in light of the allegations that independent trade unions continued to experience difficulties in practice with registration and anti-union discrimination, the amendments requested by the Commission of Inquiry in this regard remained necessary.

In light of the continued commitment to social dialogue expressed by the Government, the Committee encouraged the Government to redouble its efforts to ensure full freedom of association in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. In particular, the Committee requested the Government to prepare a clear, time-bound plan for the full implementation of all of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations, including transparent procedures for the participation of all trade unions and aimed at the elimination of all remaining mechanisms and practices used to intimidate and persecute workers who wished to organize in independent trade unions. It requested the Government to furnish information on the progress made in this regard as well as on any further developments to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year and expected that it would be in a position to note significant progress with respect to all remaining matters at its meeting next year.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2008, Publication: 97th ILC session (2008)

The Government communicated the following written information concerning measures taken to fulfil the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Since 2005, when the Government made a plan to fulfil the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, a number of concrete steps were taken, which had led to full implementation or significant progress in the implementation of its recommendations. These steps include in particular:

- abolition of the Republican Registration Commission and transfer of responsibility for registration of trade unions to the Ministry of Justice;

- registration of four primary-level trade unions of the Radio and Electronic Workers' Union in Minsk, Brest, Borisov and Grodno (there were no cases of dissolution of trade unions since the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry);

- admission to membership of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues of the representative of the second largest trade union - the Congress of the Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU);

- publication of the recommendations of the Commis- sion of Inquiry in the major periodical in the country;

- reappointment to his post of the air traffic controller, Oleg Dolbic;

- issuance by the Ministry of Labour and Social Pro- tection of a circular letter to enterprises concerning prohibition of interference by employers in trade un- ion affairs and continuation of this work in the Na- tional Council on Labour and Social Issues;

- creation of the expert Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere trusted by all social partners;

- organization in January 2007, jointly with the ILO, of a seminar for judges and prosecutors on compli- ance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry;

- agreement with the ILO on organizing a joint semi- nar on protection of workers against discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership on 18 June 2008 in Minsk.

Cooperation of the Government of Belarus with the ILO and the social partners in the preparation of the new law on trade unions

The Government informed the ILO that improvement of the national legislation concerning establishment and registration of trade unions would be realized through amendments to the law on trade unions, which was thoroughly reviewed in order to reflect the new conditions and to create the legal basis for more active development of the trade union pluralism in the country. This process was carried out in close consultations with the ILO, which took place 19-20 October 2006 (Geneva), 15-17 January 2007 (Minsk), 8-9 and 14-15 February 2007 (Geneva), 14-15 May 2007 (Geneva), 20-23 June 2007 (Minsk). Consultations with the social partners were carried out within the expert Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere which includes representatives of all major participants in the social dialogue at the national level: the Government, the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus, the CDTU, the Republican Association of Industrial Enterprises, the Business Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers. Four meetings of the Council took place in 2007 to discuss the draft law.

Major improvements in the draft law on trade unions

The conditions for the establishment of a trade union were substantially simplified. Trade unions could be created at any enterprise by only three persons who, instead of a legal address, would have to indicate the address for correspondence. Thus, the draft solved two principal problems raised by the Commission of Inquiry: that of the legal address and the minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of employees for the creation of a trade union. Furthermore, the draft simplified conditions for the creation of trade unions regrouping workers from different enterprises: such trade unions could be established with a minimum of 30 members, which is in line with the conclusions of the ILO supervisory bodies. Trade unions were freed from the payment of state duty for their registration.

The main divergences concerned the provisions of the draft law dealing with the representative capacity of trade unions, which the Government tried to bring into conformity with ILO standards. The number of members was set as the basic criteria determining the representative capacity of a trade union. All trade unions, irrespective of the representative capacity, received rights and guarantees necessary to ensure their normal activities for protecting the interests of workers. All trade unions have the right to independently adopt their statutes; elect and manage their bodies; collect contributions; establish and join trade union federations; receive and disseminate information relating to their statutory activities; take part in discussing labour contracts concluded between employer and worker; protect labour rights of their members and represent them in court; organize strikes and mass actions. Additional rights given to the representative trade unions were quite limited and included the right to negotiate collective agreements; to participate in defining state policy; and to exercise public supervision of compliance with labour legislation.

Continuation of the social dialogue to reach agreement by all interested parties

The new version of the draft law on trade unions was ready by autumn 2007 and should have been submitted by the Government to Parliament. The majority of the interested parties taking part in the social dialogue supported the draft, but the CDTU opposed its principal provisions. ILO also made a number of comments during the consultations in Geneva in May 2007 and in Minsk in June 2007, recommending the Government not to submit the draft law to Parliament largely because it was not supported by one of the participants of the social dialogue, namely the CDTU. Following this recommendation, the submission of the draft law to Parliament was suspended. The Government informed the social partners about the continuation of the work on the draft law at the meeting of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues on 1 November 2007. The November session of the Governing Body welcomed the decision of the Government to reach agreement of all interested parties. The Committee of Experts also positively appraised the Government's action by enlisting Belarus among cases of interest concerning the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 (Report III, Part IA, page 18).

In March 2008, the Governing Body pointed out, among other things, the need to take tripartite action to be reported to the Conference. Implementing this decision, the Government pursued consultations with the social partners with the aim to reach consensus on the principal improvements of the draft legislation. It was not an easy task as such agreement was not obtained in 2007 and the parties had different views on concrete provisions of the future law on trade unions. To resolve the situation, the Government suggested an entirely new approach where the key role was assigned to the expert Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. At the meetings of the expert Council in April 2008, instead of discussing concrete provisions of the draft law which were in dispute, the members concentrated on elaborating the basic position, which reflected the view of all represented parties and provided a starting point for future work. This position consisted in acceptance by all participants of the social dialogue of the principle that future work on improvement of the national legislation should be based on the provisions of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Furthermore, the expert Council has unanimously decided to put this question for the consideration of the main body of the social dialogue in Belarus - the National Council on Labour and Social Issues. At its meeting on 16 April 2008, the National Council fully supported the position worked out by the expert Council and endorsed the principle of full compliance with ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98 as the basis for the future work on the new legislation on trade unions.

The decision of the National Council has created a new situation in principle: for the first time since the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry the Government and all social partners have managed to work out a common position on one of the most important questions. Such common position on the basic principle reflected in the decision of the National Council of 16 April 2008 would help the Government and the social partners to progressively align the points of view of all participants of the social dialogue on the concrete provisions of the new legislation.

In addition, before the Committee a Government representative of Belarus said that, under the plan to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as prepared in 2005, a number of specific measures had been taken by the Government, leading to full implementation of some recommendations and significant progress in the implementation of others. These measures included in particular: the abolition of the Republican Registration Commission and the transfer of responsibility for the registration of trade unions to the Ministry of Justice; the representative of the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions' (CDTU) admission to membership of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI); the publication of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in the major periodical in the country; Oleg Dolbik's reappointment to the post of air traffic controller; the issuance by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of a circular letter to enterprises concerning the prohibition of interference by employers in trade union affairs and a follow-up in the NCLSI; the creation of the Expert Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which had the confidence of all social partners; the organization in January 2007, jointly with the ILO, of a seminar for judges and prosecutors on compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry; and the agreement with the ILO to organize a joint seminar in Minsk on protection of workers against discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership on 18 June 2008.

Guided by the ILO Conference and the Governing Body, steps had been taken to develop social dialogue and establish constructive relations between the social partners. The situation was already significantly more stable. The previous antagonism between the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the CDTU had given way to dialogue, and it was hoped that they would work together on the new draft of the General Agreement for 2009-10. The NCLSI and the Expert Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had played a positive role in this process, and both the FPB and the CDTU participated in their meetings on a permanent basis. Employers' organizations played an ever more active role, as they currently chaired the NCLSI. All interested parties had found their place in the social dialogue process, and Belarus now had pluralistic workers' and employers' organizations.

One of the main challenges in the near future would be to draft new legislation on trade unions. In order to improve the legislation on the formation and registration of trade unions, the current law on trade unions would be amended. The law had been thoroughly reviewed to reflect the new conditions and to create a legal basis for a more active development of trade union pluralism. The process had involved three rounds of close consultations with the ILO in 2007, as well as consultations with the social partners at the four 2007 meetings of the Expert Council, which brought together the Government, the FPB, the CDTU, the Republican Association of Industrial Enterprises, and the Business Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers. An ILO mission had visited Belarus in June 2007 and participated in one of the Expert Council's meetings.

The new draft law on trade unions substantially simplified the conditions for the establishment of a trade union. Trade unions could be created at any enterprise by only three persons who, instead of a legal address, had to provide a correspondence address. This solved two of the main problems raised by the Commission of Inquiry, namely the need for a legal address, and the minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of all employees for the establishment of a trade union. Furthermore, the draft simplified the conditions for forming a trade union by bringing together workers from different enterprises, which could now be established with a minimum of 30 members, in line with the conclusions of the ILO's supervisory bodies. The payment of state duty upon registration of trade unions had been waived.

The main points of contention had been those provisions of the draft law that dealt with the representativeness of trade unions, which the Government had tried to bring into conformity with ILO standards. Under the draft legislation, all trade unions, irrespective of their representativeness, enjoyed the rights and guarantees necessary to safeguard their activities in defence of workers' interests. The majority of social partners had supported the draft law, but the CDTU had opposed its principal provisions. The ILO had also made a number of comments.

The draft law, which had been prepared in autumn of 2007, should then have been submitted to Parliament. However, the ILO had recommended that the Government abstain from doing so, as the draft law did not enjoy the support of one of the partners in the social dialogue, namely the CDTU. Taking this into account, the Government had postponed the submission of the draft law to Parliament and informed the social partners that work on the draft law would continue at a meeting of the NCLSI in November 2007. At its November 2007 session, the ILO Governing Body had welcomed the Government's decision, and encouraged the Government to take further positive steps. The Committee of Experts had also positively appraised the Government's action by including Belarus in the list of cases of interest with regard to the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

In March 2008, the Governing Body had stressed the need for tripartite action and had reported such to the Conference. The Government had therefore pursued consultations with trade unions and employers' organizations with a view to reaching agreement between all those involved in social dialogue on the issues of principle in relation to the improvement of national legislation. This had not proved possible in 2007, as the parties had had different views on the specific provisions that should be included in the new draft law, and the Government had recognized that a new approach was needed. The Expert Council had played a key role as the chosen forum for consultations. At its meetings in April 2008, instead of continuing to argue over individual provisions of the draft law, members had concentrated on agreeing on a basic position which reflected the view of all represented parties and which would serve as a starting point for further discussions. All sides had recognized that the starting point for future work to improve national legislation should be the standards enshrined in Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The Expert Council had decided unanimously to bring the matter before the NCLSI, as the principal forum for social dialogue in Belarus, for consideration. During a meeting in April 2008, the National Council had fully supported the position of the Expert Council and endorsed the principle of full compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 as the basis for the social partners' future work to improve national legislation in accordance with the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144).

This decision of the NCLSI had created a new situation in principle: for the first time since the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry, the Government and the social partners had managed to reach a common position on one of the most important issues. Work would now move forward step-by-step on the basis of that common position, with a view to reaching agreement on the specific provisions to be included in the new draft law. The Government would continue to cooperate actively with the ILO through the joint seminar to be held on 18 June 2008, which would involve all workers' and employers' associations, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Organization of Employers (IOE). In addition, discussions were under way on the possibility of holding a tripartite seminar on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in Minsk later in 2008. Such positive steps were encouraging for the future.

The measures taken in Belarus to strengthen relations between the social partners provided the necessary foundation for the full implementation of the Commission of Inquiry's Recommendations. The conclusions of the Conference Committee would have particular significance as the support of the ILO was needed to enable the Government, together with workers' and employers' organizations, to continue developing social dialogue. All parties in the process should be able to see and understand that the path chosen was approved by the ILO, and that the ILO was ready to provide the necessary cooperation to make it a reality.

The Employer members stated that this case had a long history of over 15 years including a review by the Commission of Inquiry. Compared to 2005 and 2006, the Government's involvement in this case seemed to have changed significantly. Previously, the Government had said that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry needed to be adapted to national conditions. Now the Government said that it would seek to fully implement them without any reservation. Such shift was welcomed.

In 2007, the Government discussed its cooperation with the ILO in terms of seminars and technical assistance which had resulted in a new draft law intended to address the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Nevertheless, as pointed out by the Committee of Experts in its observation, there were still problems with the content of the draft Bill, namely the following issues: establishing unions at the enterprise level without legal personality; a legal address required; the link between representativeness and the rights of trade unions; the level of formality of the registration procedure; the power of registration authorities to request and obtain information on the statutory activities of trade unions and the 10 per cent membership requirement to be registered at the enterprise level. The Employer members considered that the re- quirement of 10 per cent of the membership was not too high.

The Government had taken some constructive steps. As a result, there appeared to be a tripartite consensus on the principle that the new draft law would fully implement the Convention. The Employer members would have had preferred that the Government at this stage would have been closer to meeting the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In 2007, the Employer members raised several issues that equally applied this year. First, the Employer members suggested that the Government had to remedy the damage done over the past several years to employers' and workers' organizations. The Government's approval on a tripartite consensus went a long way to meeting this recommendation. Second, the Employer members had pointed out that even with good intentions, there could be a gap between a draft law and the requirements of the Convention. Even if a tripartite consensus had been achieved, this did not mean that this was equivalent to meeting the requirements of the Convention, as the consensus was probative but not conclusive. Third, the ILO and the Committee of Experts had to examine how the draft law met the requirements of the Convention. Fourth, NCLSI and the Expert Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere would have to adjust the draft law on trade unions because of the time that had elapsed since the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The new text had then to be included in a Government report to be examined by the Committee of Experts in its forthcoming session. The Committee would have a concrete basis to discuss whether this case was moving forward on a positive basis.

The Worker members recalled that this case was being presented before the Committee for the seventh time; that the Commission of Inquiry of 2003 was one of the more serious procedures that the ILO could put into place; and that the Committee of Inquiry formulated 12 clear recommendations which should form the basis for evaluating progress. In 2007, this Committee, while noting some progress, had expressed its concern at the draft law on trade unions and recommended that the Government consult with the social partners in order to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention.

An ILO mission was carried out in Belarus in June 2007 at the request of the Committee. Various consultations between the ILO and the Government had been held in Geneva and Minsk. However, no relevant evolution had been noted regarding the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, especially with regard to Article 2 of the Convention. Despite the fact that the Republican Registration Committee had been abolished, there was no proof that all obstacles to trade unions' registration had effectively disappeared. In this regard, the Committee of Experts had indicated that obstacles to the registration of primary level workers' organizations persisted. Therefore, the Worker members expected concrete clarifications on the situation with regard to the trade union registration procedure.

The draft trade union law which had been elaborated with ILO assistance and the participation of social partners, contained an ambiguity with respect to the requirements for trade unions. This could represent a disguised way to maintain the principle of prior authorization for trade unions, in contravention of Article 2 of the Convention. Similarly, the reasons for substituting the definition of "legal address" with that of "contact address" were not convincing. Moreover, this draft law did not repeal the provision stating that a trade union must represent at least 10 per cent of workers in order to be registered at the enterprise level.

The Worker members supported in full the suppression, required by the Committee of Experts, of all registration formalities contravening the Convention. They regretted that some signs of progress shown by the Government towards free trade unionism had been simultaneously contradicted by other measures constituting administrative harassment, such as the arbitrary rent increase for the premises occupied by independent trade unions.

The Worker members stressed that, as indicated by the Committee of Experts, section 41 of the draft law on trade unions would authorize public administrations to inquire into trade unions' activities, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, the measures taken in order to amend section 388 of the Labour Code which prohibits strikers from receiving financial assistance from foreign persons, as well as Decree No. 24 (concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, so that workers' and employers' organizations may benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers) violate the trade unions' (and employers' organizations') right to benefit from the assistance from international organizations to defend their interests.

The Committee of Experts' report clearly indicated that the draft reforms were far from guaranteeing the full respect of freedom of association. The Worker members welcomed the Government's statement that in the future, independent trade unions would be treated on an equal footing with other trade unions. They urged the Government to follow the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the conclusions of the Committee of Experts, as well at to amend the draft law on trade unions in conformity with what was indicated by the Committee.

A Worker member of Belarus declared that, despite the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, independent trade unions were struggling with the same difficulties as in the past. The refusal to register an independent trade union remained common. Last April, a Presidential Decree had led to a tenfold increase of the rent to be paid for premises occupied by independent trade unions. For the 1 May ceremonies, the FPB had been able to organize its meetings on the most prestigious sites of the capital, whereas the CDTU and the Radio and Electronic Workers' Union (REWU) had not even been authorized to organize their meeting in a city park. During the last seven months, the premises of the CDTU had been raided twice by the police and were accompanied by arrests of trade unionists and sequestration of property. Administrative and legal procedures launched against anti-union dismissals were not successful. The Expert Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had still not been established. Without going into further detail, it could be concluded that out of 12 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, merely two had been implemented, albeit partially. The Committee should therefore be firm with the Government and compel it to have a more constructive approach.

Another Worker member of Belarus stated that the FPB represented the interests of more than 4 million workers in the country. He affirmed that a constructive dialogue with the Government existed. This was confirmed by the active participation of the FPB in the activities of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues and the Expert Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. The FPB worked for the respect of ILO's international labour standards in the country and supported trade union pluralism. The examination of this case for the seventh time by the Committee revealed, on the one hand, that problems persisted and, on the other, that changes undertaken by the Government were not considered at the right moment. In this regard, it was indispensible for the ILO to support the progress achieved through more active dialogue and increased technical assistance. He invited the Committee to consider, in its conclusions, the need to maintain the dynamism established, and to consolidate the progress achieved. At the same time the Committee should not continue to include this case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Employer member of Belarus stated that remarkable structural changes had occurred in the course of 2007 concerning the development of social partnership and cooperation between the Government and workers' and employers' organizations. Tangible progress had been achieved in fulfilling the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations. Regarding the improvement of social dialogue and the implementation of collective agreements, regular tripartite consultations had been held with the participation of all unions. Positive changes could be noted also concerning the legislation regulating and facilitating the development of the economy and the creation of favourable conditions for investment. It was hoped that these laws would help the country to achieve a high-level of economic development and a stable social environment. In this regard, it was also hoped that the countries' participation in the General System of Preferences, would be restored, the withdrawal from which had a negative impact firstly on ordinary workers. It could be the case that further requests from the ILO would have to be implemented, but there was no reason to believe that restrictions in the country would create social tension or curb dynamic development. The Belarusian employers were ready for the continued cooperation with all those organizations which had a clear view of the progressive, positive and real trends in the country. They also wished to make use of the support of the ILO. The Committee should undertake a proper assessment of the State's economic policy and all positive changes introduced in accordance with the ILO's recommendations, and reach balanced and fair conclusions.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation urged the Government to take the necessary measures to implement fully all recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The situation had begun to change slowly, but was moving in the right direction. The authorities understood that constructive dialogue was better than confrontation, and that it was easier to redress violations than to deny their existence. While a number of measures had been taken, violations still continued and pressure on trade unions was still exerted, including rent increases for the premises rented by some trade unions. He welcomed the fact that the draft trade union law was not submitted to Parliament and that the Government agreed to conduct two seminars on anti-union discrimination with the participation of all trade unions. He called upon the Government to demonstrate its goodwill and to reaffirm its adherence to ILO principles.

The Government member of Slovenia, spoke on behalf of the Government members of Member States of the European Union (EU). The Governments of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine aligned themselves with the declaration. The EU associated itself with the conclusions of the last session of the Governing Body in March 2008, in which the lack of progress made towards the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry since November 2007 had been deeply regretted, and which had urged the Government to ensure that workers' and employers' organizations could carry out their activities in full freedom. The EU remained deeply concerned by the situation in Belarus regarding the compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The EU deplored that the Government of Belarus had repeatedly failed to provide the Committee of Experts with requested information, and therefore invited the Government to im- prove the quality of cooperation with the Committee in this respect. He noted the Committee of Experts' finding that the "current situation in Belarus remains far from ensuring full respect for freedom of association and the application of the provisions of the Convention". The registration of all workers' organizations without restrictions was particularly pertinent. The EU called on the Government to ensure freedom of association and the rights of all workers to form and join organizations of their choice in accordance with the Convention. The EU would continue to monitor closely the situation in Belarus. It called once again on the Government to honour its repeatedly stated commitment for the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without any further delay. The EU strongly encouraged the Government to continue a transparent and close dialogue with the social partners and the ILO. The EU took note of the recent information provided by the Govern- ment. The EU continued to stand ready to provide assistance if requested by the Government, with the objective of implementing these recommendations, involving also free trade unions.

The Government member of the Russian Federation recalled that last year, the Conference Committee noted the progress made by the Government of Belarus in the implementation of recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. At its March 2008 session, the Governing Body also noted that constructive dialogue with the social partners had taken place in Belarus. With regard to the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the following could be noted: the Republican Registration Commission was abolished and the responsibility for the registration of trade unions was transferred to the Ministry of Justice; two representatives of the CDTU became members of the NCLSI; the NCLSI became the competent body to examine complaints of interference in trade union affairs; the Ministry of Justice monitored the implementation of the NCLSI's decisions; several trade unions were registered; the Government continued its work on the draft trade union law in consultation with social partners and by taking into account the recommendations of the ILO; and the decision adopted on 16 April 2008 by the NCLSI that future work on improvement of the national legislation should be based on the provisions of ILO Conventions Nos 87, 98 and 144. The Government reaffirmed its willingness to cooperate with the ILO to achieve compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Thus, the Government was making progress in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation with the ILO.

The Government member of the United States expressed continued concern about the status of freedom of association in Belarus and applauded the many efforts of the ILO to work in good faith with the Government of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This continuing cooperation should be welcomed. She noted the information that the Government of Belarus had supplied to the Committee. Despite these positive developments, her Government had the impression that Belarus was still far from ensuring full respect for freedom of association. This was indeed the essence of the Committee of Experts' observation. She noted that the Committee of Experts must examine whether, and to what extent, the latest developments in Belarus represented genuine progress in the application of the Convention. In the meantime, she recalled that the right to freedom of association should be fully respected in Belarus and all barriers, in law or in practice, should be removed to enable all workers to organize and to express their points of view without threat of interference or reprisal.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated the positive aspects of the case and the measures taken by the Government to strengthen social dialogue. A tripartite mechanism had been established, the NCLSI, and a Council of Experts, the Expert Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. The ILO Governing Body had also recognized the progress made. The Government was willing to comply progressively with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, based on social dialogue. Moreover, the Government recognized the need to amend the legislation and counted on the cooperation of national social partners, as well as on the participation of the ILO. The Committee of Experts had indicated as cases of interest the cases involving the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 by the Government of Belarus. The Committee had to also stress the importance of constructive social dialogue, as well as cooperation among the social partners and with the ILO.

The Government member of Canada expressed his Government's concern that the Government of Belarus continued to disregard international appeals to respect human rights and democratic principles, including the right of workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing. The Government of Belarus should be urged to recognize and respect the political and human rights of its citizens to peaceful and democratic activity, including those rights granted under the Convention that it had ratified. It also urged the Government to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the requests of the Committee of Experts. The Canadian Government had worked, and would continue to work, with other member States of the ILO to encourage reform by the Government of Belarus.

The Government member of India noted the tangible efforts made by the Government of Belarus in initiating a draft trade union law in close cooperation with the social partners. He encouraged dialogue and cooperation between the member States and the ILO to resolve outstanding issues. The steps taken by the Government to engage with the social partners and to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were extremely positive. In view of the significant progress made towards the practical implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and with the follow-up mechanisms in place, it was emphasized that this case should no longer be examined as an individual case.

The Government member of Egypt stated that the Government of Belarus had taken numerous measures to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Her Government also took note of the efforts to improve the legislation and of the cooperation with the ILO. In view of the progress made, the Committee should continue to support the Government.

The Government member of Cuba indicated that the explanations given by the Government representative confirmed that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were fulfilled. By virtue of the new Decree No. 605, four out of six trade unions affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers' Union (REWU) had been registered. Moreover, a draft trade union law had been prepared with the participation of the social partners and the assistance of the ILO. It was important to remember the support of the ILO mission, which participated in the consultation process aimed at amending the draft law, and bringing it into conformity with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Considering that in its previous session, the Committee of Experts had noted progress regarding certain recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the Conference Committee needed to act with impartiality and set aside any political interests. The Committee should note the progress achieved through social dialogue, its positive effects and the measures taken by the Government of Belarus to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the observations of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of China noted that since the last session of the Conference, the Government had achieved further progress through cooperation with the ILO and through constructive dialogue with the social partners with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, preparation of the draft trade union law and the establishment of tripartite mechanisms. The Committee should recognize the progress made in cooperation with the social partners. She expressed the hope that the collaboration between the Government and the ILO would continue for the implementation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

The Government representative of Belarus stated that this important discussion would be taken into account by the Government. Significant progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been achieved and the Government continued its cooperation and dialogue with the ILO. A series of consultations had taken place in May in Geneva between the Government representatives, ILO experts, and the Employers' and Workers' groups. A seminar on anti-union discrimination would be held on 18 June 2008 with the participation of high-ranking officials and experts from the ILO, representatives of the ITUC, judges, prosecutors, representatives of the ministries concerned, representatives of the FPB, the CDTU, as well as employers' organizations.

All trade unions in Belarus, irrespective to which structure they belonged, could defend the interests of their members and conclude collective agreements. Six out of eight workers named in the report of the Commission of Inquiry were now working. Two preferred to stay in the informal sector. The eight persons concerned were not dismissed, but their contracts were not renewed. The fact that the system of fixed-term contracts existed in Belarus could not be criticized, as such a system existed in many countries. The anti-union discrimination was prohibited by the legislation and for cases of violations, the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the labour inspectorate were obliged to examine such cases.

With regard to the draft trade union law, it was important to note that a common position was finally adopted by all parties involved and the principle of full compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 was endorsed as the basis for the future work on the new legislation. The efforts of the Government of Belarus to achieve implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry should therefore be assessed positively.

The Employer members indicated that after a long debate, the conclusion seemed to be that this individual case was a good way towards solution, but much needed to be done. Nobody, especially not the Government, should underestimate the amount of work necessary to be undertaken. The Committee was waiting for the full realization of freedom of association in the country.

The Worker members expressed their support for all the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts in its observation. It contained an accurate and well-founded analysis, along with clear observations on the current law and the contribution of planned reforms with regard to the Convention. The Worker members regretted that the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry in 2003 had not yet been specifically implemented, in particular with regard to recognizing the rights of workers' organizations to be registered and to carry out activities free from interference. The Worker members strongly urged the Government to work in consultation with all social partners, particularly trade unions, to put the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations into practice and to ensure that this was done in a climate free from any violence or threats towards workers' organizations.

The Worker members welcomed the fact that the draft trade union law had been subject to a process of consultation with the social partners, rather than being imposed. This initiative on the part of the Government was more in line with Convention No. 87. In spite of the fact that they considered the situation to be encouraging and that they had seen some positive signs, the Worker members said that they would remain vigilant, and requested the Government to report regularly to the Governing Body on progress in legislation and in practice with regard to the application of Convention No. 87. The Worker members stressed that the situation remained serious and that the Government should not consider that it had now fulfilled its obligations under Convention No. 87. It would be for the Governing Body to assess the efforts made by the Government in that regard.

Conclusions

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

The Committee noted the detailed information provided by the Government on steps it had taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry since the issuance of the Commission's report in 2004 and on recent steps to promote social dialogue in the country.

The Committee noted the statements made by the Government representative according to which, the submission of the draft trade union law to Parliament had been suspended and that the Government was actively continuing its work on the draft law in consultation with the social partners. The Committee further noted the Government's statement that, at its April 2008 meeting, the National Council on Labour and Social Issues endorsed the principle of full compliance with ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98 as the basis for the future work on the new legislation on trade unions, which would be discussed in the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere in July.

In light of the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts that the draft trade union law should not go forward in its present form, the Committee welcomed the fact that the Government had held the draft law back.

The Committee nevertheless noted with deep concern new allegations of harassment and pressure exercised on independent trade unions, including through dismissal, arbitrary rent increases for the premises used by independent trade union organizations and the continuing denial of registration.

The Committee noted with regret that it had to observe once again that the key recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had not yet been implemented. While some recommendations had been dealt with, as noted earlier by this Committee, these steps did not go to the heart of the matter as clearly set out in the report of the Commission of Inquiry. In particular, no specific steps had yet been taken to satisfactorily address the question of the right for all trade unions to obtain registration without previous authorization and to conduct their activities without interference and harassment.

In light of the Government's stated commitment to social dialogue, the Committee firmly encouraged it to work closely with all the social partners to find acceptable solutions in the light of the comments of the Committee of Experts and which would effectively lead to the implementation of all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee emphasized that such cooperation had to take place in a framework where there was no pressure on, or harassment of, trade union organizations and their members and where the fundamental rights of each of them was scrupulously respected.

The Committee welcomed the Government's statement that it was organizing a seminar on anti-union discrimination with the participation of ILO representatives immediately following the Conference and that a more expanded tripartite seminar would be organized, in autumn 2008, on the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry recommendations.

The Committee firmly expected that the Governing Body would be in a position to note positive developments in this respect at its November 2008 session. It requested the Government to provide information on legislative developments, as well as complete statistics relating to the registration of trade unions and complaints of anti-union discrimination to the Committee of Experts for examination at its forthcoming session.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2007, Publication: 96th ILC session (2007)

A Government representative said that, since the last session of the Committee, the situation regarding the implementation by Belarus of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had drastically changed. Over the past year, the Government had taken a series of concrete measures that had led to certain of those recommendations being implemented in full. Significant progress had been made with the others. He referred in this respect to the written information provided to the Committee.

In relation to recommendation No. 2 of the Commission of Inquiry, a draft Trade Union Law was being developed, the aim of which was to simplify the procedures for establishing and registering trade unions. The draft Law was an attempt by the Government to adapt the legislation to the current situation and to create a legal basis for further and more intense development of trade union pluralism in the country. The adoption of the new Law would solve the problems in the legislation that had been raised by the Commission of Inquiry.

Throughout its elaboration of the draft Law, the Government had undertaken intensive consultations with the ILO. It had discussed the initial concept of the draft law with the Office in October 2006. Consultations had taken place in Minsk in January 2007 and in Geneva in February. The Government had also actively discussed the draft Law with the social partners in the country. Three expert meetings had taken place on the issue of improving legislation in the labour and social sphere and the draft Law had been discussed in that context. All interested parties had been involved in the consultation process: the Government, the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Belarus Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) and employers' organizations. Further discussions had been held with the ILO in Geneva in May 2007.

Each article of the draft Law had been reviewed and positive steps were taken by the Government to resolve a series of issues that had been noted. The standards about which the ILO had particular concerns had also been discussed. The Government and the ILO had agreed to continue working jointly on the draft Law. Towards the end of June 2007, consultations would resume in Minsk with the participation of the Government, all trade union and employers' organizations and the ILO.

The concerns raised by the Committee of Experts would be addressed by the new Law. It would not prohibit the creation of a second primary trade union organization in those enterprises where an organization with over 75 per cent of the workers as members already existed. The draft Law guaranteed the right to create trade unions at all levels and in any organization. This resolved two of the main issues raised by the Commission of Inquiry: the need for a legal address and the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement. These requirements had been abolished. The draft Law was advantageous to small trade unions. A trade union could be formed in any enterprise, as long as it had three members. Instead of a legal address, all that was needed was a contact address. Trade unions with a legal address had the right to obtain legal personality. Those without a legal address, however, would have the same rights to undertake trade union activities and defend the interests of their members.

The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry touched upon issues relating to the creation of trade unions at the enterprise level, which was also dealt with in the draft Law. In addition, the draft Law considerably relaxed the procedures for establishing trade unions of workers from various enterprises. The fact that such trade unions could be set up with a minimum membership of 30 people was in accordance with ILO principles. The provisions of the draft Law relating to the representativeness of trade unions were also in accordance with ILO standards. All trade unions, regardless of their level of representativeness, would enjoy the rights and guarantees needed to ensure that they could function normally and protect the interests of workers. They also had the right to the following: independently establish their statutes; elect their officers and organize their activities; collect dues from their members; establish and join federations; receive and disseminate information relating to their statutory activities; participate in discussions between employers and workers on labour issues; defend the rights of their members, including by representing them in court; organize strikes; and undertake industrial action. Thus, their authority was safeguarded. The additional rights of representative trade unions included the right to engage in collective bargaining, become involved in the development of government policy and monitor observance of labour laws.

The draft Law stipulated that an enterprise-level trade union would be recognized as representative if its membership included no fewer than 10 per cent of the enterprise's workers. A trade union operating throughout the country would be recognized as representative if it had no fewer than 7,000 members, or one-third of the workers in a specific branch or profession. The Government's opponents asserted that the issue of representativeness had been included in the draft Law only to drive the CDTU from the process of social dialogue. That was not true. The draft Law took into account the interests of the various types of trade unions and it created the necessary conditions for the development of trade union pluralism. Most importantly, it guaranteed that the right of freedom of association could be exercised by anyone who so desired. It was therefore clear that the presence or absence of the additional rights afforded to representative trade unions would not exert an excessive influence on the choice of a trade union organization by workers.

The promotion of social dialogue in general had been one of the principal achievements of the Government over the past year. In terms of the draft Law, the consultations between the Government and the social partners had led to concrete results. At first, the draft Law had stated that no fewer than 8,000 members were required for recognition of a trade union as representative at the national level. Following consultations, however, that figure had been reduced to 7,000. Furthermore, two Republic-wide trade unions had previously been required to create a trade union association. That number was now only one. There were currently two such associations in Belarus: the FPB, with 4 million members, and the CDTU, which had 10,000 members. The changes introduced by the draft Law provided an opportunity for both of them to confirm their status as national associations and to take part in social dialogue at national level, which included representation on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues. Nevertheless, the absence of national-level status in no way impinged on the possibility of creating a trade union or association of trade unions.

In order to further encourage the development of the trade union movement, the draft Law provided for a waiver on state registration fees. This was particularly important for small trade unions. In addition, the registration procedure had been simplified and the creation of trade unions had been made easier in general. At the enterprise and regional levels, it significantly reduced the minimum requirements for numbers of members. For nationwide trade unions, however, the figure remained at 500, a number that had never been criticized by the ILO.

The adoption of the Law would be a major step forward in guaranteeing the right of freedom of association in Belarus and a real contribution to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The draft was not yet in its final state and the process of intensive negotiations would continue. In July 2007, it would be examined by the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) and was due to be considered by Parliament later in the year. The Government considered it a well-balanced Law that was in full accordance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

In 2006, the Government had undertaken a series of other steps to implement the recommendations. It had embarked upon a process of relaxing the procedures for the registration of trade unions and had abolished the Republican Registration Commission, thus implementing recommendation No. 3. The Ministry of Justice was now responsible for the registration. In December 2006, it had posted on its web site information on membership which explained that citizens had the right to create trade unions of their own choosing and to join trade unions if they were willing to comply with their union's statutes. In 2006, six applications for registration had been received. Four trade unions had been registered and two applications had been denied, but the reasons were mainly that they were violating their own statutes. Nevertheless, they had the right to reapply.

Regarding the full dissemination of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, recommendation No. 4, the Government had published them in its official journal Respublika, which had a large countrywide circulation. It had also informed members of the judicial system of the need to examine complaints from trade unions thoroughly. In January 2007, a seminar had been organized, in conjunction with the ILO, with the aim of raising awareness among the judiciary. Given the success of the event, the Government had approached the ILO regarding the possibility of holding another seminar on issues of discrimination in labour relations as a result of membership of a trade union. He added that the Government had provided the ILO with detailed information on the cases of the eight workers who had been dismissed due to their trade union membership, and he was pleased to inform the Committee that air traffic controller Mr Oleg Dolbik had been re-engaged.

Social partnership bodies were fully involved in the process of implementing the recommendations. On 31 January 2007, the National Council on Labour and Social Issues had admitted Mr Yaroshuk, Chairperson of the CDTU. Thus, recommendation No. 11 had been implemented in full. The social partners were constantly and systematically involved in consideration of issues relating to the interaction between the boards of enterprises and trade unions, in accordance with recommendation No. 6.

Belarus had also set up additional mechanisms to protect the rights of trade unions and their members. The Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had assumed the role of an independent body for examining complaints related to interference in trade union affairs, thereby implementing recommendation No. 5. It would examine cases brought by workers relating to discrimination as a result of membership of a trade union. By guaranteeing independent review of the cases, it was implementing recommendation No. 7.

He observed that the working methods of the Conference Committee meant that it concentrated on the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Yet the situation in Belarus had changed substantially since the comments had been made; he therefore urged the Conference Committee to take the current situation into account in its deliberations. He said that ILO decisions would also be used by other international organizations. The European Union (EU) had referred to the ILO's position when introducing economic sanctions against the country, and the conclusions of the present session of the Committee could be used by the EU to justify its position. At its present session, the Conference had set up a committee to examine the ILO's position on ensuring the sustainable activity of enterprises. Support for and the development of sustainable enterprises was one of the pillars of the ILO strategy for achieving decent work. Such enterprises ensured economic growth, and jobs and income for workers. The EU's economic sanctions would have a negative effect on the performance of enterprises.

In conclusion, he said that his Government had done everything it could to implement as fully as possible the conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee the previous year. He called on the Committee to support the efforts made by the Government and to adopt conclusions that confirmed the existence of real and tangible progress.

The Employer members recalled that the case had a long history going back over 15 years, including a Commission of Inquiry, a process reserved for the most serious cases. They noted that, in comparison with 2005 and 2006, the Government's orientation to the case appeared to have changed. It had previously maintained that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry needed to be adapted to national conditions. It was now saying that it would fully implement them. The change was to be welcomed.

The Employer members noted that in the oral and written information that had been provided, reference had been made to a number of possible changes in the law. There would also be a high-level visit to the country by the ILO immediately following the Conference. While the latest version of the draft Trade Union Law appeared to address some of the matters at issue, a minimum number of measures needed to be taken in this serious and long-standing case. Firstly, the Government needed to repair the damage suffered over recent years by employers' and workers' organizations so that there could be full, complete and vibrant social dialogue. Secondly, as everyone was aware, even with the best intentions, there could be a gap between the provisions of draft legislation and the requirements of the Convention. It was not possible to review the proposed text of the draft Law in the Conference Committee and, even if the text had tripartite support, this did not necessarily mean that it fulfilled all of the Government's obligations. The ILO therefore needed to provide the Government with an opinion on whether all aspects of the draft legislation met the obligations of the Convention. The Government, in consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations, needed to reach agreement on the revised draft Law, which should be submitted in time for consideration by the Committee of Experts at its next session. This would provide the Conference Committee with a basis for assessing the real situation next year. Although the Employer members expressed a certain level of hope, they still remained concerned in view of the history of the case. They therefore hoped to see progress in the case in the very near future.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the oral and written information and emphasized that the application of Convention No. 87 in Belarus was one of the cases with which the ILO supervisory bodies were most familiar. Since 1995, the serious and systematic violations of the Convention in Belarus had been the subject of repeated observations by the Committee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Credentials Committee and the Conference Committee. In 2003, the Governing Body had decided to establish a Commission of Inquiry, a measure reserved for the most serious cases of non-compliance with ratified Conventions. The Commission of Inquiry had issued 12 recommendations, most of which should have been implemented two years ago. Unfortunately, progress had clearly not been sufficient. In view of the serious implications of this discussion of the case, the developments that had occurred since the publication of the report of the Committee of Experts could not be ignored, with particular reference to the discussion in the Committee on Freedom of Association and the conclusions of the Governing Body in March 2007.

The Worker members took note of the exhaustive information provided by the Government. However, in their view the information was confusing at best, misleading at worst, and did not address the heart of the matter. The present discussion should focus on only two matters: whether the observations of the Committee of Experts had been addressed, and whether the Government had implemented two very simple requests in the conclusions adopted by the Governing Body in March 2007. The Governing Body had called upon the Government to ensure that all workers' and employers' organizations could function freely and without interference, and obtain registration; and to abandon the approach set out in the conceptual framework on the Trade Union Law, which had now become a draft, while reviewing the national legislation in full to ensure that the right to organize was fully protected.

They acknowledged the developments mentioned by the Government representative, namely the granting to the CDTU of a seat on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues, the disbandment of the Republican Registration Commission, the re-engagement of Oleg Dolbik and the recent registration of a few independent trade union organizations. These were steps in the right direction, but they did not resolve all the pending issues. Moreover, none of the independent trade union organizations specifically mentioned in the report of the Commission of Inquiry had so far been registered, even though the Committee of Experts had called on the Government to take immediate measures for the registration of those organizations and of the territorial organizations of the CDTU, namely those in Mogilev, Baranovici and Novopolotsk-Polotsk. In the meantime, the Committee on Freedom of Association continued to examine new cases of the refusal to register independent trade unions. Even where such unions won their battle for registration, the workers suffered unacceptable humiliation in the process. For example, the Radio-Electronic Workers' Union (REWU) had suffered unacceptable interference by the Ministry of Justice, which had itself been closely involved in dialogue between the ILO and the Government. Moreover, immediately after the Conference last year, the Ministry of Justice had issued its own interpretation of the REWU's constitution, prohibiting workers who were not employed in the radio-electronic industry from joining the union, even if the union itself was prepared to accept them. This interpretation had led to a situation in which prosecutors refused to address cases of harassment of REWU members, effectively giving a green light to union-busting campaigns. Examples included the registration of the Borisov union in February 2007, as indicated by the Government representative, who should have added that it was the union's sixth application for registration and that the previous application had been refused because of the font size of the related documents.

The Worker members recalled that, according to Convention No. 87, as interpreted by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association, the registration procedure should be a mere formality. This was not the case in Belarus. Trade unions could not register unless they could provide a legal address, for which a number of rules existed. For example, enterprise unions in the structures of the official FPB could use the legal address of the company, but independent trade unions could not, as employers refused their consent. In view of the large number of state enterprises in the country, consent for the use of legal addresses could easily be controlled by the State. The ILO had urged the Government to repeal Presidential Decree No. 2, which set out the provisions referred to above. However, the Government had still expressed no commitment to make this change and the draft Law was, to their understanding, still not compatible with the Convention. It was to be regretted that the text of the draft had not been placed before the Committee. The Worker members recalled that the new Trade Union Law was not one of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. What was needed was to repeal or amend Presidential Decrees Nos 2, 11 and 24. The new Law would only be a positive development if it were in full conformity with the Convention, which it was not. The unacceptable registration requirements were still in place, at least for unions wishing to acquire legal personality. The fear was that the adoption of the new Law would mean that all trade unions would have to go through difficult re-registration procedures once again.

The Worker members noted with interest the re-engagement of the trade unionist, Mr Dolbik, although on a fixed-term contract. However, the Government had not indicated what had happened to other people in similar situations. The Committee on Freedom of Association had before it new cases of anti-union harassment, including the non-renewal of the fixed-term contracts of the members of the independent trade union in the Avtopark No. 2 in Gomel and discrimination against independent trade unionists in the Belshina enterprise, which had resulted in the President of the union going on a hunger strike.

One of the urgent requests of the Committee of Experts was for the Government to repeal the Law on Mass Activities and the corresponding Presidential Decree No. 11, which made it practically impossible for trade unions to organize public protest actions because of the administrative obstacles and high fees. However, nothing had been done to change these rules and pickets and demonstrations organized by independent trade unions were simply prohibited or moved to other locations. Workers in Belarus did not have full freedom to join an organization of their choosing. If they wished to form an organization outside the official structures, which was the essence of Convention No. 87, they would probably have to fight a long battle for registration, face strong pressure from the Government or the authorities and, if they persevered, they would still not have the right to organize mass activities.

The Worker members referred to the overall political and human rights climate in the country, where the independent trade union movement, despite the many obstacles it had to overcome, was one of the very few elements in society that stood up to what was basically an authoritarian regime. Other civil society organizations, including employers and their associations, also faced limitations of their fundamental rights. Although there was on-going dialogue between the Government and the Office, the danger was that the dialogue was being diverted from the main issue and that it was only taking place in view of the international pressure faced by the Government, notably the decision by the European Union to withdraw trade preferences temporarily. While the Government was making every effort to prevent that decision from being enforced, it had shown no intention of genuinely implementing the Convention. Instead, it was introducing a few purely cosmetic changes, while engaging in an organized lobbying campaign that desperately sought to prevent the case from being assessed on its merits. The Worker members therefore called on the Committee to consider the merits of the case at least as seriously as it had in previous years.

The Worker member of Belarus said that the process of formulating the draft Trade Union Law had addressed a number of issues raised in the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. All types of trade unions had been involved in the process, including those that were not members of the FPB. The text of the draft Law had been studied and amendments would be proposed, as his initial impression of the text was that it needed much improvement. He therefore hoped that the comments made by the FPB would be taken into account so as to offer greater protection for trade union activities and strengthen the text in other areas, such as the minimum number of members required to achieve representative status. He believed that the trade unions in the country would be in a stronger position to bargain with the Government if they achieved greater unity amongst themselves.

He also agreed that constructive dialogue was taking place between the Government and the Office and he hoped that it would lead to the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, leading to full protection and freedom of action for trade unions. The FPB was a confederation with 4 million members, but it always supported equal relations with other unions. He therefore welcomed the fact that the Government was implementing the majority of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He believed that their implementation would be reinforced through the adoption of the new Trade Union Law, which he hoped would be fully in line with ILO standards and would be adopted in the near future.

However, he expressed concern at the negative consequences of the decision by the European Union to withdraw the trade preferences for Belarus. He believed that the decision was premature, as it was still too early to assess the extent to which the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were being implemented. Although he could understand the concern of the European Union, he believed that it would be more appropriate for the ILO itself to address issues relating to the fulfilment of the Government's commitments in relation to ILO standards, especially since the action proposed by the European Union was likely to have a particularly prejudicial effect on working and living standards in the country in general.

He therefore concluded that there had been progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, although much still remained to be done. The trade union legislation was being improved and trade unions would be able to operate more effectively. It was therefore to be hoped that the European Union decision would not be put into effect.

The Employer member of Belarus assured the Committee that employers' organizations in Belarus, together with the Government and trade unions, were working to fulfil the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and that the situation had improved considerably over the past months. A number of important steps had been taken, as indicated by the Government representative. Nevertheless, there remained a number of unresolved issues in the work of employers' organizations with the Government, including questions relating to taxation, the business environment, bureaucratic barriers to business and the adoption of laws enabling companies to operate more freely. As co-chair of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues he reaffirmed that dialogue on social issues had been activated recently and hoped that the progress already made would lead to substantial results.

However, he expressed great concern at the intention of the European Union to exclude Belarus from the generalized system of preferences (GSP). If the decision were enforced, it would result in a considerable decline in trade with European countries to the detriment not only of businesses in Belarus, but also their European partners. Those who suffered the most would be small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and particularly exporters of textiles, where the main workforce was made up of women. Moreover, a large number of SMEs were located in the Chernobyl area. Such a negative impact on trade and economic cooperation with the European Union was not in the interests of those seeking stability and economic and social security in Europe. The continuation of dialogue with the ILO and the European Union would be much better than measures which would jeopardize the situation of thousands of people in the country. He called on the Committee to take a position against the implementation of the decision by the European Union to exclude Belarus from the GSP.

The Government member of the Russian Federation noted that a number of important steps had been taken and that the Government was making progress in its efforts to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. A new version of the draft Trade Union Law had been submitted to the Office for evaluation, demonstrating the cooperation between the Government and the ILO. The draft Law no longer contained a minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of employees for the creation of a trade union and a legal address was no longer required for registration. The decision to include the Chairperson of the CDTU as a member of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues was another such positive step. The conceptual framework of the draft Law, and subsequently the draft Trade Union Law, had been discussed repeatedly with trade union representatives, as a result of which significant changes had been made to the draft Law. Dialogue with the social partners was systematic in the Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, where the CDTU had two seats.

More progress was of course needed, but it could not be achieved overnight. More work and better cooperation with the ILO was also required. The Belarusian Government was clearly committed to the process of implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, in law and in practice, as demonstrated by the participation of the Deputy Prime Minister in the Conference Committee.

During the last session of the Governing Body, most participants had noted the progress made by the Government in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and bringing the law into line with the provisions of Convention No. 87. The Conference Committee should in turn be unbiased, conscientious and objective in its deliberations. Cooperation, not penalization, was the order of the day. The country should be provided with the assistance needed to enable it to fulfil its obligations. The fact that progress had been achieved and that the Government was moving in the right direction should be reflected in the Committee's conclusions.

The Government member of Germany also speaking on behalf of the Government members of the European Union represented in the Committee and the Government members of Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia; in addition, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine aligned themselves with her statement. She recalled that in the Governing Body in March 2007 the European Union had strongly supported the conclusions on Belarus adopted by the Governing Body in March 2007 which, inter alia, called upon the Government to cooperate fully with the Office for the implementation of all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government had been urged to review all of its legislation in full consultation with all the social partners concerned with a view to ensuring the right to organize in both law and practice so that free and independent trade unions could exercise their full rights. The European Union had also noted with interest various of the activities carried out by the Government and the signs of the political will to cooperate with the ILO at a high level. However, it had been necessary to acknowledge that the high-level activities were in contrast with the outcomes on the ground, where there had been no substantial progress on most of the essential issues. In particular, the European Union had called on the Government to amend the draft Trade Union Law to ensure the right of trade unions to be established and function freely and without interference.

She expressed disappointment that the Committee of Experts had been forced to conclude that the current situation remained far from ensuring full respect for freedom of association. The European Union shared the concern with regard to the conceptual framework of trade union legislation and its possible impact on trade union pluralism. The focus on representativeness in the new draft Law was likely to have a serious impact on the existence of first-level organizations and their corresponding federations at the level of the Republic, thereby giving rise to a de facto union monopoly. She once again urged the Government to abandon this approach and to take the necessary steps to ensure that the relevant legislation fully ensured freedom of association and the right of all workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing at whatever level.

With regard to the right of trade unions to be established freely and to operate without obstacles, she acknowledged the disbandment of the Republican Registration Commission and the adjustments to the registration process. She firmly hoped that the process of registration in its present form did not in practice amount to a requirement of previous authorization. She also regretted that no progress had been made in complying with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association to register the first-level organizations covered by the complaint, and hoped that all the necessary measures would be adopted for their immediate re-registration. She further regretted the failure to amend the Law on Mass Activities, the implementation of which in practice routinely rendered meaningless the right to demonstrate.

In conclusion, she once again urged the Government to fully and effectively implement all of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry with a view to ensuring full respect for freedom of association in consultation with all trade unions. To this end, she strongly encouraged the Government to continue a transparent and close dialogue with the ILO, and indicated that the European Union would follow closely and with great interest any further developments in the country.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation recalled that, for seven years, the violation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 by the Government of Belarus had been discussed at almost every International Labour Conference and Governing Body session. During that period, the Commission of Inquiry had visited Belarus, which had also received several high-level ILO missions. The Governing Body had last examined the case in March 2007, when the Workers' group, as a concession, had not called for it to be included on the agenda of the present session of the Conference. They had therefore accorded the Government more time to implement in full all 12 recommendations, noting that certain progress had been made in relation to some of them. However, the Government had not taken any of the measures that were urgently required to redress the situation.

Referring to the proposed creation of a state union between Belarus and the Russian Federation, he said that Russian trade unions would not accept violations of workers' rights and the non-observance of freedom of association in part of a future united state. Thus, on 4 June 2007, the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) had sent a letter to the President and Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus expressing the hope that the authorities would heed the views of the international community and take decisive measures swiftly to implement in full the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Two other Russian union organizations had sent similar letters.

He sincerely hoped that, by the next session of the Governing Body, the Government would have fulfilled its promises to implement in full the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, thereby demonstrating compliance with its international obligations and re-establishing its authority in the world and in Europe. Furthermore, it would have a positive impact on the development of trade unions in the country and create a climate of trust and non-interference as a basis for real tripartite cooperation, which would be to the benefit of the rights and interests of all parties.

The Worker member of Germany said that the Governing Body and the Committee on Freedom of Association continued to express concern about the situation of independent trade unions in Belarus and that they reviewed the case on a regular basis. The ILO was providing the country with a very high level of assistance and support, and would undoubtedly continue to do so. It had therefore been a matter of great surprise to hear the Government representative at the last Conference accusing the Office of merely criticizing Belarus and in so doing acting in the interests of the West. Hardly any other member State received so much support from the ILO, including missions at all levels, to help bring its law and practice into accordance with the freedom of association Conventions. It was therefore all the more worrying that there remained severe obstacles to the exercise of freedom of association and to the establishment and membership of independent trade unions. Although the Governing Body and the Committee on Freedom of Association had been able to note certain progress, a great deal still remained to be done. Even where unions were set up, their action was restricted and they could not organize the necessary protest and industrial action. Until the Government repealed the Law on Mass Activities and renounced interference in all types of protest activities, free trade union activity would hardly be possible. She therefore urged the Government to give effect to the many commitments that it had made before the November session of the Governing Body, which would have to decide on further action with a view to ensuring the application of the Convention.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela commended the Government of Belarus for its efforts. He stated that the Government had adopted substantive measures since the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference. They had been sovereign efforts and should therefore be taken into consideration in the conclusions.

The Worker member of Ecuador speaking on behalf of the Andean Labour Consultative Council, the Andean Coordinating Unit for Women Workers and 16 confederations in five Andean countries: Colombia, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, said that any type of sanction intended to affect the economy of a country which prejudiced men and women workers was not compatible with ILO principles or with workers' solidarity. He emphasized that for this reason he was opposed to the exclusion of Belarus from the European Union's General System of Preferences, which was not in accordance with the recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry.

The linking of labour standards with trade sanctions was unacceptable and dangerous, particularly when it could be seen that once again, as a result of the position of the Employer members, it had not been possible for the Committee on the Application of Standards to examine the extremely serious case of Colombia. It was therefore unacceptable that sanctions should be imposed on Belarus, where there were no murders of trade union leaders. These practices were in violation of the ILO's spirit of persuasion, particularly as Belarus was making efforts to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In conclusion, he called on the Worker members to show solidarity with the workers of Belarus and to oppose the decision of the European Union.

The Government member of Canada thanked the Office for its continuing efforts to encourage the Government to promote and protect human rights, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He noted that the Government had taken some specific steps since 2006 to implement these recommendations and had requested technical assistance from the Office in relation to the trade union legislation. His Government, however, remained deeply concerned by the blatant denial of fundamental rights and democratic principles which permeated all spheres in the country, and particularly freedom of assembly and trade union rights. He emphasized the importance for the Government to recognize the gravity of the situation and to take prompt action to redress the effects of severe violations of the most basic elements of the right to organize. He urged the Government to collaborate closely with the Office and to keep it fully informed of further developments in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of the Syrian Arab Republic, recalling the fundamental importance of the impartiality of the ILO, criticized the approach of imposing economic sanctions and restrictions on Governments on account of their political positions, as well as other factors. Such measures were prejudicial to the people, workers and their interests. His own country was exposed to economic sanctions and the real victims were the Syrian people and workers, not its Government.

He therefore called on the ILO to adopt a clear position in opposing economic sanctions, whatever the political pretext, as they had a harmful effect on the interests of workers, on opportunities to achieve development, on social security protection and on the reduction of unemployment. He reiterated the importance of continued efforts to strengthen the application of international labour standards and other relevant international instruments. In conclusion, he reaffirmed his solidarity with the trade unions in Belarus and called on the European Union to refrain from imposing economic sanctions and instead to engage in effective dialogue.

The Government member of China noted the observation made by the Committee of Experts in relation to Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and stated that he had listened very carefully to the statement by the Government representative. His Government noted with satisfaction that the Government had been faithfully implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry since the Conference in 2006. The Government had been engaged in drafting the Trade Union Law in cooperation with the social partners and the Office, as well as the establishment of a tripartite dialogue mechanism and the protection of trade union rights. He considered that meaningful measures had been put in place and positive progress was being made. He called on the Committee to recognize and encourage these efforts and the progress made by the Government and its willingness to continue the ongoing cooperation with the Office. He expressed the hope and belief that further cooperation between the Government and the Office would promote the effective application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

The Worker member of Finland noted that, according to the information provided by the Government, under the proposed new system there would be several different kinds of trade unions. There would be those with legal personality, and those without legal personality. There would also be representative and non-representative trade unions. Trade unions with a different status would have different kinds of rights and obligations. For instance, non-representative trade unions would not have the right to negotiate collective agreements. Although the Government representative had claimed that the conditions were being created for the development of smaller trade unions, it was clear that the Government believed that small trade unions were acceptable only if they remained silent. When examining the status of representative trade unions and the acquisition of national status, the picture was even more confusing. Who would have the power to confirm the status of a national association and what formalities would be involved? Would that mean new forms of interference, such as having to produce a list of members? The prerequisite that had been mentioned of 7,000 members, or one-third of the workers in a particular branch or profession, for the acquisition of national status appeared far too high in a country where workers were still being harassed for trying to establish or join a trade union outside the traditional structure. It appeared that the intended structure was designed to make workers choose between traditional trade unions enjoying all the necessary rights, and other trade unions without such rights in the areas of collective bargaining, supervision of compliance with labour law, and also such aspects as housing. Moreover, she wondered whether the focus on the definition of representative trade unions was not an attempt to draw attention away from the core issues.

She emphasized that Convention No. 87 was not about different thresholds for trade unions of different kinds and on different levels. It was not about making life difficult for trade unions. The Convention created an obligation to implement freedom of association and protection of the right to organize in law and practice. It was a fundamental ILO principle that freedom of expression and freedom of association were essential to sustained progress, and that injustice anywhere constituted injustice everywhere. She therefore urged the Government to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to guarantee the right of collective bargaining in full freedom to all trade unions voluntarily elected by workers.

The Government member of Cuba considered that the Committee should recognize that since the last International Labour Conference, the Government of Belarus had adopted a series of measures to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and that tangible progress had been observed as a result of their implementation. Belarus had taken a number of measures to improve its legislation, in close collaboration with the ILO and the social partners. The Government had also paid attention to monitoring and analysis of practices relating to the registration of trade unionists and had emphasized the need to strictly comply with the right of freedom of association, as well as the inadmissibility of taking decisions which were not in compliance with the law. The recommendations made in this respect were being addressed through the development of a new Trade Union Law.

On the one hand, the information provided to the Commission revealed the political will of the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and, on the other, that the channels of communication between the Government of Belarus and the ILO were working well. Such efforts should be supplemented by greater ILO technical cooperation, and should be adequately reflected when drafting the conclusions on the case.

The Government member of the United States recalled the comprehensive assessment provided by the Commission of Inquiry of the serious fundamental violations of freedom of association and of trade union rights. The Commission of Inquiry's recommendations contained 12 specific measures to be taken by the Government without delay to bring its law and practice into compliance with international labour standards. The implementation of these recommendations was still the benchmark for measuring progress.

She noted the consultations and technical discussions which had been held in the past few months between the Government and the Office and with the social partners, and expressed the hope that the dialogue would continue. She also noted the oral and written information provided by the Government concerning recent developments in the preparation of the draft Trade Union Law and other measures that had been taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. These developments needed to be analysed and evaluated by the Committee of Experts.

Her Government would continue to expect the Government of Belarus to implement fully all of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. She looked forward to the day when genuine freedom of association became a reality in Belarus and when no barriers existed, in law or practice, which impeded the right of workers and trade unions to associate, organize, register and to express their opinions without threat of interference or reprisal.

The Worker member of Ukraine said that democracy ended when the state authorities tried in any way to subordinate and control trade unions, which were among the most basic and influential institutions of civil society. He described some of the violations of workers' rights that had occurred in Belarus: the prevention of the creation of trade union organizations; unjustifiable suppression of industrial action; and the issuing of short-term contracts to undermine the basis of collective bargaining and trade unions. The fundamental rights enshrined in ILO standards were being undermined in law. Trade unions were being hindered at all levels and were often required to pay for certain services that ought to be provided free of charge.

Referring to the decision by the European Union to exclude Belarus from the Generalized System of Preferences in trade relations with the European Union, he said that it was important to remember that responsibility for the exclusion did not lie with the trade unions, but with the Government. The Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine (FTUU) had sent a letter to the President of Belarus indicating that specific measures were needed to ensure observance of trade union rights. He emphasized that, in the twenty-first century, a country could not develop normally in isolation. Only through cooperation could the rights of workers and trade unions as a whole be protected. He hoped that the Committee's conclusions would emphasize the need for Belarus, as well as other countries, to respect those rights.

The Government member of India noted with satisfaction the statement by the Government representative informing the Committee of the recent concrete developments with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in 2004, as well as the recommendations made by the International Labour Conference and the Governing Body in 2006. He also noted that the Government had continued to engage in dialogue with workers and employers and had discussed the draft Trade Union Law, in collaboration with the Office. These steps were encouraging and should lead to steady progress and therefore should be viewed as signs of commitment and progress.

He recommended that the Committee reflect positively in its conclusions the developments and progress made, with a view to encouraging the Government to speed up the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He also noted that the Government delegation was once again led by the Deputy Prime Minister, which was indicative of the continued importance attached by the Government to this matter. He welcomed the Government's continued commitment to engage with the ILO at such high level to further facilitate the process of cooperation with the ILO.

The Government member of Bangladesh called upon the ILO to ensure that its standards were applied in a manner which accommodated local needs. Due to the differing levels of development and challenges faced by developing countries, the standards that could be applied in a developing country were not necessarily the same as those in a developed country. He noted that the Government of Belarus had made remarkable progress in line with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. A number of trade unions had been registered in 2006-07 and the Ministry of Justice was taking measures for the strict observance of the right of freedom of association. Cooperation was continuing with the ILO for the drafting of a new labour law, in which the requirement of 10 per cent support for the establishment of a trade union, which was well beyond the requirement of the related Conventions, had been abolished. An independent body, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which had the confidence of the parties, had been established to maintain dialogue and interaction between the Government, trade unions, employers and non-governmental organizations. The Government was striving to make progress and there had been tremendous development over the last two years. Belarus should therefore be given adequate time to achieve implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of the Islamic Republic of Iran, referring to the opinion expressed by the Worker member of the Syrian Arab Republic, indicated that imposing economic sanctions did not resolve a country's problems. On the contrary, the direct and harmful repercussions would be felt by the population. He hoped that the ILO would be impartial and provide the necessary technical assistance for the full observance of international labour standards.

The Worker member of Colombia, who spoke on behalf of Colombian trade unions (the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC)), indicated that the opinion expressed by the Worker member of Ecuador did not represent them. He said that such a position had been formulated without prior consultation with the above trade unions. It was not appropriate for workers to speak in the name of a trade union to justify positions held without consultations. It was for that reason that he requested that, in future, he did not speak on behalf of the above trade unions.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) commented on the implementation by the Government of Belarus of each of the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry.

He said that recommendation No. 1 had not been implemented as independent trade unions could not normally create and register new organizations, and thus in the absence of a legal status many had ceased to exist altogether. Recommendation No. 2 had not been implemented as the draft law elaborated by the Government would serve to curtail the independent trade union movement, worsen the legal situation, tighten controls and further complicate the process of registration for trade unions. Regarding recommendation No. 3, the Republican Registration Commission had been abolished and its functions delegated to the Ministry of Justice. Recommendation No. 4 had not been implemented as the population of Belarus had not been clearly informed of the problems at the heart of the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. Nowhere did the publicity mention the violation of trade union rights, and the state mass media had even described the ILO's position as prejudiced. Furthermore, although law enforcement bodies had been asked to place utmost importance on dealing with violations of trade union rights, it was still the case that organizations and individuals were being subjected to pressure, blackmail, threats and persecution, including from the courts. Recommendation No. 5 had not been implemented as no independent arbitration body had been set up. The Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere could not be considered as such a body.

Regarding recommendation No. 6, which aimed to stop any interference by the management of enterprises in trade union affairs, the exact opposite was occurring in practice. As a result of pressure, the Grodno-Azot trade union had lost 700 members, or 80 per cent of its membership, and the Belshina trade union lost two-thirds of its members. In relation to recommendation No. 7, only one of the ten people who had been unlawfully dismissed as a result of belonging to an independent trade union had been reinstated. Furthermore, the use of certain contractual forms of employment seriously undermined the rights of workers. With regard to recommendation No. 8, the Belarusian courts remained under the complete authority of the Government. There had been no progress at all in implementing recommendation No. 9. Regarding recommendation No. 10, when planning industrial action, trade unions had to pay thousands of dollars for the services of various organizations. This had prevented them from undertaking any industrial action for the past two years. In relation to recommendation No. 11, the CDTU had been given a seat on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues. Nevertheless, as the CDTU was not covered by the general agreement, it was forced to continue to cover its own costs in terms of rent, heating and other such services. Finally, regarding recommendation No. 12, government control over the formation and development of independent structures of workers' organizations had tightened rather than diminished.

He therefore concluded that the Government had done very little to implement the recommendations, and the situation regarding trade union rights in the country had not improved. How long that would be allowed to continue depended on the Conference Committee, which needed to remember all those in Belarus who were suffering from injustice, harassment and violence. The Committee should not under any circumstances allow evil to triumph.

The Government representative said that he had listened carefully to the discussion and would take into account all the comments that had been made in relation to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. While he wished to comment on some of the observations, he said that it was difficult to judge what was being achieved in the country if the information provided was not taken into account. The Government had been careful to provide full and detailed information on the work that had been carried out since the discussion of the case the previous year. He added that a number of allegations had been made. For example, the observer representing the ITUC had indicated the previous year that he did not believe that he would be allowed to return to the Conference: the fact that he had just spoken in the debate showed that this type of allegation was baseless. While it was clear that social development was taking place, and that the Government had every intention of pursuing such development, allegations continued to be made. Nevertheless, the fact that progress was being achieved was illustrated this year by the fact that there had not been the normal campaign of complaints to the ILO prior to the Conference. In practice, there were remedies that could be used by workers if they considered themselves under pressure within their enterprises, including through the courts. Trade unions could provide assistance to their members in this respect. He added that collective agreements were also being concluded.

He recalled that the improvements that were being made in labour and social matters were discussed by the social partners in the National Council on Labour and Social Issues. He added, with regard to the draft Trade Union Law, that the present version was very different from the one examined by the Committee of Experts and the Governing Body. A copy of the new text had been supplied to the Office recently and comments had been prepared on it. It had been found that, in comparison with the conceptual framework and the February version of the draft Law, the May 2007 version did not contain provisions on a single union system at the enterprise level. Moreover, the numerical requirements for trade union registration had also been lowered. Dialogue on the draft Law was continuing and he believed that the Government was in the process of establishing a legal framework within which trade unions could develop. However, he warned that the same standards should be applied to all countries. For example, there were many European countries where there was a single main confederation of workers' organizations, as was the case in his own country, but they did not appear to be subjected to criticism by the ILO supervisory bodies in the same way as Belarus. It was therefore the intention of the Government to prepare a balanced law governing trade unions. In so doing, it was working with the trade unions in the country, including the FPB, which had 4 million members. In that context, it was not unrealistic to set a national total of 7,000 members to achieve representative status at the national level. At lower levels, lower thresholds applied. Other procedural requirements were also set out in the draft Law, such as the need for trade unions to have a legal address. This was a normal requirement and merely meant, for example, an address to which post could be sent, such as the registered office of the trade union. In the case of enterprise unions, it could be the address of the enterprise. In addition, other documents were needed, such as the constitution of the trade union, records of recent meetings and lists of the officers of the trade union. All of the documents were fully justified and could be easily prepared by the trade unions themselves.

In conclusion, he believed that the Government had demonstrated its commitment to developing cooperation with its international partners, and in particular with the ILO. He therefore hoped that when preparing its conclusions, the Committee would take into account the progress achieved and the good will shown by the Government.

The Employer members concluded that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had yet to be implemented and that there was no full compliance with Convention No. 87. For that reason, the Employer members had asked that the conclusions on the case appear in a special paragraph. However, in view of the positive steps taken by the Government, they considered that the designation in the special paragraph of continued failure to comply would no longer be appropriate.

The Worker members welcomed the varied information supplied by the Government and that it had adopted a new attitude. However, they felt that the steps were insufficient to conclude that real and tangible progress had been made. Very little had been done to ensure that trade unions could operate and exercise their legitimate activities in full freedom, without interference. Significant efforts were needed to ensure even modest results, but the Worker members welcomed the fact that work had already begun and hoped that it would continue. However, they harboured serious doubts as to whether those results meant that the Government had genuinely understood the objectives of the ILO supervisory bodies and the technical assistance provided. There were clearly good intentions, but the information provided was confusing.

The Worker members recalled that the conclusions of the 2006 Conference Committee had indicated that the Government had not understood the seriousness of the situation and that no tangible progress had been achieved. Therefore, the Committee entrusted the Governing Body with reassessing whether the Government could report any tangible progress at the end of November 2006, and, if no tangible progress could be reported, to consider further measures provided for in the ILO Constitution. The fact that the 298th Session of the Governing Body (March 2007) had not explicitly decided on further measures was not because the developments in Belarus had been satisfactory, but because no real progress had been noted, although dialogue with the ILO had begun. The Worker members considered that giving the Government additional time was a significant favour. While the Government had made an effort to seize that opportunity, it did not completely understand its nature.

Specific results had been scant and some recommendations by the Commission of Inquiry had been partially addressed. However, the Government had failed to address the concerns of the Committee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Governing Body since Decree No. 2, which established a procedure for trade union registration tantamount to requesting prior authorization, remained in place. The new draft legislation followed essentially the same approach that the Government had been urged to abandon. Moreover, refusals of registration, anti-union harassment and interference in trade union affairs were still commonplace. The Government had stated that there were no new complaints, but the Committee on Freedom of Association had established that complaints were numerous. The Law on Mass Activities and the respective decree still prevented trade unions from freely exercising their right to collective action. Therefore, the Worker members urged the Government to reflect on the fact that, while work had finally begun, no real and tangible progress had been made. They requested the dialogue between the ILO and the Government to continue, but they harboured serious doubts as to whether technical assistance alone could lead to any further improvements. Dialogue had only become possible following the adoption of the conclusions of the Conference Committee and the Governing Body, and as a result of decisions reached by other international bodies, principally the European Union (EU).

With regard to the measures taken by the EU, the Worker members stressed that they could not be blamed on anyone other than the Government itself. The Government knew exactly what it needed to do, and by when. The Worker members would never call on measures that harmed workers. The Government's credibility and international reputation were at stake. The statement by the few Worker members pleading against the EU measures were ill-informed, last-minute, manipulated and they did not represent the majority, let alone the consensus of the Worker members, whether in the Conference Committee or in the full Conference. The Worker members found it remarkable that such an important international body as the EU based its own decisions on the assessment of the ILO, standing as an example of the credibility and influence of the ILO on the international stage. The EU and the ILO were separate, legally distinct mechanisms, and should remain so. The EU measures would not necessarily be permanent and the Government knew that it had to implement the ILO recommendations quickly and in their entirety. If so, the Worker members would acknowledge the measures taken and other bodies could draw their own conclusions accordingly.

Since the attention focusing on the case and the assistance provided had so far produced modest results, the Worker members saw no other option but to ensure that the issue remained high on the ILO agenda. They asked the Government to take urgent measures to ensure that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as well as the Committee of Experts' observations, were implemented without further delay. They asked the Governing Body to reassess the situation at its 300th Session (November 2007). If no real and tangible progress had been noted by then, the Governing Body should consider what further measures could be taken under the ILO Constitution. The Worker members asked that the Committee's conclusions be included in a special paragraph of its report.

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the discussion that took place thereafter. The Committee recalled that it had been examining this case ever since the issuance of the report of the Commission of Inquiry and had, on each occasion, deplored the absence of any real concrete and tangible measures on the part of the Government to implement the Commission's recommendations.

The Committee noted the statements made by the Government representative according to which the Government had been and was actively continuing its consultations with the ILO and the social partners, in respect of a draft Trade Union Law which would be discussed yet again in the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere in July. It observed that the text of that draft had not been made available to the Committee. It further noted the detailed information provided by the Government on steps it had taken since this Committee's discussions of the case in June 2006.

The Committee took due note of progress made in respect of some of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations, particularly as regards the seat for the Belarus Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI), the disbandment of the Republican Registration Commission, the re-engagement of Oleg Dolbik - whose contract had not been renewed following his having provided testimony to the Commission of Inquiry - the publication of the Commission of Inquiry recommendations in the Government's official newspaper, and a few recent registrations of independent trade union organizations. Nevertheless, the Committee expressed its concern since these steps were clearly insufficient and did not address the heart of the matter. The Committee recalled that what was at stake in this case was the imperative need for the Government to act without delay to ensure that all workers' and employers' organizations could function freely and without interference and obtain registration without previous authorization.

The Committee noted the concerns raised relating to the draft Trade Union Law. Noting the statements made to the effect that the registration requirements remained quite complicated and that the requirements that had been criticized by the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts for many years were still necessary to obtain legal personality, the Committee urged the Government to vigorously pursue its consultations with all social partners in the country, and its cooperation with the ILO, with a view to making the legislative changes required to bring the law and practice into full conformity with the Convention and the Commission of Inquiry recommendations. It further urged the Government to take active steps to redress the damage suffered by workers' organizations that had been noted in the report of the Commission of Inquiry.

Welcoming the Government's statement that it would continue to cooperate with the national social partners and that it had invited a high-level ILO mission immediately following the Conference, the Committee expressed the firm hope that significant progress in ensuring full respect for freedom of association would be made without any further delay. In order to appropriately monitor developments in this regard, the Committee recommended that the Governing Body reconsider this matter in November 2007.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2006, Publication: 95th ILC session (2006)

The Government communicated the following written information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the complaint concerning non-observance by Belarus of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Republic of Belarus has ratified all eight fundamental ILO Conventions (Nos. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111, 138, 182), and affirms its adherence to the fundamental principles of the ILO Declaration of 1998. The right of association, including that of trade unions, is guaranteed by the basic law of the State - the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus (article 36). The rights of trade unions are specified in the Law on Trade Unions of the Republic of Belarus. It reflects the principles of the ILO Convention No. 87 as well as of the ILO Convention No. 98. The law guarantees the right of workers to create trade unions on a voluntary basis and join them (article 2); the right of trade unions to independently elaborate and approve their charters, to define their structure and to elect leading bodies (article 3); cease their activity (article 5). According to article 26 of the law, illegal constraint of the rights of trade unions, as well as creation of impediments for the implementation of their authority, are prohibited.

The efficiency of these legal provisions is confirmed by the fact that workers in Belarus are actively using their right for freedom of association. Over 90 per cent of employees in our country are members of trade unions. The legislation of Belarus provides trade unions with ample powers in advocating the rights and economic interests of workers, ensures their active participation in the life of the State and in forming the social and economic policy. The trade unions take part in the elaboration of issues which are of key interest for the workers: the state programme on employment, resolution of issues related to social insurance and labour protection also exercise public control over compliance with labour legislation. The legal provisions that regulate social and labour rights of workers are drafted with obligatory participation of the trade unions. The consideration of interests of workers is an indispensable requirement of the Government in the process of progressive movement of the country towards socially oriented market economy. In the process of elaborating the ways of implementation of the chosen social and economic model, Belarus takes into account worldwide experience and recommendations of the competent international organizations.

On the basis of these principles, the Government of the Republic of Belarus has been implementing the ILO Commission of Inquiry (CoI) recommendations. Taking into consideration the complex character of the CoI recommendations, the Government of Belarus has adopted a special action plan aimed at their implementation. The ILO is regularly provided with the information on its approval and fulfilment. The recommendations have been disseminated within the country, inter alia, by publishing of their text in the magazine "Labour and Social Protection" of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Republic of Belarus.

A number of specific steps aimed at their implementation have been made. The Ministry of Labour and Social Protection has addressed a letter on development of social partnership and adherence to its principles which provides a detailed explanation of norms of national legislation as well as of international norms that define the principles of cooperation between the social partners and exclude interference of both the employers and trade unions into the internal affairs of each other. The letter was directed to all state administrative bodies and other organizations subordinate to the Government (47 addresses in total). The state bodies have taken the necessary steps in order to convey the letter of the Ministry to specific enterprises within their system. For example, the Ministry of Industry of the Republic of Belarus has directed this letter to all industrial plants subordinate to this Ministry (over 230 enterprises), as well as held a panel meeting in this regard with representatives of administrations of the main industrial entities. The letter of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection was also reviewed at the joint panel meetings, held with participation of representatives of both the enterprise administrations and the trade unions. The issue of promoting this letter at enterprises was also discussed by the experts of the International Labour Office during their mission to Minsk, which took place in the period 16-19 January 2006. The Belarusian side rendered to the ILO the copies of letters and minutes of panel meetings dedicated to reviewing the letter of the Ministry at the concrete enterprises of Belarus.

There is constant control over the use of the contract system of employment in the country, and measures are taken in order to prevent any discrimination of employees as well as to compensate any wrong-doing in case of violations. Throughout 2005, the courts of Belarus have held hearings on 3,485 cases of cancellation of employee dismissal and wage disputes, of which 1,302 were related to restitution of employee status, and 2,183 were related to wage repayment. Some 408 lawsuits on restitution of employee status were satisfied, making up 31.3 per cent of the total. Court decisions have led to restitution of employee status for 359 people with compensation for the induced leave. Out of 2,183 lawsuits on wage repayment, 1,679 (76.9 per cent) were satisfied. During the abovementioned period, 24 cases on restitution of status, wage payout and cancellation of disciplinary penalty filed by trade unions or by employees supported by trade union representatives were heard in courts, of which seven were satisfied, four ended in compromise and 13 were dismissed. The interests of workers were defended in court also by representatives of the Free Belarusian Trade Union, the Belarusian Trade Union of Electronic Industry Workers, the Free Trade Union of Metal Industry Workers, the Mogilev Regional Organization of the Belarusian Trade Union of Workers of various forms of entrepreneurship "Sadrujnasc". The discrimination in the sphere of labour relations (including conclusion of contracts) based on the participation of a worker in trade unions is prohibited by article 14 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus and by article 4 of the Law on Trade Unions of the Republic of Belarus. The employer's decision to conclude a contract with an employee, based on the fact that the latter belongs to a trade union, is illegal.

In 2005, the Department of State Labour Inspection Service of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection conducted verification of legal compliance in the process of conclusion (prolongation, termination) of contracts with 2,099,148 employees in 1,589 state organizations and with 76,839 employees in 862 private enterprises. According to the verifications, employers were given instructions to correct the fixed violations; sanctions in the form of a fine were applied to 356 employers, 153 employers were warned about the inadmissibility of labour legislature violations, 302 officials were brought to administrative liability, and some other 15 - to disciplinary punishment. The verification process demonstrated that the main causes of the violations committed in the process of transition to the contract system of employment are either the ignorance of the legal norms in force or the failure to provide adequate application of legislation, as well as the lack of necessary funding. The analysis of the situation showed that the abovementioned legal violations are not of mass character; the conclusion of contracts, as well as the transfer to the contract system of employment of workers that are employed on the basis of contracts without predefined duration, is mainly conducted in compliance with the legislative norms. No facts of discrimination of employees on the basis of their membership in trade unions in scope of contract conclusion were found during the verification process.

It is necessary to note that the development of an efficient judicial and law enforcement system is among the key priorities of the Republic of Belarus. The difficulties related to the implementation of this task are common for every young state which is struggling through the transitional period. The Belarusian side will further monitor the efficiency of protection against discrimination of trade unions. The Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Republic of Belarus has created an expert council on issues of improving the legislation in the social and labour sphere. The council includes representatives of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BCDTU), the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FTUB), associations of employees, non-governmental organizations and the scientific community. There are two members representing the trade unions within the Council (from the FTUB and the BCDTU).

The work on other issues is also under way in the country. The Belarusian side will elaborate the changes within the national legislation that envisage the following: the possibility of the creation of trade unions at enterprises which shall not be subject to the requirement to include no less than 10 per cent of enterprise employees; the procedure of registering trade unions will be simplified, in particular, the requirement to submit information on the existence of a legal address will be cancelled; and any influence on the procedure of trade union registration on behalf of the State Commission on Registration will be excluded. The registration of specific trade unions will depend on their readiness to go through the registration procedure in compliance with all the requirements set by the legislature.

The procedures of work of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues was improved in November 2005. Its new regulations were adopted, thus providing the possibility for participation in the work of the Council for all associations of employees and trade unions concerned (including those that could not acquire a seat within the Council due to insufficient level of representation). The new regulations commit the associations that take part in the Council to respect the rights of other associations which are not represented within the body. Moreover, the new regulations do not set any limitations on the inclusion of new representatives of trade unions who are not members of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus into the Council of Trade Unions. According to the regulations, the FTUB, in the spirit of goodwill, provided one of the seats which is at its disposal in the Council to a representative of the BCDTU. The FTUB informed about this decision the BCDTU and the International Labour Office in February 2006. However, the BCDTU has ignored this move.

It is necessary to draw attention to the indistinctness of the wording of some ILO Recommendations. In particular, the creation of "an independent body, which will be trusted by all sides", which is stated in Recommendation 5, is objectively impossible due to the existing contradictions between the parties of the conflict. Providing "trade union personnel with administrative arrest immunity", as stated in Recommendation 8, would mean violating the rules of procedure of the national legal system, which is based on equality of all citizens in the face of the law. In Belarus, just as in other countries of the world, the immunity from a number of procedural actions is provided only in exceptional cases - such as the occupation of important elective governmental posts (for example, to the members of the National Assembly). The authorization of immunity to trade union activists will lead to the creation of a privileged class of citizens, which contradicts the basics of governmental structure of any democratic state.

At the same time, the Belarusian side does not refuse to follow these recommendations and is ready to use the consultative assistance of the International Labour Office in their interpretation and implementation. Belarus expresses its hope that the information provided herewith, as well as the readiness of the Government of the Republic of Belarus for constructive cooperation with the ILO to improve the situation with "the rights of trade unions" in the country, will be well taken into consideration in making the decisions and further recommendations by the ILO Members.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative (Deputy Minister of Labour) stated that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were of a general and declaratory nature. She disagreed with the Office's assertion that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were clear and could easily be implemented. Referring to recommendation No. 4, which urged the Presidential Administration to instruct the General Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Justice, and the courts to investigate all allegations of interference in trade union affairs, she observed that this approach ignored the basic principle of separation of powers. As for recommendation No. 5, which called upon the Government to ensure that all subsequent complaints of interference were examined by an independent body having the confidence of all parties concerned, it was unclear as to which bodies, exactly, were to carry out these functions. Furthermore, the fact that all trade unions, whether affiliated with the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) or not, freely brought cases before the courts was clear proof of their confidence in the legal system. In 2005, non-FPB-affiliated unions brought 17 cases before the courts; of these cases, the unions won 11. Unions also successfully petitioned the Prosecutor's Office in order to secure their rights under the law.

The Government intended to conduct a series of seminars for the judiciary and the Prosecutor's Office on freedom of association rights, as set forth in national and international law. Other measures were also being formulated, with practically no assistance from the Office. To implement the recommendations, a plan of action was formulated and communicated to the ILO. Work was now being carried out in accordance with this plan; as a result, some of the recommendations were already implemented. The recommendations were published in the gazette of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, which enjoyed a wide circulation. To implement recommendation No. 6, a special letter of instruction was drafted. This letter explained the principles of social partnership and non-interference of employers' and workers' organizations in each other's affairs; it was sent to the various state bodies - 47 in all. These state bodies, in turn, distributed copies of the letter to various enterprises. Finally, meetings were held between managers and trade union bodies to discuss the instructions contained in the letter. A copy of this letter, along with other documents, was sent to the Committee on Freedom of Association. With regard to recommendation No. 7, on the discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts, the State Labour Inspectorate conducted investigations into the alleged unjust terminations. It did not find evidence of discrimination in any of the terminations; their findings were subsequently affirmed by the courts. In one case, in fact, the worker in question had voluntarily resigned after he was caught stealing from the enterprise. Exhaustive information relating to these investigations, including copies of the verdicts rendered in all cases, were submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

Until recently, the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) had operated without clearly defined procedures. The Commission of Inquiry had recommended that the Government should take measures to ensure that trade unions not affiliated with the FPB could participate in the work of the NCLSI. This recommendation, it was understood, did not require that all non-FPB unions be granted a seat in the NCLSI, which at any rate would not be possible. The reason was that each social partner had 11 seats attributed to it. As non-FPB-affiliated trade unions represented only a very limited number of workers, the Government considered it unjust to allow them representation in the NCLSI. The Government had studied the international situation on representativity and adopted a new regulation on the NCLSI. The requirement now was for a minimum union membership of 50,000. At the same time, in order to ensure participation in the work of the NCLSI of trade unions and employers' organizations that were not members of the Council, the regulation provided that such organizations had the right to receive documentation, participate in its meetings and in the implementation of its decisions. There now existed, therefore, a clear and transparent mechanism for tripartite participation based on the universally accepted principle of representativeness; recommendation No. 11 was as such fully implemented. The Committee of Experts, in its observation on the application of Convention No. 144, alleged government interference in the appointment of the representative of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) to the group of experts on the application of international labour standards. This group was established in 2002, and comprised representatives from various ministries, academics, and the most representative of trade unions and employer organizations. The CDTU was not a member of this group, but was occasionally invited to attend its meetings. In July 2005, a lawyer from the CDTU was invited to attend a meeting of the group of experts; to the Government's surprise, this led to the accusation, by the CDTU, of interference in its affairs. In spite of this charge, the CDTU appointed a representative to participate in a May 2006 meeting of the group of experts.

In response to the Commission of Inquiry's recommendation No. 12, the Government had set up an expert council to formulate amendments to the national legislation. All relevant information relating to this council was submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association. As for the issue of trade union registration, a trade union law was being drafted that would deal with this matter while taking into account the national interest and ensuring the application of the Convention. All trade unions participated in the drafting of the new legislation. In 2005, the Conference Committee requested the Government to accept an ILO mission, without however suggesting a specific date. The Office then proposed September 2005 as a possible date, which was countered by the Government's offer to host the said mission in December 2005. The ILO Executive Director responsible for Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, referring to the heavy workload of the Office in December, suggested that the mission be held in January 2006, which the Government accepted. The mission was undertaken in January 2006 and various consultations and meetings were held. The Government was counting on the technical assistance of the ILO to implement the remaining recommendations. In this connection, the Government had requested ILO assistance in organizing three seminars on the following issues: trade union registration; social dialogue; and the establishment of a protective mechanism to ensure trade union rights. This proposal enjoyed the support of the social partners, including the FPB and the CDTU. During the January 2006 mission, an agreement was reached to hold the said seminars. In March 2006, at the 295th Session of the ILO Governing Body, the Government submitted a letter from the social partners on the necessity of conducting these seminars. However, in April 2006, the ILO indicated in writing that it would not be possible to conduct these seminars. The Government expressed its disappointment at this response, as it considered that each member State had the right to benefit from ILO technical assistance. The speaker concluded by stating that it would continue to look for points of convergence with respect to the resolution of these issues; at the same time it was continuing the work already commenced to implement the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations.

The Worker members thanked the Government for the written information submitted to the Conference Committee and for its statement. The Worker members would like to examine and be able to provide detailed written comments on all of the elements presented by the Government so that the Committee of Experts could examine them at its next session, and requested the Government to provide them with the full text of the intervention. The Committee of Experts played an important role in the defence of human rights in the world, though the fact that the generally technical and legalistic language used in its observations often made it difficult for interested parties outside the ILO to fully grasp this role. However, on rare occasions the Committee of Experts resorted to language that demonstrated that its members were human beings capable of reacting in a less detached way to gross injustices. The Committee of Experts acted in this manner in this case when it said that it feared that the legislative proposals currently being considered by the Government might result in the elimination of any remnants of an independent trade union movement in Belarus. This was the key element of this case. While recognizing the critical points in the Committee of Experts' legal analysis, the legislation was only one part of the problem. In fact, the Government had been very active in rendering the life of trade unions as difficult as possible. All information before the Conference Committee suggested that the situation as described in the Commission of Inquiry's report, some years ago, had not changed for the better and that the Government had not taken meaningful action to implement the Commission's recommendations, eight of which should have already been implemented more than a year ago. On the basis of a very careful analysis, the Committee of Experts had noted with regret in December, when they wrote their report, that no specific steps had been taken to implement these recommendations. Six months later, still no progress had been made. If the information provided referred to some action taken, the Government gave just indications without any documents to substantiate them. This was, for instance, the case with the letter of instruction on interference in trade union affairs. The Committee of Experts had repeatedly urged the Government to take the steps long overdue, but the Government failed to report on any concrete steps taken, both in its latest report to the Committee of Experts and in its written and oral submission to this Committee. The Worker members deeply regretted that the Government had not provided full particulars on the matters raised by the Committee of Experts, as requested. The information provided referred to measures that might possibly have been taken, without giving concrete details or specific dates. However, the Committee of Experts would have to further examine all the information provided today. The Government should commit itself to finally providing exhaustive and properly documented answers to the numerous questions raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Worker members had strong doubts whether the means normally recommended by the Committee of Experts could assist in realizing progress in this case. A mission had already been carried out but the Government had still not taken the required action. Technical assistance only had an impact where there was a willingness to work together to solve problems. A special paragraph had already been included in the Committee's general report and even a Commission of Inquiry had been established. Finding solutions through social dialogue at the national level would also be illusory, as social partnership in Belarus was so intensely dominated by the Government, and the independence of its major counterparts was so questionable, that such an approach would not be compatible with the ILO's conception of tripartism. As the Government was apparently not interested in meaningful dialogue with the Conference Committee, the Worker members believed that the ILO had a responsibility to look into the small range of remaining options. Anything else would be unfair to all those governments who were ready to cooperate and find, jointly, the road to progress.

The Employer members noted that the present case had a long history in the Committee, having first been discussed in 1991. In the intervening years, there had been numerous discussions on these same issues, yet no progress could be observed. Commissions of Inquiry were rarely established; the article 26 constitutional procedure establishing these commissions was resorted to only in exceptional instances. Recalling a statement made by the Government in 2005, to the effect that the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations needed to be adapted to national conditions, they regretted to note that the Government had, in essence, repeated this same assertion. The Employer members expressed astonishment at the Government's statement that they had received little assistance from the ILO, considering that the ILO had undertaken a mission to Belarus as recently as January 2006. The Government had stated that it was searching for points of convergence with the ILO on the resolution of the present case. It was difficult to believe, nevertheless, that the failure to resolve the present issues could be attributed to confusion on the Government's part. Democracy and respect for freedom of association rights were intrinsically linked; this was perhaps the true reason for the lack of progress thus far. The Employer members recalled that the Commission of Inquiry had issued 12 distinct recommendations to bring about compliance with the Convention that called, inter alia, for independent investigations into allegations of anti-union discrimination, as well as legislative amendments to facilitate trade union registration. These issues had been before the Committee for the past 15 years. The Employer members concurred with the Worker members in acknowledging the seriousness of the present case and urged the Government to implement the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations without further delay.

The Worker member of Belarus, on behalf of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), felt that two sets of issues should be looked at when dealing with the application of freedom of association Conventions in Belarus: firstly, whether the Government of Belarus violated workers' rights, and secondly, whether the Government had implemented the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The speaker pointed out that there were 32 trade unions in Belarus. Twenty-nine were affiliated to the FPB, representing over four million workers, while the three others represented in total about 5,000 workers. Since the complaint was submitted to the ILO in 2000 by four trade unions, the situation in Belarus had changed, including the unions themselves. Accordingly, some complainants withdrew their complaint. In his opinion, the unions enjoyed broader rights and took active part in the settlement of social and labour issues through participation in labour inspections and in the process of improvement of national legislation. Upon the initiative of the FPB, a general tariff agreement was signed, check-off facilities restored and wages increased. He considered that the Government had changed its approach and in most of the cases, agreed with the suggestions of the FPB. He stressed that all FPB achievements extended to other unions as well. He therefore concluded that the Government did not violate workers' rights. Moreover, he considered that workers and trade unions in his country enjoyed more rights than anywhere else. As for the seats on the NCLSI, he considered that it was only fair that an organization representing four million workers would have all the seats. As for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the speaker stated that a number of issues had been settled and the new legislation, which would be shortly adopted, would settle the remaining issues. He stressed that the FPB was independent from the Government. Any sanctions, if taken, would not help Belarus but rather would harm workers and their families. He admitted that while some problems remained, to harm the interests of four million worker members of the FPB, in order to satisfy the interests of minority unions, was simply unjust.

The Government member of Austria took the floor on behalf of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union; the Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania, the Candidate Countries Turkey, Croatia, and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, as well as the EFTA countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, and Ukraine aligned themselves with this declaration. Switzerland also aligned with the statement. The speaker stated that the European Union reiterated its deep concern addressed in 2005 at the observations of the Committee of Experts following the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry. The report of the Committee of Experts on shortcomings in the implementation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 by Belarus had to be read in close conjunction with the most recent report of the Committee on Freedom of Association. During the discussion at the CFA's report in the Governing Body, the EU had delivered a statement explaining its 2005 decision to monitor and evaluate the situation in Belarus. It had been stated that if Belarus did not undertake a commitment to take the necessary measures to conform to the principles referred to in the ILO Conventions, then the temporary withdrawal of the generalized system of preferences was likely as a means of expressing their deep disappointment and disapproval of Belarus' serious and persistent non-respect for the legal obligations and standards enshrined in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. This specific monitoring period had expired at the end of March 2006. The speaker indicated that even last minute information provided by the Government representative was not sufficient to be interpreted as the necessary commitment. In a recent letter to the European Commission, the Belarusian authorities had offered to cooperate with the Commission and the ILO on this issue. He urged the Government of Belarus to take concrete action without further delay in order to demonstrate its commitment. The European Commission had already prepared a draft regulation concerning the temporary withdrawal of access to the generalized system of preferences to be submitted for consideration and decision by the competent institutions of the EU. Meanwhile, the close monitoring of the situation in Belarus by the EU would continue. In view of the continuous and flagrant violations of ILO standards of freedom of association, the EU expected the Government of Belarus to fully implement the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry and to give full effect in law and in practice to the points raised by the Committee of Experts. The EU expressed great concern at the suspension of trade unions by presidential ordinance, and the serious and systematic violations of the most basic principles of freedom of association which continued to be reported.

The Worker member of Brazil noted that Belarus was a country with a high level of human development. The FPB comprised more than 4 million members and had, for over a century, dedicated itself to the struggle to obtain and protect social rights. Belarus was being dictated how it should treat its proper workers, on pain of possible economic sanctions and political isolation. The ILO should instead focus its efforts to support those countries striving to eradicate social inequality.

The Government member of the Russian Federation stressed the fact that the Government of Belarus adhered to ILO principles and was committed to improving the national legislation and ensuring its application in practice. The speaker highlighted that the Government continued to express its readiness to cooperate with the ILO, as demonstrated by its acceptance of the Office mission in January 2006. As regards the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, he pointed out that the Government had submitted to the Conference Committee concrete information about measures it had taken in this respect, such as the adoption of the new rules regulating the work of the NCLSI and the dialogue it had initiated with the CDTU. The amendment of trade union legislation would be a further positive step towards the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In his view, ILO technical assistance would be much more useful than criticism. He hoped that the cooperation with the ILO would result in the settlement of the outstanding issues and considered that the economic sanctions would not promote this process.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation recalled that this year marked the tenth anniversary of mass violations of trade union rights in Belarus, which started with repressive measures taken against the strikers in Minsk. Since then, the situation of trade unions in Belarus had only worsened and the ILO supervisory bodies had been examining the complaints of violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 for six years already. He regretted that year after year, the conclusions and recommendations of these bodies repeated themselves, as did the replies of the Government representatives. In his view, this could only mean that no real progress had been made and that the Government of Belarus was either unable or unwilling to take measures to improve the situation. Russian trade unions followed closely the situation of application of Convention No. 87 in Belarus. During the process of establishment of a Union State between Russia and Belarus, Russian trade unions were very concerned about violation of workers' and trade union rights on the territory of the future Union. He regretted that the violations of trade union rights were now extending to other countries in the region. He therefore considered that the only way to compel the Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to demonstrate its respect for the ILO was to consider the most serious measures provided for in the ILO Constitution.

The Government member of Bangladesh stated that the ILO ought to apply international labour standards so as to accommodate the different needs and conditions of each country. He observed that the Government had made tremendous strides towards implementing the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations by, inter alia, amending its legislation and establishing a national tripartite council. The Government had made significant progress towards compliance with the Convention and therefore deserved adequate time to implement the remaining recommendations.

The Worker member of Germany stated that the right to freedom of association was a fundamental human right that should be guaranteed irrespective of the state of development. Rejecting the claim that the ILO had failed to provide technical assistance to the Government of Belarus, she stated that the ILO had in fact offered to dispatch a mission in September 2005. However, the Government accepted to receive a mission in January 2006. This explained why the report by the Committee of Experts made no reference to ILO technical assistance. The Government did not show any readiness to make the necessary legislative changes. When the Committee on Freedom of Association had dealt with the situation in Belarus in March 2003, it had been extremely concerned about the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. It was very clear that law and practice were more than ever in non-compliance with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Government was systematically suppressing independent trade unions. The CDTU was hindered to rent offices and trade union coordinators were prohibited to meet with their members in factories. The Government continued to promise improvements, but so far the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had not been implemented. The situation was even worsening and trade unionists that had spoken to the Commission of Inquiry were subject to increased persecution. Independent trade unions were still prevented from participation in tripartite structures. Only the FPB was taking part in negotiations. The obstacles put in place to prevent independent trade unions from obtaining registration were very serious. As an ILO member State bound by Convention No. 87, Belarus could not do away with the right of trade unions to exist and to freely carry out their activities.

The Government representative of China took note with interest of the fact that the Government of Belarus was ready to apply the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to follow up on the observations of the Committee of Experts, and that it had drawn up a plan of action in this respect.

An observer representing the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and member of the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions of Belarus (CDTU) pointed out that in the ten years that the ILO had been monitoring the non-respect of trade union rights in Belarus, no progress had been made. On the contrary, the denial of workers' rights had only increased. By way of example, the Government had done nothing about the 12 recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry. The CDTU, although it had the status of a national trade union central, had not had its rights restituted as a member of the NCLSI. Instead of following the ILO recommendations, the NCLSI had adopted, on 28 November 2005, a rule that required 50,000 members for any organization to sit on its board. This act flouted the national Constitution and the law on trade unions. The CDTU which, due to pressures exerted on it, only had 9,000 members was therefore excluded from this platform for dialogue by this cynical move. Subsequently, the signing of the new collective agreement for 2006-07 took place without the participation of the CDTU. This exclusion also applied to local organizations. It had already been announced that some of the unions affiliated to the CDTU (the Grodno-Azot Company Union and the Liess Company Union) would no longer be allowed to sit as partners in the signing of collective agreements. The Government was using the principle of representativity for its own ends, both regarding the CDTU and organizations which were affiliated to it in enterprises. The civil servants responsible for this action refused to accept that the principle of representativity, like any democratic principle, did not include the banning or elimination of the minority, but was an instrument for the defence of minority rights. A far-reaching process of exclusion of independent trade unions was under way at present. The authorities had recourse to transforming employment contracts for practically all workers in the country into fixed-term contracts, generally of a year's duration. This measure was very destructive for the workers and left them entirely at the mercy of employers and the Government. Trade unions affiliated to the CDTU were especially in the line of fire. For example, in January 2005 alone, the threat of loss of an employment contract was enough to lose 300 members out of the 800 in the union at the Grodno-Azot Company. In April-May 2006, the same procedure resulted in 80 people in the Bobrouisk tractor factory leaving the affiliated union. The victims of these procedures were numerous, as many colleagues were dismissed at the end of their short-term contract. And the list went on. All these facts, like others, had been attested to by documents put at the disposal of the ILO.

Nearly 30 trade unions close to the CDTU in the radio-electrical industry had been deprived of their registration, that is, outlawed. The REP trade union had attempted, without success, to register the private taxi drivers' union in Gomel. A whole range of organizations had been victims of illegal evictions from their facilities. According to Belorussian law, loss of facilities for a trade union meant loss of legal address and, consequently, loss of legal status. The CDTU and the trade union organization of metal workers of the Liess Company had been forcibly evicted from their offices. In recent years, the CDTU had lost its offices three times. Since the beginning of the year, attempts had been made to ban printing and distribution in the country of the CDTU newspaper "Solidarity". The newspaper was the only one in the country to address the issue of denial of trade union rights in Belarus and to have published the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The hostility of the Government towards independent trade unions resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of numerous trade unionists. A particularly ferocious wave of repression took place in March 2005 during the presidential election campaign. Suddenly, the Government attacked dozens of activists and independent trade union members. Among those arrested were Vassily Levchenkov and Alexander Bukhvostov, leaders of the metalworkers free trade union and of the radio-electronic trade union. Valentin Lazarenko, chairperson of the CDTU Belarus at the University of Brest, had not only been placed in detention but had been dismissed in an illegal manner. In December 2005, the penal code was modified to provide for imprisonment of up to three years for "insult to the prestige of the Republic of Belarus", promising ever more arrests in the ranks of the CDTU. It was not by coincidence that the head of the Belarusian KGB, speaking on the issue in Parliament, stated that the first persons aimed at by these provisions were the independent trade union leaders who "told lies so that the ILO could decide on sanctions to be taken against Belarus". Belarusian totalitarianism, cynicism and scorn for international rules and standards which were fundamental to the ILO were a challenge to the international community. Today, there was a choice between two attitudes: resignation after so many years of arbitrary action against the free and independent trade union movement of Belarus, or forcing the dictatorship to take account of human rights and trade union freedoms.

The Government member of Egypt noted that the reports of the supervisory bodies showed that numerous ILO Members had difficulties in applying freedom of association standards and principles. The ILO should therefore redouble its efforts to assist these countries to bring their legislation in line with the Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Noting that the Government of Belarus was making efforts to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the speaker called on the ILO to provide technical assistance to enable the Government to continue addressing these issues. Amending the relevant legislation was a complicated matter and would understandably take some time.

The Government member of India expressed satisfaction with the Government's demonstrated commitment to following the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government had taken appropriate steps to make the trade union registration process more transparent. He called upon the ILO to provide the Government with the technical assistance necessary to implement all of the recommendations.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela thanked the Government for the information supplied. The Government had demonstrated a cooperative attitude with respect to realizing the principles laid down in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It had taken steps to amend legislation and strengthen the mechanisms for social dialogue. In light of the above, the ILO should seriously consider honouring the Government's request for technical assistance.

The Government member of Cuba noted that account should be taken of substantive issues which reflected the current situation: Belarus had ratified the eight fundamental Conventions; the Government had received the Commission of Inquiry and facilitated its work, in all freedom and without the least interference; the Government had approved the special plan of action to apply the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry; there was a council to improve legislation in the world of work made up of trade unions, two of which were plaintiff organizations, employers' organizations, NGOs and academia. In addition, the Government had disseminated an instruction letter in which figured the national legal provisions and international labour standards in force which prohibited interference by employers and trade unions in each other's affairs. The Government had provided statistics on the number of labour inspections carried out and on the number of violations recorded. Ninety per cent of workers were affiliated to a trade union and discrimination in labour relations was prohibited by article 14 of the Belarus Labour Code and by article 4 of the Law on Trade Unions. The Government recognized that the development of efficient legal systems and the application of the law continued to be a priority for the country. In addition, it had announced changes in the national legislation in order to eliminate requirements for the setting up of a trade union in companies and to simplify the registration procedure of trade union organizations and to forbid all State interference in the creation of new trade unions. The speaker noted that all these issues constituted concrete facts that demonstrated the proof of political will to move towards the full application of standards established in these Conventions. He concluded by stressing that ILO technical cooperation should be used to assist in reaching the objectives set by the ILO.

The Government representative of Kenya welcomed the report of the Committee of Experts and of the Commission of Inquiry as well as the reports from the various ILO missions that had taken place in the country. She expressed her satisfaction on the statement, the initiatives and the commitment of the Government of Belarus. She encouraged it to comply with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and welcomed the efforts of the Office. She concluded by asking for technical assistance to be provided to the Government so that next year progress could be observed.

The Government representative, in commenting upon the issue of the use of contractual forms of employment, emphasized that all alleged violations were examined either by the state labour inspectorates, in which unions played an important role, public prosecutors or courts. She could not understand what other bodies could be created in parallel to bodies that already existed, i.e. labour inspectorates, courts and offices of public prosecutors. She regretted that the information provided by the Government was not examined objectively and that in respect of some issues, the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts continued to repeat the same requests. For example, for a number of years, the Committee on Freedom of Association had been asking the Government to reinstate and compensate several allegedly dismissed workers. She regretted that the Committee on Freedom of Association disregarded the evidence submitted by the Government that these workers either voluntarily resigned or were dismissed for stealing. It was only following the ILO mission carried out in January 2006 that certain facts were clarified. With regard to the NCLSI, the speaker considered that in drafting the new regulations on its composition, account was taken of the previous conclusions in respect of various countries reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association. A criterion of 50,000 minimum membership for participation in a tripartite consultative body at the national level was never considered by the Committee on Freedom of Association as being too high. She further stressed that the regulations were submitted to the ILO but the Office did not provide any negative comments in this regard. Therefore, the Government concluded that these regulations were in conformity with the Conventions. She concluded by stating that she was under the impression that only the views of the opponents were heard and that the supervisory bodies failed to take into account the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. She hoped for a more objective analysis of the information provided by the Government in the future.

The Worker members awaited a simple response from the Government as to when did it intend to take action on the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and on the comments of the Committee of Experts. They noted that the Committee was unanimous on the issue that Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 allowed no flexibility as to their content, i.e. that the fundamental rights enshrined in them had to mean the same in all countries in the world. The argument that the right of workers to trade union pluralism was only to be protected in the capitalist world had been swept away by history. Trade union pluralism was not synonymous with freedom of association and representation of workers' interests could very well, as was shown in several countries, be guaranteed by a single trade union organization: The principle was absolute: a single trade union could not be imposed by the Government and workers should always have the right to set up another one if they wanted. The Worker members insisted that the complaint submitted by three trade unions in the country had not been withdrawn, as had been suggested in the debate. The Worker members were in favour of providing technical assistance to the Government on one condition: that the Government requested it with a view to realizing concrete changes in law and in practice and that this technical assistance in fact served to implement the 12 recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. It would be indefensible for the ILO to use its resources to other ends. In addition, the Worker members said they were willing to consider all facts presented by the Government and to address their comments to the Committee of Experts for review at a future session. The Worker members made four proposals for conclusions on this case: (1) that the conclusions should be brief and reflect the main points presented by the Government and the main points raised by the Committee of Experts; (2) that the conclusions should draw the Committee of Experts' attention to the urgency of action; (3) that the conclusions should regret the lack of real progress by the Government; (4) that the conclusions should foresee the inclusion of this case as a special paragraph in the report for continued failure to apply the Convention. The use of a special paragraph should make the Government understand that it was being offered a last chance and that if no concrete measures were taken before the next session of the Governing Body in November 2006, the Governing Body would, they hoped, take steps foreseen in the ILO Constitution. Finally, the conclusions should also express that the ILO would closely monitor the situation of independent trade unions in the country and take immediate action in the event of new abuses of their rights.

The Employer members agreed with the summary of this case made by the Worker members. The Government made, at best, very minimal efforts. No substantially new information concerning measures to ensure compliance in law and practice had been presented. A dialogue was only meaningful if the two sides shared common objectives. In order for technical assistance to be fruitful, it was necessary that the Government accepted a common understanding with the ILO that the objective of technical assistance was to address the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the matters raised by the Committee of Experts. The Government was expected to deliver concrete and tangible results. The Employer members concluded that this was a serious case of continued failure to apply the Convention, but they considered that the ILO had to look into taking other measures available under its Constitution.

The Worker members recalled that they were interested in knowing whether the Government representative could set a time frame for implementation of all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government representative, referring to her initial statement, considered that it was not reasonable to talk about concrete dates. She regretted that no attention was paid to the measures the Government had already taken and to the difficulties it was facing. She explained that the process of adoption of new legislation was necessarily long.

The Government representative expressed the view that the conclusions should take into account the measures that were being taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and recommendations that had already been implemented, including: recommendation 7 on the use of fixed-term contracts; recommendation 11 on the access to membership of the National Council for Labour and Social Issues of all umbrella organizations representing trade unions; and recommendation 12 concerning the review of legislation respecting the industrial relations system. She stressed that the Government was not aware of any case of alleged arrest of trade union activists. However, the conclusion that the situation in Belarus had deteriorated was based on these allegations. Moreover, the conclusions claimed that the Government had done nothing to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, but in so doing did not correspond to what had happened in practice.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative, the Deputy Minister of Labour, and the written information provided, as well as the discussion that took place thereafter.

The Committee recalled that it had examined this case last year, when it deplored the absence of any real concrete and tangible measures on the part of the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. While noting that the mission, which this Committee had urged the Government to accept when it discussed this case last year, had finally taken place at the beginning of the year, the Committee regretted that as a consequence of this delay, the mission report had not been available for the meeting of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee recalled the serious discrepancies between the law and practice and the provisions of the Conventions that had been raised by the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts.

The Committee noted the Government's reiteration that a special plan of action had been adopted aimed at implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, taking into account the complex nature of these recommendations. The Committee also noted that the Government had referred to its publication of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in the magazine of the Ministry of Labour, as well as to the letter it had addressed to the state administrative bodies on the development of social partnership. The Committee further noted the Government's stated intention to elaborate changes to the national legislation, taking into account national circumstances and interests, which would envisage some points raised by the Commission of Inquiry, including the procedure for registering trade unions.

The Committee, however, noted with deep concern the statements made concerning the further difficulties faced by trade union leaders and members affiliated to the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), including arrests and detentions and the changes to the procedures relating to the National Council on Labour and Social Issues, resulting in the loss of its seat on the Council.

The Committee deplored the continued failure by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and shared the sense of urgency deriving from the comments of the Committee of Experts in relation to the survival of any form of independent trade union movement in Belarus. It deplored the fact that it had to note that nothing the Government had said demonstrated an understanding of the gravity of the situation investigated by the Commission of Inquiry, or the necessity of rapid action to redress the effects of these severe violations of the most basic elements of the right to organize. It called upon the Government to take concrete steps for the implementation of these recommendations so that real and tangible progress could be noted by the November session of the Governing Body. If no such progress could be noted, the Committee trusted that the Governing Body would begin to consider, at that time, whether further measures under the ILO Constitution should be considered. The ILO should make available any technical assistance the Government might request provided that such assistance was needed for the concrete implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts. The Committee further trusted that the situation of independent trade unions in Belarus would be closely monitored by the ILO and that appropriate action would be taken in the event of repressive measures by the Government.

The Committee requested the Government to provide a full report on all measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry for examination at the forthcoming session of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report. It also decided to mention this case as a case of continued failure to implement the Convention.

The Government representative expressed the view that the conclusions should take into account the measures that were being taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and recommendations that had already been implemented, including: recommendation 7 on the use of fixed-term contracts; recommendation 11 on the access to membership of the National Council for Labour and Social Issues of all umbrella organizations representing trade unions; and recommendation 12 concerning the review of legislation respecting the industrial relations system. She stressed that the Government was not aware of any case of alleged arrest of trade union activists. However, the conclusion that the situation in Belarus had deteriorated was based on these allegations. Moreover, the conclusions claimed that the Government had done nothing to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, but in so doing did not correspond to what had happened in practice.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2005, Publication: 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Government communicated the following written information:

The Commission of Inquiry regarding Belarus' observance of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), was appointed by the Governing Body of the International Labour Organization at its 288th Session in November 2003. The Government of Belarus gave every support to the Commission to accomplish its task. All the necessary information, meetings and consultations were provided. The Commission issued its report in July 2004. The report contains recommendations for the Government of Belarus concerning improvements of the national legislation in the field of freedom of association and protection of trade union rights. The deadline for the implementation of some recommendations was fixed for 1 June 2005. In November 2004, the Government of Belarus officially stated that everything that would be undertaken by the Government to fulfil the Commission's recommendations would be carried out within the framework of the law, in strict conformity with its competence, principles of division of power and non-interference of the State in the internal business of trade unions. In order to implement the recommendations of the Commission, the Government of the Republic of Belarus has taken the following steps:

1. According to the requirement of the Commission its recommendations have been published in the magazine of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Republic of Belarus named Labour Safety and Social Protection, which is distributed in all Belarusian enterprises and organizations.

2. The Government has adopted the appropriate plan of action. The copy of the plan has been forwarded to the International Labour Office.

The actions stipulated by the plan will be carried out in three basic directions:

-- Further improvements of the national legislation and law enforcement on creation and registration of trade unions; realization by trade unions of their authorized activity (recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10).

-- Perfection of the mechanisms of protection of the rights of trade unions and prevention of discrimination in the sphere of labour relations owing to membership of the workers in trade unions (recommendations Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8).

-- Development of social partnership and social dialogue (recommendations Nos. 11 and 12).

3. In line with the recommendations, the Government has developed the draft Law of the Republic of Belarus "On associations of the employers" aimed at the further development of the system of social partnership. The draft Law has already been studied by the ILO and has received a positive reaction. Also in line with the recommendations, the Government is working out the new draft Law of the Republic of Belarus "On trade unions". At this stage the provisions of the draft are discussed at the level of experts of the Ministry of Labour in close cooperation with the wide range of interested state agencies, trade unions and employers.

4. In line with the recommendations, the Government has established an expert council on development of the social and labour legislation aimed at maintaining the constant dialogue and interaction between the authorities, trade unions (including representatives of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus and the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions), employers, NGOs, scientists, and the Ministry of Labour of Belarus. The Council provides a wide forum for exchange of the views and proposals on the development of the national labour legislation, role of the State, trade unions and employers in the system of social partnership.

5. In line with the recommendations, the Ministry of Labour of Belarus has prepared and submitted to all interested parties (enterprises, trade unions, state agencies) the Explanatory Letter with interpretation of the norms and provisions of the international and domestic legislation determining principles of interaction between social partners and non-interference by the employers and trade unions in the internal affairs of each other.

6. In line with the recommendations, during the period of January-April 2005, the State Labour Inspection has examined the number of enterprises employing more than 2 million workers in total on the subject of law enforcement practice in conclusion of fixed-term labour contracts. More than 1,000 infringements of labour legislations were found and 226 entrepreneurs were penalized (fines, management responsibility etc.). The inspection, however, did not discover any facts of anti-trade union discrimination on those enterprises.

7. Now the Ministry of Labour of Belarus, in cooperation with the ILO, is preparing joint seminars within the framework of implementation of the recommendations of the Commission.

For the implementation of some recommendations the Government urgently needs technical and expert assistance from the International Labour Office, namely, in the field of trade union registration, regulation of trade union mass actions, regulation of external financial assistance, building up education and awareness tools. The Government of Belarus remains committed to continue to cooperate with the ILO in perfection of the system of socio-economic relations in Belarus and in further fulfilment of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative emphasized the importance of the cooperation between her Government and the ILO Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution to examine the observance by the Government of the Republic of Belarus of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, in order to gain a proper understanding of the present case. Although the Government had not considered it necessary to appoint the Commission of Inquiry, once it had been established it had demonstrated its willingness to cooperate with the Commission, for example by providing all necessary information on the law and practice concerning freedom of association and hosting the mission of the Commission to Belarus in April 2004. During its mission, the Commission had met government officials, trade unions and employers' organizations without any interference from the Government. It had then conducted formal hearings in Geneva at which the Government had been represented by officials of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and the Ministry of Justice of Belarus. The Commission had expressed its appreciation to the Government of Belarus for the full cooperation it had provided in respect of all aspects of the Commission's work and for its cordial and open attitude.

The Government had studied carefully the report entitled "Trade union rights in Belarus" prepared by the Commission of Inquiry and the recommendations contained therein. In its letter to the Director-General, as well as at the 291st Session of the Governing Body in November 2004, the Government had expressed its willingness to fulfil the Commission's recommendations, in the light of the situation of Belarus and its sovereign interests.

The Commission's recommendations included 12 points and covered various issues. Several recommendations, including the deadline for their implementation, needed to be adapted to the particular situation of Belarus. To do so, the Government had adopted a Plan of Action, under which the process of implementation of the Commission's recommendations would involve all the social partners and other concerned parties. The Plan aimed at further improvement of the national legislation and practice on the establishment and registration of trade unions and the exercise of their activities, improvement of the mechanisms of protection of trade union rights and protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, and the development of tripartism and social dialogue. The practical implementation of this Plan was to be carried out on the basis of a list of concrete measures to be taken within the first six months of 2005. This first stage of the implementation process had been already carried out and the Government was presently working on the second stage of this process. The recommendations of the Commission had been published in the Journal of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, Social and Labour Protection, and could be found on numerous web sites, including the ILO web site.

The Commission had further recommended taking measures to prevent acts of interference by employers in the activities of trade unions, in particular by issuing clear instructions to enterprise managers. In this regard, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection had sent a letter to all concerned parties in which it had explained that the relevant national legislation and international standards on social partnership prohibited all acts of interference by social partners in the each other's internal affairs.

The Commission of Inquiry had raised the issue of the use of fixed-term contracts, which were a significant trend in many countries. The legislation of Belarus also provided for the possibility to conclude fixed-term contracts. The main legislative acts in this area were the Labour Code and Presidential Decree No. 29 of 26 July 1999 on additional measures to improve labour relations, to strengthen labour and managerial discipline. The Labour Code laid down the conditions for conclusion of fixed-term labour contracts and set their maximum length at five years. Decree No. 29 granted the employer the right to conclude contracts with workers for a minimum term of not less then one year and provided for additional guarantees for employees with whom the contracts had been concluded, such as additional paid holidays and increased wage rates. The Labour Inspectorate, with the participation of trade unions, carried out regular inspections to supervise the use of fixed-term contracts. During the period of January-April 2005, the Labour Inspectorate had examined the application of labour legislation concerning the use of fixed-term contracts in enterprises employing, in total, over 2 million workers. A number of violations had been found, fines had been imposed on 226 employers, and administrative sanctions had been taken against 210 employers. However, in general, it appeared that contracts were concluded in accordance with the legislation in force. She added that workers employed on fixed-term contracts enjoyed the same rights as those employed under indefinite labour agreements, i.e. the right to organize and to collective bargaining and the right to strike. No cases of discrimination in the use of fixed-term contracts had been found. As anti-union discrimination was prohibited under section 14 of the Labour Code, any decision by an employer to conclude a fixed-term contract with an employee based on his or her trade union membership would be illegal.

The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry paid close attention to the question of the registration of trade unions. The Plan of Action provided for the improvement of the legislation, including the relevant provisions of the law on trade unions. The Government was already working on a concept to make changes to this law. To this effect, the Ministry of Justice had analysed the application of legislation on trade union registration. In particular, all cases of refusal to register primary trade union organizations had been examined. According to the information made available by the Ministry of Justice, as of 1 January 2005, some 20,195 primary trade unions were registered, compared with 1,031 in 2004. The complaints addressed to the ILO mentioned 43 cases of denial of registration of primary trade unions. However, according to the analyses of the Ministry of Justice, in ten cases the primary trade unions had not applied for registration and in six cases, the organizations were duly registered. In only eight cases, the primary organizations, following a denial of registration, had reapplied for the registration, and in only nine cases denial of registration had been appealed in court. However, practice showed that if a decision to deny registration was not based on the legislation, recourse to the courts brought positive results, as illustrated by the registration of a primary trade union of the Belarusian Free Trade Union at the "Alforma" enterprise.

The Government of Belarus was ready to review the situation and take measures relating to any well-founded complaints of violation of trade union rights. However, it could only act within the scope of its competence and could not overturn judicial decisions or bypass the legislation in force.

The Commission of Inquiry had requested the Government to undertake a thorough review of its industrial relations system. To accomplish this task, a special Council of Experts, composed of representatives of the Government, trade unions, employers' organizations, NGOs and academics, had been established by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. Trade union members of this Council were represented by the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus and the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions.

She noted that the Plan of Action and the list of measures to be taken had been submitted to the ILO. The Government had been informing the ILO of the steps taken to implement the recommendations. All further information in this respect would be provided to the Committee on Freedom of Association. In order to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the Government was counting on the ILO's technical assistance and consultations had been held with the Office for this purpose, and particularly for the organization of three seminars on international experience on the establishment and registration of trade unions, mechanisms to protect trade union rights and the development of social dialogue. Such seminars would allow a better understanding of the tasks before the Government and the determination of the best approach to be taken to implement the recommendations. The proposal to conduct the seminars had been made by the Belarusian delegation during the Governing Body session in March 2005. Although the possibility of organizing seminars in May 2005 had been discussed, unfortunately, due to the circumstances beyond its control, their organization before the Conference had not been possible. The Government had received a communication from the Office emphasizing the need to discuss this question during the Conference.

In conclusion, she said that her Government had difficult and complex issues to solve, but that concrete steps had already been taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of the Inquiry. Certain recommendations had already been implemented. Others, which were more complex, including those of legislative nature, needed more effort.

The Worker members said that the Committee of Experts' report recounted the history of the case of Belarus from November 2003, when a Commission of Inquiry had been established by the Governing Body. They emphasized that this was the tenth anniversary of the complaint submitted to the ILO in 1995 by the ICFTU, the WCL, the Free Trade Union of Belarus and the Congress of Democratic Unions of Belarus concerning serious restrictions on the right to strike, the suspension of trade unions by presidential ordinance, serious acts of anti-union discrimination and the arrest and detention of trade union members. On several occasions the Committee on Freedom of Association had examined cases on this subject and the Government had adopted an "empty chair" policy in 1996 and 2002. Despite making occasional progress, Belarus had been the subject of comments by the Committee in 2000, 2001 and 2002, following which the Governing Body had decided to establish a Commission of Inquiry, which had formulated 12 very explicit recommendations.

The Worker members noted the Government's statement that it had adopted a plan of action. The details of this plan, however, should have been revealed much earlier to the parties concerned, with a view to its examination by the Committee. The Government claimed it was establishing a council of experts composed of the Ministry of Labour, trade unions and NGOs, but there was no indication of any measures taken to guarantee that it was of a balanced composition. The Worker members emphasized that the Government alone was responsible for bringing the national legislation into conformity with international labour standards and that in no case could the ILO share this responsibility. They were sceptical about the official information provided.

The Worker members recalled the recommendations made and assistance offered by ILO bodies for several years, to which the Government still had not replied or acted upon. They therefore considered that the comments of the Committee of Experts were still valid, despite the text presented to the Committee by the Government. They also referred to the conclusions of the ILO European Regional Meeting in February 2005 and the position of the European Commission, which might envisage reconsidering the aid allocated to the country in view of the flagrant violations of ILO standards on freedom of association.

In conclusion, the Worker members stated that the situation was too serious for them to be satisfied with promises of action or future requests for assistance. The exercise of any form of independent trade union activity in Belarus was in real danger. They demanded action demonstrating the political will to respect ILO standards and requested the Committee to adopt conclusions which reflected the gravity of the case.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the information provided and recalled that the Committee had been discussing the case for over ten years. They indicated that, after listening to the Government representative, they remained somewhat sceptical of the Government's will to give full effect to the Convention at any time in the future. The Government representative had said that measures would be taken in the light of national conditions and bearing in mind its sovereignty. They therefore reminded the Government that almost half a century ago when it ratified the Convention it had made its decisions concerning the issues of sovereignty involved. The Government representative had also stated that some of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry would have to be adapted in the light of national conditions. In this respect, the Employer members recalled that the Convention concerned fundamental workplace standards and the very basic and fundamental issue of freedom of association and the right to organize. Although providing a list of the planned activities, set out in a Plan of Action, the Government representative had indicated that their implementation would take longer than envisaged by the Commission of Inquiry. Moreover, although it had been reported that measures were envisaged to prevent interference by enterprises in trade union activities, the Government representative had made no mention of the issue of interference by the Government, on which the Committee of Experts had expressed deep concern.

The Employer members noted that the Government representative had referred to the development of a concept in relation to this case. However, they emphasized that, in view of all the action taken on the case by various ILO bodies, the concept of what needed to be done should now be fairly clear. The real form of assistance that was required by the Government from the ILO was technical assistance for the drafting of legislation to give effect to the Convention, so that effective measures could be taken to overcome the discrepancies highlighted by the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member of Belarus, on behalf of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the largest trade union centre in the country, noted that trade union pluralism existed in Belarus, as illustrated by the existence of about 40 trade unions which were either united into two trade union centres or functioned autonomously, and that this fact explained the diversion in the views on the issues discussed by the Conference Committee. He regretted that neither the observations of the Committee of Experts, nor the previous conclusions of the Conference Committee had taken into account the information which was regularly provided by his organization to the ILO, and which testified to the substantive changes undergone by the trade union movement in Belarus during the past few years. For instance, currently no law on labour and social issues could be adopted without consultations with trade unions. The rights of trade unions in the field of monitoring the application of labour legislation were also increased. He underlined that this process involved not only the FPB, but also other trade unions. The tripartite National Council for Labour and Social Issues held regular meetings three to four times per year. The government working group was headed by the First Deputy Prime Minister. This fact testified to the influence trade unions had and to the seriousness with which the Government considered the ILO principle of tripartism. The tripartite General Agreement dealing with the issues of labour, social and economic interests of workers and providing for the protection of trade union activists was an example of promotion of social partnership in the country. In the last six months, about 400 trade unions had been established in the private sector of the economy, mainly in small enterprises, where relations between workers and employers were not always good. All of the abovementioned accomplishments were due to the hard work of trade unions, especially the FPB.

However, he was not completely satisfied with the statement of the Government representative. He understood that, although the process of changing the legislation was by nature a slow one, he considered that the Government was moving too slowly. He also expressed his reservations as concerned the issue of fixed-term labour contracts. The gaps in the legislation on contractual forms of employment allowed employers to act in an arbitrary fashion. The fact that there were no massive violations in the use of this type of employment was only due to the fact that the legislation was supplemented by the abovementioned General Agreement. However, this Agreement was not an act of legislation but rather of a recommendatory nature. He called on the Government to adopt a legislative act, the draft of which was prepared by the unions at the beginning of this year.

The speaker welcomed the Plan of Action adopted by the Government to implement the recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry and thought that this would contribute to the improvement of social and labour legislation, particularly because this process would involve the active participation of trade unions. Establishment of the Council on the questions of improvement of social and labour legislation was another important step, and the active participation of trade unions in this body would make the work on the amendment of legislation on establishment and functioning of trade unions even more productive. He concluded by stressing the need for ILO technical assistance in implementing the Plan of Action.

The Government member of the United States indicated that the 2004 observation had confirmed and expanded upon the concerns that the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had been raising for many years. These concerns included requirements of law that affected uniquely those unions that were outside the structures of the FPB or opposed its leadership. These requirements gave rise to apprehensions that they were being applied intentionally to suppress independent unions, in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Convention. The Commission of Inquiry documented numerous examples of this and the experts noted with deep concern reports from the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions that proposed amendments to the Law on Trade Unions would further strengthen what was a de facto state-controlled trade union monopoly in Belarus.

The Commission of Inquiry had made 12 very specific recommendations to the Government of Belarus, most of which should have been implemented by the time this Conference had convened, but were not. The speaker called upon the Government of Belarus to implement all of the Commission of Inquiry recommendations in full and without further delay. The recent election of the Government of Belarus to a regular seat on the ILO Governing Body made it all the more imperative that the Government demonstrated by its actions that it was committed to the principles the ILO stood for. Among these principles, none was more fundamental than the right of workers and employers to establish democratic organizations of their own choosing, free from the interference of governments and government-dominated organizations enjoying virtual monopoly status under laws that contravened ratified ILO Conventions.

The speaker noted that the ILO, with support from her Government and others, was attempting to ensure that independent trade unionism in Belarus survived a sustained assault by the Government of Belarus, which was well-documented in the report of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee of Experts had warned that the survival of any form of independent trade union movement in Belarus was truly at risk. She stressed that everything possible should be done to ensure that this warning did not come true. The workers of Belarus deserved no less than workers everywhere: trade unions that spoke for them, were accountable to them, and were free from government interference.

The Government member of Cuba expressed surprise at the inclusion of Belarus in the list of countries because of the short period of time since the presentation of the report of the Commission of Inquiry and the Government's reply. Instead, progress in the application of the Plan of Action by the Government should be evaluated depending on what was contained in its next report. The Government had not had sufficient time to take all legislative and administrative action to apply the Plan of Action, whose objective was the restructuring of the entire system of labour and social relations in the country. In addition, account should be taken of the written information supplied by the Government to the Conference Committee. The draft Law on Employers' Organizations had been forwarded to the ILO for comments. Also, the Labour Inspectorate had visited enterprises employing in total more than 2 million workers and recorded more than 1,000 violations, sanctioned 226 enterprises, but had not found any anti-union activities. Account should be taken of the fact that the Government fully supported the Commission of Inquiry. However, the time allowed for compliance with recommendations was not enough. The Government had requested ILO technical assistance. Such technical assistance would facilitate application of the measures contained in the Plan of Action.

The Government member of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, as well as Bulgaria and Romania as countries in the accession process; Turkey and Croatia as candidate countries; Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro, countries of the process of stabilization and association and potential candidates; Norway, EFTA country member of the European Economic Area; as well as Ukraine and Switzerland; recalled that in its statement during the 291st Session of the Governing Body (November 2004), the European Union had expressed serious concern about the situation in Belarus as regards adherence to democratic principles, human rights and respect for the rule of law, as well as the non-fulfilment of its international commitments. The European Union had called upon the Government of Belarus to fully implement all 12 recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry without delay and within the deadlines set in the report.

The EU remained deeply concerned by the observations of the Committee of Experts following the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee of Experts stated that the survival of any form of an independent trade union movement in Belarus was truly at risk.

The EU was closely monitoring the situation in Belarus, where the lack of progress could result in the temporary withdrawal of benefits under the Generalised System of Preferences. In this context, the EU was deeply concerned by the findings of the report of the investigation carried out by the European Commission, which highlighted serious and systematic violations of the most basic principles of freedom of association in Belarus. These findings were consistent with the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry and the observations of the Committee of Experts.

The EU further noted the Government's information concerning steps taken or envisaged including the reference to a Plan of Action with a view to implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The EU expected the Government of Belarus to fully implement the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry and to give full effect in law and in practice to all the points raised by the Committee of Experts on the application of the Convention. The EU called for a meaningful and constructive dialogue between the ILO and the Government of Belarus in order to guarantee the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission. These were essential, not only for the protection of workers and their rights, but also for the development of democracy.

The Government member of the Russian Federation considered that the Government of Belarus had made efforts to resolve the problems raised by the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts. As concerned the most important but very complex issue of legislation, the work was being carried out, but needed a certain amount of time. In this connection, all the relevant technical assistance from the Office would be of great importance. He emphasized the willingness of the Government of Belarus to cooperate with the ILO and considered that the situation was developing in the right direction and that adequate solutions would be soon found.

An observer of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and President of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU)) stated that the list of violations of trade union rights in Belarus continued to grow and included the denial of registration of about 30 independent trade unions, the requirements of legal address and of 10 per cent minimum membership to establish a trade union, harassment, detentions, dismissals and transfers of trade union leaders and union members and the continuing denial of the CDTU's right to participate in the meetings of the National Council for Labour and Social Issues. As far as freedom of association was concerned, the situation in Belarus had considerably worsened. Eight members of trade unions who had testified before the Commission of Inquiry had been fired. The acts of pressure exerted on trade unions and their members to leave their unions intensified as hundreds of persons had been called in by the local authorities and threatened with non-renewal of their labour contracts and reprisals by the police. During these meetings, explicit reference had been made to the Presidential Instructions. The registration of the Radio and Electronics, Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers' Union had been denied, as was the registration of a trade union in Mogilev due to a problem with the legal address. The State mass media, the only media that existed in the country, treated the independent trade unions as "enemies of the people" and "traitors sponsored by western bosses". He doubted that the Government would implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as was already demonstrated by the continuous refusal of the Government to implement recommendations of other ILO supervisory bodies. He considered that the Plan of Action was a clear attempt by the Government to evade its responsibilities as no Plan of Action could replace the good will needed to ensure respect for trade union rights in Belarus.

The Government member of Myanmar congratulated the Government of Belarus for its efforts in cooperating with the Commission of Inquiry and for adopting an appropriate National Plan of Action. His Government was encouraged to learn that the Government of Belarus had developed a draft law on associations of the employers. His Government also noted the commitment of the Government of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to cooperate with the ILO. The ongoing constructive engagement between the Government of Belarus and the ILO was therefore supported.

The Government member of China noted that the Government of Belarus was taking positive steps to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and had made progress in this respect. The Government had also reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the ILO. What was needed at this stage was the provision of technical support by the ILO and the international community to the Government. Such help would enable the Government and the social partners to jointly put the Plan of Action into practice so as to implement the Convention.

The Government representative explained that her Government had approached the Office with a request to hold three seminars on international experience with the establishment and registration of trade unions, mechanisms to protect trade union rights and the development of social dialogue. Such seminars would provide additional knowledge on freedom of association principles and would allow a better understanding of the tasks before the Government and the determination of the best approach to be taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. She emphasized that her Government fully understood its responsibility to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Plan of Action was based on the list of concrete measures to be taken in this respect. Its first stage had been already carried out and the Government was currently working on its second stage. The Government maintained contacts with the ILO and would continue to provide further information to the Committee on Freedom of Association. In line with Recommendation No. 12, the Government had established an expert council on the development of social and labour legislation. Trade union members of this Council were represented by the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus and the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions.

In regard to the concern expressed over the adaptation of the implementation of the Commission's recommendations to the reality of Belarus, she stated that in Belarus, as in many other countries, the principle of separation of power prevented the Government from acting outside of the scope of its competence.

With respect to the question of anti-union discrimination, although her Government understood the need to improve the machinery of protection against of acts of anti-union discrimination, currently all workers who felt themselves victims of discrimination, in accordance with section 14 of the Labour Code, had the right to appeal to courts.

Social dialogue was recognized in Belarus. The Government, workers' and employers' organizations cooperated and worked together in the Committee on Improvement of Labour Legislation and the National Council on Social and Labour Issues. She pointed out that the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) along with the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) were both members of the National Council, despite the fact that the FPB was a much larger organization, and explained that if the membership of the Council was to be determined by the number of members, the CDTU would not be able to become the member of the Council.

The Government representative pointed out the achievement of the Government in the sphere of social protection and employment policy. She concluded by stating that freedom of association was guaranteed by the Constitution and recognized by other legislative acts. Her Government was open to dialogue and ready to accept ILO assistance in order to improve the situation. It had already adopted a certain number of measures and would continue to do so.

The Worker members remarked that the Government had presented the situation in terms that brought its credibility into question. For instance, it had accepted to review labour legislation in cooperation with the ILO, but only on condition that the recommendations made to it be congruent with its policies. Over the last ten years in Belarus, independent trade unionism had gradually disappeared. Currently, the Government had put a Plan of Action into operation, but without stipulating its content. It claimed that it was fighting precariousness of jobs through extension of fixed-term contracts, but the reality completely negated these claims. It had made no reply on the non-respect of the immunity of persons who had provided information to the Commission of Inquiry; nor on the number of trade unions that had nonetheless obtained their registration without having to enter the structures of the FPB. It had also made no response to the fact that the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions had not been invited to sit with the Group of Experts on legislative reforms, despite having announced the setting up of this latter to the ILO Governing Body six months ago. The Worker members had asked that the conclusions reflect the fact that this case constituted a continuing failure to implement the Convention and that an impartial evaluation of the situation was required, in conformity with each of the points raised in the report of the EU.

The Employer members maintained the scepticism they had expressed in their opening remarks as to the real prospects of resolving this case rapidly. They recalled that the Government had ratified the Convention 49 years ago and expressed the wish that the Government would resolve all problems at hand before the 50th anniversary of the ratification. The Plan of Action announced by the Government representative was reminiscent of similar plans announced in the past and the Committee should not be prepared to accept another delay. The momentum should be maintained for the swift adoption of measures for the full implementation of the Convention. In this regard, the Employer members took note of the Government representative's statement that her country needed technical assistance from the ILO on advice in drafting the statutory provisions necessary to bring the law into line with the Convention. The Employer members agreed with the Worker members that this case was serious and indeed, a special case, given that the institution of a Commission of Inquiry was a rare event which occurred only in serious circumstances. The Employer members considered that the Government should be given credit for its intention to address several issues. Thus, the case should be included in a special paragraph in the Committee's report but should not be referred to as a case of continuous failure to implement the Convention.

The Committee took note of the written information supplied by the Government, the statement made by the Government representative, the Deputy Minister of Labour, and the discussion that took place thereafter. The Committee noted from the comments of the Committee of Experts that the Commission of Inquiry submitted its report to the Governing Body at its 291st Session in November 2004. The Committee recalls that the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry concerned the application of rules and regulations relating to the activities of trade unions and other public associations in a manner amounting to a condition of previous authorization for the formation of unions and with an impact uniquely upon those unions outside of the traditional trade union federation or which oppose it, contrary to Article 2 of the Convention; the non-con-formity of the law on mass activities, and its application, with Article 3 of the Convention and of Presidential Decree No. 8 on measures for receiving and using foreign free aid with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee, like the Committee of Experts, further notes with deep concern the information concerning proposed amendments to the law on trade unions aimed at substantially increasing the requirements for trade union registration at various levels.

The Committee noted the Government's indication according to which it has adopted an appropriate plan of action to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and that it has submitted to all interested parties an Explanatory Letter on the norms and provisions of international and domestic legislation. The Government also indicated that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were published in a magazine of the Ministry of Labour, which is sent to almost all enterprises in the country. It also referred to an experts' council established to review the labour legislation, which included in its composition the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU).

The Committee expressed its grave concern at the serious discrepancies between the law and practice on the one hand and the provisions of the Convention on the other, which it considered seriously threatened the survival of any form of an independent trade union movement in Belarus. It deplored the fact that no real concrete and tangible measures had yet been taken to resolve the vital matters raised by the Committee of Experts and the Commission of Inquiry, including as regards a number of recommendations made by the latter that were to have been implemented by 1 June 2005. It urged the Government to take the necessary measures immediately to ensure that full freedom of association was ensured in law and in practice so that workers could freely form and join organizations of their own choosing and carry out their activities without interference by the public authorities and to ensure that independent trade unions were not the subject of harassment and intimidation. Furthermore, the Committee supported the recommendation made by the Commission of Inquiry that the presidential administration issue instructions to the Prosecutor-General, the Minister of Justice and court administrators, that any complaints of external interference made by trade unions should be thoroughly investigated, and considered that such steps aimed at ensuring truly effective guarantees for the rights enshrined in the Convention would further benefit from the Government's implementation of the recommendations made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. The Committee requested the Government to provide a full report on all measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry for examination by the Committee of Experts at its next meeting.

The Committee further urged the Government to accept a mission from the Office to assist in the drafting of the legislative amendments requested by the Commission of Inquiry and to evaluate the measures taken by the Government to implement fully the Commission's recommendations.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its general report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2003, Publication: 91st ILC session (2003)

The Government has supplied the following information.

The Constitution and the law "on trade unions" of the Republic of Belarus establish trade union rights and freedoms in accordance with the principles laid down by Convention No. 87. Relations of the Government with the trade unions are based on the principles of social partnership laid down by the Labour Code, including the principle of independence and autonomy of the parties. The Government does not intervene in questions of internal management of the trade unions, which are regulated by the law "on trade unions" and their own statutes. Any such intervention in the activities of public associations, including trade unions, will be considered as a criminal offence.

In the Government's opinion, the elections of the Chairperson of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus were held in full conformity with the legislation and the Statute of the Federation. Mr. Kozik has been elected at the VIth plenary session of the Council on 16 July 2002 by 208 votes in favour, 10 against, and 8 abstentions. This decision has been confirmed by the IVth Congress in September 2002.

The Government delegates of Belarus noted the statement of the Workers' group concerning Belarus, which has been distributed among the participants of the Conference, and express disagreement with this document. The calls contained in this statement to put pressure on Belarus on the part of other countries and to suspend any technical cooperation with it could only contribute to the confrontation.

The questions raised by the Committee of Experts are being constantly in the focus of the Government's attention. The Government understands the need to improve the national legislation in the field of freedom of association. In May 2003, the Government has invited ILO Executive Director, Mr. Tapiola, to visit Minsk in order to discuss the outstanding issues with all interested parties.

A Government representative stated that the Government of Belarus considered questions related to the observance of the rights of workers and the creation of the necessary conditions so that workers could freely protect their interests as one of the priorities of its policy. Social partnership had been recognized in Belarus as an efficient form of interaction between the Government, employers' organizations and trade unions. The legislation governing social and labour rights had been drafted with the participation of trade unions and employers' organizations. The National Council on Labour and Social Affairs had been operating in Belarus as a consultative body, with the participation on an equal footing of the representatives of the Government and all-republic associations of employers and trade unions. The National Council had been considering the most important issues of social and economic policy. General agreements between the Government and all-republic associations of employers and trade unions had been concluded. At the present moment, the General Agreement for 2001-03 was in force in the country. With a view to the effective implementation of the provisions of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), the previous year, within the framework of the National Council, a group of experts on the application of ILO standards was created, including representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Justice and of trade unions and employers' organizations. Tripartite consultative bodies and the regulation of labour relations by collective agreements had become widespread throughout the country. There were currently 16,993 collective agreements and 452 other agreements of various types.

She emphasized that freedom of association, including the right to organize in trade unions, was guaranteed by the Constitution. The rights of Trade Unions were set out in the Act on Trade Unions. This Act directly reflected the principles of Convention No. 87 concerning the freedom to establish and join trade unions, the right to formulate their statutes in full freedom, determine their structure, elect executive bodies and terminate their activities. In Belarus, workers actively exercised their right of association and over 90 per cent of workers were trade union members. The law accorded trade unions broad powers to protect the rights and economic interests of workers and ensured their active involvement in the life of the country and in the establishment of socio-economic policy. The trade unions were participating in the formulation of the state employment programme, the resolution of matters relating to social insurance and social security and labour protection. The trade unions also played an important role in the protection of individual rights of workers. Illegal restrictions on the rights of trade unions and the hindrance of their activities was not permitted. She emphasized that trade unions were independent in their activities, as set out in section 3 of the Act on Trade Unions.

Referring to the comments of the Committee of Experts, she emphasized that the number of issues raised by the Committee had raised difficulties for the Government from the legal point of view. These issues related to the activities not only of trade unions, but also of social associations as legal entities. She recalled the reference by the Committee of Experts to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 2 of 1999 on certain measures to put into order the activities of political parties, trade unions and other social associations. This Decree prescribed the procedure for the registration of social associations in Belarus, including trade unions. The Decree set out clear requirements, which had to be met by a trade union in order to have the right to register as a legal entity. It also clearly indicated the cases when trade unions could be refused registration. The registration authorities did not therefore possess the so-called "freedom of discretion" in the process of deciding whether to register a trade union or to refuse its registration. The refusal of registration could be challenged in the courts. For the registration of a trade union, it was necessary to submit the minutes of the constituent assembly and the charter, confirm the location of the executive board of the trade union (its legal address), indicate the number of founders of the association and to provide information on the organizational structure and a description of the insignia of the trade union. The same conditions had been established for all social organizations, including trade unions.

She emphasized that in Belarus all trade unions went through registration. The isolated instances of non-registration concerned first-level trade union organizations at the enterprise level, which had not been independent trade unions, but part of the organizational structure of a larger trade union. The organizational units of trade unions, as well as the trade union as a whole, were legal entities and, as such, were subject to state registration. The main reason for refusal to register trade unions was the absence of a legal address. Compliance with the other provisions of the registration procedure did not pose any practical difficulties. The main problem relating to the provision of the legal address related to first-level trade union organizations, which tended to indicate as their legal address the premises located at an enterprise, which could be provided by an employer, alongside means of communication and transport facilities. However, the legislation did not oblige the employers to provide premises to trade unions and this matter had to be resolved through negotiations between the employer and the trade union. In practice, cases of the refusal by employers to provide premises were rare.

In Belarus, all trade unions and over 26,000 organizational units of trade unions had been registered. Section 3 of Decree No. 2 provided that the activities of non-registered associations and those associations which had not been re-registered were prohibited. Section 3 also provided that the associations which were not re-registered were subject to liquidation according to the prescribed procedure, namely by court decision. Such a decision could be challenged in court. She emphasized that these provisions of the Decree had not been applied in practice because all trade unions had been re-registered. Decree No. 2 also provided that 10 per cent of the workers of an enterprise were necessary to create a trade union. The inclusion of this provision in Decree No. 2 was due to the necessity to resolve the issue of the representativeness of trade unions. She believed that, in the case of Belarus, where over 90 per cent of workers were trade union members, this provision was not excessive.

In March 2001, the President of Belarus had issued Decree No. 8 on certain measures aimed at improving arrangements for receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid. The creation of a transparent system for receiving and using such aid and an efficient system of control was particularly important in the countries of the former Soviet Union, which received such aid but which was not always used for the purpose for which it was intended. The Decree introduced the prohibition on using foreign gratuitous aid for conducting activities aimed at changing the constitutional order of Belarus, overthrowing state power and incitement to commit such acts, war propaganda or violence for political purposes, the inducement of social, nationalist, religious and racial hatred, as well as other acts prohibited by the legislation. In accordance with the provisions of the Decree, foreign gratuitous aid in any form could not be used, among other matters, for the preparation of a referendum, the organization of public meetings, rallies, street processions, demonstrations, pickets, strikes, designing and disseminating campaign material, as well as organizing seminars and other forms of mass campaigns for the achievement of the above results. The prescribed procedure for the registration of gratuitous aid was not difficult and seven applications by trade unions for the registration of foreign gratuitous aid had been submitted in 2002, of which none had been refused. She emphasized that after the adoption of Decree No. 8 there had been no cases of liquidation of trade unions in connection with the violation of the procedure on use of foreign gratuitous aid. Moreover, the provisions of Decree No. 8 had not prevented cooperation by the Government and the social partners with the ILO.

Presidential Decree No. 11 on certain measures aimed at improving the procedure for organizing public meetings, rallies, street processions, demonstrations, other forms of mass campaigns and picketing in the Republic of Belarus, had been adopted in May 2001 and was intended to prevent mass gatherings having any serious consequences, particularly when they lost their peaceful character. Decree No. 11 provided for the possibility of the dissolution of organizations which did not ensure the orderly conduct of mass gatherings where the number of participants exceeded 1,000 persons and where substantial damage was caused. However, such dissolution could only be conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the legislation, namely by court decision. She said that, since the adoption of Decree No. 11 of 2001, there had been no cases of the dissolution of trade unions on these grounds.

With reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the recent elections in the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus, the largest trade union association of the country, she said that the Government had carefully studied all the facts relating to the election of the chairperson of the Federation and had concluded that the elections had been conducted in full conformity with the legislation and the statutes of the Federation. The election of Mr. Kozik as chairperson had been conducted in an open and transparent manner and had been confirmed by the Fourth Congress of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus in September 2002, the delegates to which had been elected under the previous administration of the Federation. She was aware that the change in the balance of power inside the trade union, resulting in the promotion of a number of trade union officials and the removal of others, had objectively created dissatisfaction in certain quarters. In her view, this was the primary cause of the complaints submitted to the ILO after the elections.

She emphasized that the Government did not interfere in the internal administration of trade unions. These matters were governed by the Act on Trade Unions and by the statutes of the trade unions. In her view, the legal system of Belarus provided all the necessary safeguards for the ordinary members of trade unions and their officials to protect their rights, including the right to recourse to the respective judicial or other competent bodies. She emphasized that the legislation of Belarus established criminal liability for interference in the activities of social associations, including trade unions. In accordance with section 194 of the Criminal Code of Belarus, impeding the legitimate activities of social associations or interference in their legitimate activities, was punishable by fines, the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions, or corrective labour for a period of up to two years.

The right of workers to strike was established by article 41 of the Constitution of Belarus and by the Labour Code. Belarus had ratified a number of international legal instruments which guaranteed the right of workers to conduct strikes in accordance with national legislation. The general rules for the resolution of collective labour disputes were also prescribed by the Labour Code of Belarus, which entered into force on 1 January 2000. In her view, the provisions of the Labour Code governing the conduct of strikes took into account the interests of the social parties as well as those of society as a whole. The Labour Code provided for the establishment in the initial stages of a collective labour dispute of a conciliatory commission composed of the representatives of the parties to the dispute, the presence of a minimum number of the workers concerned and the holding of a secret ballot on the calling of the strike, the prior notification of the employer, the assurance for the period of the strike of minimum essential services and the prohibition of forcing workers to participate in a strike or to refuse to participate in a strike. The legislation of Belarus did not provide for compulsory arbitration or the requisitioning of labour. Any decision to declare a strike illegal had to be adopted by the courts.

In the process of the adoption of the Labour Code, the Government of Belarus had taken into account the comments of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association with respect to the types of enterprises in which strikes were prohibited. However, with regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning section 6 of the Labour Code, in her view there had been a translation error. In the report on Convention No. 87 transmitted to the ILO in 2002, the Government indicated that section 6 dealt not with workers, as indicated by the Committee of Experts, but with members of supervisory and other executive bodies of organizations such as social associations and foundations. These persons were not workers and they performed their duties either on the basis of a civil law contract or on a voluntary basis.

She expressed the hope that the discussion of the comments made by the Committee of Experts would be objective and devoid of political rhetoric. She expressed her disagreement with the statement by the Workers' group concerning Belarus which had been distributed among the participants at the Conference. The demands for other countries to put pressure on Belarus and the suspension of all technical cooperation by the ILO with Belarus contained in this statement, in her view, could only contribute to confrontation. This approach was not characteristic of the ILO or its tripartite bodies.

Finally, she emphasized that the questions raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts had been the object of constant attention by her Government. She understood the need to improve the national legislation in the area of freedom of association and to take further steps in this direction. In 2003, the Government had requested ILO assistance with the draft Law on Employers' Associations, and the ILO had agreed to provide such assistance. In May 2003, the Government had extended an invitation to Mr Tapiola, Executive Director of the ILO, to visit Minsk and to discuss the outstanding issues in the area of freedom of association with all the interested parties. She was confident that, despite all the difficulties, the Government would be able to find an optimal solution.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee had examined this case fairly frequently in the past, and most recently in 1997 and 2001. In 2002, the Government had been invited to discuss the case, but had inexplicably refrained from doing so, even though it had been present at the Conference. This had to be viewed as a sign of lack of interest and even non-compliance.

With regard to the comment made by the Committee of Experts on Presidential Decree No. 2 of 1999, requiring the re-registration of trade unions, they noted the statement by the Government representative that almost all trade unions had been re-registered and that only minor problems still persisted in this respect. However, they pointed out that, even if the requirement for registration applied to all trade unions, this did not mean that it was in accordance with the Convention. The Government representative had indicated that most of the problems arising in this respect concerned the requirement to indicate the legal address of the organization. The Employer members recalled in this respect that workers' and employers' organizations were different from other associations in that they enjoyed the protection afforded by Convention No. 87. The reference made by the Government representative to equality of treatment with other associations in this respect was not therefore relevant to the discussion and there was a clear violation of the Convention on this matter.

With regard to the minimum membership requirement for the establishment of an enterprise trade union, which was set at 10 per cent of the workers in the enterprise, the Employer members emphasized that this was not a matter to be regulated by the State, but should be left to workers' organizations themselves to settle. They added that obstacles of this nature should not be used to prevent workers' organizations from being consulted and having the opportunity to participate in bodies which discussed matters of concern to them. They therefore called upon the Government to analyse in depth the comments of the Committee of Experts on this matter and to take the necessary measures.

On the subject of the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning the right to strike, the Employer members recalled their repeated affirmations that Article 3 of the Convention did not provide a legal basis for the right to strike. However, they added that the interference by the Government in trade union elections, as confirmed by the Committee on Freedom of Association in its conclusions on Case No. 2090, constituted an intolerable interference in the internal affairs of trade unions. Moreover, the Committee of Experts had rightly indicated that the restrictions placed upon trade unions from receiving financial assistance from abroad for their activities was a violation of the Convention, irrespective of the purpose for which such assistance was provided.

In conclusion, the Employer members noted that after many years of examining the case it was still their impression that the Government was turning a deaf ear to the need to make changes. The statement by the Government representative showed that the Government still considered itself to be responsible for the internal affairs of trade unions. The Government was therefore far from complying with the letter and spirit of the Convention and should be called upon to change its opinion with regard to these clear problems of non-compliance with its obligations under the Convention.

The Worker members indicated that since 1997 the Committee had been examining the case of the violations of trade union rights in Belarus. Unfortunately, last year the Government had declined any dialogue with the Committee. They hoped to be able to engage in a dialogue with the Government this year. In its comments, the Committee of Experts raised the following points: (i) the violation of Article 2 of the Convention concerning the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization; (ii) the violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the right of trade unions to organize their activities without interference; and (iii) the violation of Articles 5 and 6 regarding international affiliation.

With respect to the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization, the Committee of Experts had expressed its concern, especially with regard to the obligation to provide a legal address, the prohibition of any activity by non-registered associations (section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 2) and the rule imposing upon organizations a minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of workers at enterprise level. The Committee of Experts had also called for the right to organize to be guaranteed for the members of advisory councils and other executive bodies of organizations.

With regard to the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities without interference, the Committee of Experts had indicated, first, that it was necessary to amend the Labour Code to authorize the exercise of the right to strike, and also to amend paragraph 1.5 of Presidential Decree No. 11 of 7 May 2001, which provided for the dissolution of a union in the event of problems in the course of a public demonstration. To this effect, the Committee of Experts had recalled that the dissolution of a trade union was an extreme measure which, when adopted for reasons of a picket action resulting in the disruption of a public event, the temporary halting of a service or the disruption of transport, was not in conformity with the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. Secondly, the Committee of Experts had referred to a complaint examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning interference by the public authorities in trade union elections. This practice constituted a serious violation of the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. Thirdly, the Committee of Experts, referring to its General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, indicated that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. Employees of the National Bank therefore had the right to have recourse to strike action without incurring penalties.

With respect to the right of international affiliation, the Committee of Experts had recalled that section 388 of the Labour Code and Decree No. 8 of March 2001 were not consistent with the provisions of Convention No. 87. The Worker members indicated that the situation in Belarus was worsening. Interference by the authorities in the activities of trade unions and the harassment to which trade unionists were subjected were unacceptable. The Government had to demonstrate the genuine political will to seek concrete solutions to the violations of trade union rights in the country. In conclusion, they emphasized that this was a case of continued failure to implement the Convention.

The Employer member of Belarus indicated that he wished to discuss several aspects of tripartite relations in Belarus. He welcomed the attitude of the Government towards the creation of the conditions for social partnership. He emphasized the importance of establishing a unified legislative basis for the operation of workers' and employers' organizations and he indicated that a working group had been created to examine the draft law on employers' associations. This draft was expected to be submitted to Parliament in November 2003. He regretted that the work on this law had been going on for more than six years and that it had not yet been adopted. The absence of such a law created certain problems for the operation of employers' associations in Belarus.

He indicated that the activities within the context of the tripartite relations were increasing. The general agreement concluded for three years was expiring in 2003 and the conclusion of a new agreement was expected at the end of this year. He highly appreciated the role of the ILO in the development of social partnership and its technical assistance and he called upon the ILO to conduct a legal evaluation of the draft law on employers' associations. He emphasized the importance of establishing a clear legislative basis and of interaction between employers and the Government. Finally, he supported the proposal to invite Mr. Tapiola to visit Belarus.

A Worker member of Belarus expressed his gratitude to the Committee for examining the issue of the protection of workers' rights in his country. Referring to the statement by the Government representative, he emphasized that the measures taken by the Government had not been the result of its good will, but rather of the decisive work of the Federation of Trade Unions, which had 4 million members.

He indicated that trade unions in Belarus had managed to re-establish their financial situation. The Government had decided that membership fees could be collected by all methods, and should be transferred ahead of other payments. The protection of trade union officials had also been improved, as their employment could no longer be terminated without the consent of a higher trade union body. Trade unions had been afforded the right to office space and means of transport.

He categorically refused to accept the conclusions of the Committee of Experts concerning the alleged lack of independence of the Federation of Trade Unions. The Federation had acted solely on the basis of its charter and the will of its members. The chairperson of the Federation had been elected without any violations of the law. These elections had been open and transparent, as confirmed by the presence of independent observers. The Government had made a significant step to strengthen the trade union movement and hoped that the Government would continue in this direction. Should the Government deviate from this route, the trade unions would take all legitimate measures. However, it was incorrect to say that nothing had been done by the Government. The Government should complete the process that it had already started. He emphasized that the trade unions were ready to help the Government and that he opposed the adoption of measures to exert pressure at the international level and to suspend technical assistance. Such measures could adversely affect the 4 million members represented by the trade union.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation indicated that he was speaking at the request of the Russian delegation of workers, which included the heads of all four representative trade union centres covering almost all trade union members in the country, 36 million of which were members of his Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia. Russian trade unions had been closely monitoring events in Belarus relating to the application of the provisions of ILO Conventions and, particularly, Convention No. 87. The Russian Federation and Belarus were going through the process of creating a unified State, and it made a significant difference for Russian trade unions if in one part of this future State the rights of workers were violated and trade union freedoms were not observed.

He had listened with great attention to the statement by the Government representative of Belarus and those of the other members of the Committee. As a member of the Governing Body, he had attended the discussion of this case in March 2003. He regretted that the majority of the conclusions and recommendations in the previous reports of the Committee of Experts had not yet been implemented, even though the ILO had been following the case for a number of years. He added that there had been further instances of violations of trade union rights and interference by the State in their internal affairs, such as recent prohibition of the publication of the trade union newspaper "Solidarity". He welcomed any effort aimed at the elimination of violations of the rights and freedoms of the trade unions in Belarus. However, he called for the Government to devote its considerable energies to improving the situation, rather than persistently violating trade union rights.

Russian trade unions were confident that all the provisions of Convention No. 87 would be applied by the Government of Belarus without any exceptions. They were also convinced that workers and trade unions were the first victims of violations and failure to comply with all ILO Conventions, because they were the most vulnerable partners in social dialogue. He hoped that the consideration of this case would lead the Government to pay greater attention to cases of the violation of this fundamental Convention and would help it adopt effective measures for the eradication of these violations as soon as possible. He also hoped that, as a result of conclusions adopted by the Committee, a climate of the real observance of the rights and freedoms of all trade unions without exception would be established in Belarus.

The Worker member of Germany said that the Government of Belarus had taken every available measure to undermine the independence of the trade union movement in the country. The action taken included administrative and legal threats, economic pressure, the threat of dismissal and intimidation. The persistent interference by the Government in the internal affairs of trade unions was part of a deliberate policy to wear down the trade unions newly established in 1991 and to take control of organizations representing 4 million workers. Since July 2002, high-ranking trade union officers had been replaced by nominees from the Office of the President, the secret service and the customs and financial authorities. As a result of the decision in December 2001 to cancel the check-off of trade union membership fees, the financing of trade unions had become critical, and trade union employees had not been paid. The Government had coerced trade unionists to establish "yellow" trade unions as the only way of keeping their jobs. In the meantime, the country's independent trade unions had been excluded from the examination of new draft legislation and had suffered a campaign of defamation from the state-controlled media. In 2002, the Government had initiated a campaign to prevent the re-election of any trade union leaders who were in favour of an independent Federation of Trade Unions, particularly through the threat of losing their jobs. The chairperson of the Federation had been replaced by a high-level official of the State, who had immediately re-established the check-off system and tripartite dialogue.

The Government had since focused attention on any organizations which were still independent of state control. One important instrument in this respect was the need to provide an official address for the registration of an organization. As most trade unions were based at the enterprise, and the use of enterprise addresses needed the approval of the employer, the establishment of trade unions was dependent upon approval by employers. Trade unionists who were still active had been dismissed and not reinstated, as demanded by the Committee on Freedom of Association. A Decree adopted in November 2002 had given the Federation of Trade Unions the exclusive right to bear the name of Belarus and the Minister of Industry had declared that the leaders of any trade unions which were still independent were a problem which needed to be solved within two months. Many trade union members had been placed under pressure to resign from independent unions. He emphasized that the systematic action taken against the independent trade unions and their leaders was pulling the country into economic crisis and isolation. The Committee should clearly emphasize the violations of Convention No. 87 in its conclusions and he called upon all the member States of the ILO to take appropriate steps to assist in the re-establishment of freedom of association in Belarus.

The Worker member of France noted that the statement by the Government representative of Belarus confirmed the grave irregularities, in law and in practice, observed in the report of the Committee of Experts and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, especially as regards the right of trade unions to organize their activities in full freedom, the right of free political expression, public demonstration and the right to strike. Yet, these rights were an integral part of the constitution in democratic countries.

The exercise of freedom of association was not protected in Belarus, as illustrated by several legislative provisions. For instance, the law permitted the authorities to control the organization of unions, their operation and activities, which was contrary to Convention No. 87. Moreover, the dissolution of a trade union appeared to be the prescribed sanction for any type of infringement. In addition, the existence in certain legal texts of terms sufficiently vague, such as "social hatred" or "massive agitation", allowed for the dissolution of independent trade unions which had managed to overcome the obstacle of registration.

It appeared that the control exercised by public authorities over trade unions and organizations of civil society was aimed at preventing unions from furthering their claims on important questions, notably in respect of wages. Furthermore, the support from international workers' organizations was also closely controlled and prohibited. The Government representative seemed to consider the restrictions contained in the law to be normal. By accusing the unions, the Committee of Experts and the ILO of exerting pressure on her Government, she had shown contempt and lack of consideration for the Committee, thereby repeating the attitude shown the previous year when the Government had declined to engage in dialogue with the Committee. It was urgent for the Government to cease controlling the trade unions in an abusive manner. He concluded by indicating that the Committee's conclusions had to be very clear to bring about the application of Convention No. 87 in both law and practice.

The Worker member of Romania stated that the case of Belarus was a typical case of the repeated violation of Convention No. 87. Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999, section 3 of which prohibited any activity by non-registered associations and set a minimum membership requirement of at least 10 per cent of workers at the enterprise level, had not yet been repealed. This measure was not in conformity with Article 2 of Convention No. 87, which recognized the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization.

The Committee of Experts had also noted the violation of Article 3 of Convention No. 87. In fact, the provisions of the Labour Code, which had not been amended, set legislative limitations on the right to strike when the rights and freedoms of third parties were prejudiced, in particularly: (i) the provisions of sections 388 and 399; (ii) the requirement to notify the duration of a strike (section 390); and (iii) the obligation to ensure minimum services during the period of the strike.

In Belarus, the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom was not guaranteed. By way of illustration, reference could be made to paragraph 1.5 of Presidential Decree No. 11 of 7 May 2001 which provided for the possibility of dissolving a union in the event that an assembly, demonstration or strike picket resulted in the disruption of a public event, the temporary suspension of an organization's activity, or the disruption of transport. The dissolution of a trade union was an extreme measure contrary to the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The interference of the public authorities in recent trade union elections also constituted a serious violation of Convention No. 87. In addition, the right to organize and the right to strike were not guaranteed for certain categories of government employees and other persons employed in the public service. He expressed the firm hope that the Government would take the necessary measures in the near future to bring its legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Another Worker member of Belarus described how, against a background of the persistent violation of trade union and workers' rights, he had been removed from his position as chairperson of the Federation of Trade Unions, along with colleagues, such as Mr. Boukhvostov, the chairperson of the trade union of agricultural machinery production workers. Following concerted pressure from the Ministry of Industry and employers, they had been removed from office and their places taken up by former employees of the Office of the President, the secret services and the customs and tax authorities. He described in detail the measures taken to interfere in the trade union election processes with a view to the domination of the trade union movement and its integration into the state machinery. He also described how the President of the country had accused certain independent trade union leaders of being constantly involved in politics and acting as the opposition. Pressure had been placed upon individual leaders to create "yellow" trade unions which were intended to cover all the workers of industrial enterprises. This process had culminated in the extraordinary congress of the Federation of Trade Unions, which had been notable for the participation of the Minister of Industry and the directors of large enterprises. One effect of this process was that the Federation had decided to revoke its support for Case No. 2090 to the Committee on Freedom of Association. Clearly, the Federation no longer wished to draw attention to the widespread and persistent violation of human rights in his country. The interference by the Government in the internal affairs of trade unions was so clear in his country that no one could possibly deny it.

The Government member of Cuba stated that the comments made by the Worker and Employer members of Belarus indicated that a certain progress had been made in the country which needed to be promoted through dialogue and cooperation, and not through confrontation, interference and pressure. The Cuban delegation observed the strange coincidence that the accusations against Belarus were similar to the campaign led by centres of power which controlled NGOs and trade union confederations. Certain comments made by the Committee of Experts on the case of Belarus relating to Convention No. 87 were contradictory and questionable. The Committee of Experts had arbitrarily questioned the legislative limitations to the right to strike established in the interests of the rights and freedoms of other persons. These limits were fully compatible with international law, since the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other instruments clearly established that the rights and freedoms of certain parties could not be exercised in a way that ran counter to the rights and freedoms of others. The Committee of Experts referred to the need to avoid interference by the public authorities in trade union activities, but should also refer to the need for workers to be independent from foreign governments. He also referred to the questions raised by the Committee of Experts on the legal obligation to ensure minimum services during a strike. This element was included in the legislations of nearly all countries in the world, including the industrialized countries, and had been frequently used by various countries which did not appear on the list of the cases and were not subject to comments. The right to strike could not be exercised without certain restrictions, such as the need to guarantee essential minimum services in order to ensure respect for the rights of others such as a minimum medical service which guaranteed the right to life, without which no other right could be enjoyed. Cuba hoped that the Conference Committee would take these comments into account. He called for greater objectivity by the Committee of Experts and the avoidance of the use of technical pretexts to promote hidden objectives.

The Government member of Denmark, also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, welcomed the fact that the Government representative had been able to attend the present meeting of the Committee, especially following the non-appearance of her delegation the previous year, which had been particularly surprising in view of the election of the Government of Belarus to the Governing Body for a three-year period at that same time. She noted the decision by the National Council to establish a tripartite group of experts on the application of ILO standards and hoped that the work of this group would speed up the process of bringing the situation in Belarus into conformity with the Convention. She also noted the Government's invitation to Mr. Tapiola, ILO Executive Director, to visit the country to discuss the outstanding issues with all the interested parties. Nevertheless, she reiterated her concern about the serious violations of trade union rights in the country. She therefore requested the Government to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 of 1999 so that section 3, banning the activities of non-registered associations, did not apply to trade unions at any level of their organizational structure. She also called upon the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation on the right to strike as soon as possible in order to ensure the right of trade unions to organize their activities in full freedom in accordance with the Convention. She further requested the Government to amend Decree No. 8 of 2001 and section 388 of the Labour Code so that national workers' and employers' organizations could receive assistance, including financial assistance, from their international or foreign counterparts in pursuit of their legitimate aims. Finally, she urged the Government to comply fully with the requests made by the Committee of Experts and to keep it informed of all the measures taken to bring the situation into conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of the United States stated that she wished to add the concerns of her Government to the sentiments of serious concern already expressed by other speakers. In fact, her Government had been concerned with this situation for some time, as witnessed by the decision in 2000 to remove Belarus from its trade preference programme on the grounds that trade union rights had not been respected and independent trade unions had been suppressed. This concern had by no means diminished.

She was concerned by the Government's attempts to transform the trade union movement in Belarus into an instrument for the pursuance of its own political aims. She referred, in particular, to attempts to remove the legitimately elected leadership of unions in an effort to bring them under government control, and to the regular and systematic interference in and obstruction of trade union activities. The evidence of the Government's serious and continuous violations of Convention No. 87 had been clearly laid out in the reports of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association. In March 2003, the Committee on Freedom of Association had indicated its urgent concern about the trade union situation in Belarus and its Chairperson had met the Deputy Minister of Labour. She indicated that the Government had recently invited a high-ranking ILO official to Minsk to discuss the outstanding issues with all interested parties. She hoped that these discussions would include individuals and organizations that genuinely represented the workers of Belarus and that they would lead to real improvements in both law and practice. In the meantime her Government would monitor the situation with continued concern.

The Government member of the Russian Federation drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that around 90 countries had been mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts as having problems with the application of Convention No. 87. The task of improving the legislation was very important for Belarus as well. He indicated that the Government of Belarus recognized the importance of this problem. The personal presence of the Minister of Labour in the Committee reflected the importance attributed by the Government to this matter and its efforts to find a constructive solution. The Government of Belarus had been supported by the Federation of Trade Unions and the association of employers. He welcomed the invitation to Mr. Tapiola to visit Belarus. He was convinced that the development of cooperation between the Government of Belarus and the ILO would contribute to the alleviation of the concerns of the Committee of Experts. He did not share the view of the Worker member of the Russian Federation that there had been no positive changes in Belarus and emphasized that such positive changes had in fact taken place. He supported the appeals to the Government to strengthen social dialogue and asked the Committee to make a recommendation which would not create obstacles for constructive dialogue within Belarus, as well as between Belarus and the ILO.

The Government member of Germany noted the apparent willingness of the Government to engage in further dialogue. However, he said that he found that the statement by the Government representative was unconvincing in its substance. He endorsed the statements made by the Employer and Worker members and the Government members of the Nordic countries and pointed to the inconsistency of the Government's indications made in document D.11 to the effect that the elections of the chairperson of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus were held in full conformity with the legislation and the statutes of the Federation, while in its statement in the fourth paragraph it admitted that there was a need to improve the national legislation in the field of freedom of association. Recalling the importance attached by the Committee to the willingness of governments to accept the observations of the Committee of Experts and to comply with their obligations, he called upon the members of the Committee to compare the lack of will shown by the Government of Belarus with similar cases that it had examined recently and to draw the appropriate conclusions. All the examinations by the supervisory bodies of this case had shown the Government's lack of understanding of the requirements of the Convention.

The Government representative replied that in her previous statement she had explained in detail the position of the Government. She reiterated that her Government was prepared to cooperate with the social partners and with the ILO and that she had listened attentively to all the statements by the members of the Committee. The positive proposals would be taken into account in the action taken by the Government. However, several statements did not reflect the real situation in the country. She emphasized that the Government was ready to improve the legislation and she hoped that the discussion of the case in the Conference Committee would help in this work.

The Worker members stated that the Committee had held an important discussion on a serious and unacceptable situation regarding the violation of freedom of association in Belarus. Nevertheless, the Government refused to accept its responsibility in this respect. The Worker members proposed that the conclusions on this case should be included in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

The Employer members noted that a number of interesting facts had been highlighted during the discussion which served to supplement the information provided in the report of the Committee of Experts. However, all of this information only served to confirm the picture that they already had of the situation. Although the Government representative had expressed the readiness of her Government to improve the situation, she had provided no information in her opening statement concerning any measures taken for that purpose. The Employer members emphasized that for many years the situation had been in need of great improvement. They therefore agreed with the Worker members that the Committee should include its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative asked the Committee to take into account the ongoing consultations with the ILO and the invitation extended to Mr. Tapiola, Executive Director of the ILO, to visit Belarus. She indicated that the fact that the legislation covered not only trade unions, but also other associations, created additional difficulties in the work of the Government. She asked the Committee not to place its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

The Committee noted the oral and written information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts referred to a number of divergences between law and practice and the Convention. In particular, the Committee noted that the law and various legislative decrees placed important restrictions upon the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization and the right of such organizations to operate without interference by the public authorities, including the right to receive foreign financial assistance for their activities.

The Committee also noted with deep concern the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2090 concerning the interference by the public authorities in trade union elections, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and deeply regretted to note the statements made before the Committee to the effect that its interference in the internal affairs of trade unions was continuing. In this respect, the Committee firmly urged the Government to take all the necessary measures in the near future to bring an end to such interference with a view to ensuring full compliance with the provisions of the Convention in both law and practice.

While noting the Government's statement that it was paying particular attention to the comments of the Committee of Experts and that it had invited a high-level official from the Office to visit the country, the Committee regretted to recall that the Government had been referring for several years to the need for changes in the legislation and that up to now it had not been able to note real progress in this regard. It therefore expressed the firm hope that all the necessary measures would be taken in the very near future to guarantee in full the rights afforded by the Convention to all workers and employers, particularly with regard to the right of their respective organizations to organize freely their internal affairs and to elect their leaders without interference by the public authorities. The Committee urged the Government to provide detailed information in the report due so that it could be examined by the Committee of Experts at its next session and expressed the firm hope that next year it would be in a position to note real progress achieved in relation to this case. The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report. It also decided to mention this case for continued failure to implement the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2002, Publication: 90th ILC session (2002)

See Part One: General Report, paragraph 182

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2001, Publication: 89th ILC session (2001)

The Government supplied the following information: the right to organize, including the right to establish trade unions, is guaranteed by the basic law of the country - the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus. The trade unions' rights are provided for in detail in the Law of the Republic of Belarus "on Trade Unions". The following principles of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 are reflected in this Law: right to freely establish and join trade unions, subject to the rules of the organizations concerned; right to freely draw up and adopt their constitutions and rules, to define their structure, to elect their administrative bodies, to cease their activities.

The Law grants the trade unions wide powers to defend the rights and economic interests of workers of Belarus, secures their active participation in the life of the country and in the formulation of the Government's socio-economic policy.

According to the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, relations between the state administrative bodies and employers' and workers' organizations are based on the principles of social partnership and cooperation.

There are various forms of the social partners' cooperation in the country, the most important among them being joint elaboration, adoption and implementation of the general tariff agreement, branch tariff agreements and local agreements, as well as collective agreements.

The General Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and republic associations of employers and workers for 2001-03 was signed and entered into force on 25 May 2001.

Although the current collective agreement campaign has not yet been terminated, at present there are more than 600 agreements of all kinds already concluded, including 27 at the republic level and about 100 at the local level; there are also more than 20,000 collective agreements.

There is a National Labour and Social Council in the Republic, as well as branch and territorial councils, all of them are tripartite bodies in which the Government, employers' and workers' representatives are appointed in equal numbers.

The Belarus society's transition to market-economy realities is accompanied by radical transformation of social and economic conditions. The nature and content of relations between the trade unions and the Government and employers are also changing. Certain trade union rights and privileges can no longer be automatically secured, as in the past based on the former socialist legality or the Party directives. At present, the most important guarantee to ensure their implementation is collective agreements.

Realizing the need to create, in fact, new socio-economic legislation, as well as the difficulties of this task, the Belarus Government is open to dialogue with the social partners and the ILO for the joint search of optimal solutions.

In the course of improving the national legislation, and following the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies, the Government has prepared amendments to the legislation concerning registration - Presidential Decree No. 2.

It is proposed to repeal provisions requiring the confirmation of legal address in the course of registration of unions' branches which have no legal personality.

It is also proposed to enlarge the possibilities of acquiring legal address by organizations which have legal personality. Thus, if necessary, the organizational units of one trade union situated in the same city, for example, could all share the same premises and have the same legal address. An organizational unit in the same city could also have the same legal address as its mother organization or trade union.

In drafting the modifications to Decree No. 2, the Government took account of the Committee of Experts' comments on provisions concerning creation of independent trade unions in undertakings. In particular, it is proposed to delete the provision requiring a minimum number of trade union members to reach at least 10 per cent of all employees of the undertaking. Consequently, these modifications would allow the creation of trade unions in undertakings already where there are ten members.

The general rules governing collective labour relations in Belarus, including the settlement of collective labour disputes, are laid down by the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus which entered into force on 1 January 2000.

The Code provides for the creation at the initial stage of the conflict of a conciliation commission composed of the representatives of the parties concerned; the attainment of a quorum and the secret vote on declaring a strike; the advanced strike notification of the employer; the guarantee of minimum service during the strike; the prohibition to compel persons to take part in the strike or to abstain from it. The parties are free to make use of mediators or to take the case to the labour arbitration. The legislation of Belarus does not provide for a compulsory arbitration of disputes or for compulsory mobilization. The decision to declare a strike illegal is taken by the court.

In preparing the Labour Code the Government has taken into account the comments formulated by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning the list of enterprises where strikes were prohibited, approved by the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers, No. 158 of 28 March 1995, which, in the opinion of the supervisory bodies, was not in line with the strict definition of the vital services.

With the technical and advisory assistance of the International Labour Office new approaches were elaborated in the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus.

The Labour Code now limits the right to strike only to the extent that it is necessary in the interests of national security, public order, the health of the population, and the rights and liberties of other people.

In relation to the request of the Committee of Experts, the Government confirms its understanding that the provisions of the Labour Code to limit the right to strike (sections 388 and 393) should be used only in cases where the situations covered actually arise.

In the Government's opinion, the fact that the Labour Code contains certain provisions which have given rise to the comments by the Committee of Experts, could be explained in that the definition of the vital services is insufficiently developed in the Republic. This definition is open to different interpretations and has to be studied further with the technical assistance of the ILO.

The Government understands the need for constant improvement of the national legislation in the area of freedom of association and trade union rights.

The basis for the solution of the existing problems should be found in the enlargement of the dialogue with the social partners and the activation of the technical cooperation with the ILO.

Technical assistance of the ILO can become an additional factor to help effectively realize the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and other supervisory bodies.

In addition, before the Conference Committee, a Government representative, the Deputy Minister of Labour, stated that the Government of the Republic of Belarus considered matters of observance of the rights of workers, and the creation of necessary conditions for the free protection by workers of their rights as one of the priorities of its policy. The right to association, including association into trade unions, was guaranteed by the Constitution. The rights of trade unions were set out in greater detail in the law of the Republic of Belarus "on trade unions". This law directly reflected the principles of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 concerning voluntary creation of trade unions and their membership, the right to draft and approve their constitutions, to determine their structure, to elect executive committees, and to terminate their activities. The law gave broad authority to the trade unions in defending the rights and economic interests of the workers of Belarus, ensured their active participation in the life of the country and in the formation of socio-economic policy of the Government. In accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, the relations in the social-labour sphere between the bodies of state administration, associations of employers and trade unions were conducted on the basis of principles of social partnership and cooperation of the parties. The example of such cooperation in the Republic was the work of the National Council for Labour and Social Matters, a tripartite body, where the Government, associations of employers and trade unions participated on an equal footing. The National Council considered the most important matters of socio-economic policy, the improvement of cooperation of social partners, and adopted decisions which afterwards were reflected in the collective agreements and other normative acts. During the meeting of the National Council on 24 May 2001, the disagreements concerning the Draft General Agreement between the Government of Belarus, all-republic associations of employers and trade unions for 2001-03 were resolved and, as a result, the Agreement was signed and had entered into force. The question concerning the proposed steps of the Government for complying with the recommendations of the Freedom of Association Committee, adopted by the Governing Body on 28 March 2001, were also considered at this meeting. Alongside other matters, the question of non-interference of state bodies in the activities of trade unions were discussed. The Minister of Justice had pointed out that the instruction referred to by the supervisory bodies of the ILO was not a normative act, did not have legal force and did not have any practical influence on the results of the trade union elections. The matters of independence of trade unions were covered in the current legislation (section 3 of the law on trade unions). The interaction of governing bodies, employers and trade unions in Belarus also occurred at the sectoral and territorial levels. In 2000 in Belarus there were more than 600 agreements of all types, including 27 all-republic and around 100 local ones, as well as 22,500 collective agreements, which covered more than 90 per cent of subjects of economic activity where trade union organizations existed. By now, even though the current collective agreements campaign had not been ended, there were more than 600 agreements of all types, including 27 all-republic and around 100 local ones, as well as more than 20,000 collective agreements. There were sectoral and territorial councils for labour and social matters, contributing to the development and improvement of the social partnership. The transition of the society of Belarus to the realities of the market economy was accompanied by the radical change in social and economic conditions that, in its turn, changed the forms of cooperation between social partners. The trade unions of Belarus ceased to be a part of the state machinery, as they were during the Soviet times. Trade union pluralism was strengthening. The workers were deciding for themselves in respect of their membership in the trade unions. New independent trade unions were emerging. Guided by the well-established principle of international practice, according to which the workers should by themselves freely choose the trade union which, in their opinion, better represented their professional interests, the Government of the Republic of Belarus neither supported nor prevented the efforts to change the trade union membership, undertaken within the framework of the law. In Belarus the nature and content of relationship between the trade unions and the Government and entrepreneurs was changing. A number of trade union privileges and benefits no longer could be automatically ensured on the basis of former socialist legality and directives of the Party. One of the most important foundations of ensuring them were the collective agreements and contracts, the conditions of which to a large extent depended on the aspirations and abilities of the parties to conduct constructive social dialogue, the mutual recognition of respect of interests of each other, the positive resolution of existing problems, and the ability to make mutual concessions and compromises in the name of this goal. In the opinion of the Government, the improvement of legislation on trade unions should go in this direction, taking into account that the legislative additions and changes should consider the spirit of the time, international experience and perspectives, and they should be well thought out and coordinated among all interested parties. It should be also taken into account that certain provisions of the existing legislation were borrowed from the previous system, because the respective matters had not previously been considered so important and did not cause special concern to the Government and social partners. This related, for example, to the very term "trade union", in which the term "citizens" was used, as well as to the matter of participants in strikes receiving material assistance from foreign legal entities and private individuals. He stated that in view of the complexity of creating local labour legislation based on the principles of a social-oriented market economy, the Government of the Republic of Belarus was open for dialogue with the social partners and the ILO in the joint search for optimum approaches. This matter required further consideration for the purpose of harmonization of the provisions of various legislative acts of the Republic of Belarus.

The speaker further stated that she wished to provide necessary clarifications concerning certain aspects of the legislation and to provide information on the measures which the Government intended to undertake in order to observe the existing comments by the Committee of Experts. A detailed report would be submitted to the Office within the time limits set forth for the submission of annual reports under article 22 of the ILO Constitution. The law on trade unions provided for the registration of trade unions, and the allocation to them of the rights of the legal entity. In connection with the adoption in the Republic of Belarus of new Civil Code and Housing Code the necessity had emerged to put in order the activities of all legal entities, including trade unions. This resulted in the adoption of Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999 "On certain measures for putting in order the activities of political parties, trade unions, and other social associations". The Decree had approved the regulations on the state registration (re-registration) of political parties, trade unions and other social associations. These instruments prescribed precise requirements to be fulfilled by trade unions in order to obtain the rights for registration. The cases were specified when the registration of trade unions could be denied. Therefore, the bodies in charge of registration were deprived of the so-called "freedom of discretion" in the process of deciding whether to register or to deny the registration. The denial of registration could be challenged in the court proceedings. In respect of the comments by the Committee of Experts concerning the length and difficulty of the procedure of registration, the Government representative indicated that all trade unions had been registered in Belarus. The fact of non-registration related to first-level trade union organizations in enterprises, which were subordinated organizational structures (branches) of the all-republic trade unions. The major reason for non-registration was the question of the legal address. The compliance with other provisions of the prescribed registration procedure did not cause any practical difficulties. Decree No. 2 confirmed the necessity of mandatory state registration of the social associations, which were legal entities, including trade unions. The provisions of the Decree concerning the prohibition of the activities of non-registered social associations and those which had not been re-registered established an administrative liability for conducting activity on behalf of such associations. The dissolution of trade unions could be conducted only according to the procedure prescribed by the law, which provided for dissolution by court decision. The decision on dissolution could be also appealed. The Government representative stressed that these provisions of the Decree were not applied in practice, because they related to trade unions which, as was already indicated, were fully registered. The rules for registration prescribed by Decree No. 2 specified, as one of the required conditions, the confirmation by the trade union in the process of registration of information concerning the location of its executive committee, i.e. the possession of a legal address. The Government representative believed that this requirement did not contradict the provisions of Convention No. 87. It was known that this condition was normal for the legislation of many countries. It also corresponded to the provisions of the civil legislation of the Republic of Belarus. Referring to the facts of denial of registration of organizational structures of trade unions because of non-confirmation of the possession of a legal address, the Government representative stated that the organizational structures constituting the trade union, as a rule, were legal entities. The trade union independently adopted the decision whether its organizational structures, including the first-level trade union organizations, would be provided with the rights of the legal entity and be subject to registration as all legal entities in the Republic of Belarus, or whether they would not be provided with the rights of the legal entity. For organizational structures which were not legal entities, the legislation provided not for state registration, but for a more simplified procedure: inclusion into the registry. The absence of the status of legal entity did not limit the organizational structures of the trade unions in their basic trade union rights and rights in the area of collective labour relations, including the rights to conduct collective negotiations and conclude collective agreements. At the same time, the existing procedure provided for the confirmation of possession of the legal address both in the case of state registration and in the case of inclusion into the registry. As a rule, the first-level trade union organizations indicated their legal address to be the address of the premises given to them by the employer. However, the legislation of Belarus authorized the employer, but did not require him, to provide such premises. The question of allocating premises was negotiated between the employer and the trade unions on a voluntary basis. There were more than 28,000 organizational structures of trade unions in Belarus. With a few exceptions, all sought offices for their executive bodies exclusively in the premises of an enterprise. At the same time, it had to be taken into account that an employer could be short of such facilities, especially in small enterprises. The situation was aggravated by the fact that there were different organizational structures of trade unions at the same enterprise which claimed the premises. In order to resolve the problems related to the registration and inclusion into the registry of organizational structures of trade unions and taking into account the recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO, the Government had prepared amendments to the existing legislation on registration to Presidential Decree No. 2. These amendments provided for the removal of the need to confirm the possession of the legal address in the process of inclusion in the registry of the organizational structures which were not legal entities. It was also proposed to broaden significantly the possibilities of obtaining the legal address by the organizational structures which were legal entities. In case of necessity the organizational structures of the same trade union, for example, located in one city, could be located in the same premises at the same legal address, and, in case of location of the organizational structure in the same city as its superior organization, the address of the superior organization could also be used as the legal address for the lower-level organization. The Government believed that the insertion of these changes into the legislation on the registration essentially resolved the problem of the legal address. When drawing up amendments to Decree No. 2, the Government also had taken into account the recommendations of the Committee of Experts related to the provisions regulating the creation of independent trade unions at enterprises. In accordance with the draft amendments, the provision on the requirement that an organization have at least 10 per cent of the workers in the enterprise in order to be created was abolished. The Government representative referred to the comments by the Committee of Experts concerning certain aspects of the legislation governing the issues of organization and conduct of strikes. The general rules of the regulation of collective labour relations in the Republic of Belarus, including the resolution of labour disputes, were defined by the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus which entered into force on 1 January 2000. In the opinion of the Government, the provisions of the Code governing the conduct of strikes took into account the interests of the parties of the labour relations as well as of the society as a whole. The Code provided for the creation at the initial stage of the collective labour dispute of a conciliatory commission consisting of the representatives of the parties to the dispute; the presence of a determined quorum of interested workers and secret voting on the issue of declaration of strike; advanced notification to the employer on the conduct of the strike; the provision in the course of the strike of a minimum service; the prohibition on the use of force to participate in the strike or not to participate in the strike. The parties by their agreement could use the intermediaries or go for arbitration and forced mobilization. The legislation of Belarus did not provide for compulsory arbitration. The decision to declare the strike as illegal was rendered by the court. In the process of drafting the Labour Code, the Government of the Republic of Belarus took into account the comments by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association in respect of the list of enterprises where the strikes were prohibited, approved by resolution No. 158 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 28 March 1995. In the opinion of the supervisory bodies of the ILO, this list did not correspond to the concept of essential services in the strict sense of this term. With the technical and consultative assistance of the ILO, new approaches had been elaborated which have been reflected in the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus. In respect of the comments by the Committee of Experts concerning specific provisions of the Code, the Government representative indicated that paragraph 3 of section 388 of the Labour Code provided for the possibility of limiting the right to strike to the extent that it was necessary for the interests of national security, public order, health of the population, rights and freedoms of other parties. In accordance with section 393 of the Code, in case of a real threat to the national security, public order, health of the population, rights and freedoms of other persons, the President of the Republic had the right to postpone the conduct of the strike or suspend it, but not for more than three months. In the opinion of the Government, these provisions corresponded to the opinion of the Committee of Experts expressed in the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, according to which the measures prohibiting strikes "can be justified only in case of acute national crisis and for a limited period of time and to the extent that this corresponds to the circumstances of the situation". The Government representative underlined that up to the present time the provisions of sections 388 and 393 of the Labour Code had not been applied. In connection with the request of the Committee of Experts, the Government confirmed that the provisions of sections 388 and 393 concerning the limitation of the right to strike would be applied to those cases when the situations referred to in these provisions in fact occurred. Concerning the comments by the Committee of Experts in respect of the provisions of part 2 of section 388 that the strike may be conducted no later than three months after it was decided, the Government representative pointed out that this provision did not limit the length of the strike, but rather determined the time period when it should be started. The Government did not believe that the right of the President of the Republic to postpone the conduct of the strike for the period up to three months "could potentially convert into illegal any strike in connection with the existence of the limitation on time of its conduct". As was already indicated, the President could exercise his powers stipulated in article 393 of the Labour Code and postpone or suspend the strike in cases when its conduct created a real threat to the national security, public order, health of the population, rights and freedoms of other persons. The Government representative stated that in that case no strike was considered, but those having the capacity of inducing a real threat to society might be the subject of justified restrictions or even prohibition. Section 392 of the Labour Code, establishing the duties of the parties during the strike, provided for the necessity of ensuring a minimum service during the strike. The Committee of Experts recommended that this provision be applied only to the enterprises in essential services. At the same time, in its General Survey, the Committee of Experts expressed the opinion that "it is undesirable or even impossible to try to compile the full and permanent list of such services". The legislation of Belarus does not establish a precise list of essential services. That is why the necessary minimum service was determined in the collective agreement in each enterprise. Depending on the importance of the enterprise, the level of necessary minimum services could be reduced to a minimum, or could be increased to a maximum, if the enterprise was indeed vitally important for society. Requirements to indicate the denotation of a strike while notifying an employer on the date of launching the strike, provided by section 390, was also related to the issues of determining the necessary minimum of services. The Government representative indicated also that in its General Survey of 1994, the Committee of Experts noted "... a non-essential service in the strict sense of the term may become essential if the strike affecting it exceeds a certain duration or extent ...". At the same time, the Government recognized that in the Republic the matters of determination of vitally important services was not sufficiently defined. This was evidenced by the comments of the Committee of Experts in respect of certain provisions of the Labour Code. The issue of vitally important services, as a rule, involved various interpretations and required further study. The question would be considered concerning the determination of the body adopting a final decision in case of non-agreement by the parties concerning the necessary minimum service.

In conclusion, the Government representative underlined that the Government recognized the necessity of permanent improvement of national legislation in the area of freedom of association and the rights of trade unions. The Government attached great significance to the programme of cooperation of the Republic with the ILO. It believed that an important place in this programme should be allocated to the matters related to the improvement of legislation in the area of freedom of association on the basis of international labour standards. The programme of cooperation could become, in the opinion of the Government, an additional factor contributing to the effective realization of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and other supervisory bodies of the ILO.

The Worker members recalled the reasons why Belarus was on the list of individual cases. These related to the content of the case; the nature of the observations of the Committee of Experts; the extent to which the Government had answered; the conclusions of this Committee in 1997; observations from the Belarusian social partners; observations from the other supervisory bodies; and recent developments. This case concerned violations of basic trade union rights in a country which still had a long way to go on the road to democracy. The lack of respect of democratic values and basic human rights had given rise to deep concern in other international bodies. The Worker members shared the views expressed in the report of the Committee of Experts and supported the recommendations made. These pertained to: registration policies which were tantamount to previous authorization; the restriction on the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing; the right to elect representatives in full freedom; and the right of trade unions to receive assistance, including material assistance, from international organizations of workers. In addition, a number of provisions of national legislation pertaining to the right to strike, including sections 388, 390 and 392 of the Labour Code, were incompatible with Convention No. 87. Moreover, section 393 of the Code permitted the President of the Republic to postpone, or to stop, a strike for up to three months; yet section 388 provided that a strike could not be carried out later than three months from the date upon which it had been declared. This was a real tragedy for workers. In this regard the Worker members wished to make a more general statement on the right to strike, as the Employer members had done during the discussion of the individual case concerning Ethiopia. They pointed out that in the days of the cold war, i.e. before 1989, the trade union leaders of the former USSR would more or less repeat what the Government delegates of the same regime had stated with regard to the ILO supervisory machinery. Today, however, there were union representatives from this part of the world who struggled to defend an independent position in union matters, who had great difficulties with their dictatorial governments at home and who spoke their mind in that regard before this Committee. So there was some progress after all and this was a most welcome and pleasant change. There were other changes also. The Employer members, for instance, embodied change. During the days of the cold war, the Worker members recalled that the spokesperson for the Employers' group had always stood with the Workers' group in that they had supported the Committee of Experts in its criticism on the violations of basic trade union rights in the former USSR. They had done so on the basis of careful analysis, conviction and trust in the ILO supervisory system in which the Committee of Experts played such a pivotal role. In those days, the Employer members did not have any serious problems with the right of trade union organizations to organize their own activities in full freedom, neither in countries belonging to the former USSR nor in other countries in the world. In fact, the Employer members were even more vehement than the Worker members on the enforcement of such worker rights. At that time, the Soviet Government delegate had often questioned the right of the Committee of Experts to interpret Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 as it had done and, more so, to apply these Conventions to countries where the workers and the farmers were in command. The Employer spokesperson stood very firm in those days in defending the Committee of Experts on the same points for which they were attacking it today. The Worker members pointed out that the legal and historical arguments raised by the Employer members today to negate the right to strike could have been used by them in the pre-1989 period. They did not. The argument the Employer members used today were the same arguments put forward by the Soviet regime to undermine the ILO supervisory system. Hence, the Worker members had no choice but to believe that the attack by the Employer members on the Committee of Experts was based on political rather than legal grounds. This stand smacked of opportunism, as politics often did.

The Committee was dealing with a case today where, once again, Article 3(a) of Convention No. 87 was at stake. Now, the Employer members were asserting that the Committee of Experts did not have the right to interpret Article 3(a) the way they had done during the cold war period. However, the Committee of Experts would continue to interpret Article 3(a) in this manner in the years to come. The position chosen by the Employer members undermined the supervisory system and it was opportunistic if one compared their pre-1989 and post-1989 attitudes. Hence, the Worker members could only conclude that the Employer members were ready to use double standards and that, if times changed again, the Employer members might change their position on this issue yet again. This attitude by the Employer members offered governments, which violated such an essential right of workers, a chance to continue to violate these rights backed by such an attitude. The Worker members were sure, however, that the Employer members and most governments did not want to reach a situation where the supervisory system was seriously undermined. Members of this Committee desired a supervisory system which was fair, had a sound legal basis and in the hands of experts who were not only intelligent but also independent, objective and impartial. The dialogue between this Committee and the Committee of Experts, as well as the Committee on Freedom of Association, should be continued. What was more curious was that the Employer members of the latter body had always supported the Committee of Experts' view on the right to strike. Hence, this dialogue and the ILO supervisory machinery which were creative, delicate and immensely precious should be preserved. The Worker members would not allow the Employer members to play games with it. The Worker members wished it to be placed on the record that they fully supported what the Committee of Experts had to say on Article 3(a) of Convention No. 87. Returning to the case before the Committee, the Worker members indicated that the violations of the Convention occurred in a country whose Government had not a great deal of sympathy for trade union and human rights. What was lacking in the report of the Committee of Experts, however, was information on the application in practice of the Convention. However, this information would soon be provided by other Worker members as well as by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Worker members indicated that they wished for such facts to be reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts so as to allow this Committee to obtain an overall view of the real situation. The report of the Committee of Experts and the written information provided by the Government might give the impression that the situation was improving. It was not. The Worker members would return to these specific violations later on in the discussion of the case. Findings of missions sent by the ILO in the last half year support this assessment of the Worker members.

The Employer members noted that this case had been the subject of discussion by this Committee in 1997 and the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts for a number of years. With regard to the discussion in 1997, the scope had been extended. The Committee of Experts had raised more issues than it had done before. The new legislation and Presidential Decree were a clear violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Presidential Decree required trade unions and employers' organizations to re-register. This was not tantamount to a prohibition if the criteria for re-registration did not amount to the requirement for "previous authorization". Serious consequences could follow in the event that the legal address of an organization was not given. This was tantamount to the right of organizations to establish themselves only with prior authorization. However, in practice, there was little information concerning this. Moreover, the minimum membership requirement to the effect that an organization must have at least 10 per cent of the workers at the enterprise as members in order to be registered, could constitute a serious obstacle to the establishment of organizations. Since this Presidential Decree conferred excessive powers to the administrative authorities, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that the Decree needed to be amended. Although the Government representative had defended the trade union situation in her country and indicated that there were no violations of trade union rights, the Employer members nevertheless understood that she was prepared to consider possible amendments to current legislation. Furthermore, the law of 2000 which limited the right to organize to the citizens of the country was in violation of Convention No. 87 which guaranteed freedom of association to all workers without distinction whatsoever. Regarding the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom, this issue clearly was an internal union matter and any state interference therein was a clear violation of the Convention. Regarding the prohibition on financial assistance from foreign legal persons, this was a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the various restrictions on the right to strike, the Employer members recalled their clear position on this issue. Turning to the statement of the Worker members regarding the right to strike, the Employer members pointed out that this issue had never been raised by them during the cold war period. Rather, the Employer members had tried to ensure that the supervisory system was not undermined by ensuring that there were free and independent trade unions. The right to strike practically played no role in the discussions back then. They emphasized that they had not made a single statement during those days supporting the right to strike; in fact, they had never changed their position. In 1953, the Employer spokesperson expressed the group's opposition to this interpretation during the Governing Body. The Employer members recalled that they had asked for this issue to be put on the agenda of the Conference on several occasions but nothing had ever happened. This was probably because of the fears of the possible results of such a discussion. With regard to the views of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the right to strike, the Employer members recalled that this Committee had been set up as a conciliation, mediation and fact-finding body. It had no legal mandate but simply reported infringements in practice of freedom of association to the Governing Body. In this regard, the Employers pointed out that the Committee on Freedom of Association not only examined complaints from countries that had ratified Convention No. 87, but also from those countries that had not done so. In the latter case, the Committee on Freedom of Association received its mandate only from the general principles of the ILO's Constitution, not from Convention No. 87. Moreover, the Employer and Worker members in that body acted in their individual capacity and not as spokespersons for their groups.

The Worker member of France recalled that already in 1995, the Committee of Experts had recommended that the Government of Belarus instantly repeal the provisions which set excessive restrictions to the rights of workers to formulate a programme of action without the interference of the public authorities. This year, however, the Committee of Experts had noted with satisfaction that Order No. 158 of 1995, which was the basis of its comments, had been effectively repealed by the adoption of the new Labour Code. However, it would be worth questioning if matters had really changed in Belarus. On the occasion of the European Regional Meeting held in December 2000, the Workers' group had adopted a declaration in which it drew the attention of the Sixth European Regional Meeting on the serious violations of trade union rights in Belarus. That declaration was made in response to a complaint deposited by the trade unions of the country on the violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The documents attached to the complaint revealed the interference by the Government in the internal affairs of trade unions, and the restrictive procedures for their registration. The practices denounced by the trade unions did not seem to have stopped then. Thus, in March 2001, the Governing Body had approved the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association relating to Belarus. At the same time, the President of Belarus had signed a decree banning international assistance and solidarity. He indicated that the Government seemed to play hide-and-seek with the Organization; a step forward was immediately followed by a measure that cancelled its effect. Rightly so, the Committee of Experts had scrupulously examined the legal provisions, whether it was the Presidential Decree of 1998, or the adopted texts in 2000. He highlighted that freedom of association should be universally recognized as a basic right of workers at work. It was important to endorse the conclusions of the Committee of Experts, especially those relating to restrictions on the right to strike, namely: the right to strike constituted a means of pressure used by workers and their organizations to promote and defend their economic and social interests. In respect of the latter, considerable progress was noted in numerous countries which were part of the Soviet Union. He indicated that in the past, Employer members who were part of the majority within the Committee of Experts, defended the right to strike in those countries. He added that no new legal provision could justify that the situation be different at the present time. He was of the view that Belarus constituted an anachronistic, shocking, and unacceptable case.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation expressed his concern at the continuous violations in Belarus of Convention No. 87, including interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and measures to limit their rights. Russian trade unions fully agreed with the conclusions of the Committee of Experts in respect of the violations of Convention No. 87 because they maintained close connections with the trade unions of the neighbouring country and knew about the real situation. The trade unions of the Russian Federation, in cooperation with the trade unions of Belarus, conducted monitoring of the violations of trade union rights and cases of pressure on trade union officials in Belarus. Unfortunately, the violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 occurred more and more frequently in other countries of the CIS, including the Russian Federation, and this situation was frequently developing in the same manner as in Belarus. This issue was discussed at the International Forum on the Freedom of Association which took place in Moscow on 26-27 May 2001, where the representatives of almost all trade unions of the countries of the CIS took part. These violations consisted of legislative efforts to significantly reduce the rights of trade unions, pressure by the authorities in the process of election of trade union leaders, attempts to seize trade union property, numerous attacks against trade unions and their leaders in the media, more frequent cases of intimidation and even assaults against trade union leaders and activists. These developments were considered by Russian trade unions as a campaign against trade union rights. Russian trade unions, on numerous occasions, brought their position to the attention of all first officials of the Republic of Belarus, including during personal meetings. Russian trade unions also drew the attention of the leaders of the Russian State to the situation of trade union rights in Belarus asking them, taking into account the signing between the Russian Federation and Belarus of the agreement on the creation of a union, to render assistance for the resolution of this problem. The Worker member wished to once again remind the Belarusian authorities that it was not permitted to violate Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and asked them to urgently undertake necessary measures in order to rectify the situation. On their part, the Russian trade unions would continue to carefully watch over the development of the situation in the area of observance of trade union rights and freedom in Belarus and undertake necessary measures within their competence in order to give support to their fellow trade unionists in Belarus. Only the inclusion of a special paragraph in respect of Belarus could resolve the problem of trade union violations in this country.

The Worker member of Hungary, speaking on behalf of the Belarusian trade unions, asserted that, although the Government had declared that the situation, in respect of Convention No. 87, would improve very soon, in fact it had deteriorated. The President of the Republic of Belarus had signed two new decrees, Decree No. 8 in March 2001 and Decree No. 11 in May 2001. Decree No. 11 made it virtually impossible to hold any meetings or demonstrations. The smallest irregularity in conducting such meetings would lead to the imposition of high financial penalties on the organizers or the dissolution of the entire trade union organization. In addition, high payments for conducting such meetings or demonstrations were requested by the State. Decree No. 8 prohibited unions from receiving any form of international financial assistance without the agreement of the President's administration. Any violation of these provisions could lead to the dissolution of the trade union organization concerned. With these two additional decrees, the Government had enacted more legislation to allow for independent trade union organizations to be easily dissolved. The speaker then referred to a few examples of violations in practice of Convention No. 87. Until now, over 100 affiliates of the Congress of Independent Trade Unions had not been re-registered and newly founded trade union organizations could not be registered. The previous month, two trade union branches of independent organizations in Polodsk and Babruisk were prohibited from carrying out their activities. Membership fees were deducted from workers' salaries but not transferred to the trade unions in an attempt to put economic pressure on the latter. Last month, the authorities tried to install their representative as the head of the Minsk Trade Union Federation. By threatening workers with dismissal, employees of the Belarusian Metallurgical Plant and Integral Company were forced to leave their union and to join management-controlled company trade unions. Trade union leaders were refused access to enterprises where their members were working. The Belarusian trade unions did not trust the promise of the authorities that they wanted to normalize relations with the unions on the basis of social partnership and respect for ILO Conventions. The trade unions thought that Belarus deserved to be mentioned in a special paragraph. But, if this Committee took another decision, including the sending of a mission to the country, the unions would like the mission to demand that: Decrees Nos. 2, 8 and 11 would be repealed; legislation concerning labour disputes would be brought in line with Convention No. 87; state interference in trade union affairs would be stopped immediately and employees who had been dismissed because of trade union activities would be reinstated and compensated for lost wages.

The Worker member of Romania stressed that the situation in Belarus was serious and that the Committee of Experts had noted gross violations to freedom of association. In fact, Presidential Decree No. 2 was contrary to Article 2 of the Convention as it specified a long and complicated registration procedure for trade unions. Moreover, the relevant administrative authorities made bad usage of such a procedure. He added that the Labour Code authorized, in specific instances, legislative restrictions to the right to strike, and authorized the President of the Republic to delay, even to put an end to strikes, for a period of up to three months. Finally, he concluded that the instructions issued by the head of the presidential administration were contrary to the rights of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom.

The Worker member of Germany considered that the administrative regulations and practice in Belarus constituted systematic attempts by the Government to limit the freedom of trade unions. In fact, this had already been noted by the Worker members and other speakers, as well as by the Committee of Experts. In March 2001, the Government representative had informed the Governing Body that the Committee on Freedom of Association's conclusions and recommendations were constructive and would be implemented. However, subsequently, when the Belarus trade unions and the ICFTU held a meeting to discuss the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Government authorities declined to allow the trade union to have any facilities for the meeting to take place. At the end of April, the Government instituted a new tactic in requiring the directors of state-owned enterprises to compel trade union members to leave their own unions and join those unions controlled by enterprise management. In sum, he had considerable doubts regarding the Government's intent to comply with the Convention, as he had seen no progress in this case to date and, during a visit of a German trade union to Belarus, discussions with the Government had been fruitless. Before further technical assistance would be provided, it would be necessary to see credible signals that the situation in Belarus was being brought into accordance with international law. Contrary to the position expressed by the Employer members regarding the right to strike, he considered this right to form an integral part of workers' fundamental rights. Otherwise, collective bargaining would become collective begging and it was necessary to equalize the balance and power between workers and employers. Referring to the written information submitted by the Government, it appeared that the Government was using the old Soviet Union concept of trade unions as its basis. It seemed that the Employer members were still attempting to use new arguments to support their position on the right to strike without following the comments made by the trade unions or the discussion in the Conference Committee. He recalled that, during the period of the cold war, the trade unions had played an essential part in restoring democracy and had not allowed themselves to be used as the tools of the employers. In the general discussion, the Employer members had stated that lip service was often paid to the market economy but, for the trade unions, the right to strike could not be separated from the market economy. He pointed out that, in Germany, while the right to strike was not expressly enshrined in the German Constitution, this right was nevertheless well established. He considered that attacks against the right to strike could serve as a pretext to compel workers to accept violations of international law.

The Government member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Governments of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway, drew the Conference Committee's attention to the serious violations of trade union rights in Belarus. He placed particular emphasis on the Government's interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and on the restrictive trade union registration provisions in the national legislation. In this regard, he stressed that none of the practices denounced by the Belarus trade unions had been stopped. They therefore asked the Government of Belarus to address this serious situation in a constructive manner to ensure full compliance with the provisions of Convention Nos. 87 and 98, both ratified by the Government of Belarus, and to fully respect freedom of association in law and practice. He called upon the Director-General to take, as soon as possible, all necessary measures to ensure the Government's compliance with the provisions of Convention Nos. 87 and 98 and to promote effective collective bargaining and social dialogue in the country.

The Government member of Germany noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts and the discussion in the Conference Committee were clear that the restrictions placed on trade union activities in Belarus constituted a violation of the Convention. While the written information submitted by the Government indicated that it intended to make changes to the legislation, he considered that, reading between the lines, the Government representative remained unconvinced of the need to effect changes to the national legislation, although she had also acknowledged that this situation currently existed in the country. Referring to sections 388, 390 and 393 of the Labour Code, he noted that his own country, Germany, also had restrictions on the right to strike in essential public services, a situation which was contrary to the comments of the Committee of Experts. He considered that, contrary to the position taken by the Employer members, the right to strike was an essential component of freedom of association, despite the fact that it was not expressly covered under Convention No. 87. Accordingly, it was the right of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee to address this issue, and the Committee should urge the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the national legislation that unacceptably limited trade union activities.

The Employer member of South Africa noted that, as the Committee's discussion demonstrated, there were many aspects in which Belarus failed to comply with the Convention. However, other issues had been raised in the discussion that were not undisputed. The Workers' spokesperson had questioned the authority of the Employers' spokesperson and in particular his stance on the Committee of Experts' view of the wide extent of the right to strike arising from Convention No. 87. He outlined the extensive and uncontested mandate for the Employers' spokesperson from the IOE members, the full employers' caucus and the Employer members of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. He also found it unfortunate that the inference was left in the air that the employers were somehow lesser custodians of core labour rights. This was not true. It was a matter of public record that in some countries, including his own, South Africa, the right to strike was enshrined in the Constitution. In others it was protected in national legislation. Employers did not contest this or try to overturn this. However, when Employers raised the issue as the Employers' spokesperson had done, then it was out of respect for the ILO's supervisory system which could be undermined if there was not a proper foundation for the wide interpretation and interpolations given by the Experts in this regard and which went beyond the scope of the Convention. Something that was wrong could not be said to be right merely because it happened to be convenient to some.

The Employer member of the United States hoped that the Worker members had not opened a Pandora's box in the Conference Committee. While the Worker members had accused the Employers of opportunism, he considered it opportunistic to level accusations at a group that, during the cold war, stood shoulder to shoulder with the Workers' group to support and defend the ILO supervisory machinery against attack. With regard to the Worker members' statements regarding the Employer members, he pointed out that, when Convention No. 87 was up for adoption, some members of the Workers' group had recommended that Convention No. 87 not be adopted because it did not mention the right to strike. With regard to the right to strike in Belarus, the Employers' position was accused of being a double standard, but he noted that the Worker members had on numerous occasions questioned interpretations of the Experts. He suggested that the Conference Committee should be seen in context as it existed, noting that it had the constitutional duty in the light of the Standing Orders of the Conference to examine the application of ratified Conventions. He pointed out that the Committee of Experts was a tool of the Conference Committee and it worked for the Conference Committee. In conclusion, he stressed that it should be clear that the Employers' group supported the position expressed by the Employer spokesperson.

A number of Employer members, including of France, Argentina and Panama, referred to the statement made by the Worker members in protest at the terms used and expressed their support for the Employer spokesperson, whose statements always represented the opinion of the Employer members as a whole.

The spokesperson for the Worker members said that in his initial statement he had not cast doubt on the fact that the statements of the spokesperson for the Employer members represented the group as a whole. He was glad that the Government of Russia had asked for the reproduction of the full text of his statement in the report. This would clarify the point beyond any doubt.

The Government representative of Belarus noted that she had listened carefully to the comments made by the members of the Conference Committee. With regard to the issue of union registration, she pointed out that all trade unions in Belarus passed through the registration process. In fact, less than 0.2 per cent of the organizational structures of trade unions in Belarus were non-registered. The Government believed that the requirement that trade unions confirm a legal address still posed an obstacle for this small number of the organizational structures of trade unions. She noted that a draft decree had been prepared in early 2001 to change the registration process. The Government representative recalled that, on 28 March 2001, the case of Belarus was examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) and, at that time, the Government had expressed its willingness to comply with that Committee's recommendations and it had therefore decided to revise the draft decree. The draft, which would abolish the requirement that an organization have at least 10 per cent of the workers in the enterprise as members in order to be created, had already been submitted to the Presidential Administration when the Committee on Freedom of Association met in March. She also highlighted the fact that this was the first time that the Committee had discussed this case, although CFA Case No. 1849 had been brought against Belarus in 1995 relating to other aspects of legislation. Thanks to the technical assistance provided by the ILO, the Government had managed to comply with almost all of the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in that case. She also stressed that the observations of the Committee of Experts had been received by the Government only in March 2001. Nevertheless, the Government had already begun preparing amendments to the legislation. She recalled that the new general agreement had been signed on 25 May 2001. In conclusion, in reply to the characterization of trade union rights in Belarus as a "choking situation", she cited the statement of the Vice-Chairman of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus, Mr. Vitco, that his opinion regarding the situation in Belarus had changed in light of the general status of trade union rights in the Commonwealth of Independent States since violations of trade union rights existed in all of these countries.

Another Government representative of Belarus expressed his gratitude to the Conference Committee for its patience and kindness. He nevertheless regretted that some of the workers, without having concrete information, had created confusion in the meeting. He stressed that the right to work was the most important right of all workers' rights. In Belarus, only 2.5 per cent of workers temporarily had no jobs. He therefore considered that, instead of levelling groundless accusations against Belarus, those Worker members would do better to pay attention to the plight of workers in their own countries. Moreover, 90 per cent of workers in Belarus were members of trade unions and he therefore did not understand what "grave" violations of the right to freedom of association those Worker members were referring to. He considered that trade unions in Belarus, especially trade union leaders, were not restricted in their trade union activities and enjoyed the fruits of international solidarity. While he welcomed the participation of workers in the discussion, he nevertheless wished that this participation be more constructive and not so openly confrontational and politicized, as he considered that such an approach was alien to trade union activity.

The Worker members stated that this was not a political debate but that it should follow the points raised by the Committee of Experts. Responding to the concluding remarks of the Government representative, they indicated that they would have preferred it if Mr. Vitco could have made the statement cited by the Government himself, as he was in fact present at the Conference Committee. Other members of the Federal Trade Union of Belarus were also present. Although the Government had declined to pay their fares, these had been paid by the ICFTU. However, regrettably, and for reasons he did not understand, the Worker delegate of Belarus had not been allowed to speak before the Committee. Regarding the statements made concerning the so-called empty accusations made by the Workers' group, the Worker members stated once again that the facts they had mentioned were based upon the reports of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association as well as on the statements of their Worker colleagues, who had come to the Conference with relevant information. They therefore refused to accept that empty accusations had been made by the Workers' bench. While they respected the ingenuity of the arguments against the Experts' interpretations of the Convention made by the Employer members, they noted that Employer members had been repeating the same arguments for years, occasionally including some new elements. Therefore, the Worker members considered that they also could repeat their statements concerning their position on the right to strike, not because they were desiring to be original, but since they were concerned that an unfruitful opposition to the Experts' interpretations of Article 3(a) of the Convention as to the right to strike in the Employers' group was blocking the discussion of important issues in the case of Belarus, as well as many other cases. The Worker members considered that the argument made by the Employer members was similar to that made by former representatives of the Soviet Union in that the basic position taken by the Soviets prior to 1989 was that they refused to accept any interpretations by the Experts of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and to apply them to communist as well as developing countries, and therefore the Committee of Experts could not address this issue. They recalled that the challenges which had been made by the Soviets to the legal basis for the Committee of Experts constituted a clever legal argument because, strictly speaking, there was in fact no mentioning of the Committee in the Constitution and no legal basis for the Committee of Experts' functions. With regard to the right to strike, they recalled that strikes in Poland had led to the restoration of democracy in that country and that the Employer members had supported several special paragraphs in cases where the right to strike had been limited, particularly in the case of developing countries during the cold war. Whatever the legal position taken as regards the Committee on Freedom of Association, it was clear that no one in the supervisory system, including in the Committee on Freedom of Association, was there in their personal capacity. Finally, they clarified that they had never expressed doubt that the Employer spokesman spoke for all members of the Employers' group. The Worker members considered that the crux of the problem in this case was to protect the rights of workers in Belarus and they recalled that the Hungarian Worker member had kindly read the statements prepared by the Belarus workers' organizations. The Worker members therefore asked the Committee to appeal to the Government to end the violations of the right to organize, to end government interference in trade union activities and to urge the Government to prevent employer interference in these activities, as well as asking the Government to end the harassment of trade unions, to reinstate workers fired for engaging in trade union activities, and to repeal Decrees Nos. 8 and 11. They suggested that the Committee might consider sending a mission to Belarus but expressed their doubts whether such a mission would make a difference at this point, as three missions had been sent to the country in the last six months and nothing had come of it. One possibility was to send a modest mission composed of members from ACT/EMP and ACTRAV on an extended basis to pave the way for genuine tripartism and to promote social dialogue.

The Employer members, commenting on the case of Belarus' application of Convention No. 87, noted that no new points had been raised in the Conference Committee's discussions. They therefore recalled that numerous points had been raised in the report of the Committee of Experts regarding the incompatibility of Belarus' law and practice with the Convention. Accordingly, the Employer members demanded that the necessary changes be made. The Employer members disagreed with the Worker members' proposal that an extended mission be sent to Belarus since a mission had already been sent to Belarus half a year ago without any success. With regard to the statements made by the Worker member of Germany that the Employer members had introduced new arguments regarding the issue on the right to strike, the Employer members pointed out that they had been making the same arguments for many years. In fact, the minutes of the plenary session of 1994 contained all the important arguments and the Employer members had reiterated the most important of those arguments two days ago. Commenting on the mandate of the Committee of Experts, the Employer members noted that this had been addressed at the 8th International Labour Conference held in 1926, where the mandate of the Committee of Experts was set forth in detail. This mandate and the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts remained unchanged and absolutely clear. According to this mandate, the Committee of Experts had no judicial competence and no capacity to interpret the provisions of ILO Conventions. Responding to the statements made by the Government member of Germany that the right to strike could be addressed by the Committee of Experts despite the fact that it was not mentioned in the Convention, the Employer members recalled that the problem was not only that the Convention was silent on this issue but that it was purposely excluded from the scope of the Convention. On this point, the Employer members had made a proposal in the plenary session of the Conference on two occasions to request that this matter be placed on the agenda of the Conference, which was the only body empowered to adopt standards. Were this matter to be placed on the Conference agenda, the Workers might be surprised to discover how liberal the Employers could be on the issue of the right to strike and lockouts. They regretted that this would probably never take place.

The Worker members and the Employer members requested a special paragraph.

The Government representative of Belarus addressed the issue of the adoption of a special paragraph in the case of Belarus, noting that, in contrast to the majority of cases that had been discussed, the case of Belarus was being examined by the Committee for the first time. She asked the Conference Committee to take this fact into consideration as well as to consider the positive action taken by the Government of Belarus in cooperating with missions to the country and in establishing a constructive dialogue with the ILO supervisory bodies regarding the draft amendments to the national legislation. She also drew the Conference Committee's attention to the statement made by the Government at the 280th Session of the Governing Body in March 2001, which expressed its willingness to comply with the recommendations approved by the Governing Body. In addition, she asked the Conference Committee to take into account the work carried out by the Government over the past two months to improve the relevant legislation, a task which the Government had begun even before receiving the recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO. The Government had been in constant dialogue with the Committee on Freedom of Association and had sent comments to that body on five occasions this year. She noted the existence of a positive trend in the development of social dialogue, indicating that a general agreement between the Government and the national employers' and workers' associations for 2001-03 had been signed on 25 May 2001. She therefore considered that it was not appropriate for the Committee to place its statement regarding Belarus in a special paragraph, in light of the short amount of time Belarus had had to respond to the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies and the positive trends she had described.

The Government member of the Russian Federation concurred with the statements of the Government representative of Belarus to the effect that it was not appropriate to place the Committee's conclusions in a special paragraph.

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion which took place thereafter. It noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts referred to a number of discrepancies between recently adopted legislation, various decrees and instructions and the provisions of the Convention, in particular as concerns the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing and the interference by the public authorities in trade union activities and the election of trade union representatives. The Committee expressed its grave concern at the issuance of instructions by the head of the presidential administration which called upon the ministers and chairs of government committees to interfere in the elections of branch trade unions and noted with regret the statements made before it that government interference in the internal affairs of trade unions continued. In this respect, the Committee urged the Government to take all necessary measures to put an end to such interference so as to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are fully applied both in law and in practice. Noting the Government's statement that measures were being considered to amend Presidential deree No. 2 on some measures on the regulation of the activity of, among others, trade unions, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the necessary steps would be taken in the very near future so as to ensure fully the right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Committee also requested the Government to ensure fully the right of these organizations to function without interference by the public authorities, including the right to receive foreign financial assistance for their activities. The Committee urged the Government to supply detailed information in the report requested by the Committee of Experts for its coming session and expressed the firm hope that it would be able to note next year that concrete progress had been made in this case. The Committee decided that its conclusions would be placed in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative of Belarus addressed the issue of the adoption of a special paragraph in the case of Belarus, noting that, in contrast to the majority of cases that had been discussed, the case of Belarus was being examined by the Committee for the first time. She asked the Conference Committee to take this fact into consideration as well as to consider the positive action taken by the Government of Belarus in cooperating with missions to the country and in establishing a constructive dialogue with the ILO supervisory bodies regarding the draft amendments to the national legislation. She also drew the Conference Committee's attention to the statement made by the Government at the 280th Session of the Governing Body in March 2001, which expressed its willingness to comply with the recommendations approved by the Governing Body. In addition, she asked the Conference Committee to take into account the work carried out by the Government over the past two months to improve the relevant legislation, a task which the Government had begun even before receiving the recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO. The Government had been in constant dialogue with the Committee on Freedom of Association and had sent comments to that body on five occasions this year. She noted the existence of a positive trend in the development of social dialogue, indicating that a general agreement between the Government and the national employers' and workers' associations for 2001-03 had been signed on 25 May 2001. She therefore considered that it was not appropriate for the Committee to place its statement regarding Belarus in a special paragraph, in light of the short amount of time Belarus had had to respond to the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies and the positive trends she had described.

The Government member of the Russian Federation concurred with the statements of the Government representative of Belarus to the effect that it was not appropriate to place the Committee's conclusions in a special paragraph.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

A Government representative, the Minister of Labour, stressed that his country was resolutely pursuing the course of democratic reform. During recent years practical efforts had been made at all levels - national, local and industry level - to improve interaction between state bodies, trade unions and employers' associations, to strengthen their role in the reform process and to guarantee constitutional rights. It was only through collective efforts based on the relationship of true social partnership that the country could solve its problems of the transitional period. However, the solutions to these acute problems were not always achieved in the manner corresponding to the letter and the spirit of international law, as the present case showed. He considered his task not to defend the necessity of the action which had taken place nearly two years ago, but to show that the ILO's comments on the matter had given rise to appropriate action being taken by those directly responsible for the application of international law. The best proof of this was that no such incidents had occurred subsequently. At present, there were 38 trade unions registered and exercising activities at the central level as well as many other trade unions which were registered and acted at the level of enterprises, all of which considered themselves free, independent and democratic. This proved that freedom of association and trade union rights, as specified by the Convention, were applied fully in legislation and in practice. With respect to the problems raised, all of them were already settled. It only remained to amend the decision of the Council of Ministers No. 158 of 28 March 1995 so as to exclude the transport sector from the list of essential services where strikes were forbidden. The draft of these amendments was currently being considered by the Government and was expected to be adopted during 1997. He stressed that tripartism in Belarus was still very young and prone to conflicts. However, the importance of the social partnership was fully recognized by the Government as demonstrated by its adoption, in consultation with the central level trade unions and employers' associations, of the concept of the system of social partnership, which had been given the status of a constitutional principle by being recognized in article 14 of the national Constitution. He asked the ILO to consider the possibility of providing consultative and technical assistance on a number of questions including the improvement of the social partnership system and on the final draft of the Labour Code which had already been elaborated initially with the assistance of the Office. Expressing his gratitude for this assistance, and for the two technical projects under way, he pointed out that the present case was the first one ever considered by the Committee with respect to Belarus. This procedure would be a good lesson to his Government to ensure that no such situation arose in the future. In conclusion, he promised that the Office would be informed in writing of progress achieved.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for his explanations and noted that this was indeed the first time that the Committee had addressed the application of the Convention by Belarus. This might have encouraged understanding toward the Government, but such an approach was not appropriate in this case given the nature of the Committee of Experts' observation and the numerous complaints presented to the Committee on Freedom of Association in 1995 by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which could give the impression of a return to the worst totalitarian years. This case demonstrated an intention to prevent the existence of an independent and democratic trade union movement, and deliberate violation of Conventions, constitutional provisions and national laws, with anti-union aims in mind. It therefore called for a firm approach and great scrutiny. Such severity, which might appear excessive, was in fact fully justified by a reading of Case No. 1849, examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in March 1996. The facts were: suspension by Decree No. 336 of 21 August 1995 of the activities of the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SFB) and its local affiliate; the arrest and detention of union leaders and members; imprisonment of union leaders in violation of the regular judicial procedures; raids on union offices and property; strike-breaking action; dismissal of unionists for participating in strikes; threats to open new court investigations with the imposition of heavy fines or imprisonment; limitations on the participation in union activities abroad. These were the serious violations of Article 4 of the Convention addressed in the Committee of Experts' observation, which highlighted the cynicism with which the Government got around even the spirit of the Convention by turning it into an anti-union weapon and prohibiting the right to strike in the transport sector. None the less, as the Committee of Experts had stated, the transport sector as a whole could not be considered an essential service which would justify banning the right to strike. The Workers' members could only stress the need to modify Decree No. 158 of 28 March 1995 so as to remove the transport sector from the list of essential services. The Minister of Labour had stated that this change to the law was under way: it was necessary for the Government to send a report so that the Committee of Experts could assess the situation. The situation was even more worrying because the Government had limited itself to evasive replies to the concrete violations identified by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts. A dangerous, anti-democratic logic was at work when the laws were adapted to violations and, through this, power was derived to manipulate institutions so as to obtain desired decisions, as was still the case for the Constitutional Court. It was clear that none of the judicial, institutional or political bodies would be able to provide minimum guarantees for the respect of Conventions. Therefore, it was indispensable that the Government furnish the detailed report requested by the Committee of Experts and that it prove that it was able to guarantee all trade union rights and freedoms in an appropriate political and institutional atmosphere, notably so as to ensure an end to the administrative dissolution of unions, and to remove obstacles to the right of unions freely to formulate their programmes of action without interference from the public authorities.

The Employers' members considered that the case raised a series of problems, in law and in practice. The dissolution of unions by administrative decree clearly violated the Convention. It was essential that the Committee of Experts had information at its disposal on judicial decisions in this regard. The complaint examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association also concerned a serious violation of the Convention. The present case raised the question as to whether the situation could be considered a strike when wages were not payed or were delayed: under civil law it would not be considered a strike to cease work when the other party had not fulfilled the terms of the labour contract because it had stopped paying wages. Concerning the question of the right to strike, the Employers' members' position differed from that of the Committee of Experts. It was excessive to consider that the entire transport sector constituted an essential service, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the population. The definition of essential services should not be subject to negotiations between the social partners; in a democratic State, it was up to the legislature to define the general interest. Finally, the Employers' members shared the impression of the Committee of Experts and the Workers' members that freedom of association was still poorly protected. Improvements in the law and practice were required and the Government should supply a detailed report so as to permit the Committee to re-examine the situation.

The Workers' member of Belarus stated that his organization, the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), had an affiliate directly involved in Case No. 1849 before the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning the strike in the Minsk metro system. The dispute had been caused, as in many other similar conflicts, by the massive violation of the labour legislation and the non-payment of wages. This particular strike had been prohibited and declared illegal by Presidential Decree No. 336 on the grounds that transport was listed as an essential service, where the right to strike was prohibited. The trade union premises were closed, its property seized and leaders detained, and all the workers participating in the strike were fired without the right to reinstatement. The judicial procedure concerning the legality of the right to strike had never been initiated. The Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) had recently adopted a declaration concerning the respect of labour and socio-economic rights and had called upon the President, the Government and the Parliament to remove all limitations on the free exercise of trade union activities, and to repeal Decree No. 336 because it was still being used to justify interference in internal trade union affairs. He proposed that the Committee ask the Government to provide a prompt reply concerning its international obligations to respect human and trade union rights.

The Workers' member of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the Nordic Workers' members, deeply regretted that the Government had neglected appeals from the international community to bring its legislation into conformity with the obligations arising from ILO membership. He stressed the importance of fulfilling the principles of freedom of association, and noted the Government's statement that changes may occur. He recalled that the Committee on Freedom of Association had determined that a trade union could not be dissolved or suspended by administrative decision, as had happened after the Minsk metro strike, and that the transport sector should be removed from the list of essential services. He called on the Government to grant workers in the transport sector the rights to strike and to join trade unions without Government interference. A great number of the workers who had been dismissed during the 1995 Minsk strike had still not been reinstated due to the long delay in court procedures. He expressed his deepest sympathy with those fighting for fundamental rights in Belarus and urged the Government to accept the technical assistance of the Office so as to bring the legislation into conformity with its requirements of the Convention.

The Workers' member of New Zealand emphasized that this case was a very serious violation of the Convention, both as concerned the suspension of unions following a transport sector strike, and in relation to breaches of the Convention, noted in the examination of Case No. 1885 by the Committee on Freedom of Association. It also raised an issue of credibility in that, notwithstanding the serious allegations in Case No. 1885, the Government had failed to respond, and had apparently not taken any steps to implement the Committee on Freedom of Association's previous recommendations in Case No. 1849. He noted that the Minister of Labour had confirmed that Order No. 158, adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers in 1995, was still in effect. Therefore, it was up to the present Committee to pursue compliance with the Convention. He recalled the facts of the Committee on Freedom of Association case including the administrative suspension by Decree No. 336 of the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SFB) and the Minsk Branch of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) following a strike of metro workers which was lawful under the existing law, as well as harassment and media campaigns directed primarily against these unions. The Committee on Freedom of Association and this Committee had repeatedly emphasized that respect for civil liberties, such as freedom of assembly and expression, were essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights. Both had clearly been severely curtailed here. Noting, as the Employers' members had, that one of the issues which had given rise to the transport strikes was late payment of wages, which was in itself a fundamental breach of employment contracts, he questioned whether forcing employees to work without wages was not a contravention of Convention No. 29. It was necessary for the Committee to support the Committee on Freedom of Association, and, noting that the Minister of Labour had asked for technical assistance from the Office, proposed that it accept monitoring of this case.

The Workers' member of Swaziland noted the contradiction between the Government's statements and actions. The suspension of the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SFB) by Decree No. 336 was contrary to Article 4 of the Convention and undermined the democratic right to bargain collectively. Furthermore, the Government flouted the rule of law when it ignored the Constitutional Court ruling that Decree No. 336 was unconstitutional. The denial of the right to strike, the interference in the right to organize and register unions, the denial of the right of assembly, the sending of members of the armed forces to trade union meetings, mass dismissals and interference in shop floor matters all constituted tyranny of the highest order. Consequently, he supported the proposal of the Workers' members regarding the conditions in this case.

The Workers' member of Kazakstan stated that trade unions in all the countries which had emerged from the territories of the ex-USSR hoped that the transition to a market economy would bring with it the establishment of new labour relations between workers and employers, guaranteed by the constitutions and labour legislation in conformity with international labour standards. However, the situation had turned out to be the opposite, with the prohibition of the rights to organize and to strike, the persecution of trade union activists, the violation of their civil liberties and the non-payment of wages. The Government, in violation of the Convention, had tried in this case to suppress the free trade union movement. He considered that the present Committee should express great concern over their situation and the fate facing their leaders, and request the Government to provide in the very near future full information on the measures taken to eliminate all violations of trade union rights.

The Workers' member of Germany noted with deep concern the developments concerning the law and practice in this case. The available information proved the serious violation of basic workers' rights, including the right to strike. It was therefore essential that the Committee of Experts pay particular attention to this case. Significantly, this case showed the importance of defining essential services as narrowly as possible so as to avoid the risk of arbitrariness, in conformity with the jurisprudence of the ILO supervisory bodies. If the Government was really committed to the principle of social partnership, it should not, in practice, threaten the existence of autonomous organizations or the right to strike. It was necessary to insist that the Government amend its law and effectively guarantee freedom of association and the right to strike, in conformity with international law.

The Minister of Labour stated that his Government would draw serious conclusions from this discussion, leading to concrete measures in legislation and practice with a view to ensuring that no such violations of trade union rights could ever be repeated. He recalled, however, that the incidents in question had occurred nearly two years ago and that, since then, there had been no recurrence of such incidents: the trade union concerned had been re-established, registered and was functioning freely. The Government would inform the Committee of Experts in writing of all progress achieved.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Minister of Labour, as well as the discussion which ensued. The Committee observed with concern that the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts had referred to serious violations of freedom of association, both in practice and in the law concerning the suspension of unions by administrative authority. The Committee urged the Government to urgently repeal the provisions which established excessive limitations on the right of workers' organizations to formulate their programmes of action without interference by the public authorities. The Committee asked the Government to send a detailed report, indicating the measures taken to bring its law and practice into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee hoped to be able to note substantial progress when the case was next examined.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee takes note of the observations of the Belarus Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP), received on 24 and 31 August 2023, and of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 27 September 2023, referring to matters addressed in this comment.

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

The Committee notes the 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) of the International Labour Conference. The Committee notes that the Conference urged the Government of Belarus to receive as a matter of urgency an ILO tripartite mission with a view to gathering information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO, including a visit to the independent trade union leaders and activists in prison or detention. The Committee further notes that at its 349th Session (October-November 2023), the Governing Body discussed the follow-up to the Conference resolution (see GB.349/INS/13(Rev.1)) and urged the Government to do the same.

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it expressed deep concern regarding the situation of civil liberties in Belarus and the application of the Convention in law and in practice, and had urged the Government to take a number of measures to address them. At the outset, the Committee notes with deep regret that in its report, the Government once again merely reiterates the information it had previously provided and considers that the Committee misunderstands and misinterprets the situation on the ground.

Civil liberties and trade union rights. The Committee recalls that it urged the Government to immediately release all trade union leaders and members arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies or for exercising their civil liberties pursuant to their legitimate trade union activities, and to drop all related charges. The Committee also urged the Government to provide detailed information concerning the situation of these trade unionists, including charges brought against them, and give access, as a matter of urgency, to visitors, including officials of the ILO, to ascertain the conditions of arrest and detention and the welfare of the above-mentioned persons. If, in the meantime, any of the above trade unionists had been brought to court, the Committee urged the Government to provide information on the outcome of any proceedings against them and to communicate copies of any court decisions issued in their cases.

The Committee notes with deep concern the list of 47 trade union leaders and activists currently detained or whose freedom of movement is restricted, transmitted by the BKDP. The Committee further notes with deep concern the deteriorating conditions of imprisonment of the BKDP chairperson, Mr Aliaksandr Yarashuk. After a four-year prison sentence to a general regime colony was issued in December 2022, Mr Yarashuk was transferred to a strict regime prison where he is kept in a cell nearly all the time, with only the right to take short walks in the yard, while other normal prison privileges, such as telephone calls and visits from relatives, are reduced. The Committee also notes with deep concern the information provided by the ITUC to the Governing Body at its 349th Session to illustrate the conditions in which trade unionists were detained. The ITUC also indicates that while several trade union leaders arrested in April 2022 have been released, they still face charges. The ITUC further alleges that over the past months, throughout the country, police have proceeded with mass arrests and the detention of employees, deemed “disloyal to the regime“. The ITUC also refers to an instruction issued by the Belarus authorities to its embassies not to renew passports of Belarusian citizens abroad, in order to force them to return to the country and face persecution.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it had repeatedly drawn attention to the lack of grounds and outright absurdity of allegations that the country’s trade unions and citizens were persecuted for carrying out trade union activities and legally and peacefully exercising civil rights and liberties. According to the Government, the ILO is being misled by the complaints of politically motivated individuals and organizations, and therefore continues to erroneously assume that the 2020 protests were motivated by economic and social considerations, were lawful and peaceful, and were directed at protecting civil and trade union rights and liberties. The Government insists that purely political events, unrelated to the processes of social dialogue in the workplace and the exercise of trade union rights, should not serve as a basis for assessing compliance with the Convention and should not be considered when monitoring the implementation thereof. The 2020 protests were artificially encouraged by outside forces, were unlawful and intended to seize power by unconstitutional means. The protestors’ demands (the resignation of the Head of State, fresh elections, exoneration of law breakers) had nothing to do with the protection of citizens’ labour, social and economic interests or the tasks that trade unions are bound to perform. The Government considers that the authors of the complaints deliberately brought political issues to the ILO in order to discredit Belarus internationally, justify unprecedented unilateral restrictive measures against the country, escalate political pressure on the legitimate authorities and launch another wave of sanctions based on ILO decisions. The Government reiterates that all citizens and trade unions referred to in the complaints and comments of the ILO supervisory bodies had been prosecuted for specific unlawful acts not connected with the lawful and peaceful exercise of trade union rights and freedoms. Thus, all calls for the dismissal of all charges against them and their immediate release had no objective legal basis. The review of sentences, interaction with the convicted persons and their release from custody falls within the exclusive competence of law enforcement agencies and courts, interference in the activities of which is inadmissible and entails liability in accordance with the law. In this regard, and with reference to the above-mentioned list of detained trade unionists, the Government indicates that this was yet another attempt to convince the ILO of the alleged persecution of “independent” trade unions in order to escalate pressure on Belarus. The Government recalls that the activities of the BKDP and its member organizations were terminated by Supreme Court decisions on the basis that they contradicted the national Constitution and other legislation, and caused harm to the State or public interests. The Government indicates that six of the 47 persons listed as prisoners have already served their respective sentences and that four of them have not even been sent to correctional institutions. Regarding another 13 individuals (Ms Mikhniuk, Ms Britikova, Mr Yarashuk and Mr Antusevich (who was released after serving the entire sentence and after the receipt of the Government’s report), Mishuk, Khanevitch, Zhernak, Berasneu, Fiadynich, Areshka, Gromov, Chichmarev and Sliazhou), the Government indicates that these citizens had been found guilty of committing specific serious offences. The Government further indicates that ten persons from the list were members of a group “Rabochy Rukh” (“Workers’ movement”), an extremist formation, the activities of which are prohibited. In view of the gravity of the offences committed (creation and/or participation in an extremist formation, treason against the State, slander, unlawful acts with firearms, ammunition and explosives, and so forth), these citizens were sentenced to longer periods of deprivation of liberty. Other citizens on the list had been prosecuted for specific unlawful acts such as gross violation of public order resulting in disruption of transport and enterprise operations; violence against internal affairs officers; calls for actions aimed at harming national security; incitement to national or social enmity and discord on the grounds of national and social affiliation; and incitement to ethnic or social hatred and discord on the grounds of national or social origin. The Government points out that these acts are unrelated to the lawful and peaceful exercise of trade union activities, civil or other rights and freedoms. According to the Government, in the vast majority of cases, the sentences imposed on them did not exceed three years. Four persons were serving their sentences (restriction of liberty) at their place of residence, and two persons were serving their sentences in open-type correctional institutions.

The Committee deplores the Government’s unwillingness to take steps for the release of the detained trade union leaders and members. The Committee further deplores that on the one hand the Government reiterates that trade unionists had been prosecuted for specific unlawful acts not connected with the lawful and peaceful exercise of trade union rights and freedoms and, on the other, it fails to provide a copy of the judicial decisions as previously requested by the Committee. The Committee once again requests the Governmentto communicate copies of court decisions issued in their cases.

The Committee further recalls that for a number of years the ILO supervisory bodies, including this Committee, have been drawing the Government’s attention to the International Labour Conference 1970 resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, which emphasizes that the rights conferred upon workers’ and employers’ organizations must be based on respect for civil liberties, as their absence removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights. With reference to its previous comments and the 402nd Report (March 2023) of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) on Measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the Committee considers that the failure of the Government to acknowledge, address and redress very serious allegations of violation of civil liberties or to act on the repeated specific requests of the ILO supervisory bodies, including those made by this Committee, reinforces the reality of wilful Government non-compliance with its obligations stemming from its membership in the Organization. In these circumstances, the Committee reiterates its previous request to immediately release all trade union leaders and members arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies or for exercising their civil liberties pursuant to their legitimate trade union activities, and to drop all related charges. The Committee urges the Government to receive without further delay an ILO tripartite mission with a view to gathering information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO, including a visit to the independent trade union leaders and activists in prison or detention.

Application of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the outstanding issues of the application of the Convention relate to the following concerns: (1) right to establish workers’ organizations, which includes the issue of legal address and the right, in practice, to form trade unions outside the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB); (2) the right of workers’ organizations to receive and use foreign gratuitous aid (funding obtained from abroad); (3) the right, in law and in practice, to demonstrate and hold mass events; (4) the right to strike; (5) consultation with organizations of workers and employers; and (6) labour disputes resolution system. The Committee observes with deep regret the absence of information on the concrete measures taken by the Government to give effect to the Committee’s previous requests aimed at addressing these concerns. Instead, the Government merely reiterates the information it has previously provided and points to a lack of contradiction between national law and practice and the Convention. The Committee is therefore bound once again to urge that the Government take measures to amend without further delay Decree No. 3 (on receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid), the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation, as well as section 342-2, 369, 369-1 and 369-3 of the Criminal Code providing for restrictions on mass events and associated penalties, in order to bring them into compliance with the Government’s international obligations regarding freedom of association. It also once again urges the Government to take measures to revise sections 388(1), (3) and (4), 390, 392 and 393 of the Labour Code restricting the right to strike; as well as section 42(7), which expressly allows an employer to dismiss or terminate a labour contract with a worker who is absent from work in connection with serving an administrative penalty in the form of an administrative arrest; who forces other workers to participate in a strike or calls on other workers to stop performing work duties without sound reason; or who participates in an illegal strike or other forms of withholding labour without sound reasons. The Committee expects the Government to provide information on all steps taken in this regard.

In its previous comment, the Committee deplored the effect of the dissolution of the BKDP on the work of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) and of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (the tripartite Council). In this respect, the Committee noted that with the dissolution of the BKDP, the only representation of workers’ voice in these structures was now the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), which enjoyed the publicly expressed support from State authorities at the highest level, and whose independence from the authorities was questionable. In these circumstances, the Committee questioned the continuing legitimacy of the NCLSI and the tripartite Council. Considering that the development of free and independent organizations and their involvement in social dialogue is indispensable to enable a government to confront its social and economic problems and resolve them in the best interests of the workers and the nation, the Committee urged the Government to take steps to review the situation of the dissolved trade unions in this light so as to ensure that they may again function.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the tripartite Council resumed its work in 2023 and had two meetings (on 26 May, to consider the recommendation of the CFA regarding a non-judicial mechanism for settling labour disputes and at which it was decided to establish an expert group from among its members to examine communications from trade unions and employers’ organizations; and on 22 September, to consider information provided by the ILO on the right to strike and the interpretation of the Convention, as well as the issue of collective bargaining at various levels of social partnership). The Government further informs that the NCLSI also met twice: on 14 April 2023, to consider the implementation of the General Agreement (2022–2024) and the implementation of a set of measures to reduce the shortage of workers in 2022–2023 and on 26 July 2023, to discuss regulation of the crisis management mechanism to aid the financial recovery of insolvent organizations and the situation of the consumer market. While noting the above information, the Committee notes with deep concern the absence of any measures taken to review the situation of the dissolved trade unions so as to ensure that they may again function and fully participate in national tripartite bodies. The Committee reiterates in the strongest terms its previous requests and expects the Government to indicate concrete steps taken to that end.

The Committee notes that Law No. 225-Z of 12 December 2022 on Employers’ Associations will enter into force on 16 December 2023. The Committee notes that the Law provides for the notion of a “confederation of employers of the Republic of Belarus”, defined as the most representative employers’ organization. The Committee observes that two employers’ organizations are currently members of the tripartite Council and are signatories of the General Agreement. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the impact of the certification of one employers’ organization as confederation under the Law on the membership of the tripartite Council.

The Committee deplores the total lack of progress in implementing the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry and in addressing the outstanding recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies, as well as the continuing deterioration of freedom of association in the country. The Committee once again urges the Government to engage with the ILO with a view to fully implementing all outstanding recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies without further delay.

The Committee notes that in its resolution, 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.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 15 March 2022 and 1 September 2022, referring to matters addressed in this comment.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 110th Session, May–June 2022)

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

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (the Conference Committee) in June 2022 concerning the application of the Convention. The Conference Committee deplored and deeply regretted the allegations of extreme violence to repress peaceful protests and assembly, and the detention, imprisonment and violent treatment of workers while in custody. The Conference Committee further deplored the escalating measures deployed to repress trade union activities, as well as the systemic destruction of independent trade unions. The Conference Committee expressed its deep concern that, 18 years after the Commission of Inquiry’s report, the Government had failed to take measures to address most of the Commission’s recommendations. The Conference Committee recalled the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry noting the failure to make progress on its implementation and the need for their full and effective implementation, without further delay. The Conference Committee urged the Government to: (i) restore without delay full respect for workers’ rights in respect of freedom of association; (ii) refrain from the arrest, detention, violent treatment, intimidation or harassment, including judicial harassment, of trade union leaders and members conducting lawful trade union activities; (iii) investigate without delay alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry; (iv) immediately release all trade union leaders and members arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies or arrested for exercising their civil liberties pursuant to their legitimate trade union activities and drop all related charges, including for the following persons: Aliaksandr Yarashuk – a member of the Governing Body of the ILO; Siarhei Antusevich, Vice-President of the Belarus Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP); Gennadiy Fedynich, leader of the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronics Workers (REP); Mikalai Sharakh, President of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (SPB); Aliaksandr Bukhvostov, President of the Free Trade Union of Metal Workers (SPM); and Zinaida Mikhniuk, Vice-Chairperson of the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronics Workers (REP); (v) give access, as a matter of urgency, to visitors, including officials of the ILO, to ascertain the conditions of arrest and detention and the welfare of the above-mentioned persons; and (vi) take immediate action to implement fully the 2004 report of the Commission of Inquiry and the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, including the conclusions adopted by the Committee in 2021. The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of the report and to mention this case as a case of continued failure to implement the Convention.

The Conference Committee also referred this matter to the Governing Body to follow up at its June 2022 session and to consider, at that time, any further measures, including those foreseen in the ILO Constitution, to secure compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee takes note of the decision of the Governing Body concerning the consideration of any further measures, including those foreseen in the ILO Constitution, to secure compliance by the Government of Belarus with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry [GB.346/INS/13(Rev.1)]. The Committee notes that the Governing Body at its 346th Session in November 2022: (a) deplored that no progress had been made by the Government of Belarus in implementing the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry; (b) urged the Government to ensure full respect for freedom of association and, in particular, revoke all legislative and other measures directly or indirectly having the effect of outlawing independent trade unions or employers’ organizations; (c) urged the Government to immediately release all trade union leaders and members arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies or arrested for exercising their civil liberties pursuant to their legitimate trade union activities and drop all related charges; (d) urged the Government to allow the ILO, as a matter of urgency, to ascertain the conditions of arrest and detention and the welfare of the abovementioned trade unionists; (e) noted that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations will be reviewing the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) in Belarus at its November-December 2022 meeting; (f) urged the Government to submit all information regarding the measures taken to implement all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and in respect of the more recent developments forming part of the complaint to the Committee on Freedom of Association for its examination at its March 2023 meeting; (g) requested the Director-General to submit to the Governing Body at its 347th Session (March 2023) a document detailing options for measures under article 33 of the ILO Constitution as well as other measures to secure compliance by the Government of Belarus with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry taking account of the views expressed; and (h) decided to place on the agenda of the 111th Session (2023) of the International Labour Conference an item concerning measures under article 33 of the ILO Constitution to secure compliance by the Government of Belarus with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee notes the above information with grave concern as it points to a total lack of progress in implementing the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry and in addressing the outstanding recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had expressed deep concerns regarding the situation of civil liberties in Belarus and the application of the Convention in law and in practice and had urged the Government to take a number of measures to address them. At the outset, the Committee notes with deep regret that in its report, the Government merely reiterates the information it had previously provided and considers that the Committee misunderstands and misinterprets the situation on the ground.

Civil liberties and trade union rights. The Committee recalls that in its previous comment it had noted the continued deterioration of the situation of human rights in the country following the presidential election in August 2020 and in this respect had urged the Government to: (i) investigate without delay all alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry and to provide detailed information on the outcome; (ii) take measures for the release of all trade unionists who remain in detention and to drop all charges related to participation in peaceful protest action; (iii) take all the necessary measures, including legislative, if necessary, to ensure the right to a fair trial and an impartial and independent judiciary and justice administration; (iv) ensure impartial and independent judiciary and justice administration in general in order to guarantee that investigations into these grave allegations are truly independent, neutral, objective and impartial; and (v)supply copies of the relevant court decisions upholding detention and imprisonment of workers and trade unionists. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government reiterates that: (i) the citizens referred to in the complaints made by trade union organizations as having allegedly suffered for their participation in peaceful protests and strikes were charged with disciplinary, administrative and, in certain cases, criminal offences for having committed specific illegal actions. The bringing of these citizens to justice has nothing to do with persecution for the exercise of their civil or trade union rights and freedoms; (ii) article 60 of the Constitution guarantees the protection of the rights and freedoms of all by a competent, independent and impartial judiciary. Any interference with the courts’ administration of justice is prohibited and punishable by law. All trials are public. The adversarial principle and equality of parties in proceedings apply and the parties have the right to appeal; (iii) domestic law does not provide for supplying copies of court verdicts to persons with no connection to the trial. The ILO supervisory bodies can obtain the requested copies from the persons authorized to have access to verdicts.

The Committee notes that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights indicated in her 2022 Report on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath that in response to the protests between 9 and 14 August 2020 “individuals were targeted following a consistent pattern of unnecessary or disproportionate use of force, arrests, detention (including incommunicado detention), and torture or ill-treatment, including rape and sexual and gender-based violence, and the systematic denial of the rights to due process and to a fair trial. The failure to effectively investigate human rights violations, including allegations of torture or other ill-treatment, is a contravention of the State’s obligations under international human rights law. Furthermore, OHCHR found that, besides the lack of investigation, there was an active policy to shield perpetrators and prevent accountability, reflected in the degree of reprisals, intimidation of victims and witnesses, and attacks on lawyers and human rights defenders”.

The Committee recalls that the International Labour Conference 1970 resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, emphasizes that the rights conferred upon workers’ and employers’ organizations must be based on respect for civil liberties, as their absence removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights. The Committee considers that the failure of the Government to reply to very serious allegations of violation of civil liberties or to address the repeated specific requests of the ILO supervisory bodies, including those made by this Committee, reinforces the reality of wilful Government noncompliance with its obligations under the Convention.

The Committee notes with deepconcern that while the Government fails to reply to its previous comments, new allegations of arbitrary arrest, detention, prosecution and criminal sanctions against trade union leaders and members, as well as searches conducted in their homes have been submitted by the ITUC. In this regard, the Committee notes that the ITUC denounces, as did several speakers at the Conference Committee in June 2022, the imprisonment of the following 17 unionists, all leaders and members of the BKDP and its affiliates: Aliaksandr Yarashuk; Siarhei Antusevich; Hennadzy Fiadynich; Vatslau Areshka; Mikhail Hromau; Iryna But-Husaim; Miraslau Sabchuk; Yanina Malash; Vitali Chychmarou; Vasil Berasneu; Zinaida Mikhniuk; Aliaksandr Mishuk; Ihar Povarau; Yauhen Hovar; Artsiom Zhernak; Mikalaj Sharakh; and Andrei Khanevich. The Committee deplores the Government’s unwillingness to immediately release trade union leaders and members as urged by the Conference Committee above. Accordingly, this Committee urges the Government to immediately release all trade union leaders and members arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies or for exercising their civil liberties pursuant to their legitimate trade union activities, and to drop all related charges. The Committee also urges the Government to provide detailed information concerning the situation of these trade unionists, including charges brought against them, and give access, as a matter of urgency, to visitors, including officials of the ILO, to ascertain the conditions of arrest and detention and the welfare of the above-mentioned persons. If in the meantime, any of the above trade unionists have been brought to court, the Committee urges the Government to provide information on the outcome of any proceedings undertaken against them and to communicate copies of any court decisions issued in their cases.

Application of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the outstanding issues of the application of the Convention relate to the following concerns: (1) right to establish workers’ organizations, which includes the issue of legal address and the right, in practice, to form trade unions outside the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB); (2) the right of workers’ organizations to receive and use foreign gratuitous aid (funding obtained from abroad); (3) the right, in law and in practice, to demonstrate and hold mass events; (4) the right to strike; (5) consultation with organizations of workers and employers; and (6) labour disputes resolution system. The Committee observes with deep regret the absence of information on the concrete measures taken by the Government to give effect to the Committee’s previous requests aimed at addressing these concerns; instead, the Government merely reiterates the information it has previously provided.

The Committee also notes with the utmost concern the following new information provided by the Government, which attests to further deterioration in the status of freedom of association in the country. The Government indicates that following the presidential election in August 2020, the activities of certain trade unions became highly unconstructive and politicized. Instead of performing their tasks of protecting citizens’ labour and socio-economic rights and interests, taking action to warn workers against participation in illegal protest actions of a political nature at their enterprises and informing their members of the illegal nature of such actions, which in a number of cases posed a serious threat to public order and the safety of the population, representatives of the BKDP and leaders and members of its affiliated trade unions participated in destructive acts and unauthorized mass activities aimed at achieving regime change by unconstitutional means. These trade unions, according to the Government, indulged in behaviour which contradicted the Constitution and other pieces of national legislation and which focused not on their statutory tasks and objectives but on active participation in illegal activities and their popularization. In order to prevent further violations of the legislation, applications were made to the Prosecutor General and the Supreme Court to halt the activities of the BKDP and its member trade unions. At the petition of the Prosecutor General, the Supreme Court issued rulings to discontinue the activities of the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SPB), the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers (SPM), the Belarusian Independent Union of Mining, Chemical, Oil Industry, Energy, Transport, Construction and other Workers (BNP affiliate), the Radio Electronics Workers (REP) Union and the BKDP. Pursuant to the deliberations of the Court, it was established that instead of defending the labour and socio-economic rights of workers, the leaders and a number of members of these trade unions participated actively in destructive activities and mass events which violated public order, and also distributed information material with extremist content. The Supreme Court in its verdicts found violations of the Constitution, the Trade Unions Act and other national laws and regulations on matters concerning the receipt and use of foreign gratuitous aid. The Committee deplores that following these court decisions, the BKDP and its affiliate organizations at all levels have now ceased to operate in the country.

The Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry had requested the Government to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 (2003) on Receiving and Using Foreign Gratuitous Aid. The Committee for a number of years has been asking the Government to abolish the sanctions imposed on trade unions (liquidation of an organization) for a single violation of the Decree and to widen the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used so as to include events organized by trade unions. The Committee recalls that Decree No. 24 had been superseded by Presidential Decree No. 5 (2015) and then by Decree No. 3 of 25 May 2020, under which the foreign gratuitous aid could still not be used to organize or hold assemblies, rallies, street marches, demonstrations, pickets or strikes, or to produce or distribute campaign materials, hold seminars or carry out other forms of activities aimed at “political and mass propaganda work among the population”, and that a single violation of the Regulation still bore the sanction of possible liquidation of the organization. The Committee observed that the broad expression “political and mass propaganda work among the population” when applied to trade unions may hinder the exercise of their rights as it is normal and inevitable for trade unions to take a stand on questions having political aspects that affect their socio-economic interests, as well as on purely economic or social questions.

The Committee further recalls that the Commission of Inquiry had requested the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities, under which, a trade union that violates the procedure for organizing and holding mass events may, in the case of serious damage or substantial harm to the rights and legal interests of other citizens and organizations, be liquidated for a single violation. Following its 2021 amendment, the Law makes an organization responsible if its leaders and members of their governing bodies make public calls for organizing a mass event before permission to organize the event is granted.

Finally, the Committee recalls that it had noted with regret the Regulation on the procedure requiring payment for services provided by the internal affairs authorities in respect of protection of public order, which outlines the fees that must be paid by the organizer of a mass event in relation to maintenance of public services and the expenses of the specialized bodies (medical care and cleaning services) following such an event.

Reading these provisions alongside those forbidding the use of foreign gratuitous aid for the conduct of mass events, the Committee had considered that the capacity for carrying out mass actions would appear to be extremely limited if not non-existent in practice. The Committee therefore urged the Government to amend Decree No. 3 of 25 May 2020 on the registration and use of foreign gratuitous aid, the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation, and recalled that the amendments should be directed at abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the respective legislation; at setting out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, bearing in mind that any such restriction should be in conformity with freedom of association principles; and at widening the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used.

In addition, the Committee had noted that the Criminal Code was amended in 2021 so as to introduce the following restrictions and associated penalties: repeated violations of the procedure for organizing and holding of mass events, including public calls therefor, are punishable by arrest, or restraint of liberty or imprisonment of up to three years (section 342-2); insult of a government official is punishable by a fine and/or restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to three years (section 369); the penalty for “discrediting the Republic of Belarus” was increased from two to four years imprisonment with a fine (section 369-1); section 369-3 of the Criminal Code has been retitled from “violation of procedure for organizing and holding of mass events” to “public calls for the organization or conduct of an illegal meeting, rally, street procession, demonstration or picketing, or the involvement of persons in such mass events”, which became an offence punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. The Committee recalls the BKDP allegation that criminal liability can be established simply for organizing peaceful assemblies and that any criticism and slogans are seen by the authorities as insults within the meaning of section 369 of the Criminal Code and that BKDP’s leaders were under the threat of being prosecuted under section 369-1 of the Criminal Code for calling for a boycott of Belarusian goods and application of sanctions. The Committee expresses its deep concern that trade unionists’ speaking at the International Labour Conference, engaging with the ILO, and in case of Mr Yarashuk, being a member of the ILO Governing Body, could well have been interpreted by the authorities as “discrediting the Republic of Belarus”, punishable by four years of imprisonment.

The Committee notes the Government’s renewed reiteration that there is no link between the established procedure for obtaining funding from abroad (foreign gratuitous aid) and Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Government once again points out that allowing external forces (in this case the trade unions of other countries and international trade union associations) to sponsor the holding of mass events in Belarus can present an opportunity to destabilize the socio-political and socio-economic situation, which in turn has an extremely negative effect on public life and citizens’ wellbeing. Thus, the existing ban on receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid for the purposes of conducting political and mass propaganda work among the population is bound up with the interests of national security, and the need to exclude any possible destructive influence and pressure from external forces. The Government further reiterates that the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly is not subject to any restrictions, except those that are imposed in conformity with the law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In holding mass events, trade unions are obliged to observe public order and must not permit actions which may cause an event to lose its peaceful character and inflict serious harm on citizens, society or the State. In the Government’s view, the legal penalty prescribed for organizers of mass events which cause substantial damage or harm to the interests of citizens and organizations, and also to the interests of State and society, does not constitute, and should not be interpreted as, a constraining factor on the exercise of rights to freedom of peaceful assembly by citizens and trade unions. In light of the above, the Government considers that any relaxation of responsibility for violation of the procedure for holding mass events or any lifting of restrictions on the use of foreign financial aid for the holding of political and mass propaganda work could only lead to circumstances likely to strengthen the external destructive influence on the situation in the country, which does not serve the interests of the country.

The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government has no intention of amending the legislation as requested by the Commission of Inquiry, whose recommendations the Government accepted as per article 29(2) of the ILO Constitution nearly 20 years ago. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request to amend without further delay Decree No. 3, the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation. The Committee further requests the Government to repeal the above-mentioned provisions of the Criminal Code in order to bring them into compliance with the Government’s international obligations regarding freedom of association. The Committee expects the Government to provide information on all steps taken in this regard.

The Committee recalls that it had been requesting the Government for a number of years to amend sections 388(1), (3) and (4), 390, 392 and 393 of the Labour Code restricting the right to strike; as well as its section 42 (7), which expressly allows an employer to dismiss/terminate a labour contract with a worker who is absent from work in connection with serving an administrative penalty in the form of an administrative arrest; who forces other workers to participate in a strike or calls on other workers to stop performing work duties without sound reason; and who participates in an illegal strike or other forms of withholding labour without sound reasons. The Committee recalls the BKDP allegations that numerous trade unionists who participated in mass events and strikes organized following the August 2020 Presidential election were found guilty of administrative breaches and received corresponding penalty in the form of administrative arrest, and consequently dismissed. The Committee regrets that the Government merely reiterates its previous view that the national legislation is in conformity with the international labour instruments; that in Belarus, according to section 388 of the Labour Code, a strike constitutes a temporary and voluntary refusal by workers to perform their employment duties (fully or in part) for the purpose of settling a collective labour dispute; and that strikes of political nature are forbidden. The Committee recalls since the maintaining of the employment relationship is a normal consequence of recognition of the right to strike, its lawful exercise should not result in striking workers being dismissed or discriminated against (General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 161). The Committee is therefore bound to urge the Government to take measures to revise the above-mentioned legislative provisions, which negatively affect the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom, and to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged to that end.

The Committee deplores the effect of the dissolution of the BKDP on the work of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) and of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (the tripartite Council). With the dissolution of the BKDP, the only representation of workers’ voice in these structures is now the FPB. The Committee had previously noted the publicly expressed support for that organization from State authorities at the highest level. The Conference Committee conclusions at its June 2021 session, reproduced in full in 2022, refer to support for the FPB from the President of the country, and urge the Government in the strongest terms to refrain from showing favouritism towards any particular trade union. The Committee recalls in this respect—as it has before—the importance of ensuring an atmosphere in which trade union organizations, whether within or outside the traditional structure, are able to flourish in the country. In these circumstances, the Committee questions the continuing legitimacy of the NCLSI and the tripartite Council.

The Committee emphasizes that pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, each ILO Member for which the Convention is in force shall take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organize. The Committee considers that the development of free and independent organizations and their involvement in social dialogue is indispensable to enable a government to confront its social and economic problems and resolve them in the best interests of the workers and the nation. The Committee urges the Government to take steps to review the situation of the dissolved trade unions in this light so as to ensure that they may again function.

The Committee recalls that in its 2004 report, the Commission of Inquiry considered that its recommendations should be implemented without further delay and that the majority of its recommendations should be completed at the latest by 1 June 2005. The Committee deplores that 18 years later, the recent developments indicate continuing steps backward as all space for the safe existence of an independent trade union movement in Belarus has virtually disappeared. The Committee urges the Government to abandon its policy of destroying the independent trade union movement and silencing the free voices of workers. The Committee 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.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) received on 30 September 2021, and of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 and 29 September 2021, and examined by the Committee below.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 109th Session, June 2021)

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

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (the Conference Committee) in June 2021 concerning the application of the Convention. The Conference Committee expressed its deep concern that, 17 years after the Commission of Inquiry’s report, the Government of Belarus had failed to take measures to address most of the Commission’s recommendations and recalled the outstanding recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry and the need for their rapid, full and effective implementation. The Conference Committee urged the Government to: restore without delay full respect for workers’ rights and freedom; implement Recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry on guaranteeing adequate protection or even immunity against administrative detention for trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc); take measures for the release of all trade unionists who remain in detention and for the dropping of all charges related to participation in peaceful protest action; refrain from the arrest, detention or engagement in violence, intimidation or harassment, including judicial harassment, of trade union leaders and members conducting lawful trade union activities; and investigate without delay alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry. As regards the issue of legal address as an obstacle to trade union registration, the Conference Committee called on the Government to ensure that there were no obstacles to the registration of trade unions, in law and in practice, and requested the Government to keep it informed of further developments on this matter, in particular any discussions held and outcomes of these discussions in the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter, tripartite Council). As regards the demand by the President of Belarus for the setting up of trade unions in all private companies by 2020 on the request of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Conference Committee urged in the strongest terms the Government: to refrain from any interference with the establishment of trade unions in private companies, in particular from demanding the setting up of trade unions under the threat of liquidation of private companies otherwise; to clarify publicly that the decision whether or not to set up a trade union in private companies is solely at the discretion of the workers in these companies; and to put an immediate stop to the interference with the establishment of trade unions and refrain from showing favouritism towards any particular trade union in private companies. As regards the restrictions of the organization of mass events by trade unions, the Conference Committee urged the Government, in consultation with the social partners, including in the framework of the tripartite Council: to amend the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation, in particular with a view to: set out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, ensuring compliance with freedom of association principles; widen the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used; lift all obstacles, in law and practice, which prevent workers’ and employers’ organizations to benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers in line with the Convention; abolish the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists participating in peaceful protests; repeal Ordinance No. 49 of the Council of Ministers to enable workers’ and employers’ organizations to exercise their right to organize mass events in practice; and to address and find practical solutions to the concerns raised by the trade unions in respect of organizing and holding mass events in practice. As regards consultations in respect of the adoption of new pieces of legislation affecting the rights and interests of workers, the Conference Committee requested the Government to amend the Regulation of the Council of Ministers No. 193 to ensure that social partners enjoy equal rights in consultations during the preparation of legislation. As regards the functioning of the tripartite Council, the Conference Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the tripartite Council so that it could play an effective role in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and other ILO supervisory bodies towards full compliance with the Convention in law and practice. The Conference Committee expressed its disappointment at the slow process in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Recent developments indicated a step backward and further retreat on the part of the Government from its obligations under the Convention. The Conference Committee therefore urged the Government to take before the next Conference, in close consultation with the social partners, all necessary steps to fully implement all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Conference Committee invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance and decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of the report.

The Committee notes the 394th (March 2021) 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.

Civil liberties and trade union rights. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it expressed its deep concern over the serious allegations of extreme violence to repress peaceful protests and strikes, detention, imprisonment and torture of workers while in custody, submitted by the ITUC and BKDP, and the continued deterioration of the situation of human rights in the country following the presidential election in August 2020. The Committee urged the Government to take all necessary measures to implement the above-mentioned Recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry; to take measures for the release of all trade unionists who remain in detention and the dropping of all charges related to participation in peaceful protests and industrial actions; to supply copies of the relevant court decisions upholding detention and imprisonment of workers and trade unionists and to provide a list of the affected persons; and to investigate without delay any alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry.

The Committee notes that in its report, the Government expresses its regret at what, in its opinion, is a significant negative shift in the Committee’s assessments of the situation in Belarus in relation to the political events that took place in the country following Presidential election. The Government considers that purely political events, not related to the processes of social dialogue in the world of work, should not be the basis for assessing the situation regarding the country’s compliance with the provisions of the Convention. The Government emphasizes that external forces interested in destabilizing the country took an active organizational and financial part in the preparation and conduct of illegal street actions that took place after the election of the President, in furtherance of their own geopolitical interests. The Government points out that the main demands put forward by the protesters included the resignation of the Head of State, the holding of new elections and the exoneration of citizens who had broken the law. The Government explains that these demands have no connection to trade union or labour, social and economic rights. The Governments further points out that protests were not peaceful, but rather, were carried out in violation of the law and posed a serious threat to public order, safety, and the health and life of citizens. During the protest actions, numerous incidents of active resistance to the legal requests of law enforcement officers were recorded, involving aggression, the use of violence, damage to official vehicles, blocking the movement of vehicles, and causing damage to infrastructure facilities. The Government considers that the BKDP, the ITUC and the IndustriALL Global Union are deliberately attempting to link illegal protest actions of a political nature with an alleged strike movement in the country. The Government indicates that in practice, the discontent affected only a small segment of workers; no demands were presented to employers concerning the regulation of labour and socio-economic matters. The Government indicates that the citizens referred to in the complaints made by trade union organizations as having allegedly suffered for their participation in peaceful protests and strikes, were charged with disciplinary, administrative and, in certain cases, criminal offences for having committed specific illegal actions. In this regard, the Government indicates that it cannot provide the Committee with copies of court decisions as the national legislation does not permit copies of court decisions and other documents to be shared with persons with no connection to the proceedings. The Government emphasizes, however, that the status of a worker or a trade union leader does not confer additional privileges on the holder and does not guarantee the unconditional right to absolute freedom of actions without regard for the existing national legislation and the interests of the public and the State. The Government considers that trade union activists not only have the same rights as other citizens but also, like everyone, are answerable for violations of the law; therefore, Recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry, in line with Article 8(1) of the Convention, does not require the release of trade unionists from liability for any illegal acts that they may commit. In light of the above, the Government considers that the Committee’s calls for the release of and the dropping of all charges against trade union activists who were charged with specific violations of the law to be unfounded. The Government insists that using events of a purely political nature to measure the country’s implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations is unreasonable, counterproductive and unacceptable, and that this approach may become a serious obstacle to the continuation of the well-established constructive engagement, both within the country and with ILO experts.

As to the Committee’s and the Commission of Inquiry’s request to ensure impartial and independent judiciary and justice administration in general, the Government points out that the Republic of Belarus is a State governed by the rule of law. People, their rights and freedoms are of the highest value and concern. All are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to equal protection of their rights and interests. Under the provisions of article 60 of the Constitution, everyone is guaranteed protection of their rights and freedoms by a competent, independent and impartial judiciary. In dispensing justice, judges are independent and subject only to the law. Interfering with the activities of judges is prohibited.

The Committee regrets that the Government does not address the issue of the alleged intimidation and physical violence against trade unionists. The Committee notes that in her Oral Update on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus on 24 September 2021, the High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that the scale and pattern of behaviour by the Belarusian authorities to date strongly suggested that limitations to freedoms of expression and assembly were primarily aimed at suppressing criticism of and dissent from Governmental policies, rather than any aim regarded as legitimate under human rights law, such as the protection of public order. The High Commissioner was also alarmed by persistent allegations of widespread and systematic torture and ill-treatment in the context of arbitrary arrests and detention of protesters. The Committee notes with deep concern new detailed allegations of criminal prosecution, arrests and imprisonment of trade unionists and the sentencing of three trade unionists to three years of imprisonment. It further notes with concern the allegations of searches of trade union premises and houses of trade union leaders by the police, disruption of trade union meetings by law enforcement forces, and acts of retaliation and pressure on workers to leave trade unions submitted by the BKDP and the ITUC. The Committee recalls that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported to the Human Rights Council in December 2020 that the monitoring and analysis of demonstrations since 9 August 2020 indicated that participants were overwhelmingly peaceful. The Committee once again recalls the International Labour Conference 1970 resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, which emphasizes that the rights conferred upon workers’ and employers’ organizations must be based on respect for civil liberties, as their absence removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights. Among those liberties essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights are freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Committee further considers that strikes and demonstrations relating to the Government’s economic and social policies cannot be regarded as purely political strikes, which are not covered by the principles of the Convention. In its view, trade unions and employers’ organizations responsible for defending socio-economic and occupational interests should be able to use strike or protest action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members. Moreover, noting that a democratic system is fundamental for the free exercise of trade union rights, the Committee considers that, in a situation in which they deem that they do not enjoy the fundamental liberties necessary to fulfil their mission, trade unions and employers’ organizations would be justified in calling for the recognition and exercise of these liberties and that such peaceful claims should be considered as lying within the framework of legitimate trade union activities, including in cases when such organizations have recourse to strikes (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 124).

The Committee once again recalls that the Commission of Inquiry on Belarus considered that adequate protection or even immunity against administrative detention should be guaranteed to trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.). While noting the Government’s reference to paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that it should be read together with paragraph 2 of the same Article, according to which, the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention. The Committee points out that for a number of years, the ILO supervisory bodies have been expressing concerns at the numerous violations of the Convention in law and in practice in Belarus. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government in the strongest of terms to investigate without delay all alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry and to provide detailed information on the outcome. The Committee further urges the Government to take measures for the release of all trade unionists who remain in detention and for dropping of all charges related to participation in peaceful protest action. The Committee expects the Government to provide detailed information on all measures taken in this regard.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it cannot provide court judgments as per the Committee’s request as the legislation in force does not provide for such a possibility, which implies that court decisions and judgments are not public. The Committee emphasizes that when it requests a government to furnish judgments in judicial proceedings, such a request does not reflect in any way on the integrity or independence of the judiciary. The very essence of judicial procedure is that its results are known, and confidence in its impartiality rests on their being known. In addition, the absence of court judgments prevents the Committee from examining or confirming the Government’s conclusion that the arrests in question were unrelated to the exercise of basic trade union rights. The Committee further recalls that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 14, states that everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing. The Committee emphasizes that the right to a fair and public hearing implies the right for the judgment or decision to be made public and that the publicizing of decisions is an important safeguard in the interest of the individual and of society at large. The Committee also recalls that the absence of guarantees of due process of law may lead to abuses and may also create a climate of insecurity and fear which may affect the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary steps, including legislative, if necessary, to ensure the right to a fair trial. Further in this respect, the Committee, with reference to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, stresses the need to ensure impartial and independent judiciary and justice administration in general in order to guarantee that investigations into these grave allegations are truly independent, neutral, objective and impartial. Accordingly, the Committee also renews its request that the Government take steps, including by legislation if necessary, to supply copies of the relevant court decisions upholding detention and imprisonment of workers and trade unionists.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to establish workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations, it had urged the Government to consider, within the framework of the tripartite Council, the measures necessary to ensure that the matter of legal address ceases to be an obstacle to the registration of trade unions in practice. In particular, it expected the Government, as a member of the tripartite Council, to submit the Committee’s comments on the issue of registration for the Council’s consideration at one of its meetings as soon as possible.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the possibility of implementing the Committee’s recommendation may be considered when the tripartite Council resumes its work once the epidemiological situation in the country has improved. To that end, a member of the tripartite Council, submitting this issue for discussion must also establish that the issue is one of concern. In the Government’s opinion, in practice, the question of legal address is not an obstacle to registration as trade unions have been offered the possibility to be assigned not only the address where the employer is located, but that of any other location. The Committee notes detailed statistical data on the number of registered trade unions and their organizational structures provided by the Government. It notes, in particular that while in the first six months of 2021, 1,278 organizational structures have been registered, there was only one refusal to register a union; in that particular case because the union’s constitution was not in conformity with the legal requirements. The Government considers that the assertions by the BKDP, that the legal requirement for trade unions and their organizational structures to submit a legal address in order to register constitutes an obstacle to trade union activities in Belarus, appear to lack any objective substance.

In this connection, the Committee notes with concern new allegations submitted by the BKDP and the ITUC regarding several cases of refusals to register primary organizations of the BKDP affiliates. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon. The Committee further once again requests the Government to put the issue of registration of trade union organizations, including the question of legal address requirement, on the agenda of the tripartite Council, as per its previous request and most recent call by the Conference Committee, which considered this issue to be of concern. The Committee expects the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of the discussion by the tripartite Council.

As regards the demand by the President of Belarus for the setting up of trade unions in all private companies by 2020 on the request of the FPB, which the Committee considered to be a display of favouritism towards the Federation and interference with the establishment of trade unions in private companies, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the FPB is the country’s most representative and active among social partners when it comes to developing, improving and implementing socioeconomic policy. As part of its considerable commitment to protect the labour, social and economic rights of citizens, the FPB constantly brings to the authorities’ attention the most current, critical and problematic issues that workers face in exercising their rights. In defending the rights of citizens, the FBP trade unions regularly deal with and actively collaborate with the authorities, including at the highest levels. During a meeting between the Head of State and the chairperson of the FPB as leader of the country’s largest and most representative trade union, the President of Belarus clearly set out the State’s position that private companies must not obstruct workers’ right to join a trade union, and also expressed his appreciation of the trade unions’ work to defend the labour and socioeconomic rights of citizens.

The Committee observes with deep regret the absence of information on the measures taken by the Government to refrain from interference with the establishment of trade unions in private companies and the lack of any public clarification that the decision to set up a trade union is solely at the discretion of workers themselves. Instead, the Government provides what appears to be a justification for the favouritism of the FPB at the higher levels of the State. The Committee further notes with deep concern that on 5 August 2021, in his televised meeting with the leader of the FPB, the Head of the State reiterated his previous statement and stressed that “if certain private companies had not understood his message, the Government should immediately discuss these issues and make specific proposals, including on liquidation of private companies that refuse to have trade union organizations”. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that all three ILO bodies responsible for the supervision and follow-up of the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on Belarus in relation to the non-observance of this Convention, i.e. this Committee, the Conference Committee and the Committee on Freedom of Association, concluded, that such demands by the country’s President constituted an interference with the establishment of trade union organizations and favouritism towards a particular trade union, and therefore a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to refrain from any interference with the establishment of trade unions in private companies, in particular from demanding the setting up of trade unions under the threat of liquidation of private companies otherwise; to clarify publicly that the decision whether or not to set up a trade union in private companies is solely at the discretion of the workers in these companies; and to refrain from showing favouritism towards any particular trade union in private companies. The Committee expects that all steps in this regard will be taken without delay and detailed in the Government’s next report.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. Right of workers’ organizations, including federations and confederations, to organize their activities. Legislation. The Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry had requested the Government to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 (2003) on Receiving and Using Foreign Gratuitous Aid. The Committee recalls in this respect that it had considered that the amendments should be directed at abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions (liquidation of an organization) for a single violation of the Decree and at widening the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used so as to include events organized by trade unions. The Committee recalls that Decree No. 24 had been superseded by Presidential Decree No. 5 (2015) and then by Decree No. 3 of 25 May 2020, under which the foreign gratuitous aid could still not be used to organize or hold assemblies, rallies, street marches, demonstrations, pickets or strikes, or to produce or distribute campaign materials, hold seminars or carry out other forms of activities aimed at “political and mass propaganda work among the population”, and that a single violation of the Regulation still bore the sanction of possible liquidation of the organization. The Committee observed that the broad expression “political and mass propaganda work among the population” when applied to trade unions may hinder the exercise of their rights as it was inevitable and sometimes normal for trade unions to take a stand on questions having political aspects that affect their socio-economic interests, as well as on purely economic or social questions.

Further in this connection, the Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry had requested the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities, under which, a trade union that violates the procedure for organizing and holding mass events may, in the case of serious damage or substantial harm to the rights and legal interests of other citizens and organizations, be liquidated for a single violation. The Committee further recalls that it had also noted with regret the Regulation on the procedure of payment for services provided by the internal affairs authorities in respect of protection of public order, expenses related to medical care and cleaning after holding a mass event (Ordinance of the Council of Ministers No. 49). The Regulation outlines the fees in relation to maintenance of public services and provides for the expenses of the specialized bodies (medical and cleaning services) that must be paid by the organizer of the event.

Reading these provisions alongside those forbidding the use of foreign gratuitous aid for the conduct of mass events, the Committee considered that the capacity for carrying out mass actions would appear to be extremely limited if not non-existent in practice. The Committee therefore urged the Government to amend Decree No. 3 of 25 May 2020 on the registration and use of foreign gratuitous aid, the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation, and recalled that the amendments should be directed at abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the respective legislation; at setting out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, bearing in mind that any such restriction should be in conformity with freedom of association principles; and at widening the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used.

The Committee notes that the Government once again reiterates that there is no link between the established procedure for obtaining funding from abroad (foreign gratuitous aid) and Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Government once again points out that allowing external forces (in this case the trade unions of other countries and international trade union associations) to sponsor the holding of mass events in Belarus can present an opportunity to destabilize the socio-political and socio-economic situation, which in turn has an extremely negative effect on public life and citizens’ wellbeing. Thus, the existing ban on receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid for the purposes of conducting political and mass propaganda work among the population is bound up with the interests of national security, and the need to exclude any possible destructive influence and pressure from external forces. The Government further reiterates that the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly is not subject to any restrictions, except those that are imposed in conformity with the law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In holding mass events, trade unions are obliged to observe public order and must not permit actions which may cause an event to lose its peaceful character and inflict serious harm on citizens, society or State. In the Government’s opinion, the legal penalty prescribed for the organizers of mass events which cause substantial damage or harm to the interests of citizens and organizations, and also to the interests of State and society, does not constitute, and should not be interpreted as, a constraining factor on the exercise of their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly by citizens and trade unions. The Government once again points out that the decision to terminate the activities of a trade union for a violation of the legislation on mass events which caused serious damage and significant harm to the rights and interests of citizens, organizations, society and the State, can only be taken in court. No decisions have been taken to disband trade unions for violating the procedure for organizing and holding mass events in Belarus. In light of the above, the Government considers that any relaxation of responsibility for violation of the procedure for holding mass events or any lifting of restrictions on the use of foreign financial aid for the holding of political and mass propaganda work could only lead to circumstances likely to strengthen the external destructive influence on the situation in the country, which does not serve the interests of the country.

The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government merely reiterates the information it had previously provided and in particular, that it has no intention of amending the legislation as requested by the Commission of Inquiry, whose recommendations the Government accepted as per article 29(2) of the ILO Constitution, with follow-up of the implementation of the recommendations entrusted by the Governing Body to the CFA, this Committee and the Conference Committee. The Committee notes that the Law on Mass Activities was amended on 24 May 2021 and observes with regret in this respect that according to the BKDP and publicly available information, the amendment aims at further tightening the requirements for holding public events as follows: the organization of mass events has to be authorized by municipal authorities; funds cannot be raised, money and other assets cannot be received and used, services cannot be rendered in order to compensate for the cost caused by prosecution for violating the established procedure of organization of mass events; public associations will be held responsible if their leaders and members of their governing bodies make public calls for organizing a mass event before the permission to organize the event is granted.

The Committee further notes with deep regret that on 8 June 2021, the Criminal Code was amended so as to introduce the following restrictions and associated penalties: repeated violations of the procedure for organizing and holding of mass events, including public calls therefor, are punishable by arrest, or restraint of liberty or imprisonment of up to three years (section 342-2); insult of a government official is punishable by a fine and/or restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to three years (section 369); the penalty for “discrediting the Republic of Belarus” was increased from two to four years imprisonment with a fine (section 369-1); section 369-3 of the Criminal Code has been retitled from “violation of procedure for organizing and holding of mass events” to “public calls for the organization or conduct of an illegal meeting, rally, street procession, demonstration or picketing, or the involvement of persons in such mass events”, which became an offence punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. The BKDP points out that criminal liability can now be established simply for organizing peaceful assemblies and that any criticism and slogans are seen by the authorities as insults within the meaning of section 369 of the Criminal Code. The BKDP alleges that there are many precedents of bringing citizens, including members of independent trade unions, to criminal responsibility under section 369 of the Criminal Code. The BKDP also draws attention to the statement of the Minister of Labour and Social Protection to the Conference Committee in June 2021 when she stated that the BKDP spoke out against the Government and took steps against the interest of the State and the Government, calling for a boycott of Belarusian goods and application of sanctions. The BKDP alleges in this respect that its leaders are under the threat of being prosecuted under section 369-1 of the Criminal Code. The Committee recalls that the right to express opinions, including those criticizing the Governments economic and social policy, is one of the essential elements of the rights of occupational organizations. With reference to the considerations above and below, the Committee further once again recalls that the mere fact of participation in peaceful assemblies should not be penalized by detention or imprisonment. The Committee also recalls that simply calling for a demonstration and any other public event, even if declared illegal by the courts, should not result in arrest and that in general, sanctions should be envisaged only where, during such event, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed.

The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request to amend without further delay and in consultation with the social partners, Decree No. 3, the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation (Ordinance No. 49 of the Council of Ministers), as per the outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the Conference Committee, the Committee of Freedom of Association and this Committee. The Committee further requests the Government to repeal the above-mentioned amended provisions of the Criminal Code in order to bring them into compliance with the Government’s international obligations regarding freedom of association.

Practice. The Committee recalls that it had urged the Government to engage with the social partners, including in the framework of the tripartite Council, with a view to addressing and finding practical solutions to the concerns raised by the unions, in particular, the BKDP, in respect of organizing and holding mass events. The Committee further requested the Government to provide statistical information on the requests submitted and permissions granted and denied, segregated by the trade union centre affiliation.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the BKDP and its affiliated unions, like the FPB, have repeatedly exercised their right to freedom of assembly and held mass events. The Government reiterates that all decisions to deny the holding of mass events were taken by local executive and regulatory bodies in accordance with the law and with due regard to the obligation to uphold citizens’ right to freedom of association and the right of trade unions to take collective action to defend their members’ interests. The Government once again indicates that the most common reasons for refusal to grant authorization to hold a mass event were: the application did not contain the information required by the law; the event was to take place in a location not allowed for such a purpose; the documents submitted did not indicate the precise location of the event; the event was announced in the mass media prior to receiving authorization; another mass event was being held in the same place at the same time. The Government considers that the denials of permission to hold mass events relate not so much to legal requirements that are excessive or difficult to comply with, but rather to inadequate preparation by the organizers and points out that once the shortcomings have been rectified, the organizers can re-apply for authorization. The Government further indicates that the possibility of discussing the issues of the organization and holding of mass events in the framework of the tripartite Council can be reviewed once the Council resumes its work when the epidemiological situation improves. The Government points out, however, that a necessary condition for the review by the Council is that the initiator should submit information which establishes that the issue is one of concern. The Committee considers that the Government, as a member of the tripartite Council and as ultimately responsible for ensuring respect for freedom of association on its territory, should be in the position to place on the agenda of the tripartite Council the concerns expressed by the ILO supervisory bodies with regard to the issues of the exercise of the right to demonstrate and hold public meetings in practice. The Committee expects the Government to provide information on the outcome of such discussions with its next report. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on the requests to demonstrate and to hold public meetings that have been submitted, and the permissions granted and denied, segregated by the trade union centre affiliation.

The Committee recalls the 2019 BKDP and ITUC allegations regarding the cases of Messrs Fedynich and Komlik, leaders of the REP union, found guilty, in 2018, of tax evasion and use of foreign funds without officially registering them with the authorities as per the legislation in force. They were sentenced to four years of suspended imprisonment, restriction of movement, a ban on holding senior positions for five years and a fine of BYN47,560 (over US$22,500 at that time). In this connection, the Committee also noted the BKDP allegation that the equipment seized during searches in the REP union and BNP premises had not been returned and requested the Government to provide information thereon.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in view of the application of amnesty legislation to the convicted offenders, the main punishment, in the form of restriction of freedom without being sent to an open-type institution, has been served by Mr Fedynich and Mr Komlik in full. The further fate of the information storage devices seized during the investigation of the criminal case will be decided after completion of a check to establish whether the persons concerned have committed other crimes of a similar nature. The Committee notes that the particulars of these cases are being considered by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the framework of its examination of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Right to strike. The Committee recalls that it had been requesting the Government for a number of years to amend sections 388(1), (3) and (4), 390, 392 and 393 of the Labour Code. The Committee regrets that the Government merely reiterates its previously expressed consideration that the national legislation is in conformity with the international labour instruments, which in any case do not expressly provide for the right to strike; that the legality of the interpretation by the ILO supervisory bodies that Convention No. 87 enshrines the right to strike has repeatedly and rightly been questioned; that only the International Court of Justice has the right to interpret ILO Conventions for subsequent mandatory application of that interpretation by the members States; that in Belarus, according to section 388 of the Labour Code, a strike constitutes a temporary and voluntary refusal by workers to perform their employment duties (fully or in part) for the purpose of settling a collective labour dispute; and that strikes of political nature are forbidden. The Government once again states that unauthorized protest actions that took place after the presidential election campaign in 2020 and the attempts to organize a strike movement in enterprises without regard for the law have nothing to do with the exercise of trade unions’ rights and the work carried by trade unions to protect workers or the social and economic rights of citizens. The Government adds that the broader issues relating to economic and social policy take place in the framework of the social partnership system through negotiations, consultations and the rejection of confrontation. The Government therefore reiterates that amending the legislation regulating strikes would not facilitate the exercise of the right of workers’ organizations to act in full freedom, but to the contrary, would create additional opportunities for abuse by every kind of destructive agent and provide an instrument for undermining the country’s economic potential.

The Committee deems it important to once again recall that its opinions and recommendations derive their persuasive value from the legitimacy and rationality of the Committee’s work based on its impartiality, experience and expertise. The Committee’s technical role and moral authority are well recognized, particularly as it has been engaged in its supervisory task for 95 years, by virtue of its composition, independence and its working methods built on continuing dialogue with governments taking into account information provided by employers’ and workers’ organizations. This has been reflected in the incorporation of the Committee’s opinions and recommendations in national legislation, international instruments and court decisions. It is within this mandate that it has been dealing with the questions pertaining to the right to strike.

The Committee notes with regret that the Labour Code was amended on 28 May 2021 to further restrict the right to strike by expressly allowing an employer to dismiss/terminate a labour contract with a worker who is absent from work in connection with serving an administrative penalty in the form of an administrative arrest; who forces other workers to participate in a strike or calls on other workers to stop performing work duties without sound reason; and who participates in an illegal strike or other forms of withholding labour without sound reasons (section 42(7)). Recalling the BKDP allegations that numerous trade unionists who participated in mass events and strikes organized following the August 2020 Presidential election were found guilty of administrative breaches and received corresponding penalty in the form of administrative arrest, the Committee notes that in its latest observations, the BKDP provides a list of workers who in such circumstances were dismissed. The Committee regrets that the amendment of the Labour Code would appear to facilitate the dismissal and penalization of workers for exercising their civil liberties and trade union rights. The Committee is therefore bound to request the Government to take measures, in consultation with the social partners, to revise the above-mentioned legislative provisions, which negatively affect the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom, and to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged to that end.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with concern detailed allegations of numerous cases of arrests, detention of and fines imposed on trade unionists for having organized and participated in strikes following the August 2020 events. The Committee notes with concern new detailed allegations of retaliation (arrests, detention, fines and dismissals) against trade unionists and workers who participated in trade union led strike actions. With reference to its considerations regarding the exercise of civil liberties and their importance for exercising trade union rights outlined above, the Committee urges the Government to conduct independent inquiries into the BKDP and the ITUC allegations bearing in mind the above considerations and to provide all relevant particulars on the outcome with its next report.

Consultations with the organizations of workers and employers. The Committee recalls that in its previous comment it had noted that the BKDP alleged lack of consultations in respect of the adoption of new pieces of legislation affecting the rights and interest of workers. The Committee had further noted Regulation of the Council of Ministers No. 193 of 14 February 2009, pursuant to which, draft legislation affecting labour and socio-economic rights and interests of citizens is submitted to the FPB as the most representative organization of workers for possible comments and/or proposals. The Committee had requested the Government to amend the Regulation so as to ensure that the BKDP and the FPB, as members of both the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) and the tripartite Council, enjoyed equal rights in consultations during the preparation of legislation. The Committee notes that the Government considers that the Regulation is in conformity with international labour standards and reiterates in this respect that the FPB, as an organization with a higher overall number of members, has preferential rights in the processes of consultation on legislation affecting rights and interest of workers. The Committee is bound to emphasize once again that in determining the representativeness of an organization, both the number of members and independence from the authorities and employers’ organizations are essential elements for consideration. In light of the above-noted publicly expressed support by the State authorities at the highest level for the FPB, the Committee is once again bound to reiterate its previous comments made in 2007, which recalled the importance of ensuring an atmosphere in which trade union organizations, whether within or outside the traditional structure, are able to flourish in the country before establishing the notion of representativeness.  The Committee once again requests the Government to amend Regulation No. 193 without further delay and to provide information on all measures taken in this respect.

With regard to the Committee’s request to further strengthen the role of the tripartite Council, which should, as its title indicates, serve as a platform where consultations on the legislation affecting rights and interests of the social partners and workers and employers represented by them can take place, the Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the tripartite Council was set up with the advice of the ILO to consider issues related to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as well as other issues that may arise between the Government and its social partners, including the consideration of complaints received from trade unions. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its willingness to either work to further improve the tripartite Council’s function or to create another structure. The Committee also notes that the Government once again expresses its concern over the issue of representation at the Council and the willingness of the parties to accept the decisions that will be made within this tripartite body.

The Committee notes with concern the BKDP allegation that laws and regulations affecting labour and social interests of people are adopted without due public discussion and coordination with the interested parties. The BKDP alleges that it is also being excluded from the process and that its chairperson was not invited to the meeting of the NCLSI in 2020, nor to the meeting held on 29 April 2021 by videoconference to discuss the preparation of the draft General Agreement for 2022-2024, nor to the meeting held on 28 July 2021, also by videoconference, to discuss the issue of economic sanctions imposed on the country. The BKDP indicates that on 15 July 2021 it sent a letter to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection suggesting to convene a meeting of the tripartite Council to discuss the possibility of developing an Action Plan for the implementation of the conclusions of the Conference Committee and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, but that it received no reply. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that various actions it has taken – the steps to develop the social partnership system which involves all interested trade unions and employers’ associations in the dialogue, its constructive cooperation with the ILO to implement the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations and its openness to further cooperation – confirm the commitment of Belarus to the underlying principles and rights at work and its readiness to continue to engage on issues of concern raised by the parties. The Committee expects that the Government will fully engage with the social partners, the ILO, as well as relevant national institutions and bodies, with a view to improving the functioning, procedures and the work of the tripartite Council aimed at enhancing its impact in addressing the issues stemming from the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and other ILO supervisory bodies.

Labour disputes resolution system. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the need to continue working together towards building a strong and efficient system of dispute resolution, which could handle labour disputes involving individual, collective and trade union matters. The Committee notes that the Government emphasizes its commitment to continuing its joint work with the social partners and the ILO to develop such a system. In this connection the Government expresses its appreciation of the assistance received from the ILO to further the work of the tripartite Council, which in the Government’s opinion has shown positive and concrete results. The Committee requests the Government to actively engage with the social partners with a view to developing a labour dispute resolution system that is robust, efficient and enjoys the confidence of the parties. It requests the Government to indicate all measures and steps taken to that end.

The Committee recalls that in its 2004 report, the Commission of Inquiry considered that its recommendations should be implemented without further delay and that the majority of its recommendations should be completed at the latest by 1 June 2005. The Committee deeply regrets that 17 years later, the situation in Belarus remains far from ensuring full respect for freedom of association and the application of the provisions of the Convention and that many of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry have not been implemented. The Committee observes that the 2021 Conference Committee urged the Government to take before the 2022 International Labour Conference, in close consultation with the social partners, all necessary steps to fully implement all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee regrets  to observe that the recent developments, including of legislative nature, as examined above appear to indicate continuing steps backward on some previously achieved progress.  The Committee therefore urges the Government to pursue its efforts referred to above and expects that the Government, with the assistance of the ILO and in consultation with the social partners, will take the necessary steps to fully implement all outstanding recommendations without further delay.

In light of the situation described, the Committee is obliged to note that there has been no meaningful progress towards full implementation of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry recommendations, and notes with grave concern that the recent developments referred to in detail above and the apparent lack of action on the part of the Government to follow up on the conclusions of the Conference Committee in consultation with all the social partners in the country would appear to demonstrate a lack of commitment to ensure respect for its obligations under the ILO Constitution.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes 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, and examined by the Committee below together with the Government’s reply thereon.

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

Civil liberties and trade union rights. The Committee notes the ITUC and BKDP allegations of extreme violence to repress peaceful protests and strikes, and detention, imprisonment and torture of workers while in custody following the presidential election in August 2020. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government indicates that the elections held in August 2020 were the most competitive and emotional in terms of public perception and reaction in the history of the State. The Government further indicates that following the vote counting, the political tensions that were fuelled from the outside resulted in a series of protests and events that were organized and held in violation of current legislation and aimed at destabilising the country. The Government points out that the exercise of rights and freedoms, including freedom of assembly, meetings, street processions, demonstrations and picketing, must be peaceful, respect the law of the land and not lead to violations of the law, the rights and legitimate interests of others, and threaten public and national security. The Government further points out that protest actions by some citizens to express their disagreement with the results of the presidential elections were purely political in nature and were organized without regard to the legislation establishing the procedure for their conduct and were not always peaceful. In the course of these actions, numerous offences were recorded; these included acts of resistance to the legitimate demands of law enforcement officers, associated with the manifestation of aggression, use of violence, damage to official transport, blocking the movement of vehicles, damage to infrastructure facilities. The Government indicates that the majority of persons referred to by the BKDP had been held administratively liable for organizing and/or actively participating in illegal protests or calling for participation in such protests. The Government considers that holding persons accountable for illegal acts cannot and should not be regarded as persecution of workers and trade unionists for the exercise of their civil rights and freedoms, including the rights to participate in sanctioned peaceful protests and lawful strikes. The status of a worker or trade union leader does not create additional advantages or immunity.

The Committee observes the statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Intersessional meeting of the Human Rights Council on the situation in Belarus on 4 December 2020, in which she pointed out that the monitoring and analysis of demonstrations since 9 August 2020 indicate that participants were overwhelmingly peaceful. The Committee expresses its deep concern over the serious allegations submitted by the ITUC and BKDP and the continued deterioration of the situation of human rights in the country, particularly with respect to the right of peaceful assembly, as noted by the UN High Commission for Human Rights at the most recent above-mentioned meeting. The Committee recalls that peaceful participation in strikes or demonstrations should not give rise to arrest or detention. No one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike or protest. The Commission recalls the International Labour Conference 1970 resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, which emphasises that the rights conferred upon workers’ and employers’ organizations must be based on respect for civil liberties, as their absence removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights. Among those liberties essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights are freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Committee refers to Recommendation 8 of the Commission of Inquiry on Belarus, which considered that adequate protection or even immunity against administrative detention should be guaranteed to trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.). The Committee urges the Government to take all necessary measures to implement this recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry, to prevent the occurrence of human rights violations and ensure full respect for workers’ rights and freedoms. The Committee further urges the Government to take measures for the release of all of trade unionists who remain in detention and the dropping of all charges related to participation in peaceful protests and industrial actions. The Committee also requests the Government to supply copies of the relevant court decisions upholding detention and imprisonment of workers and trade unionists and to provide a list of the affected persons.

Regarding the reported cases of violent mistreatment of workers participating in such protests, the Committee, deeply regretting that the Government provides no information in this regard, recalls that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure a climate free from violence, threat or pressure against peacefully protesting workers. The Committee urges the Government to investigate without delay any alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry, in order to shed light on the facts and circumstances surrounding these acts, and to identify those responsible, punish the guilty parties and thus prevent the repetition of similar events. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken to this end. Further in this respect, the Committee, with reference to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, stresses the need to ensure impartial and independent judiciary and justice administration in general in order to guarantee that investigations into these grave allegations are truly independent, neutral, objective and impartial.

The Committee recalls that it in its previous comment it noted that activities aimed at giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry continued in the country in collaboration with the ILO. In this respect, the Committee noted that a training course on international labour standards for judges, lawyers and legal educators took place in Minsk in June 2017 and that a tripartite conference “Tripartism and Social Dialogue in the World of Work” was held in Minsk on 27 February 2019. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that one of the outcomes of a tripartite activity on dispute resolution held in 2016 was the common understanding of the need to continue working together towards building a strong and efficient system of dispute resolution, which could handle labour disputes involving individual, collective and trade union matters. The Committee noted with regret the BKDP’s indication that the work on developing such a mechanism has been neglected completely.  The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its comments thereon and invites it to continue to take advantage of ILO technical assistance in this regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to establish workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations, it had urged the Government to consider, within the framework of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter, tripartite Council), the measures necessary to ensure that the matter of legal address ceases to be an obstacle to the registration of trade unions in practice. The Committee recalls that it requested the Government to provide its comments on the allegations of the BKDP and the ITUC of cases of refusal to register trade union structures of the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SPB) and of the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronics Workers (REP union) in Orsha and Bobruisk. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the requirement to provide confirmation of legal address is not an obstacle to the registration of trade unions and that there were no cases of refusal to register trade unions or (associations of trade unions in 2019 and the first nine months of 2020. With regard to the refusal to register a REP primary trade union in Bobruisk, the Government confirms that on 5 July 2019, the Bobruisk city executive committee decided to refuse the registration of the primary trade union because its members were not bound by common interests by virtue of the nature of their work as required by section 1 of the Law on Trade Unions. The Government points out that the relevance and the validity of this requirement was confirmed at a meeting of the tripartite Council of 30 April 2009. Thus, according to the Government, the steps taken by the REP union to establish the so-called city primary organization, uniting citizens without association with any organization, industry or profession, did not meet the requirements of the Law on Trade Unions. Additional grounds for the decision to deny registration were the absence of a decision by the authorized trade union body to create an organizational structure and other shortcomings in the documents submitted for the registration. The decision of the Bobruisk city executive committee was not appealed in court. The Committee notes that a similar explanation is provided by the Government regarding the refusal to register a primary trade union in Orsha. The Government points out that a refusal to register does not amount to a ban on the establishment of a trade union or its organizational structure as once all of the shortcomings have been remedied, the documents for the state registration can be resubmitted. The Committee recalls that it had previously taken note of the decision regarding the requirement of section 1 of the Law on Trade Unions, agreed upon by all members of the tripartite Council’s sitting of 30 April 2009.

Regarding the Committee’s previous request to discuss the issue of registration of trade unions by the tripartite Council, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the possibility of implementing the Committee’s proposal may be considered when the tripartite Council resumes its work once the epidemiological situation in the country has improved. The Government points out, however, that the comments of the Committee of Experts are publicly available and that members of the tripartite Council can freely consult them and, if they deem it necessary, put the consideration of the Committee’s comments on the agenda of the tripartite Council. The Government reiterates that the agenda for meetings is set on the basis of proposals from the parties and organizations represented on the Council, taking into account the relevance of the issues raised, and with the agreement of the Council’s members. To that end, the information should be submitted to the Council’s secretariat (the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection) with an explanation as to why that particular issue is problematic and merits consideration by the Council. The Government indicates that in 2016–20, there had been no submissions for discussion of issues relating to the legal address requirement.  The Committee expects the Government, as a member of the tripartite Council, to submit the Committee’s comments on the issue of registration for the Council’s consideration at one of its meetings as soon as possible. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the discussion.

The Committee observes with concern that during his televised meeting with the chairperson of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) President Lukashenko urged that trade unions be set up at all private enterprises by the end of 2020 under the threat of liquidation of those private companies which did not organize trade unions upon FPB demand. In his remarks, he underlined the State position supporting the FPB trade unions. The Committee recalls that the principal objective of Convention No. 87 is to protect the autonomy and independence of workers’ and employers’ organizations in relation to the public authorities, both in their establishment and in their functioning and dissolution (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 55). The Committee considers that the spirit of Convention No. 87 calls for impartial treatment of all trade union organizations by the authorities, even if they criticize the social or economic policies of national or regional executives, as well as avoidance of reprisals for pursuing legitimate trade union activities. The issuance of a statement by a high public authority that would favour one union over another or even use its authority to create unions within a designated trade union federation undermines the right of workers to establish and join organisations of their own choosing.

The Committee recalls that the 1952 International Labour Conference resolution concerning the independence of the trade union movement emphasizes that a stable, free and independent trade union movement is an essential condition for good industrial relations and that it is essential for the trade union movement in each country to preserve its freedom and independence so as to be in a position to carry forward its economic and social mission irrespective of political changes. The resolution recalls that governments, in seeking the cooperation of trade unions to carry out their economic and social policies, should recognize that the value of this cooperation rests to a large extent on the freedom and independence of the trade union movement as an essential factor in promoting social advancement and should not attempt to transform the trade union movement into an instrument for the pursuit of political aims, nor should they attempt to interfere with the normal functions of a trade union movement.

The Committee urges the Government to refrain from showing favouritism towards any given trade union and to put an immediate stop to the interference in the establishment of trade union organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken to that end.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. Right of workers’ organizations, including federations and confederations, to organize their activities. Legislation. The Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry had requested the Government to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 of 28 November 2003 on Receiving and Using Foreign Gratuitous Aid. The Committee further recalls that it had considered that the amendments should be directed at abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions (liquidation of an organization) for a single violation of the Decree and at widening the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used so as to include events organized by trade unions. The Committee recalls that Decree No. 24 had been superseded by Presidential Decree No. 5 of 31 August 2015 on Foreign Gratuitous Aid and the ensuing Regulations on the Procedures for the Receipt, Recording, Registration and Use of Foreign Gratuitous Aid, the Monitoring of its Receipt and Intended Use, and the Registration of Humanitarian Programmes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the national legislation does not prohibit trade unions from receiving gratuitous foreign aid, including from international trade union organizations. At the same time, the legislation defines the objectives and conditions for the use of foreign gratuitous aid and stipulates that such aid must be registered in accordance with the established procedure, which, according to the Government, is not complicated and rapid. The Government indicates that Decree No. 5 has been replaced by Decree No. 3 of 25 May 2020. The Committee notes with regret that just as previously under Decrees Nos 24 and 5, the foreign gratuitous aid cannot be used to organize or hold assemblies, rallies, street marches, demonstrations, pickets or strikes, or to produce or distribute campaign materials, hold seminars or carry out other forms of activities aimed at “political and mass propaganda work among the population”, and that a single violation of the Regulation bears the sanction of possible liquidation of the organization. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in this respect that the ban on receiving and using foreign donations for purposes involving political and mass propaganda work among the population is conditioned by the national security interests, the need to exclude opportunities for destructive influence and pressure from external forces (foreign states, international organizations and associations, foundations, etc.) aimed at destabilising the socio-political and socio-economic situation in the country. The Government emphasizes that this procedure applies to all legal entities, including trade unions, and further points out that there are no cases of trade unions being denied foreign gratuitous aid and that there are no cases of trade unions being liquidated for violation of the procedure for its use. Further in this respect, the Government considers that the issue of procedure established for receiving foreign gratuitous aid is unjustifiably linked to Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

While taking note of the above, the Committee observes that the broad expression “political and mass propaganda work among the population” when applied to trade unions may hinder the exercise of their rights as it is inevitable and sometimes normal for trade unions to take a stand on questions having political aspects that affect their socio-economic interests, as well as on purely economic or social questions. As to the link with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 624 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry where it was observed that the right recognized in these Articles “implies the right to benefit from the relations that may be established with an international workers’ or employers’ organization. Legislation which prohibits the acceptance by a national trade union or employers’ organization of financial assistance from an international workers’ or employers’ organization, unless approved by the Government, and provides for the banning of any organization where there is evidence that it has received such assistance, is not in conformity with this right. Although there were no specific allegations as to the practical application of [the] Decree, the Commission reiterates the conclusions made by [the] supervisory bodies that the previous authorization required for foreign gratuitous aid and the restricted use for such aid […] is incompatible with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their own activities and to benefit from assistance that might be provided by international workers’ and employers’ organizations”.

Further in this connection, the Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry had requested the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities. The Committee recalls that under the Law, which establishes a procedure for mass events, the application to hold an event must be made to the local executive and administrative body. While the decision of that body can be appealed in court, the Law does not set out clear grounds on which a request may be denied. A trade union that violates the procedure for organizing and holding mass events may, in the case of serious damage or substantial harm to the rights and legal interests of other citizens and organizations, be liquidated for a single violation. In this context, “violation” includes a temporary cessation of organizational activity or the disruption of traffic, death or physical injury to one or more individuals, or damage exceeding 10,000 times a value to be established on the date of the event. The Committee had requested the Government to amend the legislation, in particular by abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the Law and setting out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, bearing in mind that any such restriction should be in conformity with freedom of association principles.

In its previous observation, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that the Law on Mass Activities was amended on 26 January 2019. The Government indicated that the revised Act sets out a number of additional measures and requirements that need to be complied with by the organizers in order to ensure the law and order and public safety during mass events. The Committee noted with deep regret that the Law on Mass Activities was not amended along the lines of its previous requests. It also noted with concern the BKDP’s allegation that the amendments to the Law were not discussed with the social partners. The Committee also noted the BKDP’s indication that among the novelties in the Law is the notification procedure for street action, which applies to mass events to be organized at “permanent places” designated as such by local authorities. Thus, according to the BKDP, the format of an event is imposed on the organizers, as rallies and pickets are possible in the squares designated as “permanent places”, but processions and demonstrations are not. The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that because a violation of the procedure for organizing and/or holding a mass event may entail a serious threat to public order, the national legislation establishes certain liability, including liquidation of an organization for a single violation if the mass event results in serious damage or substantial harm to the rights and legal interests of other citizens and organizations. The Government points out that the above should not be interpreted as a deterrent to the exercise by citizens and trade unions of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The Government adds that the decision to terminate activities of an organization may only be taken by the Supreme Court. The Government indicates that to date, there have been no decisions on the liquidation of trade unions for violation of the procedure for organizing and conducting mass events.

With regard to the information provided by the BKDP that the introduction of notification procedures for the organization and holding of mass events in permanent locations imposes on the organizers the format of the event, the Government indicates that the organizers have the right to determine the format of the planned event themselves. Thus, if the planned format allows the event to be held in one of the specially designated permanent locations, the organizers may use the notification procedure, if not - the organizers need to receive a permission to hold the mass event. The above is aimed not at restricting the organizers in choosing the format of the event, but rather at eliminating excessive interference of state bodies in the process and thus at creating additional guarantees for the realization by citizens of the right to assembly. At the same time, certain restrictions on individual rights and freedoms are a means of legal protection of public order and public safety, morality, public health and the rights and freedoms of other persons. Thus, the Government considers that the legislation in force is in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and freedom of assembly.

While taking note of the above, the Committee recalls that it had previously noted with regret the adoption by the Council of Ministers (pursuant to the Law on Mass Activities) of the Regulation on the procedure of payment for services provided by the internal affairs authorities in respect of protection of public order, expenses related to medical care and cleaning after holding a mass event (Ordinance No. 49, which entered into force on 26 January 2019). The Committee noted that according to the Regulation, once a mass event is authorized, the organizer must conclude contracts with the relevant territory internal affairs bodies, health services facilities and cleaning facilities regarding, respectively, protection of public order, medical and cleaning services. The Regulation provides for the fees in relation to protection of public services as follows: three base units – for an event with the participation of up to ten people; 25 base units – for an event with the participation of 11 to 100 people; 150 base units – for an event with the participation of 101 to 1,000 people; 250 base units – for an event with the participation of more than 1,000 people. The Committee notes that the current base unit is set at BYN27 (US$11). If the event is to take place in an area which is not a “permanent designated area,” the above fees are to be multiplied by a coefficient of 1.5. In addition to the above fees, the Regulation provides for the expenses of the specialized bodies (medical and cleaning services) that must be paid by the organizer of the event. According to the Regulation, these shall include: salary of employees engaged in the provision of services taking into account their category, number and time spent in the mass event; mandatory insurance contributions; the cost of supplies and materials, including medicine, medical products, detergents; indirect expenses of specialized bodies; taxes, fees, other obligatory payments to the republican and local budgets provided by law. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Regulation was amended on 3 April 2020 by the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers No. 196 so as to provide that the above-mentioned various contracts have to be concluded by an organizer prior to filing a request for authorization to hold an event. The Committee notes with deep concern that according to the most recent observations of the BKDP, the new amendment deprives trade unions of the possibility to carry out their public activities.

Reading these provisions alongside those forbidding the use of foreign gratuitous aid for the conduct of mass events, the Committee considers that the capacity for carrying out mass actions would appear to be extremely limited if not non-existent in practice. The Committee notes with regret that at this stage, the Government considers it not advisable to change the existing procedure for receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the Law on Mass Activities and the accompanying Regulation in the very near future and requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect as soon as possible. The Committee recalls that the amendments should be directed at abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the respective legislation; at setting out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, bearing in mind that any such restriction should be in conformity with freedom of association principles; and at widening the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used. Furthermore, considering that the right to organize public meetings and demonstrations constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps in order to repeal the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers No. 49, as amended, which makes the exercise of this right nearly impossible in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken to that end and invites the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this respect.

Practice. The Committee recalls that it has been noting the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the BKDP, the BNP and the REP union to hold demonstrations and public meetings for a number of years and in this respect, it had previously urged the Government, in working together with the above-mentioned organizations, to investigate all cases of refusals to authorize the holding of demonstrations and meetings, and to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations and meetings to defend their occupational interests. In this respect, the Committee had noted that according to the Government, in 2016–19, the following were the most common reasons to deny an authorization to hold a mass event: the application did not contain the information required by the law; another mass event was being held in the same place at the same time; the event was to take place in a location not allowed for such a purpose; the documents submitted did not indicate the precise location of the event; and the event was announced in the mass media prior to receiving authorization. The Government indicated that when a permission to hold a mass event was not granted, the organizers, having rectified the shortcomings, could re-submit their application. Finally, a decision prohibiting the holding of a mass event may be appealed in court. The Government referred to several examples where the permission to hold such events was granted to the BKDP. While taking note of this information, the Committee noted the 2019 BKDP’s allegations that executive authorities in Minsk, Mogilev, Vitebsk, Zhlobin, Borisov, Gomel, Brest and Novopolotsk refused to grant a permission to hold mass events and requested the Government to provide its detailed comments thereon. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the decision to allow or prohibit a mass event is made taking into account the date, place, time, number of participants, weather conditions and a number of other circumstances directly affecting public order and safety and that both the rights of citizens to freedom of association and freedom of assembly and the principle of the priority of the public interest, according to which, the exercise of rights should not undermine public benefit and safety, damage the environment, historical and cultural values, and infringe on the rights and interests of other persons, are taken into account. The Committee further notes the detailed information provided by the Government in reply to the 2019 BKDP allegations. The Committee notes, in particular, that with the exception of one case where a permission to hold a mass event was granted, others were denied on account of the following: the event was to take place in a location not allowed for such a purpose; the failure to provide information on the source of funding and information on contracts for medical care and cleaning of the territory; the application did not contain the information required by the law; and another mass event was being held in the same place at the same time. The Committee observes from the information provided by the Government that it would indeed appear that the application of the legislation in practice hinders the right of workers to carry out their activities without interference. In view of the continuing difficulties experienced by the BKDP unions, the Committee urges the Government to engage with the social partners, including in the framework of the tripartite Council, with a view to addressing and finding practical solutions to the concerns raised by the unions in respect of organizing and holding mass events. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on concrete steps taken in this respect and the outcome of such discussions. The Committee further requests the Government to provide statistical information on the requests submitted and permissions granted and denied, segregated by the trade union centre affiliation.

The Committee recalls the 2019 BKDP and ITUC allegations regarding the cases of Messrs Fedynich and Komlik, leaders of the REP union, found guilty, in 2018, of tax evasion and use of foreign funds without officially registering them with the authorities as per the legislation in force. They were sentenced to four years of suspended imprisonment, restriction of movement, a ban on holding senior positions for five years and a fine of BYN47,560 (over US$22,500 at that time). The Committee noted that the particulars of these cases were being considered by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the framework of its examination of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In this connection, the Committee also noted the BKDP allegation that the equipment seized during searches in the REP union and BNP premises had not been returned and requested the Government to provide information thereon.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that according to the Investigative Committee, computer equipment, mobile phones and other equipment seized during searches of the REP union and BNP administrative premises were returned to their official representatives in October 2019, except for the hard drives and flash drives containing information on financial and economic transactions of these organizations. The data storage devices have not been returned and are kept together with the corresponding material in the criminal case of tax evasion by the leaders of the REP union Messrs Fedynich and Komlik. The Government indicates that the information contained therein will be used to conduct further investigations into possible similar crimes committed by these persons in the period from 2012 to 2018 with the assistance of the BNP employees. In this connection, the Minsk City Investigation Committee Department has appointed an additional tax audit of the REP union, which is yet to be initiated. Upon the completion of the tax audit, the leading criminal authority will take a decision on the future fate of the seized information storage devices. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the data contained in the storage devices could have been copied and returned to the union thereby avoiding the situation where a union is deprived of administrative and financial information necessary for the conduct of its activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of a new investigation.

Right to strike. The Committee recalls that it had been requesting the Government for a number of years to amend the following sections of the Labour Code as regards the exercise of the right to strike: sections 388(3) and 393, so as to ensure that no legislative limitations can be imposed on the peaceful exercise of the right to strike in the interest of rights and freedoms of other persons (except for cases of acute national crisis, or for public servants exercising authority in the name of the state, or essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. only those, the interruption of which, would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population); 388(4) so as to ensure that national workers’ organizations may receive assistance, including financial assistance, from international workers’ organizations, even when the purpose is to assist in the exercise of freely chosen industrial action; 390, by repealing the requirement of the notification of strike duration; and 392, so as to ensure that the final determination concerning the minimum service to be provided in the event of disagreement between the parties is made by an independent body and to further ensure that minimum services are not required in all undertakings but only in essential services, public services of fundamental importance, situations in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration could cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence of the population, or to ensure the safe operation of necessary facilities.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the right to strike is not expressly provided for in the Instrument of the ILO; rather, the ILO supervisory bodies derive the right to strike from Article 3 of Convention No. 87, despite the fact that the legality of this interpretation has been questioned by the Employers’ Group on several occasions and that under Article 37 of the ILO Constitution, any question or dispute concerning the interpretation of conventions shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, the only body which has the right to interpret Conventions. The Committee further notes that the Government refers to the national constitutional and legislative provisions enshrining the right to strike. It further notes the Government’s indication that the exercise of the right to strike requires the existence of a collective labour dispute and that national legislation does not provide for the possibility of organizing and holding political strikes. The law may impose restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike to the extent necessary in the interests of the national security, public order, public health and the rights and freedoms of others. The Government points out that pursuant to section 393 of the Labour Code, in the event of a real threat to national security, public order, public health, the rights and freedoms of other persons and in other cases provided for by law, the President of the Republic of Belarus has the right to postpone or suspend a strike, but not for more than three months. The Government further points out that legal provisions containing certain restrictions or conditions on the exercise of the right to strike are due to the very nature of the right. According to the Government, the right to strike is fundamentally different from other human rights due to a number of specific following features: it is not an end in itself, but a tool to achieve an end, a way to protect the interests of workers; the right to strike is not inherent and inalienable as it may be restricted; it must be balanced with the rights of other human rights when the health and safety of others are affected or essential services are impacted; and while it is an individual right, the possibility of its realization depends on the agreement of other parties. For the reasons expressed above, the Government disagrees with the calls of the Committee for the amendment of the legislation, in particular as regards section 388(4) of the Labour Code.

At the outset and in reply to the Government’s general remarks, the Committee recalls that its opinions and recommendations derive their persuasive value from the legitimacy and rationality of the Committee’s work based on its impartiality, experience and expertise. The Committee’s technical role and moral authority is well recognized, particularly as it has been engaged in its supervisory task for more than 90 years, by virtue of its composition, independence and its working methods built on continuing dialogue with governments taking into account information provided by employers’ and workers’ organizations. This has been reflected in the incorporation of the Committee’s opinions and recommendations in national legislation, international instruments and court decisions. It is within this mandate that it has been dealing with the questions pertaining to the right to strike.

The Committee requests the Government to take measures to revise the above-mentioned legislative provisions, which negatively affect the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom, in consultation with the social partners, and to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged to that end.

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its reply to the BKDP allegations of violation of the right to strike in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a strike is a measure of last resort to which workers represented by a trade union have the right to resort if all other constructive ways of resolving a collective labour dispute (conciliation, mediation and arbitration) have been exhausted. The Government points out that the need to comply with the procedure for resolving collective labour disputes should not be considered as a practice contradicting provisions of the Convention regarding the right of workers’ organizations to freely exercise their activities. The Committee notes with regret that while the Government confirms that the decision by members of the SPB at an enterprise in Polotsk to call a rolling strike from 1 November to 31 December 2017 was declared illegal by the court, it does not indicate the reasons therefor.

The Committee notes with concern detailed allegations of numerous cases of arrests, detention of and fines imposed on trade unionists for having organized and participated in strikes following the August 2020 events. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that attempts to organize strikes at various enterprises were in no way connected with the resolution of collective labour disputes, as per the requirement set by the Labour Code; rather the purpose of these protests was to draw public attention to the civil position and political demands of some employees against the country’s leadership, without due regard to the interests of other members of the workforce who do not share the same political views, as well as the economic interests of enterprises and of the State. The Committee notes that pursuant to the definition of the word “strike” set out in section 388 (1) of the Labour Code, as referred to by the Government, strikes are permitted only in relation to a collective labour dispute. The Committee considers that strikes relating to the Government’s economic and social policies, including general strikes, are legitimate and therefore should not be regarded as purely political strikes, which are not covered by the principles of the Convention. In its view, trade unions and employers’ organizations responsible for defending socio-economic and occupational interests should be able to use, respectively, strike action or protest action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members. Moreover, noting that a democratic system is fundamental for the free exercise of trade union rights, the Committee considers that, in a situation in which they deem that they do not enjoy the fundamental liberties necessary to fulfil their mission, trade unions and employers’ organizations would be justified in calling for the recognition and exercise of these liberties and that such peaceful claims should be considered as lying within the framework of legitimate trade union activities, including in cases when such organizations have recourse to strikes (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 124). The Committee therefore further requests the Government to amend section 388(1) of the Labour Code, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that workers can exercise their right to strike to defend their occupational and economic interests, which do not only concern better working conditions or collective claims of an occupational nature, but also the seeking of solutions to economic and social policy questions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all measures taken or envisaged to that end.

Consultations with the organizations of workers and employers. The Committee recalls that in its previous comment it had noted that the BKDP alleged lack of consultations in respect of the adoption of new pieces of legislation affecting rights and interest of workers. The Committee notes in this respect the Government’s indication that the development of draft legislation regulating social and labour issues is carried out with the direct involvement of the social partners. The obligation to consult the social partners and the procedure therefor are reflected in the tripartite General Agreement for 2019–21. In addition, and as a follow-up to the Law “On Normative Legal Acts “, a Regulation on the Procedure for Public Discussion of Draft Normative Legal Acts was approved by the Council of Ministers on 28 January 2019. The Regulation describes the procedures and means of public consultation with regard to legislative drafts. Furthermore, pursuant to Regulation of the Council of Ministers No. 193 of 14 February 2009, draft legislation affecting labour and socio-economic rights and interests of citizens is submitted to the FPB as the most representative organization of workers for possible comments and/or proposals. In addition, both the FPB and the BKDP are represented in the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI), as well as in the tripartite Council. Both tripartite advisory bodies have certain functions with regard to draft legislation affecting social and labour issues. The Government indicates that it had consulted with trade unions and employers’ organizations with regard to the amendments to the Labour Code and that discussions in this regard were held at meetings of the NCLSI held on 28 June 2018 and 31 May 2019.

While taking note of this information, the Committee understands that the FPB, as an organization with a higher overall number of members, has preferential rights in the processes of consultation on legislation affecting rights and interest of workers. The Committee considers that both the number of members and independence from the authorities and employers’ organizations are essential elements for consideration in determining the representativeness of an organization. In light of the above-noted publicly expressed support by the State authorities at the highest level for the FPB, the Committee is bound to reiterate its previous comments made in 2007, which recalled the importance of ensuring an atmosphere in which trade union organizations, whether within or outside the traditional structure, are able to flourish in the country before establishing the notion of representativeness. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that the BKDP and the FPB, as members of both the NCLSI and the tripartite Council, enjoy equal rights in consultations during the preparation of legislation and to that end to take the necessary measures to amend Regulation of the Council of Ministers No. 193. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken in this regard. The Committee further once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to further strengthen the role of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which should, as its title indicates, serve as a platform where consultations on the legislation affecting rights and interests of the social partners can take place.

Further in this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the tripartite Council was set up with the advice of the ILO to consider issues related to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as well as other issues that may arise between the Government and its social partners, including the consideration of complaints received from trade unions. The Committee welcomes the Government’s expressed readiness to either work to further improve the Council’s function or to create another structure. The Committee also notes that the Government also expresses its concern over the issue of representation at the Council and the willingness of the parties to accept the decisions that will be made within this tripartite body. The Government indicates, in particular, that in its experience, representatives of the BKDP are not prepared to support Council’s decisions that differ from the BKDP predetermined position or declare that they do not have the necessary authority to adopt a position of the Council. The Government indicates that it would like to count on the advice of the Office in this respect once the Council resumes its work, which has been temporarily suspended due to the epidemiological situation caused by the widespread of COVID-19. Taking all the above into account, the Committee expects that the Government will fully engage with the social partners, the ILO, as well as relevant national institutions and bodies, with a view to improving the functioning, procedures and the work of the tripartite Council aimed at enhancing its impact in addressing the issues stemming from the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and other ILO supervisory bodies.

The Committee considers that the current situation in Belarus remains far from ensuring full respect for freedom of association and the application of the provisions of the Convention. The Committee regrets to observe that the recent developments as examined above appear to indicate steps backward on some of the previously achieved progress in implementing the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. The Committee therefore urges the Government to pursue its efforts and expects that the Government, with the assistance of the ILO and in consultation with the social partners, will take the necessary steps to fully implement all outstanding recommendations without further delay.

In light of the situation described, the Committee is obliged to note that there has been no meaningful progress towards full implementation of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry recommendations, and notes with concern that the recent developments referred to in detail above would appear to indicate a retreat on the part of the Government from its obligations under the Convention.

[The Committee asks the Government to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 109th Session and to reply in full to the present comments in 2021.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) and of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 31 August 2019 and 1 September 2019, respectively.

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.

As a general point, the Committee notes that activities aimed at giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry continued in the country in collaboration with the ILO. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a training course on international labour standards for judges, lawyers and legal educators that took place in Minsk in June 2017 allowed the participants to increase their knowledge of the practical application of international labour standards. The Committee further notes that a tripartite conference “Tripartism and Social Dialogue in the World of Work” was held in Minsk on 27 February 2019. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that one of the outcomes of a tripartite activity on dispute resolution held in 2016 was the common understanding of the need to continue working together towards building a strong and efficient system of dispute resolution, which could handle labour disputes involving individual, collective and trade union matters. The Committee notes with regret the BKDP’s indication that the work on developing such a mechanism has been neglected completely. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon and invites it to continue to take advantage of ILO technical assistance in this regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to establish workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations, it had urged the Government to consider, within the framework of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter, tripartite Council), the measures necessary to ensure that the matter of legal address ceases to be an obstacle to the registration of trade unions in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that at present, the requirement to provide confirmation of legal address is not an obstacle to the registration of trade unions and that there were no cases of refusal to register trade unions or unions (associations) of trade unions in 2016, 2018 or the first half of 2019. The Government informs that in 2017, a registration of a union in Minsk was refused due to non-compliance with the procedure for establishing a trade union, and not due to the lack of legal address; the union did not appeal this decision in court. Furthermore, according to the Government, in the period from 2016 to the end of July 2019, there were ten cases of refusal to register trade union organizational structures: seven cases concerned organizational structures of trade unions affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and two cases concerned primary organizations of unions affiliated to the BKDP. Among the latter two, one case concerned a primary trade union of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BNP) of workers from a construction company (both the BKDP and the ITUC refer to this case in their observations). The Government indicates that following submission of all the documents required by law, the organization was registered pursuant to a decision of the Soligorsk District Executive Committee of 15 January 2019. Another case concerned a primary organization of the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronics Workers (REP) and the refusal was due to a repeated failure to submit registration documents; the union did not appeal this decision in court. The Government points out that in this period, registration was granted to 3,779 trade union organizational structures. In short, the above ten cases show that decisions denying registration are rare: only one such case was due to the absence of a legal address and, according to the Government, even this decision was not appealed in court. The Government further indicates that once the identified shortcomings have been rectified, documents for state registration can be resubmitted. Thus, the Government concludes, a refusal to grant registration is not tantamount to prohibiting the establishment of a trade union. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the BKDP and the ITUC refer, in addition, to cases of refusal to register the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SPB) and REP-affiliated trade union structures in Orsha and Bobruisk. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

Regarding the Committee’s request to discuss the issue of registration by the tripartite Council, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the agenda for meetings is set on the basis of proposals from the parties and organizations represented on the Council, taking into account the relevance of the issues raised, and with the agreement of the Council’s members. To that end, the information should be submitted to the Council’s secretariat (the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection) with an explanation as to why that particular issue is problematic and merits consideration by the Council. The Government indicates that in 2016–19, there have been no submissions for discussion of issues relating to the legal address requirement. The Committee requests the Government, as a member of the tripartite Council, to submit the Committee’s comments on the issue of registration for the Council’s consideration at one of its meetings. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the discussion.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. Right of workers’ organizations, including federations and confederations, to organize their activities. Legislation. The Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry had requested the Government to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 of 28 November 2003 on Receiving and Using Foreign Gratuitous Aid. The Committee further recalls that it had considered that the amendments should be directed at abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions (liquidation of an organization) for a single violation of the Decree and at widening the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used so as to include events organized by trade unions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Decree No. 24 has been superseded by Presidential Decree No. 5 of 31 August 2015 on Foreign Gratuitous Aid and the ensuing Regulations on the Procedures for the Receipt, Recording, Registration and Use of Foreign Gratuitous Aid, the Monitoring of its Receipt and Intended Use, and the Registration of Humanitarian Programmes. The Committee notes with regret that just as previously under Decree No. 24, the foreign gratuitous aid cannot be used to organize or hold assemblies, rallies, street marches, demonstrations, pickets or strikes, or to produce or distribute campaign materials, hold seminars or carry out other forms of political and mass campaigning work among the population and that a single violation of the Regulation bears the sanction of possible liquidation of the organization.

Further in this connection, the Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry had requested the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities. The Committee recalls that under the Law, which establishes a procedure for mass events, the application to hold an event must be made to the local executive and administrative body. While the decision of that body can be appealed in court, the Law does not set out clear grounds on which a request may be denied. A trade union that violates the procedure for organizing and holding mass events may, in the case of serious damage or substantial harm to the rights and legal interests of other citizens and organizations, be liquidated for a single violation. In this context, “violation” includes a temporary cessation of organizational activity or the disruption of traffic, death or physical injury to one or more individuals, or damage exceeding 10,000 times a value to be established on the date of the event. The Committee had requested the Government to amend the legislation, in particular by abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the Law and setting out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, bearing in mind that any such restriction should be in conformity with freedom of association principles.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Law on Mass Activities was amended on 26 January 2019. The Government indicates that the revised Act sets out a number of additional measures and requirements that need to be complied with by the organizers in order to ensure the law and order and public safety during mass events. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Law on Mass Activities was not amended along the lines of its previous requests. It also notes with concern the BKDP’s allegation that the amendments to the Law were not discussed with the social partners. The Committee also notes the BKDP’s indication that among the novelties in the Law is the notification procedure for street action, which applies to mass events to be organized at “permanent places” designated as such by local authorities. Thus, according to the BKDP, the format of an event is imposed on the organizers, as rallies and pickets are possible in the squares designated as “permanent places”, but processions and demonstrations are not. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

The Committee notes with regret the adoption by the Council of Ministers (pursuant to the Law on Mass Activities) of the Regulations on the procedure of payment for services provided by the internal affairs authorities in respect of protection of public order, expenses related to medical care and cleaning after holding a mass event (Ordinance No. 49, which entered into force on 26 January 2019). The Committee notes that according to the Regulations, once a mass event is authorized, the organizer must conclude contracts with the relevant territory internal affairs bodies, health services facilities and cleaning facilities regarding, respectively, protection of public order, medical and cleaning services. The Regulations provide for the fees in relation to protection of public services as follows: three base units – for an event with the participation of up to ten people; 25 base units – for an event with the participation of 11 to 100 people; 150 base units – for an event with the participation of 101 to 1,000 people; 250 base units – for an event with the participation of more than 1,000 people. The Committee notes that according to the information provided by the BKDP, the current base unit is set at BYN25.5 (US$12.5). If the event is to take place in an area which is not a “permanent designated area,” the above fees are to be multiplied by a coefficient of 1.5. In addition to the above fees, the Regulations provide for the expenses of the specialized bodies (medical and cleaning services) that must be paid by the organizer of the event. According to the Regulation, these shall include: salary of employees engaged in the provision of services taking into account their category, number and time spent in the mass event; mandatory insurance contributions; the cost of supplies and materials, including medicine, medical products, detergents; indirect expenses of specialized bodies; taxes, fees, other obligatory payments to the republican and local budgets provided by law.

Reading these recent provisions alongside those forbidding the use of foreign gratuitous aid for the conduct of mass events (the Regulation adopted pursuant to Decree No. 5), the Committee considers that the capacity for carrying out mass actions would appear to be extremely limited if not inexistent in practice. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the Law on Mass Activities and the Regulation adopted pursuant to Decree No. 5 in the very near future and requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect as soon as possible. The Committee recalls that the amendments should be directed at abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the respective legislation; at setting out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, bearing in mind that any such restriction should be in conformity with freedom of association principles; and at widening the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used. Furthermore, considering that the right to organize public meetings and demonstrations constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps in order to repeal the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers No. 49, which makes the exercise of this right nearly impossible in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken to that end and invites the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this respect.

Practice. The Committee recalls that it had previously expressed its concern at the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the BKDP, the BNP and the REP to hold demonstrations and public meetings. The Committee had urged the Government, in working together with the above-mentioned organizations, to investigate all of the alleged cases of refusals to authorize the holding of demonstrations and meetings, and to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations and meetings to defend their occupational interests. The Committee had also requested the Government to reply to the BKDP allegations regarding a video posted on YouTube showing the activists of the Women’s Network of the Independent Union of Miners (NPG) protesting by the entrance to the NPG office against the raising of the retirement age. The Committee recalls that according to the BKDP, participants were summoned to the Soligorsk police station and charged with a violation of the Administrative Code. On 17 May 2016, the court determined the protests recorded on the video to be an unauthorized picketing, found the participants guilty and imposed a penalty in the form of an administrative warning. Also in May 2016, the Polotsk Court found Mr Victor Stukov and Mr Nikolai Sharakh, trade union activists of the BNP union at a fiberglass enterprise, guilty of participating in unauthorized picketing and imposed fines amounting to €250 and €300, respectively. According to the BKDP, trade unionists were protesting in the city centre against violations of labour legislation at the enterprise and against Mr Sharakh’s dismissal.

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed comments on these cases. The Government points out that the above-mentioned activists were charged under the Administrative Code not for exercising their right to participate in peaceful protests to defend their professional interests, but for violating the legislation, i.e. for having organized and held events that had not been agreed upon with the local executive and administrative bodies. The Government further points out that decisions to deny an authorization for a mass event are taken in strict compliance with the law in force and on the basis of a careful analysis of the effect on public order and safety. In 2016–19, the following were the most common reasons to deny an authorization to hold a mass event: the application did not contain the information required by the law; another mass event was being held in the same place at the same time; the event was to take place in a location not allowed for such a purpose; the documents submitted did not indicate the precise location of the event; and the event was announced in the mass media prior to receiving authorization. The Government indicates that when a permission to hold a mass event is not granted, the organizers, having rectified the shortcomings, may re-submit their application. Finally, a decision prohibiting the holding of a mass event may be appealed in court. The Government informs that the BKDP has been able to organize assemblies and demonstrations and refers in this respect to several examples where the permission to hold such events was granted. While taking note of this information, the Committee notes the most recent BKDP’s allegations that executive authorities in Minsk, Mogilev, Vitebsk, Zhlobin, Borisov, Gomel, Brest, Novopolotsk refused to grant a permission to hold mass events. The Committee requests the Government to provide its detailed comments thereon.

The Committee notes the BKDP and the ITUC allegations regarding the cases of Messrs Fedynich and Komlik, leaders of the REP union, found guilty, in 2018, of tax evasion and use of foreign funds without officially registering them with the authorities as per the legislation in force. They were sentenced to four years of suspended imprisonment, restriction of movement, a ban on holding senior positions for five years and a fine of BYN47,560 (over US$22,500). The Committee notes that the particulars of these cases are being considered by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the framework of its examination of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In this connection, the Committee further notes the BKDP allegation that the equipment seized during searches in the REP and BNP premises have not been returned until now. The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding this allegation.

Right to strike. The Committee recalls that it had been requesting the Government for a number of years to amend the following sections of the Labour Code as regards the exercise of the right to strike: sections 388(3) and 393, so as to ensure that no legislative limitations can be imposed on the peaceful exercise of the right to strike in the interest of rights and freedoms of other persons (except for cases of acute national crisis, or for public servants exercising authority in the name of the state, or essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. only those, the interruption of which, would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population); 388(4) so as to ensure that national workers’ organizations may receive assistance, including financial assistance, from international workers’ organizations, even when the purpose is to assist in the exercise of freely chosen industrial action; 390, by repealing the requirement of the notification of strike duration; and 392, so as to ensure that the final determination concerning the minimum service to be provided in the event of disagreement between the parties is made by an independent body and to further ensure that minimum services are not required in all undertakings but only in essential services, public services of fundamental importance, situations in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration could cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence of the population, or to ensure the safe operation of necessary facilities. The Committee regrets that once again no information has been provided by the Government on the measures taken to amend the above-mentioned provisions affecting the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to take measures to revise these provisions, in consultation with the social partners, and to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged to that end. The Committee notes the BKDP allegations of violation of the right to strike in practice and requests the Government to provide its reply thereon.

While duly recognizing the efforts made by the Government, the Committee emphasizes that much remains to be done in order to implement in full all of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. It encourages the Government to pursue its efforts in this respect and expects that the Government, with the assistance of the ILO and in consultation with the social partners, will take the necessary steps to fully implement all outstanding recommendations without further delay. Noting the BKDP alleged lack of consultations in respect of the adoption of new pieces of legislation affecting rights and interest of workers, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to further strengthen the role of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which should, as its title indicates, play a role of a platform where consultations on the legislation affecting rights and interests of the social partners can take place.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2020.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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 this Convention in law and in practice. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature.

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

As a general point, the Committee notes with interest that a tripartite activity on collective labour dispute resolution mechanisms organized by the ILO in Minsk in February 2016 allowed for an open discussion on the existing arrangements and possible new mechanisms, including in the framework of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter, tripartite Council). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that ILO tripartite activities carried out in Belarus following the direct contacts mission in 2014 had a positive impact on the social partners and, in particular, on the relations between various trade union groups. 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 2 of the Convention. Right to establish workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation, it had urged the Government to consider, within the framework of the tripartite Council, the measures necessary to ensure that the matter of legal address ceases to be an obstacle to the registration of trade unions in practice. While noting the Government’s indication that there had been no cases of refusal to register trade unions or their organizational structures, the Committee recalls that the BKDP had previously indicated that, faced with many obstacles in this respect, independent trade unions generally had been discouraged from seeking registration, despite the widening of possibilities as to the kind of premises which could satisfy the legal address requirement. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government’s latest report does not indicate any measures taken to address this concern, including through the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 2, its rules and regulations, as recommended by the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee once again urges the Government to assess, within the framework of the tripartite Council, the measures necessary to ensure that the matter of legal address ceases to be an obstacle to the registration of trade unions in practice and requests the Government to indicate all progress made in this respect.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. Right of workers’ organizations, including federations and confederations, to organize their activities. The Committee recalls that it had previously expressed its concern at the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the BKDP, the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BNP) and the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REP) to hold demonstrations and public meetings. The Committee had urged the Government, in working together with the abovementioned organizations, to investigate all of the alleged cases of refusals to authorize the holding of demonstrations and meetings, and to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations and meetings to defend their occupational interests. The Committee notes the latest allegations submitted by the BKDP regarding a video posted on YouTube showing the activists of the Women’s Network of the Independent Union of Miners (NPG) protesting by the entrance to the NPG office against the raising of the retirement age. The participants were summoned to the Soligorsk police station and charged with a violation of the Administrative Code. On 17 May 2016, the court determined the video to be an unauthorized picketing, found the participants guilty and imposed a penalty in the form of an administrative warning. Also in May 2016, the Polotsk Court found Mr Victor Stukov and Mr Nikolai Sharakh, trade union activists of the BNP union at “Polotsk-Fiberglass” enterprise, guilty of participating in unauthorized picketing and imposed fines amounting to €250 and €300, respectively. According to the BKDP, trade unionists were protesting in the city centre against violations of labour legislation at the enterprise and against Mr Sharakh’s dismissal. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has failed to provide its comments on the new allegations and to reply to all outstanding allegations of refusal to grant authorization for demonstrations, nor has it provided any information on the steps taken to investigate the cases of refusal with the organizations concerned. The Committee urges the Government, once again, to work together with the abovementioned organizations to investigate these cases, and to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations and meetings to defend their occupational interests. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government for a number of years to amend the Law on Mass Activities. It deeply regrets that the Government provides no information on the measures taken in this regard. It further deeply regrets that no measures have been taken to amend Presidential Decree No. 24, which requires previous authorization for foreign gratuitous aid and restricts the use of such aid. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the Law on Mass Activities and Decree No. 24 and requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect. The Committee considers, in particular, that the amendments should be directed at abolishing the sanctions imposed on trade unions or trade unionists for a single violation of the respective legislation; at setting out clear grounds for the denial of requests to hold trade union mass events, bearing in mind that any such restriction should be in conformity with freedom of association principles; and at widening the scope of activities for which foreign financial assistance can be used, in particular, in view of the apparent (financial) burden that is placed on trade unions to ensure the law and order during a mass event. The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this respect.

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend the following sections of the Labour Code as regards the exercise of the right to strike: sections 388(3) and 393, so as to ensure that no legislative limitations can be imposed on the peaceful exercise of the right to strike in the interest of rights and freedoms of other persons (except for cases of acute national crisis, or for public servants exercising authority in the name of the state, or essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. only those, the interruption of which, would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population); 388(4) so as to ensure that national workers’ organizations may receive assistance, even financial, from international workers’ organizations, even when the purpose is to assist in the exercise of freely chosen industrial action; 390, by repealing the requirement of the notification of strike duration; and 392, so as to ensure that the final determination concerning the minimum service to be provided in the event of disagreement between the parties is made by an independent body and to further ensure that minimum services are not required in all undertakings but only in essential services, public services of fundamental importance, situations in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration could cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence of the population, or to ensure the safe operation of necessary facilities. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the measures taken to amend the abovementioned provisions affecting the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to take measures to revise these provisions, in consultation with the social partners, and to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged to that end.

While duly recognizing the efforts made by the Government, the Committee emphasizes that much remains to be done in order to implement in full all of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. It encourages the Government to pursue its efforts in this respect and expects that the Government, with the assistance of the ILO and in consultation with the social partners, will take the necessary steps to fully implement all outstanding recommendations without further delay.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 104th Session, June 2015)

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 discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2015 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee urged the Government to comply with the rest of the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry and to accept substantially increased technical assistance in this regard and to provide information related to the functions and role of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter, Tripartite Council).

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2015 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 2015 alleging violations of this Convention, and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), in law and in practice and raising concerns that the Tripartite Council does not fulfil its functions. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.

As a general point, the Committee notes with interest that, following a seminar in July 2014 organized by the ILO in Minsk on the experience of tripartite consultative bodies with social partnership, the Tripartite Council approved amendments to its Regulations aimed at improving its efficiency, which were issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection in Order No. 48 of 8 May 2015. The Committee notes in particular that the regulations expand the mandate of the Tripartite Council to send proposals to legislative bodies on the implementation of ILO Conventions and Recommendations in law, in accordance with ILO recommendations, to review the application in practice of labour and trade union legislation and examine communications from trade unions and employers’ organizations on issues of compliance with ratified ILO Conventions. The Committee trusts that the extended mandate of the Tripartite Council will be of assistance in addressing the points that the Committee has been raising for a number of years. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest the latest information from the Government that the Tripartite Council met in November 2015 and agreed upon a mechanism for negotiating and concluding collective agreements at enterprises with more than one union, which would figure in the General Agreement for 2016–18.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to establish workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that, in its previous observations, it had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2, its rules and regulations, so as to remove the obstacles to trade union registration (legal address and 10 per cent minimum membership requirements). The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that, following a proposal by the Tripartite Council, Presidential Decree No. 4 of 2 June 2015 abolished the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement by lowering the minimum number for forming an enterprise trade union to ten workers. The Committee further notes the observations of the BKDP that it considers the changes introduced to be cosmetic in nature given that the trade union practice in Belarus does not envisage the creation of autonomous individual unions but rather organizational structures under national sectoral trade unions in accordance with their by-laws. In this respect, the Committee recalls the numerous allegations of obstacles to the registration of such organizational structures due to their difficulties in obtaining legal address. It further recalls that the BKDP had indicated that, faced with such obstacles, independent trade unions generally had been discouraged from seeking registration.

In view of the above, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government’s latest report does not indicate any measures taken or envisaged to amend the legal address requirement, as recommended by the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee once again urges the Government to consider, within the framework of the Tripartite Council, the measures necessary to ensure that the matter of legal address ceases to be an obstacle to the registration of trade unions in practice. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all progress made in this respect.

Further recalling the specific allegations relating to legal address which were considered by the direct contacts mission that visited the country in January 2014 and its recommendation that mechanisms be developed to find an acceptable resolution of these kinds of disputes in the future, through fact-finding, facilitation and mediation, with full respect of freedom of association principles, the Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that, with the support of the ILO, a tripartite seminar on dispute resolution and mediation is scheduled to take place in January 2016. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results and concrete outcome of this activity.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. Right of workers’ organizations, including federations and confederations, to organize their activities. The Committee recalls that it had previously expressed its concern at the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the BKDP, the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BNP) and the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REP) to hold demonstrations and meetings. The Committee had urged the Government, in working together with the abovementioned organizations, to investigate all of the alleged cases of refusals to authorize the holding of demonstrations and meetings, and to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations and meetings to defend their occupational interests. The Committee notes the allegations in the latest communication of the BKDP that many municipal authorities had further denied authorization for it and its affiliates to carry out demonstrations: in February to protest against a new decree affecting workers’ interests; on May Day; and to hold meetings in October dedicated to the World Day for Decent Work. The Committee notes that the Government only replies with respect to the latter event, stating that the Minsk authorities did grant permission to the BKDP, and the rally took place in the Friendship of People’s Park on Bangalore Square. The Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to the other allegations of refusal to grant authorization for demonstrations in February and on May Day, nor has it provided any information on the steps taken to investigate the cases of refusal with the organizations concerned. The Committee urges the Government once again to work together with the abovementioned organizations to investigate these cases, and to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations and meetings to defend their occupational interests. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard. The Committee further recalls in this connection that it has been requesting the Government for a number of years to take measures to amend the Act on Mass Activities, and urges the Government to review, with the assistance of the ILO, its provisions in the Tripartite Council, with a view to their amendment, and to report on the progress made.

Finally, the Committee once again urges the Government to take measures to amend, in consultation with the social partners, Decree No. 24, which requires previous authorization for foreign gratuitous aid and restricts the use of such aid, so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations may effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers in conformity with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code regarding the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the concrete measures taken to amend the abovementioned provisions affecting the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to take measures to revise these provisions, in consultation with the social partners, and to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged to that end.

The Committee notes with regret that, despite some progress noted above, it is bound to conclude, as did the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, that over ten years since the Commission of Inquiry first issued its recommendations, the Government has failed to address most of them, leaving the overall situation in relation to trade union rights still highly unsatisfactory. The Committee is nevertheless encouraged by the intensified engagement of the Government with the ILO aimed at reviewing and addressing the obstacles faced in this regard, including the tripartite seminar on dispute resolution and mediation planned for January 2016, and expresses the firm hope that it will be in a position to observe significant progress made on the remaining recommendations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code regarding the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the concrete measures taken to amend the abovementioned provisions affecting the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. It therefore encourages the Government to revise these provisions, in consultation with the social partners, and to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged to that end.

The Committee further recalls that it had requested the Government to clarify the distinction between those employees of the National Bank who enjoy the right to strike and those employees who do not. The Committee takes due note of the detailed explanation provided by the Government to the effect that only civil servants exercising authority in the name of the State are prohibited from exercising the right to strike; other employees are not considered to be civil servants pursuant to the legislation in force and thus, may exercise this right.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 103rd Session, May–June 2014)

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 discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2014 concerning the application of the Convention. It also notes the report transmitted to the Governing Body in March 2014 of the direct contacts mission (hereinafter, 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 notes the observations submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2014 on the application of the Convention. It further notes the observations submitted by the Belarussian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP) received on 28 August 2014 alleging numerous violations of the Conventions, including denial to register trade union structures affiliated to the members of the BKDP (during the 2013–14 period, for example, registration of the Bobruisk regional primary union of the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REP) was allegedly denied on five occasions); and the adoption of the legislation affecting workers’ rights and interests without prior consultation with the BKDP, member of the Tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter, tripartite Council). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed comments thereon. The Committee notes the observations submitted by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on 1 September 2014.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to establish workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that, in its previous observations, it had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2, its rules and regulations, so as to remove the obstacles to trade union registration (legal address and 10 per cent minimum membership requirements). The Committee notes in this respect, that during its visit to Belarus, the DCM heard allegations of continued difficulties experienced by new trade union organizations with obtaining legal address, despite the widening of the possibilities as to the kind of premises which could satisfy the legal address requirement to include private houses and apartments. It further noted that although the legal address requirement was expanded, there were still considerable impediments for registration of new organizations. The DCM expressed disappointment that Decree No. 2 had not been amended and there were no proposals to amend it. The DCM further noted that, while according to the Government there were no outstanding requests for registration, the BKDP representatives indicated that registration impediments still existed and that independent trade unions generally had been discouraged from seeking to register because of the obstacles they had met. Moreover, the DCM received detailed allegations of serious difficulties faced by workers wishing to organize outside of the structure of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FTUB).

In view of the above, the Committee deeply regrets that there have been no tangible measures taken by the Government, nor have there been any concrete proposals, to amend the legal address requirement, which appears to continue to hinder registration of trade unions and their primary organizations in practice. It further regrets that the 10 per cent membership requirement for the establishment of a union at the enterprise level has not been revoked despite the Government’s suggestion that it would take steps to that effect made in its statement at the Conference Committee in June 2013. The Committee once again urges the Government, in consultations with the social partners, to amend Decree No. 2 and to address the issue of registration of trade unions in practice. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report all progress made in this respect.

Further in this connection, the Committee recalls that in its 2012 and 2013 comments, it examined the situation at the “Granit” enterprise and, in particular, the allegation that the management of the enterprise refused to provide a primary organization of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BNP) with the legal address required, pursuant to Decree No. 2, for registration of trade unions. The Committee notes that the DCM had addressed at length the conflict which had arisen at that enterprise; that conflict had eventually been examined, but could not be resolved by the tripartite Council. The contradictory information received by the DCM strengthened its conviction as to the necessity of developing mechanisms to find an acceptable resolution of these kinds of disputes in the future, through fact finding, facilitation and mediation, with full respect of freedom of association principles. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government indicates that it has accepted ILO technical assistance to conduct a series of activities aimed at improving social dialogue and cooperation between the tripartite constituents at all levels, as well as enhancing knowledge and awareness of freedom of association rights. The Government points out that one such activity is a workshop on dispute resolution and mediation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results and concrete outcome of this activity.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. Right of workers’ organizations, including federations and confederations, to organize their activities. The Committee recalls that it had previously expressed its concern at the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the BKDP, BNP and REP to hold demonstrations and meetings. It further recalls that it had noted with concern the BKDP allegation that after the chairperson of the Soligorsk BNP regional organization met with several women workers (on their way to their workplaces), she was detained by the police on 4 August 2010 and subsequently found guilty of committing an administrative offence and fined. According to the BKDP, the court had decided that by having met members of the union near the entrance gate of the company, the trade union leader had violated the Law on Mass Activities. The Committee had requested the Government to provide its observations on the facts alleged by the BKDP. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government provides no information in this respect. Recalling that peaceful protests are protected by the Convention and that public meetings and demonstrations should not be arbitrarily refused, the Committee urges the Government, in working together with the abovementioned organizations, to investigate all of the alleged cases of refusals to authorize the holding of demonstrations and meetings and to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations and meetings to defend their occupational interests. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the exercise of the right to assembly is protected effectively from intimidation and other arbitrary acts.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that for a number of years it had been requesting the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities, which imposes restrictions on mass activities and provides that an organization (including a trade union) can be liquidated for a single breach of its provisions (section 15), while organizers may be charged with a violation of the Administrative Code and thus subject to administrative detention. The Committee deeply regrets that, as noted by the DCM, no consideration is being given to amend the Law. The Committee is therefore bound to reiterate its previous request.

With regard to its previous request to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, the Committee notes the DCM understanding that while there was currently no intention to amend the Decree, in practice, trade unions have not been prevented from using financial assistance. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that there have been no refusals to register such aid and that the organizations that have requested the registration have obtained it. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that the Decree prohibits the use of foreign gratuitous aid for, among others, carrying out public meetings, rallies, street processions, demonstrations, pickets, strikes and the running of seminars and other forms of mass campaigning among the population. Violation of this provision can result in the imposition of heavy fines, as well as the possible termination of an organization’s activities. The Committee recalls that the right recognized in Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention implies the right to benefit from the relations that may be established with an international workers’ or employers’ organization. Legislation which prohibits the acceptance by a national trade union or employers’ organization of financial assistance from an international workers’ or employers’ organization, unless approved by the Government, and provides for the banning of any organization where there is evidence that it has received such assistance, is not in conformity with this right. Although there were no specific allegations as to the practical application of this Decree, the Committee, reiterates that the previous authorization required for foreign gratuitous aid and the restricted use for such aid set forth in Decree No. 24 is incompatible with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their own activities and to benefit from assistance that might be provided by international workers’ and employers’ organizations. It therefore once again urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to amend Decree No. 24 so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations may effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers in conformity with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee notes with regret that, as concluded by the DCM, while the situation of trade union rights has evolved, there has been no fundamental change or significant progress in implementing the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations to amend the legislation in force. Noting that the Government has accepted technical assistance of the Office, the Committee expresses the hope that this renewed engagement with the ILO and cooperation with all the social partners will give rise to concrete results towards rapid and effective implementation of the outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action without penalty. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that pursuant to section 22 of the Law on Civil Service, civil servants are prohibited from exercising the right to strike. Pursuant to section 7 of the Banking Code, the National Bank is a state body regulating credit relations responsible for the payment system. Therefore, employees of the National Bank responsible for the execution of the Bank’s responsibility are civil servants and do not enjoy the right to strike; however, employees providing technical services are not civil servants and therefore are not restricted in their right to strike. The Committee recalls that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. It therefore requests the Government to clarify the distinction it makes in its report between those employees who enjoy the right to strike and those employees who do not.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 103rd Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2014.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 102nd Session, June 2013)

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 discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2013 concerning the application of the Convention. It 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 alleging numerous violations of the Convention, including denial of the right to hold pickets and demonstrations, deregistration of a primary trade union affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU), and pressure and threats exercised by the authorities on leaders of the Free Metal Workers’ Union (FMWU). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed observations on the ITUC’s allegations. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in a communication dated 30 August 2013.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to establish workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2, its rules and regulations, so as to remove the obstacles to trade union registration (legal address and 10 per cent minimum membership requirements). The Committee notes that, in its statement at the Conference Committee in June 2013, the Government referred to its proposal to amend the Decree by revoking the 10 per cent membership requirement for the establishment of a union at the enterprise level. The Committee regrets that no further information has been provided by the Government on the progress made in this respect. The Committee further deeply regrets that there have been no tangible measures taken by the Government, nor have there been any concrete proposals, to amend the legal address requirement, which appears to continue to hinder registration of trade unions and their primary organizations in practice.

In this connection, and with reference to its previous observation and the 369th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee expresses its concern at the situation of trade union rights at “Granit” enterprise. The Committee recalls the allegation that the management of the enterprise refused to provide a primary organization of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU) with the legal address required, pursuant to Decree No. 2, for registration of trade unions. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government indicates that the majority of members of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (the Council), having discussed the matter at the Council’s meeting in March 2013, raised doubts about the establishment of the BITU primary trade union and considered that the actions of the enterprise management were justifiable as the BITU had failed to submit the minutes of the founding meeting. The Government submits that, while the legislation does not contain any numerical requirement for the establishment of primary trade union organizations, other requirements must to be fulfilled, including the requirement to hold a constituent meeting. According to the Government, the analysis of the situation raised sufficient doubts as to whether the meeting had really taken place and therefore whether the organization had been established. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, according to the legislation, the employers are not obliged to provide a union with premises and that this question is to be regulated through collective bargaining. On the other hand, the union is not obliged to have its legal address on the premises of the enterprise and is free to rent a space elsewhere. According to the Government, while the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions CDTU alleged that it faced refusal when attempting to rent a suitable space, it provided no specific information to sustain its allegations. Finally, the Government indicates that to date the BITU has not approached the registration authorities concerning the registration or recording of its primary trade union organization.

The Committee notes what appears to be contradictory information about the establishment of the BITU primary organization, as referred to by the Government in its communications to this Committee and the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee recalls that the 2004 Commission of Inquiry had examined at length the difficulties with obtaining legal address faced in practice by trade unions outside of the structure of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) (see paragraphs 590–598 of the Report). It deeply regrets that almost ten years later, these difficulties still appear to exist. The Committee understands that in the absence of legal address, due to the legal address requirement set forth by Decree No. 2 and the restrictions as to what can constitute a valid legal address imposed by, among other pieces of legislation, the Housing and Civil Codes, the BITU could not apply for the registration of its primary trade union. While noting the Government’s indication that in 2012, there have been no cases of refusal to register trade union organizations, the Committee notes with deep regret that, despite the numerous requests by the ILO supervisory bodies, there have been no tangible measures taken by the Government to amend the Decree. In view of the above, the Committee urges the Government, in consultations with the social partners, to amend Decree No. 2 and to address the issue of registration of trade unions in practice, including by re-examining the situation of the BITU primary trade union with a view to allowing its registration. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report all progress made in this respect.

Concerning the Committee’s previous request to provide detailed observations on the CDTU’s earlier allegation that the Polotsk municipality refused to register the free trade union primary organization of “Self-employed workers at Polotsk outdoor collective farm market”, the Committee regrets that the Government’s reply is limited to indicating that the union has failed to provide a complete file of documents required for the registration. It therefore expects that the Government’s next report will contain detailed observations thereon.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. Right of workers’ organizations, including federations and confederations, to organize their activities. The Committee recalls that it had previously expressed its concern at the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the CDTU, BITU and REWU to hold demonstrations and meetings and requested the Government to conduct independent investigations into these allegations, as well as to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that those allegations are too general, which makes it difficult for the Government to comment. The Committee notes with concern the ITUC’s allegation of refusal by the Minsk City Executive Committee to grant permission to hold a picket planned by the BITU for 20 July 2013. Recalling that peaceful protests are protected by the Convention and that public meetings and demonstrations should not be arbitrarily refused, the Committee urges the Government, in working together with the abovementioned organizations, to investigate all of the alleged cases of refusals to authorize the holding of demonstrations and meetings and to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations and meetings to defend their occupational interests.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with concern the CDTU’s allegation that after the chairperson of the Soligorsk BITU regional organization met with several women workers (on their way to their workplaces), she was detained by the police on 4 August 2010 and subsequently found guilty of committing administrative offence and fined. According to the CDTU, the court had decided that by having met members of the union near the entrance gate of the company, the trade union leader had violated the Act on Mass Activities. The Committee had requested the Government to provide its observations on the facts alleged by the CDTU. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government provides no information in this respect. It therefore once again reiterates its request.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that for a number of years it had been requesting the Government to amend the Act on Mass Activities, which imposes restrictions on mass activities and provides that an organization (including a trade union) can be liquidated for a single breach of its provisions (section 15), while organizers may be charged with a violation of the Administrative Code and thus subject to administrative detention. The Committee deeply regrets that once again no information has been provided by the Government on concrete measures taken in this respect. It therefore reiterates its previous request.

With regard to its previous request to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that there have been no refusals to register such aid and that the organizations that have requested the registration have obtained it. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry observed in its report that the Decree prohibited “the use of foreign gratuitous aid for, among others, carrying out public meetings, rallies, street processions, demonstrations, pickets, strikes and the running of seminars and other forms of mass campaigning among the population. Violation of this provision can result in the imposition of heavy fines, as well as the possible termination of an organization’s activities. While the Government stated that Decree No. 24 was only aimed at rendering the previous situation transparent and created a simple and rapid procedure for the registration of foreign aid, the Commission heard from one of the employers’ organizations that, to the contrary, the process was costly and time-consuming. The Commission recalls from the principles elaborated by the ILO supervisory bodies that the right recognized in Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention implies the right to benefit from the relations that may be established with an international workers’ or employers’ organization. Legislation which prohibits the acceptance by a national trade union or employers’ organization of financial assistance from an international workers’ or employers’ organization, unless approved by the Government, and provides for the banning of any organization where there is evidence that it has received such assistance, is not in conformity with this right. Although there were no specific allegations as to the practical application of this Decree, the Commission reiterates the conclusions made by these supervisory bodies that the previous authorization required for foreign gratuitous aid and the restricted use for such aid set forth in Decree No. 24 is incompatible with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their own activities and to benefit from assistance that might be provided by international workers’ and employers’ organizations” (see paragraphs 623 and 624 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry). The Committee therefore once again urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to amend Decree No. 24 so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations may effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers in conformity with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the concrete measures taken to amend sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code affecting the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee notes that in its report the Government requests to clarify to what degree the position of the Committee in this respect reflects a balanced position of the social partners pursuant to the principles of tripartism. The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government to amend the above provisions since the adoption of the Labour Code in 1999. It therefore encourages the Government to revise these provisions, in consultation with the social partners, and to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged to that end.

The Committee notes with deep regret that no progress has been made by the Government towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and improving the application of this Convention in law and in practice during the reporting year. Indeed, the Government has not provided any information on steps taken to amend the legislative provisions in question, as previously requested by this Committee, the Conference Committee, the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee therefore urges the Government to intensify its efforts in ensuring that freedom of association and respect for civil liberties are fully and effectively guaranteed in law and in practice and expresses the firm hope that the Government will intensify its cooperation with all the social partners in this regard.

The Committee welcomes the acceptance by the Government of a direct contacts mission with a view to obtaining a full picture of the trade union rights in the country and assisting the Government in the rapid and effective implementation of all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee hopes that the mission will take place in the very near future.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 103rd Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2014.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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 comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 31 July 2012 alleging numerous violations of the Convention, including arrest and detention of members of independent trade unions, denial of the right to picket, denial of registration of primary trade unions, and interference by the authorities in trade union activities. The Committee notes with concern the ITUC’s statement that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry are still not implemented and that no real effort has been made by the Government to address violations of trade union rights in the country. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed observations on the ITUC’s allegations.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report contains no new information on the measures taken to implement the 2004 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and this Committee’s previous requests in respect of the application of the Convention. The Committee also notes the 366th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (November 2012) on the measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It notes, in particular, that the Committee on Freedom of Association expressed its deep concern at the Government’s lack of cooperation in providing information on the follow-up given to the Commission of Inquiry recommendations. The Committee urges the Government to cooperate fully with the ILO supervisory bodies.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to establish workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2, its rules and regulations, so as to eliminate the obstacles to trade union registration (legal address and 10 per cent minimum membership requirements). The Committee notes with deep regret that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. In this connection, the Committee notes with concern the ITUC’s allegation that the management of “Granit” enterprise refuses to provide a newly established primary organization of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU) with the legal address required, pursuant to Decree No. 2, for registration of trade unions. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the enterprise management acted in accordance with the law as the BITU failed to submit the minutes of the founding meeting. The Government indicates that on 17 May 2012, the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) filed a complaint with the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. The Government points out that the minutes of the founding meeting submitted to the Council were signed only by 16 people, whereas 200 employees were said to have expressed a wish to join the BITU. Furthermore, some employees have stated that union representatives deceived them into signing the papers, without giving adequate explanations of the demands made to the employer. The Government indicates that the Council’s secretariat is currently awaiting more information from the CDTU. The Committee recalls that the abovementioned 10 per cent minimum membership requirement is not applicable to primary trade unions and understands that the decision even by 16 workers would be sufficient to establish a primary trade union. In the light of the above, the Committee expresses its concern that the requirements imposed by Decree No. 2 continue to hinder the establishment and functioning of trade unions in practice. The Committee notes with deep regret that, despite the numerous requests by the ILO supervisory bodies, there have been no tangible measures taken by the Government to amend the decree, nor have there been any concrete proposals to that effect. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to that effect in consultation with the social partners, so as to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all progress made in this respect. The Committee hopes that the BITU primary trade union at “Granit” enterprise will be registered without delay and requests the Government to take all necessary measures to that end.

The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information concerning the allegation previously submitted by the CDTU on the refusal by the Polotsk municipality to register the free trade union primary organization of “Self-employed workers at Polotsk outdoor collective farm market”. It therefore expects that the Government’s next report will contain detailed observations thereon.

The Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate whether the BITU had applied for the registration of its primary trade union at “Kupalinka” enterprise and, if so, the outcome of the registration procedure. It further requested the Government to provide a copy of the Supreme Court decision in the case of refusal to register “Razam” organization. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the BITU has not applied for registration of its primary trade union. The Committee further notes a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision in the “Razam” case and understands that by its decision, the court left without examination the case of refusal to register “Razam” organization submitted by three petitioners. According to the court, pursuant to Decree No. 2, at least 500 founding members from the majority of regions are needed in order to establish a trade union at the national level; this implies that only founding members could be given the authority to represent the interests of the union in the process of registration or in court. The court considered that the decision by the founding conference to admit to trade union membership one of the petitioners, to elect him or her to the union’s office and to mandate him or her to represent, together with other persons, the interests of the union before the registering authorities and the courts was without any legal ground. The Committee expresses its concern at this new interpretation of paragraph 3 of Decree No. 2, which appears to create additional obstacles to registration and impede the right of trade unions to elect their representatives and to organize their administration in full freedom enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Committee once again strongly encourages the Government to continue cooperation with the social partners in addressing the issue of registration in practice and to indicate in its next report all progress made in this respect.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. Right of workers’ organizations, including federations and confederations, to organize their activities. The Committee recalls that it had previously expressed its concern at the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the CDTU, the BITU and the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) to hold demonstrations and meetings and requested the Government to conduct independent investigations into these allegations, as well as to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests. The Committee once again notes with deep regret that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. Recalling that peaceful protests are protected by the principles of freedom of association and that public meetings and demonstrations should not be arbitrarily refused, the Committee urges the Government to indicate the measures taken to investigate the alleged cases of refusals to authorize the holding of demonstrations and meetings and to bring to the attention of the relevant authorities the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with concern the CDTU’s allegation that following a refusal by the “Delta Style” company’s management to authorize a trade union meeting, the chairperson of the Soligorsk BITU regional organization met with several women workers (on their way to their workplaces) near the entrance. Following this event, the chairperson was detained by police on 4 August 2010 and subsequently found guilty of committing administrative offence and fined. According to the CDTU, the court had decided that having met members of the union near the entrance gate of the company, the trade union leader had violated the Act on Mass Activities. The Committee had requested the Government to provide its observations on the facts alleged by the CDTU. The Committee regrets that the Government has provided no information in this respect. It therefore once again urges the Government to provide its observations thereon.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been requesting the Government to amend the Act on Mass Activities, which imposes restrictions on mass activities and provides for dissolution of an organization for a single breach of its provisions, while organizers may be charged with a violation of the Administrative Code and thus subject to administrative detention. The Committee deeply regrets that once again no information has been provided by the Government on concrete measures taken in this respect. The Committee understands, however, that this piece of legislation has been amended so as to further restrict the right to organize public events. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of these amendments.

The Committee further deeply regrets that the Government has not provided any information in relation to the measures taken to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid and sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code, regarding the exercise of the right to strike. Recalling that the abovementioned legislative texts (Act on Mass Activities, Presidential Decree No. 24 and sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code) are not in conformity with the right of workers to organize their activities and programmes free from interference by the public authorities and their amendment had been requested by the Commission of Inquiry over eight years ago, the Committee reiterates its previous requests and requests the Government to indicate all concrete measures taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee understands that the Act on Public Associations and the Criminal Code have been recently amended and that these amendments would have bearing on the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of all relevant amendments to these legislative texts.

The Committee also once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action without penalty.

The Committee notes with deep regret that no progress has been made by the Government towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and improving the application of this Convention in law and in practice during the reporting year. Indeed, the Government has not provided any information on steps taken to amend the legislative provisions in question, as previously requested by this Committee, the Conference Committee, the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee therefore urges the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure that freedom of association and respect for civil liberties is fully and effectively guaranteed in law and in practice and expresses the firm hope that the Government will intensify its cooperation with all the social partners in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

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 discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2011 concerning the application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). 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 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.

The Committee notes that in its report, the Government reiterates its commitment to the social dialogue and cooperation with the ILO. It informs of its intention to organize, together with the ILO, a tripartite seminar in the country on the issue of social dialogue. The Government indicates that the situation of trade union rights in the country has stabilized. While there are still some contentious issues and some criticism from the trade union side, the Government considers this is a common feature of social dialogue. While noting this information, the Committee regrets that the Government provides very limited new information on the measures taken to implement the 2004 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and this Committee’s previous requests in respect to the application of the following Articles of the Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2, its rules and regulations, so as to eliminate the obstacles to trade union registration (legal address and 10 per cent minimum membership requirements). The Committee notes that in its communication, the CDTU points out that there have been no concrete proposals to amend the Decree, which continues to create obstacles to trade union registration. In this respect, the CDTU alleges that Polotsk municipality denied registration to the Free Trade Union primary organization of “Self-employed workers at Polotsk outdoor collective farm market”. The Committee is once again bound to note with deep regret the absence of any tangible measures taken by the Government to amend the Decree despite the numerous requests by the ILO supervisory bodies. It therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to that effect in consultation with the social partners so as to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its observations on the CDTU’s allegations of refusal to register the primary trade union organization of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU) at the “Delta Style” enterprise and to provide a copy of the Supreme Court Decision in the case of refusal to register “Razam” organization. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the decision to deny registration to the BITU primary trade union organization at the “Delta Style” was due to the process of liquidation of the undertaking and its merger with the “Kupalinka” enterprise that occurred on 27 April 2011. The Committee considers that the restructuring of an enterprise, including by way of merger, should not preclude the right of workers to establish a trade union of their own choosing. The Committee also regrets that the Government failed to transmit the decision of the Supreme Court in the “Razam” case. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue cooperation with the social partners in addressing the issue of registration in practice and to indicate in its next report all progress made in this respect. It further requests the Government to indicate whether the BITU has applied for the registration of its primary trade union at the “Kupalinka” and if so, the outcome of the registration procedure.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. The Committee recalls that it had previously expressed its concern at the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the CDTU, the BITU and the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) to hold demonstrations and meetings and requested the Government to conduct independent investigations into these allegations, as well as to bring the attention of the relevant authorities to the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests. The Committee once again notes with deep regret that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. The Committee notes with concern that the CDTU alleged new cases of refusals to authorize the holding of demonstrations. Recalling that protests are protected by the principles of freedom of association and that public meetings and demonstrations should not be arbitrarily refused, the Committee urges the Government to indicate the measures taken to investigate the alleged cases of refusals to authorize the holding of demonstrations and meetings and to bring the attention of the relevant authorities to the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with concern the CDTU’s allegation that following a refusal by the “Delta Style” company’s management to authorize a trade union meeting, the chairperson of the Soligorsk BITU regional organization met with several women workers (on their way to their workplaces) near the entrance. Following this event, the chairperson was detained by the police on 4 August 2010 and subsequently found guilty of committing administrative offence and fined. According to the CDTU, the court had decided that having met members of the union near the entrance gate of the company, the trade union leader had violated the Law on Mass Activities. The Committee had requested the Government to provide its observations on the facts alleged by the CDTU. The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information in this respect. The Committee notes with concern new allegations of arrests and detention of members of independent trade unions following their participation in public events, as detailed in the CDTU’s communication. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

In this connection, the Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been requesting the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities, which imposes restrictions on mass activities and provides for dissolution of an organization for a single breach of its provisions, while organizers may be charged with a violation of the Administrative Code and thus subject to administrative detention and regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on concrete measures taken in this respect. The Committee understands, however, that this piece of legislation has been recently amended so as to further restrict the right to organize public events. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of these amendments.

The Committee further regrets that the Government has not provided any information in relation to the measures taken to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid and sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code, regarding the exercise of the right to strike. Recalling that the abovementioned legislative texts (Law on Mass Activities, Decree No. 24 and sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code are not in conformity with the right of workers to organize their activities and programmes free from interference by the public authorities and their amendment had been requested by the Commission of Inquiry over seven years ago, the Committee reiterates its previous requests and asks the Government to indicate all concrete measures taken in this respect. The Committee understands that the Law on Public Association and the Criminal Code have been recently amended and that these amendments would have bearing on the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of all relevant amendments to these legislative texts.

The Committee also once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action without penalty.

The Committee notes with deep regret that no progress has been made by the Government towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and improving the application of this Convention in law and in practice during the reporting year. Indeed, the Government has not provided any information on steps taken to amend the legislative provisions in question, as previously requested by this Committee, the Conference Committee, the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee on Freedom of Association. In this respect, the Committee also notes the CDTU’s indication that it was still awaiting to see an evidence and tangible progress with regard to the Government’s commitment to ensure a friendly environment for independent trade union activity and social dialogue. The Committee regrets to note the alleged violations of civil liberties in Belarus submitted by the CDTU in its communication, including instances of interrogation of trade unionists and search of trade union premises. The Committee therefore urges the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure that freedom of association and respect for civil liberties is fully and effectively guaranteed in law and in practice and expresses the firm hope that the Government will intensify its cooperation with all the social partners in this regard.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2012.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (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 on 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.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it had encouraged the Government to continue its close cooperation with the social partners in addressing the difficulties with registration of trade union organizations in law and in practice. In this respect, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend without delay Presidential Decree No. 2, its rules and regulations, so as to eliminate the obstacles to trade union registration (legal address and 10 per cent minimum membership requirements). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that at its sitting of 14 May 2010, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (“the Council”) discussed the issue of the legislation and prospects of work aimed at fulfilment of the Plan of Action on implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. On that occasion, the Council established a working group of six members – which include two Government representatives, two worker representatives (one from the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and one from the CDTU) and two employer organizations representatives – to examine the issues identified by the Council’s members and prepare suggestions regarding the Council’s decisions, taking into account positions of all parties. The Committee notes that in its communication, the CDTU points out that there have been no concrete proposals to amend Decree No. 2. The Committee is bound to note with regret the absence of any tangible measures taken by the Government to amend the Decree despite the numerous requests by the ILO supervisory bodies and once again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to that effect in consultation with the social partners so as to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and those denied registration during the reporting period. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that 283 new organizational structures have been registered within the first six months of 2010. The Committee notes that while the Government provides no information on the number of denied registrations, the CDTU alleges that its proposals concerning registration of trade union organizations are ignored and not considered and refers to the refusal to register the “Razam” trade union, confirmed by the Supreme Court, and the primary trade union organization of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU) at the “Delta Style” enterprise. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the CDTU allegations and to provide a copy of the Supreme Court Decision on the “Razam” case. It strongly encourages the Government to continue cooperation with the social partners in addressing the issue of registration in practice and to indicate in its next report all progress made in this respect.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. The Committee recalls that it had previously expressed its concern at the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the CDTU, the BITU and the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) to hold pickets and meetings and requested the Government to conduct independent investigations into these allegations and to bring the attention of the relevant authorities to the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests. The Committee once again notes with regret that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. Recalling that protests are protected by the principles of freedom of association and that public meetings and demonstrations should not be arbitrarily refused, the Committee notes the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry in this regard (see Trade Union Rights in Belarus, paragraphs 625–627) and once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to investigate the alleged cases of refusals to authorize the holding of pickets and meetings and to bring the attention of the relevant authorities to the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests.

The Committee notes with concern from the CDTU’s communication that the chairperson of the Soligorsk BITU regional organization was detained by the police on 4 August 2010 and subsequently found guilty of committing administrative offence and fined. According to the CDTU, the court had decided that having met members of the union near the entrance gate of the company, the trade union leader had violated the Law on Mass Activities. The CDTU explains that following a refusal by the “Delta Style” company’s management to authorize a trade union meeting, the chairperson met with several women workers (on their way to their workplaces) near the entrance. Recalling that the right to meet with workers and trade union members is an essential aspect of trade union rights, that the exercise of legitimate trade union activities should not be dependent on registration, and that authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede its exercise, unless public order is disturbed or its maintenance seriously and imminently endangered thereby, the Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the facts alleged by the CDTU. In this connection, the Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been requesting the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities and regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on concrete measures taken in this respect.

The Committee further regrets that the Government has not provided any information in relation to the measures taken to amend Presidential Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid and sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code, regarding the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee also once again notes with regret that aside from the general statement to the effect that a meeting of the tripartite working group took place on 15 October 2010 to discuss the conclusions of the Conference Committee and questions of further work on the improvement of the legislation, and that members of the group were requested to provide their views on further steps in this regard, there was no indication of concrete proposals to amend the abovementioned pieces of legislation. Recalling that the abovementioned legislative texts (Law on Mass Activities, Decree No. 24 and sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code) are not in conformity with the right of workers to organize their activities and programmes free from interference by the public authorities and their amendment had been requested by the Commission of Inquiry over six years ago, the Committee reiterates its previous requests and requests the Government to indicate all concrete measures taken in this respect.

The Committee also once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action without penalty.

The Committee recalls that the Government had previously reduced by ten times the price of rent for trade unions irrespective of their affiliation. The Committee notes the CDTU’s allegation that the Government has cancelled its previous decision and resumed the practice of hindering trade union activities through financial pressure. The CDTU indicates in this respect that despite numerous promises of the Government, it is still not included in the list of public associations enjoying the right for 0.1 reduction factor in rent payment. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, according to which, on 5 November 2010, Presidential Decree No. 569 “On making amendments and additions to Presidential Decrees Nos 148 of 24 March 2005 and 518 of 23 October 2009” was adopted to improve the renting mechanism and reduce rental fees for premises rented by trade unions. According to the Government, all trade unions, regardless of their affiliation, can now benefit from the tenfold reduction of rental fee.

The Committee notes with regret that no substantial progress has been made by the Government towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and improving the application of this Convention in law and in practice during the reporting year. Indeed, the Government has not provided any information on steps taken to amend the legislative provisions in question, as previously requested by this Committee, the Conference Committee, the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee notes that in 2010, it has only been informed of one meeting of the Council (14 May) and one meeting of its tripartite working group (15 October). It further notes that the only indicated outcome of the 15 October meeting was a proposal for its members to submit their views on further steps to take with a view to improving the legislation in light of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, something that the Council has been said to be considering for a number of years already. The Committee therefore urges the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure that freedom of association is fully and effectively guaranteed in law and in practice and expresses the firm hope that the Government will intensify its cooperation with all the social partners in this regard.

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

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.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with regret the absence of action by the Government to register trade union organizations, the registration of which had been requested by the ILO supervisory bodies (i.e. those primary-level organizations that were the subject of the complaint before the Commission of Inquiry, as well as organizations of the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) in Mogilev, Gomel, Smolevichi and Rechitsa and its primary trade union at “Avtopark No. 1”; two regional organizations of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) in Mogilev and Baranovichi; and the Belarusian Trade Union of Individual Entrepreneurs “Razam”, a partner organization of the CDTU.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that at its sitting of 30 April 2009 the Council discussed the issue of trade union registration and reached the following decisions, agreed upon by all members of the Council:

–           The Council noted registration of the primary REWU organizations in Smolevichi and Rechitsa.

–           The primary trade union of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU) at the “Belshina” enterprise could not be registered due to the absence of confirmation of its legal address. The Council recommended to the administration of the enterprise, the Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (Employers) (CIE(E)), the BITU, the CDTU and the local executive body to find a solution to the question of legal address in this case.

–           The Council took note of the information provided by a Ministry of Justice representative that no request for registration was submitted by the BFTU regional organization in Baranovichi.

–           The Council noted the reasons for denial of registration of the BFTU regional organization in Mogilev and “Razam” union.

–           In the Council’s opinion, refusals to register the REWU territorial structures in Gomel and Mogilev were justified because their members were not bound by common interests by virtue of the nature of their work, as required by section 1 of the Law on Trade Unions.

–           The Council noted that the abovementioned grounds for refusal were not applicable to the REWU primary trade union at “Avtopark No. 1” as all its members were employed at the same enterprise.

The Committee notes with interest the registration of the primary REWU organizations in Smolevichi and Rechitsa. It further notes with interest that, following the Council’s decision, suitable premises for the legal address of the “Belshina” enterprise union were found and that this organization was re-registered in October 2009. The Committee observes that at its sitting of 26 November 2009, the Council once again discussed the issue of registration of the “Razam” union. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the outcome of the discussion. It encourages the Government to continue its close cooperation with the social partners in addressing the difficulties with registration in practice. Regretting that no information has been provided by the Government on the number of registered organizations and those denied registration during the reporting year, the Committee requests the Government to provide this information with its next report.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a REWU representative present at the sitting argued that the common interest of the members of the Gomel and Mogilev territorial organizations lay in the fact that they were all employed workers. This view was rejected by the Council’s members, who concluded that the refusal to register these organizations did not restrict the right of unions to freely determine their own structures and activities.

The Committee notes the CDTU’s view that despite the specific cases mentioned above, no real progress had been achieved with regard to trade union registration. Firstly, there had been no clear and unambiguous instructions issued by the Government to employers and registering bodies to register the unions mentioned in the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Only some of the unions succeeded in getting legal address, the largest number of the organizations had to terminate their existence. Secondly, referring to the Council’s decision of 30 April 2009, the CDTU confirms that the tripartite body reviewed the refusals to register the REWU territorial structures in Gomel and Mogilev, “Razam” union and the BFTU regional organizations in Baranovichi and Mogilev. With regard to the latter two, the CDTU indicates that the Council limited itself by stating the fact that there were no organizations left to be registered; those primary organizations mentioned in the ILO recommendations no longer existed.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with regret that the requirement of legal address continued to raise difficulties with the registration of trade unions in practice and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to immediately amend Presidential Decree No. 2 of 1999 so as to ensure that workers and employers may form organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. In this regard, the Committee notes the CDTU’s indication that the legal address requirement continues to hinder the establishment and functioning of trade unions.

The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government, the Council adopted a number of measures intended to resolve problems arising from the implementation of the national legislation in practice and discussed approaches to developing legislation on trade unions on the basis of Convention No. 87 and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Council took note of the explanation provided by a representative of the Ministry of Justice that the 10 per cent requirement was not applicable to union organizational structures, including primary trade unions. Pursuant to the Council’s request, the Ministry of Justice informed the local authorities of the need for strict adherence to this approach. The Committee notes the copy of this instruction forwarded by the Government. The Government further indicates that the Council’s members were requested to provide their proposals for the further development of legislation on trade unions by 1 July 2009. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the issue of legislation on trade union registration was discussed at the Council’s meeting on 26 November 2009. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the outcome of the discussion.

The Committee notes with regret that, while the Government refers to continued work on developing legislation on trade unions, it has given no precise indication as to the steps taken to amend Decree No. 2, its rules and regulations, in particular, as regards the legal address requirement – a requirement which the Commission of Inquiry had observed gave rise in practice to arbitrary obstacles in the way of workers’ right to organize (see Trade union rights in Belarus, para. 591 et seq.). While observing that the Council was able to successfully resolve the legal address problem for the BITU primary trade union at “Belshina” enterprise, the Committee notes that this very case demonstrates that the legal address requirement as applied in the country continues to be an obstacle to the registration of trade unions. Furthermore, while welcoming the Ministry of Justice’s instruction requesting the registering bodies to ensure that the 10 per cent minimum membership was only required to form an autonomous union at the enterprise level, the Committee recalls that, since the issuance of the Decree, it has been expressing its concern over the effect of this requirement on the right to organize in large enterprises. It further recalls that on more than one occasion the Government referred to its intention to amend Decree No. 2. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend without delay Presidential Decree No. 2 as concerns trade union registration in consultation with the social partners so as to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed. It requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this respect.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it expressed its concern at the allegations of repeated refusals to authorize the BITU and the REWU to hold pickets and meetings and requested the Government to conduct independent investigations into these allegations and to bring the attention of the relevant authorities to the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests. The Committee notes with regret that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. The Committee notes with concern from the CDTU’s communication that 15 requests to hold pickets were allegedly denied. Recalling that protests are protected by the principles of freedom of association and that public meetings and demonstrations should not be arbitrarily refused, the Committee recalls the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry in this regard (see Trade union rights in Belarus, paras 625–627) and once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to investigate the alleged cases of refusals to hold pickets and meetings and to bring the attention of the relevant authorities to the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests.

The Committee also once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action without penalty.

The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been asking the Government to amend the Law on Mass Activities, sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code, and Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid. The Committee notes with regret that aside from the general statement to the effect that an agreement has been reached by the members of the Council that any legislation on trade unions should be developed on the basis of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and that the members of the Council had until 1 July 2009 to submit their proposals in this regard, there were no concrete proposals to amend the abovementioned pieces of legislation. Recalling that the abovementioned legislative provisions are not in conformity with the right of workers to organize their activities and programmes free from interference by the public authorities and their amendment had been requested by the Commission of Inquiry over five years ago, the Committee reiterates its previous requests and asks the Government to indicate concrete measures taken in this respect.

The Committee welcomes the continued commitment to social dialogue expressed by the Government and, like the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at its last discussion in June 2009, encourages the Government to redouble its efforts to ensure full freedom of association in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. It expresses the firm hope that the Government and the social partners will continue the cooperation within the framework of the tripartite Council so as to ensure that full freedom of association is effectively guaranteed in law and in practice.

The Committee requests the Government to respond to the observations made by the ITUC.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

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 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 the issues raised in its outstanding comments are directly related to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with regret that no progress had been made in respect of the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry to register the primary-level organizations that were the subject of the complaint. It further noted with regret that two trade unions affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU), which submitted applications for registration in 2006–07 were not registered (primary trade union of “Avtopark No. 1” and Mogilev city primary trade union). The Committee further noted that the non-registration of primary trade union organizations had led to the denial of registration of three regional organizations of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) (organizations in Mogilev, Baranovichi and Novopolotsk-Polotsk). The Committee had therefore expressed the firm hope that the Government would take all necessary measures for the immediate re-registration of these organizations both at the primary and the regional level so that these workers may exercise their right to form and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. It further requested the Government to keep it informed of the number of organizations registered and those denied registration. The Committee deeply regrets that no information was provided by the Government on steps taken to ensure the immediate registration of the primary-level organizations that were the subject of the complaint examined by the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee further regrets to note that, apart from the Novopolotsk-Polotsk organization, which according to the Government has been registered since 2000, no other trade union, the registration of which had been requested by the ILO supervisory bodies, has been registered. The Committee further notes from the 352nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association the new allegations of denial of registration of the REWU organizations in Gomel, Smolevichi and Rechitsa and of the Belarusian trade union of individual entrepreneurs “Razam”, a partner organization of the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU). Regretting the absence of action by the Government on these matters, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all of the non-registered trade union organizations are registered without delay and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.  It further once again requests the Government to indicate the number of organizations registered and those denied registration during the reporting year.

The Committee notes that the main obstacle to registration of the BFTU and the REWU organizations mentioned above is the absence of legal address. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that with the adoption of the new Law on Trade Unions, the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 2 of 1999, which impose the legal address requirement for registration of trade union organizations, would cease to have effect. With regard to the process of drafting of the new Law on Trade Unions, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that it was decided to hold back the draft Law and that new legislation would be developed in consultation with the social partners concerned. The Committee regrets to note that in the meantime, the legal address requirement continues to hinder the establishment and functioning of trade unions despite the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry to amend the relevant provisions of the Decree, its rules and regulations so as to eliminate any obstacles that might be caused by this requirement. In light of the fact that the requirement of legal address, as provided for in Decree No. 2, continues to raise difficulties with the registration of trade unions, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to immediately amend the Decree to eliminate this requirement so as to ensure that workers and employers may form organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Committee further expects that any new legislation relating to trade union registration will be in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any developments in this respect.

Article 3. The Committee once again notes with regret that no information has been provided in respect of the steps taken to amend the Law on Mass Activities and sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code, and to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action, without penalty. The Committee must therefore once again recall that it has been asking the Government to amend these provisions for several years now. Recalling that the abovementioned legislative provisions are not in conformity with the right of workers to organize their activities and programmes free from interference by the public authorities, the Committee reiterates its previous requests and asks the Government to indicate the measures taken in this respect. The Committee further expresses its concern at the allegations in the ITUC communication of repeated refusals to authorize the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU) and the REWU to hold pickets and meetings. The Committee recalls that protests are protected by the principles of freedom of association and that permission to hold public meetings and demonstrations, which is an important trade union right, should not be arbitrarily refused. The Committee requests the Government to conduct independent investigations into the alleged cases of refusals to hold pickets and meetings and to bring the attention of the relevant authorities to the right of workers to participate in peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests and to indicate any developments in this respect.

Articles 3, 5 and 6. The Committee once again regrets that no information has been supplied by the Government in respect of the measures taken to amend section 388 of the Labour Code, which prohibits strikers from receiving financial assistance from foreign persons, and Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, so that workers’ and employers’ organizations may effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers. The Committee must therefore reiterate that restrictions on the use of foreign aid for legitimate trade union activities is contrary to the right of national workers’ and employers’ organizations to receive financial assistance from international workers’ and employers’ organizations in pursuit of these aims. Regretting the absence of measures by the Government on the matters above, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend both Decree No. 24 and section 388 of the Labour Code so that workers’ organizations are not prohibited from using foreign aid to support industrial action or any other legitimate activity.

The Committee observes, just like the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at its last discussion in June 2008, that while some positive steps have been taken by the Government, the current situation in Belarus still remains far from ensuring full respect for freedom of association and the application of the provisions of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it will continue its cooperation with the ILO and to that effect, a tripartite seminar (with the participation of representatives from the Government, trade unions – those affiliated and not affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus – employers’ organizations, the ILO, the ITUC and the International Organisation of Employers) on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry is under preparation. The Committee welcomes this initiative and expresses the firm hope that concrete and tangible steps will be taken in the near future so as to ensure the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay.

The Committee requests the Government to respond to the observations made by the ITUC.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 98th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2009.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

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 reports of the missions carried out in Belarus in January 2007 (to participate in a seminar for judges and court prosecutors’ officers) and June 2007 (in response to the request 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.

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

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had noted that Presidential Decree No. 605 on certain issues of state registration of public associations and their unions (confederations) of 6 October 2006, abolished the Republican Registration Commission. It further noted that responsibility for registration now lies with the Ministry of Justice, departments of justice of the regional executive councils and the Minsk City Executive Committee, and requested the Government to keep it informed of the manner in which registration is carried out by these authorities, as well as of any practical obstacles noted in relation to the right of workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee regrets that no information was provided by the Government in this respect, except for an indication that in 2006–07, four out of six trade unions affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU), which submitted applications for registration, were registered. The Committee understands that two organizations remain unregistered. Furthermore, the Committee notes from the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association contained in its 345th Report, that no progress had been made in respect of the Commission’s recommendations to register the primary-level organizations that were the subject of the complaint. The Committee further notes that the non-registration of primary trade organizations has led to the denial of registration of three regional organizations of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) (organizations in Mogilev, Baranovichi and Novopolotsk-Polotsk). The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will take all necessary measures for the immediate re-registration of these organizations both at the primary and the regional level so that these workers may exercise their right to form and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. It once again further requests the Government to keep it informed of the process of registration before such bodies and to provide information on the number of organizations registered and those denied registration.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in order to improve legislation and practice with regard to the establishment and registration of trade unions, a draft trade union law has been prepared with the participation of the social partners and the assistance of the ILO. With the adoption of that law, Presidential Decree No. 2 of 1999 will cease to have effect. The Committee takes note of the draft law on trade unions in its May 2007 version and wishes to raise the following points.

The Committee notes that the draft provides for a simplified procedure for the establishment of trade unions at the enterprise level for unions without legal personality, which would simply be placed in the register (recorded), as opposed to those with legal personality, which must be registered. However, the practical distinction in Belarus between trade unions with and those without legal personality is not sufficiently clear to the Committee. The Committee must once again recall that, when legislation makes the acquisition of legal personality a prerequisite for the existence and functioning of organizations, the conditions for acquiring legal personality must not be such that they amount to a de facto requirement for previous authorization to establish an organization, which would be tantamount to calling into question the application of Article 2 (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 76). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide full details on the envisaged distinction between unions with legal personality and those without, as well as on the impact that this distinction would have upon the functioning of trade unions.

The Committee further notes that the draft proposes to maintain the 10 per cent membership requirement to be registered at the enterprise level (section 15 of the draft law). Recalling that for a number of years it has been requesting the Government to amend this minimum membership requirement, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to lower this requirement, which it considers too high, particularly in large enterprises.

The Committee also notes that the legal address requirement is maintained for all those enterprise-level trade unions wishing to register, as well as for all higher-level trade unions. Those trade unions at the enterprise level not seeking legal personality would need to provide a contact address. The Committee notes that the draft does not provide for a clear definition of “contact address” and “legal address”. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry had noted that the requirement of legal address has created obstacles to trade union registration due, among other reasons, to the absence of clear rules on what may be an appropriate location for an organization’s legal address if the location with a qualified legal address is not provided by the employer. In light of the frequency with which requests for registration at all levels had been denied on the basis of an unacceptable legal address, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any new legislation allows registration of all workers’ organizations requesting registration on the basis of simplified requirements concerning the provision of a valid address, regardless of the level.

In addition, the Committee notes that the draft law maintains a strong link between representativeness and the rights of trade unions, which had been previously criticized by the Committee, as well as by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee considers that the extent of such privileges to representative unions could unduly influence the choice of organization by workers and compromise the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 98 and 104). The Committee further considers that the granting of such extensive privileges to representative unions combined with the uncertainty around the status that may be obtained by unions without legal personality could give rise to undue influence on the choice made by workers of the organization they wish to join. The Committee refers to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association contained in paragraph 93 of its 345th Report, where the latter recalled that on several occasions, it had advised the Government against introducing changes to the trade union legislation in respect of representativeness. It considered that before establishing the notion of representativeness, the Government should ensure an atmosphere in which trade union organizations, whether within or outside the traditional structure, are able to flourish in the country. The Committee, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, urges the Government to abandon this approach and to ensure that the new law on trade unions will fully and truly ensure freedom of association and the rights of all workers to form and join organizations of their choosing.

The Committee notes that the registration (recording) procedure provided for in Chapter 3 of the draft law appears to be excessively detailed. The Committee considers that while member States remain free to provide such formalities on their legislation as appears appropriate to ensure the normal functioning of occupational organizations, the registration formalities should not impair the guarantees laid down by the Convention in practice (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 74). The Committee recalls that the Commission of Inquiry considered that the main problem encountered by trade unions during the registration process was the application of the legislation by the registering authorities in practice. The Committee considers that with an overly regulated registration procedure, there is a risk that the registration authorities could easily find a pretext for not registering a union. In particular, pursuant to section 21 of the draft law, the state registration may be postponed in the case of “shortcomings in the preparation of documents”, which may be broadly interpreted by the registration authorities. The Committee recalls that problems of compatibility with the Convention arise when competent administrative authorities make excessive use of their discretionary powers and are encouraged to do so by the vagueness of the relevant legislation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 75). The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that registration formalities are not such as to give rise, in practice, to impediments to the guarantees laid down in the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it had carried out consultations on the proposed draft with the social partners under the auspices of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Spheres (Council of Experts). All interested parties, including the representatives of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), had an opportunity to express their views on the new Law. An ILO mission, which visited Belarus in June 2007, took part in a meeting of the Council of Experts. The Government states that during the examination of the draft law on trade unions, the ILO representatives expressed the view that it would not be helpful at the present stage to introduce amendments to legislation which are not supported by all the parties involved in social dialogue. The Government adds that it was emphasized, in particular, that the text of the Trade Unions Act, as drawn up by the Government, raises a number of important and difficult questions (for example, the representativeness of trade unions), which will inevitably require time for further examination. In this regard, the ILO mission proposed that the Government consider the possibility of an alternative approach: not adopting the new law for the time being but focusing on the key issue, namely, registration of trade unions. The results of the ILO mission in Minsk were subsequently discussed by the Government. In the light of the mission’s recommendations, the decision has been taken to continue with efforts to improve trade union legislation with a view to achieving consensus between the parties. The Committee notes, however, from the mission report, the serious concerns raised by the mission in respect of: (i) the issue of registration, (ii) the difference between trade unions with legal personality and those without, and (iii) the issue of representativeness. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the future draft law on trade unions will be further developed in full consultation with all the trade unions concerned and that the final law will be in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the draft trade union law as soon as it has been finalized so that it may assess its conformity with the Convention.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that according to section 41(3) of the draft law on trade unions, officials of the relevant registration authorities and local executive and management are entitled to request and obtain information on questions relating to the statutory activities of trade unions and to examine their documents and decisions. It is not clear to the Committee whether the control over trade union activity could be conducted at any time at the discretion of the competent authorities. In this respect, it considers that supervision should be limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports or to cases where there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law (which should not infringe upon the principles of freedom of association). Similarly, there is no violation of Convention No. 87 if such verification is limited to exceptional cases, for example, in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of corruption. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording the necessary guarantees of impartiality and objectivity. Problems of compatibility with the Convention arise when the law gives the authorities powers of control, which go beyond the principles set forth in the previous paragraph, for example, if the administrative authority has the power to examine the books and other documents of an organization or conduct an investigation and demand information at any time (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 125 and 126). The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the draft law is in conformity with the above principle.

The Committee notes with regret that no information has been provided in respect of the steps taken to amend the Law on Mass Activities and sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code, and to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action, without penalty. The Committee must therefore once again recall that it has been asking the Government to amend these provisions for several years now. Considering that the abovementioned legislative provisions are not in conformity with the right of workers to organize their activities and programmes free from interference by the public authorities, the Committee reiterates its previous requests and asks the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect.

Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee regrets that no information has been supplied by the Government in respect of the measures taken to amend section 388 of the Labour Code, which prohibits strikers from receiving financial assistance from foreign persons, and Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, so that workers’ and employers’ organizations may effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Decree No. 24 does not prohibit receiving foreign aid, including from international trade unions, but only provides for conditions of its use and for the procedure of its registration. The Government reiterates that the provision in the Decree for dissolution of a trade union in case of violation has never been used; thus there is no basis for amending the existing procedure of receiving foreign aid. The Committee must recall that it does not consider that the fact that the dissolution provision has not been used can lead to the conclusion that trade union activities have not been hindered, as the mere existence of this prohibition and its legal consequences are sufficient to hinder trade unions from using financial assistance in this manner. The Committee must therefore reiterate that restrictions on the use of foreign aid for legitimate trade union activities is contrary to the right of national workers’ and employers’ organizations to receive financial assistance from international workers’ and employers’ organizations in pursuit of these aims and once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend both Decree No. 24 and section 388 of the Labour Code so that workers’ organizations are not prohibited to use such aid to support industrial action or any other legitimate activity.

The Committee considers that the current situation in Belarus remains far from ensuring full respect for freedom of association and the application of the provisions of the Convention. Noting the indications made by the Government in its report that it would continue with its efforts to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and would actively involve the social partners and seek cooperation with the Office in that process, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps for the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay and will ensure that any new legislation in the field of trade union rights is in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

It further expresses the firm hope that any acts of interference by the public authorities in the internal activities of trade unions will be publicly condemned.

The Committee requests the Government to respond to the comments made by the ITUC dated 3 October 2007.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 97th Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

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 in October 2006 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 International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).

The Committee recalls that all of its outstanding comments have raised issues directly relating to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It further observes the conclusions of the Conference Committee wherein it deplored the fact that nothing the Government had said demonstrated an understanding of the gravity of the situation investigated by the Commission of Inquiry or the necessity of rapid action to redress the effects of these severe violations of the most basic elements of the right to organize.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 on some measures for the regulation of activities of political parties, trade unions and other public associations and its accompanying rules and regulations, as concerns the legal address requirement and the minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of workers at enterprise level for enterprise trade unions, and to disband the Republican Registration Commission, so as to bring the Decree and its application into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee notes with interest that, on 6 October 2006, the President of the Republic of Belarus signed into force Presidential Decree No. 605 on certain issues of state registration of public associations and their unions (confederations), which abolishes the Republican Registration Commission. It further notes that responsibility for registration now lies with the Ministry of Justice, Departments of Justice of the regional executive councils and the Minsk City Executive Committee. The Committee trusts that the process of registration before such bodies is a mere formality and that the manner in which these bodies carry out their duties does not amount, in practice, to a requirement of previous authorization contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to keep it informed of the manner in which registration is carried out by these authorities, as well as any practical obstacles noted in relation to the right of workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing.

The Committee further notes that Presidential Decree No. 605 refers to the preparation by the Council of Ministers of a draft law aimed at implementing the provisions of the Decree. In particular, the Government has referred in its reports to the preparation of a conceptual framework for a draft law on trade unions. This conceptual framework refers to the possibility of establishing two types of trade unions, those with legal personality and those without. The requirement of obtaining a legal address and the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement would not have to be fulfilled by trade unions without legal personality. According to the Government, drafting of this law and its submission is planned for 2007. The Committee recalls in this regard that, in its previous comments under Convention No. 98, it had noted 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 an expert advisory group, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres created to consider the following questions: what form of contract should be used for workers in Belarus and conceptual approaches for improving the Law on Trade Unions. The Committee had noted at the time comments made by the CDTU 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 expresses the firm hope that the conceptual framework and the future proposed Bill on trade unions will be further developed in full consultation with all the trade unions concerned and that the final Law will be in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

While noting that the Government now proposes the elimination of the above two obstacles to trade union registration for unions without legal personality, which would simply be placed in the register, the practical distinction in Belarus between trade unions with and those without legal personality is not sufficiently clear to the Committee. The Committee recalls that, when legislation makes the acquisition of legal personality a prerequisite for the existence and functioning of organizations, the conditions for acquiring legal personality must not be such that they amount to a de facto requirement for previous authorization to establish an organization, which would be tantamount to calling into question the application of Article 2 (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 76). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide full details on the envisaged distinction between unions with legal personality and those without, as well as on the impact that this distinction would have upon the functioning of trade unions.

The Committee further notes with deep concern from the conceptual framework that the Government is envisaging an approach in the draft law on trade unions to provide that, where a trade union or a primary-level organization established at an enterprise represents 75 per cent of the workers at the enterprise and has already signed a collective agreement with the employer, no other primary-level organization shall be included in the register. The Committee recalls that, at present, primary-level organizations (unions created at the enterprise level by a higher level trade union organization in accordance with the by-laws of that organization) may be established without submitting a legal address or meeting a minimum membership requirement other than that stipulated in the higher level organization. The new approach being introduced is likely to have a serious impact not only on the existence of these primary-level organizations, but also on the ultimate existence of their corresponding republican-level organization, giving rise to a de facto monopoly of workers’ representation. The Committee therefore urges the Government to abandon this approach and to ensure that the new law on trade unions will fully and truly ensure freedom of association and the rights of all workers to form and join the organization of their own choosing, whether through the traditional primary-level organizations or enterprise level unions.

In addition, the Committee notes that the conceptual framework refers to the determination of representative capacity of trade unions which will further enable those unions to acquire additional rights in respect of collective bargaining, control over observance of labour legislation, social protection, housing relations, environmental protection, receiving and disseminating information, participation in decision-making and protection of labour rights, as well as facilities, including the free use of premises, equipment, means of transportation and communication necessary for their activities and transfer of buildings, etc., for the organization of leisure, cultural, educational and recreational activities. The Committee considers that the extent of such privileges to representative unions could unduly influence the choice of organization by workers and compromise the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing (see 1994 General Survey, paragraphs 98 and 104). The Committee further considers that the granting of such extensive privileges to representative unions combined with the uncertainty around the status that may be obtained by unions without legal personality could give rise to undue influence on the choice made by workers of the organization they wish to join. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that the privileges provided to representative trade unions do not give them an unfair advantage over other trade unions such as to render the right to form and join organizations of one’s own choosing meaningless.

The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the draft trade union law as soon as it has been finalized so that it may assess its conformity with the Convention.

Finally, the Committee recalls from the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association that no progress had been made in respect of the Commission’s recommendations to register the primary-level organizations that were the subject of the complaint. In its previous comments under Convention No. 98, the Committee had further noted from the 339th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association with concern that the spillover of non-registration of these primary organizations had led to the denial of registration of three regional organizations of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) (organizations in Mogilev, Baranovichi and Novopolotsk-Polotsk) and had impacted upon their collective bargaining rights. Now, the Committee must further note with concern that the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) had suffered additional refusals to register its primary-level organizations (see 341st Report, paragraph 49). The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will take all necessary measures for the immediate re-registration of these organizations both at the primary and the regional level so that these workers may exercise their right to form and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Law on Mass Activities (as well as Decree No. 11 if it had not yet been repealed), so as to bring it into line with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their activities. It further requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code and to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action, without penalty. Finally, the Committee urged the Government to provide full particulars on the steps taken, in accordance with the Commission’s recommendations, to declare publicly that acts of interference in internal trade union affairs are unacceptable and will be sanctioned and to issue instructions to the Prosecutor-General, the Minister of Justice and court administrators so that any complaints of external interference made by trade unions are thoroughly investigated.

The Committee notes with regret the Government’s indication that no amendment has been adopted in respect of the Law on Mass Activities. It further regrets that, rather than indicating the measures envisaged in this respect, the Government has called into question the relevance and clarity of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In this regard, the Committee must recall that it has been asking for the amendment of relevant provisions on mass activities since 2001. At that time, the Committee had asked the Government to amend Presidential Decree No. 11, a Decree that was superseded by the present Law on Mass Activities, in respect of the possibility of dissolution of a trade union in the event that an assembly, demonstration or picketing action resulted in the disruption of a public event, the temporary termination of an establishment’s activities or disruption of transport, given the extreme gravity of such measures and recalling that restrictions on pickets should be limited to cases where the picketing ceases to be peaceful. While noting the Government’s reiteration that the sanction of dissolution can only occur by court order and that it may be appealed, as well as the fact that this section has never been used to this end, the Committee must recall that the provisions of the Law on Mass Activities that allow for a decision for the dissolution of a trade union if the gathering, meeting, demonstration or picket causes important damage or substantial harm (defined to include temporal termination of activity of establishments or violation of transport traffic) is not in conformity with the right of workers to organize their activities and programmes free from interference by the public authorities. In addition, in its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern the Commission’s findings on the practical application of the Law on Mass Activities, in particular that the authorities routinely and unilaterally changed the venue requested for a demonstration to an obscure and unfrequented location, thus rendering meaningless any right to demonstrate. The Committee therefore once again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Law is amended, including by the deletion of any references to dissolution, so that restrictions on pickets are limited to cases where the action ceases to be peaceful or results in a serious disturbance of public order and that any sanctions imposed in such cases be proportionate to the gravity of the violation. The Committee also asks once again the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code and to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action, without penalty.

As regards the issuance of a public declaration clearly indicating that acts of interference in internal trade union affairs would not be tolerated and instructions to be given to the Prosecutor-General, the Minister of Justice and court administrators to thoroughly investigate complaints by trade unions, the Committee notes the Government’s references to the separation of powers and the existence of adequate legislation in this regard. The Government adds, however, that such issues are raised within the framework of the inter-departmental group established to coordinate the work on implementation of the recommendations, which includes the President of the Supreme Court and the Deputy General Prosecutor. Finally, the Government refers to specific planned activities, including a seminar for judiciary and prosecution employees aimed at acquainting them with ILO standards on freedom of association, to which the ILO is invited to participate. The Committee notes this information and expresses the firm hope that all measures will be taken to publicly condemn any acts of interference by the public authorities in the internal activities of trade unions and that full dissemination of information relating to the Commission of Inquiry recommendations and the provisions of the freedom of association Conventions will take place through all possible means, including seminars for the judiciary and prosecution employees with the participation of the ILO.

As regards its previous request to the Government not to interfere in the choice of union representatives on trade union bodies, the Committee firstly notes with regret from the 341st Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association that, rather than refraining from such interference, the Government took no steps to restrain a FPB initiative to establish a minimum membership requirement for the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) that resulted in eliminating the seat that had existed for the CDTU, and even voted for the proposed change to the Rules of the National Council in November 2005 (see 341st Report, paragraph 44). The Committee notes from the Government’s reports that measures had also been taken in the Rules to ensure that non-representative unions could participate in the discussions and receive documents, but considers that the situation created by the Rules gives rise to further reinforcing the monopoly voice of the FPB contrary to the considerations of the Commission of Inquiry that “significant steps be taken in the immediate future to permit trade unions that are outside the FPB structure to be able to form their organizations and exercise their activities freely” (see Trade Union Rights in Belarus: Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, paragraph 634). The Committee does note, however, from the latest information provided by the Government that the FPB put forward a proposal to offer one of its 11 seats to the CDTU and that, according to the Government this proposal was endorsed by the Government, and employer sides and formalized in a resolution of the NCLSI. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of this resolution with its next report.

Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee once again urged the Government to amend section 388 of the Labour Code, which prohibits strikers from receiving financial assistance from foreign persons, and Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid, so that workers’ and employers’ organizations may effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these restrictions are a matter of principle since the Government considers that strikes are used for political aims and that they are an extreme means of action, which are disruptive for workers and the economy in general. The Government adds that the receipt of such financial assistance from abroad places the other party in an unequal position and could be used as a means of unfair competition in a globalized economy. The Government adds that the provision in the Decree for dissolution of a trade union in case of violation has never been used and thus it cannot be claimed that the Decree hinders legal trade union activities. Finally, the Government states that it needs clarification as to the difficulties in application of the Convention arising from Decree No. 24.

In this respect, the Committee regrets that it is obliged to recall that it has been raising the problems of conformity of section 388 of the Labour Code and Decree No. 8 (superseded by similar provisions in Decree No. 24) since 2000 and 2001, respectively. While taking due note of the Government’s arguments that it fears that, allowing the use of financial assistance from abroad for industrial action would upset the balance of power and could be used for political aims, the Committee must recall that the right to strike is an intrinsic corollary of the right to organize protected by Convention No. 87 and, as regards the concerns raised over possible political aims, that organizations defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general (see 1994 General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 151 and 165). In addition, the Committee does not consider that the fact that the dissolution provision has not been used can lead to the conclusion that trade union activities have not been hindered, as the mere existence of this prohibition and its legal consequences are sufficient to hinder trade unions from using financial assistance in this manner. The Committee must therefore reiterate that restrictions on the use of foreign aid for legitimate trade union activities is contrary to the right of national workers’ and employers’ organizations to receive financial assistance from international workers’ and employers’ organizations in pursuit of these aims and once again request the Government to take the necessary measures to amend both Decree No. 24 and section 388 of the Labour Code so that workers’ organizations are not prohibited to use such aid to support industrial action or any other legitimate activity.

The Committee considers that the current situation in Belarus remains far from ensuring full respect for freedom of association and the application of the provisions of the Convention and is particularly concerned about the impact that the proposed law on trade unions may have on the possibility of trade union pluralism. Noting the indications made by the Government in its report that it would like to receive technical assistance from the Office, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will use such assistance so as to take the necessary steps for the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to ensure that any new legislation in the field of trade union rights is in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee further requests the Government to respond to the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 9 November 2006.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 96th Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards 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.

The Committee recalls that all of its outstanding comments have raised issues directly relating to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It further observes the conclusions of the Conference Committee wherein it deplored the fact that no real concrete and tangible measures had yet been taken by the Government to resolve the vital matters raised, including a number of recommendations that were to be implemented by 1 June 2005. The Committee further notes with regret that a mission, as recommended by the Conference Committee (to assist in the drafting of the legislative amendments requested by the Commission of Inquiry and to evaluate measures taken by the Government to implement fully its recommendations), has not yet taken place despite the urgency of the Commission’s recommendations and the long-passed deadline that had been set.

The Committee notes that the Government refers generally to an action plan it has put in place to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry while taking into account the realities in the country and its sovereign interests. The implementation of the Plan of Action would follow three orientations: improving national legislation and its application in practice with regard to the establishment and registration of trade unions and the exercise by trade unions of their activities in accordance with their statutes; improving mechanisms for safeguarding the rights of trade unions and preventing discrimination against workers on the grounds of union membership; development of tripartism and social dialogue. Nevertheless, the Committee notes with regret that, from the analysis below, no specific steps have been taken in implementation of the Commission’s recommendations.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 on some measures for the regulation of activities of political parties, trade unions and other public associations and its accompanying rules and regulations, as concerns the legal address requirement and the minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of workers at enterprise level for enterprise trade unions, and to disband the Republican Registration Commission, so as to bring the Decree and its application into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee notes with regret that, while the Government refers generally to continued work on improving legislation regarding the activities of trade unions and its determination to make amendments to the Trade Unions Act, as well as to steps taken to study international experience in this area, the Government has given no precise indication as to the steps taken to amend Decree No. 2 and its rules and regulations, or to the measures taken to disband the Republican Registration Commission. Given the very clear nature of these recommendations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to amend Decree No. 2, its rules and regulations, and disband the Republican Registration Commission without delay, so that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall be free to form and join the organization of their own choosing.

As to the concerns raised previously by the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) that draft amendments had been initiated by the Ministry of Justice to the Law on Trade Unions, which would substantially increase the requirements for trade union registration at various levels, the Government points out that the statements made by the trade unions have varied over time suggesting initially a threshold of 30,000 and referring more recently to 7,000. The Committee notes that the Government adds that these matters are still under examination by the Government, trade unions and employers’ organizations within the framework of the Council for the Improvement of Social and Labour Legislation and that no draft is yet official. Given the importance such changes might have on the possibilities of trade unions to function in Belarus, the Committee trusts that any changes contemplated in this regard will be the subject of full and meaningful consultation with all the social partners. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the draft amendments as soon as they are finalized.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Law on Mass Activities (as well as Decree No. 11 if it had not yet been repealed), so as to bring it into line with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their activities. It further requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code and to ensure that National Bank employees may have recourse to industrial action, without penalty. Finally, the Committee urged the Government to take steps immediately, in accordance with the Commission’s recommendations, to declare publicly that acts of interference in internal trade union affairs are unacceptable and will be sanctioned and to issue instructions to the Prosecutor-General, the Minister of Justice and court administrators so that any complaints of external interference made by trade unions are thoroughly investigated.

The Committee regrets that no amendment has been adopted in this regard. It urges the Government to take the necessary measures in this regard rapidly. It further notes with regret that no information has been provided as to the issuance of a public declaration clearly indicating that acts of interference in internal trade union affairs would not be tolerated, nor as to instructions given to the Prosecutor-General, the Minister of Justice and court administrators. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide full particulars in this regard in its next report.

In reply to the Commission’s recommendations to issue instructions to heads of enterprises not to interfere in internal trade union affairs, the Government refers to a special letter of instructions explaining the provisions of the current national legislation and international labour standards, prohibiting interference by employers and trade unions in each other’s affairs. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the letter issued, as well as a list of the enterprises that received the letter, with its next report.

Finally, the Committee notes from the Government’s report under Convention No. 144 that the CDTU has commented upon Government intervention in the determination of the representative of the union in a group of experts. The Committee recalls that Article 3 of the Convention provides that workers’ organizations shall organize their activities, free from Government interference, and this includes the basic right of determining the person to represent them on national tripartite bodies. The Committee requests the Government to refrain from any interference in the choice of union representatives on tripartite bodies and to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.

Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee once again urged the Government to amend section 388 of the Labour Code, which prohibits strikers from receiving financial assistance from foreign persons, and Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid so that workers’ and employers’ organizations may effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is planning to study the situation and to seek the best way of resolving the questions raised, in the light of further information on foreign practices in this respect. The Committee urges the Government to amend Decree No. 24 so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations may receive foreign gratuitous aid for legitimate trade union activity without interference by the public authorities.

*  *  *

In light of the above and with further reference to the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association in its examination of the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the Committee observes with deep regret that no substantial progress has been made towards improving the application of this Convention in law and in practice to all workers, without distinction whatsoever, and fears that the legislative proposals currently being considered by the Government may result in the elimination of any remnants of an independent trade union movement in Belarus. The Committee therefore expects that the Government will accept a mission from the Office in the near future with the aim of facilitating the implementation of all the measures recommended by the Commission of Inquiry so that significant progress can be noted in respect of the application of this Convention both in law and in practice.

[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.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee recalls that a Commission of Inquiry was established at the 288th Session of the Governing Body (November 2003) to examine a complaint presented under article 26 of the ILO Constitution alleging the failure of the Government of Belarus to observe the present Convention and Convention No. 98. The Committee notes that the Commission of Inquiry completed its work in July 2004, and that its report was submitted to the Governing Body of the International Labour Office at its 291st Session (November 2004).

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 referred 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 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.

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) on the application of the Convention in their communications dated 24 September 2003 and 27 August 2004, respectively, and requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee recalls that it has been making comments on the observance of the Convention over recent years on many of the same points examined by the Commission of Inquiry. It notes that the Commission has confirmed and expanded upon the concerns this Committee has been raising, as well as the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, as to the application of this fundamental Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 on some measures for the regulation of activities of political parties, trade unions and other public associations and its accompanying rules and regulations, particularly as concerns the legal address requirement and the minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of workers at enterprise level in order to constitute enterprise trade unions.

The Committee notes in this respect that the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry confirm the Committee’s previous understanding that these requirements, as applied, amount to a condition of previous authorization for the formation of unions contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. It especially notes with concern the Commission’s findings that these requirements have impacted uniquely on those unions that are outside the structures of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) or oppose its leadership, thus giving rise to apprehensions that they are being applied intentionally to suppress certain trade unions. Finally, it notes the Commission’s conclusions in respect of the Republican Registration Commission through which all decisions on registration appear to be made and its recommendation that, in the interests of transparency in decision-making and so as to ensure that registration is conducted as an administrative formality and not granted using arbitrary discretionary authority, the Republican Registration Commission should be disbanded.

The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to amend the relevant provisions of Presidential Decree No. 2 and its rules and regulations so as to eliminate any further obstacles that might be caused either by the legal address requirement or by the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement at enterprise level and to disband the Republican Registration Commission, so as to bring the Decree and its application into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee further notes with deep concern the comments made by the CDTU in which it transmits information concerning draft amendments to the Law on Trade Unions, initiated by the Ministry of Justice. According to the CDTU these amendments, if adopted, would substantially increase the requirements for trade union registration at various levels. The criterion for a Republican level trade union would be increased from 500 to 30,000. The concept of territorial trade unions would also be introduced with a minimum membership requirement of 5,000.

The Committee recalls in this respect that the Commission of Inquiry had observed with concern indications made by the Government that it was reconsidering the representative nature of unions such as the CDTU on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues. The Commission considered that restricting social dialogue to one trade union federation, whose independence had been called into question on the basis of its findings, would not only have the effect of further anchoring a de facto state-controlled trade union monopoly, but would also infringe upon the right of workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing, provided in Article 2.

The Committee must express its deepest concern at the fact that the Government appears to be considering changes to the legislation that would ensure that there were no meaningful possibilities for trade union pluralism in the country. Indeed, as the result of these proposals would be to guarantee that the only social partner representing workers in the national consultative bodies would be the FPB, whose independence was called into question by the Commission of Inquiry, the Committee considers that these proposals infringe upon the right of workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing by treating one federation with such favouritism and placing it at such an advantage as to influence unduly the workers’ choice of organization. The Committee therefore urges the Government to retract the proposals referred to by the CDTU and to indicate the progress made in this regard.

Article 3. The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the need to amend the legislation as concerns certain restrictions relevant to industrial action, in particular sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code, Presidential Decree No. 11 on several measures taken to improve the procedure for holding assemblies, rallies, street marches, demonstrations and other mass events and picketing actions, and the Fundamental Principles of Employment in the Public Service of 1993.

The Committee notes from the findings of the Commission of Inquiry that the Law on Mass Activities has for all intents and purposes replaced Presidential Decree No. 11. This Law maintains the restrictions on mass activities that were laid down in the Decree and further permits for dissolution of an organization for a single breach of its provisions, while organizers may be charged with a violation of the Administrative Code and thus subject to administrative detention. It further notes the Commission’s findings on the practical application of the Law on Mass Activities, in particular that the authorities routinely and unilaterally change the venue requested for a demonstration to an obscure and unfrequented location. In this respect, the Committee notes the findings of the Commission on the administrative detention of Mr. Bukhvostov, the then chairperson of the Belarus Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers’ Union (AAMWU), who was immediately arrested when, despite the authorities refusal to grant permission to his request to demonstrate in a prominent public square and their unilateral changing of the venue to a square far from the centre of town, he carried out a one-man protest in the prominent public square. It notes with particular concern the Commission’s finding that the application of the Law gave rise to a serious breach of Mr. Bukhvostov’s civil liberties.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Law on Mass Activities (as well as Decree No. 11 if it has not yet been repealed), so as to bring it into line with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their activities. With reference to its previous comments, it further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend sections 388, 390, 392 and 399 of the Labour Code and to ensure that National Bank employees, presently covered by the Fundamental Principles of Employment in the Public Service of 1993, may have recourse to industrial action, without penalty.

More generally, as regards its previous comments concerning Government interference in internal trade union affairs, the Committee notes with deep concern the Commission’s conclusions that:

The failure of the Government to provide a clear denial that instructions were issued by the Presidential Administration in 2000 to interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions, the fact that instructions were issued in 2001 and that, in March 2003, the President of the Republic gave the Minister of Industry two months to deal with Mr. Fedynich and Mr. Bukhvostov, the involvement of the Ministry of Industry and enterprise managers and the subsequent creation of the BIWU, and the involvement by the Chairperson of the State Aviation Committee in the decline and deregistration of the BTUATC, taken in conjunction with the changed affiliation of primary level organizations previously affiliated to the REWU or the AAMWU together with the actions taken against Mr. Fedynich and Mr. Bukhvostov give rise to the inescapable conclusion that the trade union movement has been and continues to be the subject of significant interference on the part of government authorities. That conclusion is reinforced by the failure of the Government to investigate the serious allegations made by the complainants or to take steps to guarantee the basic rights of freedom and independence of trade unions as repeatedly requested by the supervisory bodies of the ILO. The Commission concludes that this interference has resulted in undermining one of the most essential prerequisites of freedom of association: trade union independence. (See Trade Union Rights in Belarus, Report of the Commission of Inquiry, July 2004, paragraph 614.)

In the light of these conclusions, the Committee urges the Government to take steps immediately, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission, to declare publicly that such acts of interference are unacceptable and will be sanctioned and to issue instructions to the Prosecutor-General, the Minister of Justice and court administrators so that any complaints of external interference made by trade unions are thoroughly investigated. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken in this regard.

Articles 5 and 6. The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the need to amend section 388 of the Labour Code and Presidential Decree No. 8 of March 2001 regarding certain measures aimed at improving the arrangement for receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid to bring them into conformity with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee notes from the findings of the Commission of Inquiry that Presidential Decree No. 24 on the receipt and use of free foreign aid has replaced Decree No. 8, but that it retains the previous restrictions placed on the use of foreign gratuitous aid by organizations, including workers’ and employers’ organizations. In its conclusions, the Commission stated that legislation which prohibits the acceptance by a national trade union or employers’ organization of financial assistance from an international workers’ or employers’ organization, unless approved by the Government, and provides for the banning of any organization where there is evidence that it has received such assistance, is not in conformity with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to benefit from the relations that may be established with an international workers’ or employers’ organization.

The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to amend section 388 of the Labour Code, which prohibits strikers from receiving financial assistance from foreign persons, and Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid so that workers’ and employers’ organizations may effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers.

In light of the above and of the information obtained from the Commission of Inquiry report, the Committee considers that all of these matters taken together demonstrate that there exist, both in law and in practice, serious discrepancies with the provisions of the Convention such that the survival of any form of an independent trade union movement in Belarus is truly at risk. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take all necessary measures in the nearest future so that workers may freely form and join organizations of their own choosing and so that these organizations may exercise their activities without government interference.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Further to its previous comments concerning the observance of the Convention by Belarus, the Committee has taken note of the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards and the decision to place its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report for continued failure to implement the Convention. The Committee further notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2090 (330th, 331st and 332nd Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 286th, 287th and 288th Sessions in March, June and November 2003).

While taking due note of the Government’s latest report in reply to its previous comments, the Committee observes the decision taken by the Governing Body at its 288th Session to constitute a commission of inquiry into the non-observance by Belarus of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. In these circumstances, and in accordance with usual practice which suspends the functioning of the supervisory machinery during the period of operation of a commission of inquiry, the Committee will renew its supervision of the application of the Convention in Belarus once the commission has concluded its work.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2090 (329th Report approved by the Governing Body at its 285th Session in November 2002). It further notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention and requests the Government to provide its comments thereto.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government on the number of registered trade unions since the publication of Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999 and of the Government’s statement that all the trade unions have undergone registration, with only isolated cases of organizational units of trade unions not being registered. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that it considers that the issue of registration should be further examined and that the National Council has adopted the decision to establish a tripartite group of experts on the application of ILO standards which envisages examining the recommendations of the Committee of Experts during one of its first meetings. In this respect, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken to address the previous concerns of the Committee, in particular, as concerns the application of Article 2 of the Convention, those regarding: the matter of legal address, the need to amend section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 2 concerning the banning of activities of non-registered associations and to repeal the minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of workers at enterprise level. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all the measures taken or envisaged in order to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee takes note that the collective labour relations of employees of governing councils, who are excluded from the Labour Code by virtue of section 6, are regulated by sections 861-869 of the Civil Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the members of the advisory boards and other supervisory bodies of the organizations do not act as workers and that a "worker" means a person who is in an employment relationship with an employer on the basis of a concluded labour agreement of employment. The Committee recalls however that section 6 refers to "employees" of advisory councils and not "members". It therefore requests that the Government indicate how the right to organize is guaranteed for this category of employees.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee recalls that its previous comments focused on the need to amend the legislation on the right to strike. In particular, the Committee commented on the following Labour Code provisions:

-           sections 388 and 399, permitting legislative limitations on the right to strike in the interest of rights and freedom of other persons, which could be used in a manner so as to restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to strike;

-           section 390, providing for the requirement of the notification of strike duration;

-           section 392, providing for the obligation to provide minimum services during the period of the strike.

The Committee once again requests that the Government amend these provisions so as to ensure the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government concerning Presidential Decree No. 11 of 7 May 2001. The Government states that there were no cases of dissolution of trade unions for the violation of the procedure for holding mass events. The Committee notes, nevertheless, that paragraph 1.5 of the Decree permits the dissolution of a trade union in the event that an assembly, demonstration or picketing action results in the disruption of a public event, the temporary termination of an organization’s activities or disruption of transport. The Committee once again recalls that the dissolution of a trade union is an extreme measure and recourse to such action on the basis of a picket action resulting in the disruption of a public event, the temporary termination of an organization’s activities or disruption of transport is not in conformity with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 174 of its 1994 General Survey wherein it considered that restrictions on pickets should be limited to cases where the picketing ceases to be peaceful. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that this provision of the Decree is modified so that restrictions on pickets, assemblies and demonstrations are limited to cases where the action ceases to be peaceful or results in a serious disturbance of public order and that any sanctions imposed in such cases be proportionate to the gravity of the violation.

The Committee further notes with concern from the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Case No. 2090, that there has been interference by the public authorities in recent trade union elections. The Committee recalls that workers’ organizations have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. The Committee requests that the Government indicate any measures taken or envisaged, including the adoption of explicit legislative provisions prohibiting and sanctioning any such interference, aimed at ensuring the full application of Article 3 both in law and in practice.

The Committee notes that public servants, as defined under section 8 of the Act on the Fundamental Principles of Employment in the Public Service of 23 November 1993, include those working in the National Bank and therefore, by virtue of section 12, this category of employees does not enjoy the right to strike. The Committee considers that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 158) and therefore requests the Government to take necessary measures to ensure that employees of the National Bank may have recourse to strike action, without penalty. It requests that the Government keep it informed of any measures taken in this respect.

Articles 5 and 6. In its previous comments the Committee recalled the need to amend section 388 of the Labour Code, which prohibits strikers from receiving financial assistance from foreign persons and Presidential Decree No. 8 of March 2001 regarding certain measures aimed at improving the arrangement for receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid, in particular, its paragraphs 4(3) and 5.1. The Committee notes an indication in the Government’s report that there were no cases of denying registration for foreign gratuitous assistance and that seven applications from trade unions to receive foreign funds had been approved. The Committee recalls that the mentioned paragraphs of the Decree provide that foreign gratuitous aid, in any form, cannot be used towards the preparation and carrying out of public meetings, rallies, street processions, demonstrations, pickets, strikes, designing and disseminating campaign material, as well as running seminars and other forms of mass campaign of the population and that violation of this requirement by trade unions and other public associations can result in the termination of their activities. The provision of such aid by representative bodies of foreign organizations and international non-governmental organizations on the territory of Belarus can result in the termination of the activities of such bodies. The commentary to the Decree emphasizes that "even a single violation can bring about the elimination of a public association, fund or other non-profit organization". Considering that these provisions of the Decree are incompatible with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the Committee once again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to amend both the Decree and section 388 of the Labour Code so that national workers’ and employers’ organizations may receive assistance, even financial, from international workers’ and employers’ organizations in pursuit of their legitimate aims. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any measure taken in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous direct request that, with the exception of the right to strike, public service employees enjoy the right to form trade unions and that the Labour Code applies to this category of workers. The Committee notes that public servants as defined under section 8 of the Act on the Fundamental Principles of Employment in the Public Service of 23 November 1993 include those working in the National Bank and therefore, by virtue of section 12, this category of employees does not enjoy the right to strike. The Committee considers that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 158) and therefore requests the Government to take necessary measures to ensure that employees of the National Bank may have recourse to strike action, without penalty.

The Committee takes note that collective labour relations of employees of governing councils who are excluded from the Labour Code by virtue of section 6 are regulated by sections 861-869 of the Civil Code. It requests the Government to indicate how the right to organize is guaranteed for this category of employees.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Government’s report. It also notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2090 (324th, 325th and 326th Reports, approved by the Governing Body at its 280th, 281st and 282nd Sessions in March, May and November 2001, respectively).

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government concerning Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999 regarding measures regulating the activity of political parties, trade unions and other social associations. The Government states that provisions concerning the banning of activities and the liquidation of trade unions have never been used since all trade unions have been registered and that particular instances of non-registration have only occurred at the subordinate level of trade union organizations’ structures. Furthermore, according to the Government, liquidation can only take place after a court decision, which can be appealed. The Committee notes, however, that under section 3 of the Decree, the activities of non-registered trade union organizations are banned. The Committee therefore requests once again that the Government amend the Decree so that section 3, concerning the banning of activities of non-registered associations, does not apply to trade unions at any level of the union’s organizational structures.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that it recognizes that the main reason for the refusal to register the abovementioned trade union organizations arose from the matter of legal address. It, therefore, has drafted amendments to Presidential Decree No. 2 abolishing the registration requirement now applied to trade union organizations that are not legal persons that the existence of a legal address must be confirmed and significantly widening opportunities for trade union organizations that are legal persons. As concerns the minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of workers at enterprise level, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in accordance with drafted amendments, it proposes to revoke this requirement. The Committee requests that the Government provide the copy of the draft amendments and that it keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled that the right of trade unions to organize their activities implies the recognition of the right to strike and that this right may only be limited, or even prohibited, in cases of acute national crises, or for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee noted, however, that sections 388 and 393 of the Labour Code permit legislative limitations on the right to strike in the interest of rights and freedom of other persons, which could be used in a manner so as to restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to strike. The Committee once again requests that the Government amend these provisions so as to repeal the reference to rights and freedom of other persons to ensure that workers fully enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee also requests that the Government keep it informed of any practical application of these sections.

Regarding the requirement of the notification of strike duration under section 390 of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that this requirement is imposed in order to establish necessary minimum services. The Committee nevertheless considers that a requirement that the duration of a strike be announced when giving notice is contrary to the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes in full freedom. The right to strike is, by definition, a means of economic pressure available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and defence of their economic and social interests. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to repeal this notification requirement.

The Committee also notes the Government’s reply concerning the obligation to provide minimum services during the period of the strike under section 392 of the Labour Code to the effect that the legislation does not provide a list of essential services, and that, as a result, the necessary minimum services are negotiated or defined in collective agreements. Moreover, according to the Government, the level of the necessary minimum service depends on the importance of the enterprise in question, ranging from the minimum to the maximum in cases when the enterprise is ensuring a service considered essential. The Committee recalls that minimum services should only be imposed in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the disputes, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, in services which are of public utility. The Committee emphasizes that the notion of minimum services should be limited to such cases and should not be applied so as to require such a service in all undertakings. The Committee considers that, in cases where minimum services are negotiated, such a service must be genuinely and exclusively a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear by the strike action (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 160 and 161).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the possibility of establishing a body empowered to take a final decision in cases where the parties disagree about the minimum service to be provided would be examined. The Committee would point out in this respect that such a role could be filled by already existing bodies such as the labour court or independent arbitration. The Committee once again requests that the Government amend the Labour Code so as to ensure that the final determination concerning minimum services be made, in the event of disagreement between the parties, by an independent body and to further ensure that minimum services are not required in all undertakings but only in the situations outlined above or to ensure the safe operation of necessary facilities.

Furthermore, the Committee notes Presidential Decree No. 11 of 7 May 2001 on several measures to improve the procedures for holding assemblies, rallies, street marches and other mass events and picketing actions. The Committee notes that paragraph 1.5 of the Decree permits the dissolution of a trade union in the event that an assembly, demonstration or picketing action results in the disruption of a public event, the temporary termination of an organization’s activities or disruption of transport, loss of life, or serious bodily harm to one or more persons. The Committee considers that the dissolution of a trade union is an extreme measure and recourse to such action on the basis of a picket action resulting in the disruption of a public event, the temporary termination of an organization’s activities or disruption of transport is not in conformity with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 174 of its 1994 General Survey wherein it considered that restrictions on pickets should be limited to cases where the picketing ceases to be peaceful. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that this provision of the Decree is modified so that restrictions on pickets are limited to cases where the action ceases to be peaceful or result in a serious disturbance of public order and that any sanctions imposed in such cases be proportionate to the gravity of the violation.

Articles 5 and 6. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not reply to its previous comment concerning section 388 of the Labour Code that prohibits strikers from receiving financial assistance from foreign persons. The Committee further notes Presidential Decree No. 8 of 12 March 2001 regarding certain measures aimed at improving the arrangement of receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid. In particular, it notes paragraph 4(3) of the Decree which provides that foreign gratuitous aid, in any form, cannot be used towards the preparation and carrying out of public meetings, rallies, street processions, demonstrations, pickets, strikes, designing and disseminating campaign material, as well as running seminars and other forms of mass campaign of the population. Paragraph 5.1 provides that violation of this requirement by trade unions and other public associations can result in the termination of their activities and the provision of such aid by representative bodies of foreign organizations and international non-governmental organizations on the territory of Belarus can result in the termination of the activities of such bodies.  The commentary to the Decree emphasizes that "even a single violation can bring about the elimination of a public association, fund or other non-profit organization". The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 197 of its 1994 General Survey wherein it considered that legislation which prohibits trade unions from receiving financial aid or subsidies from foreign organizations poses serious difficulties in light of the right of organizations to affiliate with international organizations and receive the assistance and benefits which come from such affiliation. The Committee considers that the aspects of the Decree which prohibit trade unions, and employers’ organizations, from using foreign aid, financial or otherwise, from international organizations of workers or employers are incompatible with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend both the Decree and section 388 of the Labour Code so that national workers’ and employers’ organizations may receive assistance, even financial, from international workers’ and employers’ organizations in pursuit of their legitimate aims.

In addition, the Committee is addressing a request regarding certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

Article 3.  The right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom.  With reference to its observation, the Committee notes that section 5 of the Labour Code of January 2000 provides that it applies to public service employees in cases and within limits fixed in special laws and regulations determining their legal status. It requests the Government to provide any relevant legislative texts in this regard and to indicate the extent to which the provisions of Part IV of the Code concerning general rules of regulation of collective labour relations applies to public service employees. It further requests the Government to specify the legislation which regulates the collective labour relations of employees of governing councils who are excluded from the code by virtue of section 6.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It also notes the following legislative texts: the Law on Trade Unions of 14 January 2000; the Labour Code of 1 January 2000; and Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999 and its corresponding Regulations and Rules. The Committee wishes to raise the following points in respect of these texts.

Article 2 of the Convention. (a)  Right of workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee takes note of Presidential Decree No. 2 on some measures on regulation of activity of political parties, trade unions and other social associations which has required all previously registered trade unions at national, branch and enterprise level to re‑register. The Committee first notes that section 3 of the Decree provides that the "activity of non‑registered associations and of associations that have not been registered shall be banned in territory of the Republic" and that "associations that have not been re‑registered shall terminate their activity and shall be liquidated according to the established procedure". The Committee further understands that legal personality is dependent upon registration under the Decree. In this respect, the Committee would first recall that national regulations governing the constitution of organizations are not in themselves incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, however, they must not be equivalent to a requirement for "previous authorization", nor must they constitute such an obstacle that they amount in practice to a prohibition.

Section 3 of the Decree sets forth minimum membership requirements at the national, branch and enterprise level; for the latter, an organization must have at least 10 per cent of the workers at the enterprise as members in order to be registered. The Committee would recall that while a minimum membership requirement is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered. What constitutes a reasonable number may vary according to the particular conditions in which a restriction is imposed (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 81). The Committee further understands that the notion of legal address necessary for registration under the corresponding Regulations and Rules has given rise to numerous denials of registration. In this respect, the Committee has considered that problems of compatibility with the Convention also arise where the registration procedure is long and complicated or when registration regulations are applied in a manner inconsistent with their purpose and the competent administrative authorities make excessive use of their discretionary powers and are encouraged to do so by the vagueness of the relevant legislation (see 1994 General Survey, paragraphs 68, 69 and 75).

In the light of the above, and given in particular the serious consequences under Decree No. 2 for non‑registration (banning of activities and liquidation), the Committee requests the Government to consider amending the Decree so as to exclude trade unions from the scope of its application and, if necessary, to institute a more simplified registration process. In the alternative, it requests the Government to amend the Decree so that the last two subsections of section 3 concerning the banning of activities of non-registered associations and their liquidation do not apply to trade unions, to amend the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement at the enterprise level so as to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed, particularly in large enterprises, and to give the necessary instructions to ensure that the notion of legal address is not construed restrictively so that the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing is not hindered.

(b)  Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations.  The Committee notes that the 1992 Trade Union Act, as amended on 14 January 2000, maintains the reference to "citizen" in sections 1 and 2 concerning the right to join trade unions of their own choosing. Furthermore, in the definitions section of the Labour Code of January 2000, "trade unions" are defined as a voluntary public organization that unites "citizens". In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled that the right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations implied that any worker residing in the territory of a given State should enjoy the right to organize as provided for in Article 2 of the Convention. While having noted the Government’s indication that the Constitution provided this right to all persons residing and working in the territory, the Committee had requested the Government to envisage taking measures to amend the Trade Union Act in order to harmonize it with the Constitution and other national legislation and so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that this amendment was not made in January when other amendments were made to the Trade Union Act and that section 1 of the new Labour Code also maintains this notion of citizenship rights in its definition of trade union. It once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend sections 1 and 2 of the Act, as well as the definition section 1 of the Labour Code, so that the right to organize is clearly not limited to nationals.

Article 3. (a)  Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom.  In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to amend Order No. 158 of 28 March 1995, which established a list of essential services in which strikes were prohibited that went beyond the notion of essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee now notes with satisfaction that, with the entry into force in January 2000 of the new Labour Code, Order No. 158 has been effectively repealed.

The Committee notes, however, that section 388 of the Labour Code permits legislative limitations on the right to strike in the interests of national security, public order, health of the population, and rights and freedom of other persons. Furthermore, section 393 permits the President to postpone, or to stop, the strike for up to three months in the same abovementioned cases; yet section 388 provides that a strike may be carried out not later than three months from the date upon which it has been declared. The Committee would first recall the right of unions to organize their activities (Article 3 of the Convention) implies the recognition of the right to strike and that this right may only be limited, or even prohibited, in cases of acute national crisis, or for public servants exercising authority in the name of the state or essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and requests the Government to confirm its understanding that sections 388 and 393 would only be used in such cases. As concerns the presidential power to postpone a strike for up to three months, potentially rendering illegal any strike action due to the limitation on the time period for exercising the strike once it has been declared, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so that the powers under section 393 would not effectively render impossible the exercise of legitimate industrial action.

As concerns the requirements for strike notification under section 390 of the Labour Code, the Committee notes that these include a statement of the duration of the strike. The Committee considers that a requirement that the duration of a strike be announced when giving strike notice is contrary to the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes in full freedom. The right to strike is, by definition, a means of pressure available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and defence of their economic and social interests. The Committee therefore requests the Government to repeal the obligation to notify the duration of a strike when giving strike notice.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that strike notification must include proposals on minimum services to be carried out during the period of the strike and that the provision of such services is an obligation under section 392. The Committee would draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 160 of its 1994 General Survey where it has considered that, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility. The Committee considers however that the notion of minimum service should be limited to such cases and not used excessively to require such a service in all undertakings, regardless of the limited impact the industrial action might have on third parties. Moreover, the Committee notes that, where the parties fail to agree on the extent of such a minimum service, the final determination will be made by the local executive and administrative body. In cases of disagreement concerning minimum services, however, the Committee considers that it is preferable for such disagreements to be resolved by an independent body. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend the Labour Code so as to ensure that the final determination concerning the minimum service to be provided in the event of disagreement between the parties be made by an independent body and to further ensure that minimum services are not required in all undertakings but only in the situations outlined above or to ensure the safe operation of necessary facilities.

(b)  Right to elect their representatives in full freedom.  The Committee takes note of the instructions dated 11 February 2000 issued by the head of the presidential administration which calls upon the ministers and chairs of government committees to interfere in the elections of branch trade unions. It recalls that the autonomy of organizations can be effectively guaranteed only if their members have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom (Article 3 of the Convention). The public authorities should therefore refrain from any interference which might restrict the exercise of this right, whether as regards the holding of trade union elections, conditions of eligibility or the re-election or removal of representatives (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 112). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that such interference may not occur, including through the revocation of the relevant instructions.

Article 5.  The Committee notes that section 388 prohibits financial assistance from foreign legal persons to strike participants. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 197 of its 1994 General Survey wherein it considers that legislation which prohibits trade unions from receiving financial aid or subsidies from foreign organizations poses serious difficulties in respect of the right of organizations to affiliate with international organizations and receive the assistance and benefits which come from such affiliation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this section so that national workers’ organizations may receive assistance, even financial, from international workers’ organizations, even when its purpose is to assist in the exercise of freely chosen industrial action.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

With reference to its observation, the Committee notes the latest proposed amendments to the 1994 Act respecting the procedures for the settlement of collective labour disputes.

In its previous comments based on an earlier version of proposed amendments to the Act respecting the procedures for the settlement of collective labour disputes of 1994, the Committee, noting the restrictions which could be placed on strikes in the event of a threat against "national security", recalled that strikes should only be restricted: (1) in cases of acute national crisis; (2) in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of whole or part of the population; and (3) with respect to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes from the latest proposed amendments that section 11 generally provides that restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike may be imposed by legislation if this is in the interests of national security, public order, public health, or the rights and freedoms of third parties. Proposed section 17 grants the President of the Republic the right to postpone or suspend strike action in the event that there is a genuine threat to national security, public order, or to the life, health, rights and freedoms of the population until such time as the dispute is settled by the appropriate court but not for longer than three months. The proposed section 20 empowers the courts to deem a strike to be unlawful when it is in violation of the Act and, in particular, where there is a genuine threat to national security, the vital interests of society, public order, or to the safety, health rights and freedoms of third parties. If the term "national security" is retained in these sections, the Committee trusts that it will be narrowly interpreted so as to fall within one of the three above-noted situations in which strikes may be restricted.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the proposed section 10 (paragraph 2) and 10A (paragraph 5) would appear to provide for compulsory arbitration in cases of disputes, inter alia, which arise in associations under the direct authority of the Belarus Government and which relate to the establishment, modification or termination of agreements at republic and sector levels. Recalling that restrictions on the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, the Committee trusts that "associations under the direct authority of the Government" and "agreements at the republic and sector levels" are limited to this restricted category of public servants and requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether this is indeed the case.

As concerns negotiated minimum services, the Committee recalled in its previous comments that such services should be limited to the operations which were strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear by any strike action. Noting that the proposed section 15 provides generally for the establishment of and respect for the maintenance of minimum services without restricting in any way the types of enterprises in which they might be necessary, the Committee would once again draw the Government's attention to paragraph 161 of its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining wherein it indicates that such services must be genuinely and exclusively minimum. It therefore trusts that section 15, once amended, will be interpreted in accordance with the above-noted principle concerning negotiated minimum services.

The Committee notes that proposed section 30 provides for the possible imposition of disciplinary sanctions, and other sanctions provided for under the national legislation, in the event of participation in a strike subsequent to a court determination that such a strike is unlawful. In the event that penal sanctions may be imposed in this regard, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to paragraphs 177 and 178 of its 1994 General Survey in which it indicates that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and that civil or penal sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations.

1992 Trade Union Act

In an earlier comment, the Committee had noted that under section 2, paragraph 1, of the 1992 Trade Union Act "citizens" had the right to establish trade unions. It recalled that the right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations implied that any worker or employer residing in the territory of a given State should enjoy the right to organize as provided for in the Convention. While the Government has stated that the Constitution and the Act of 3 June 1993 on the legal rights of foreign citizens and stateless persons provides that such persons shall enjoy the same rights as citizens of Belarus and, in particular, the right to join civil and social associations, the Committee is still bound to note that the restrictive term "citizen" remains in the Trade Union Act. The Committee would therefore request the Government to indicate the measures envisaged to amend the Trade Union Act in order to harmonize it with the national legislation and so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention in this respect.

Draft Labour Code

Noting from the Government's report that the draft Labour Code is presently before the Parliament, the Committee requests the Goverment to transmit a copy of the new Labour Code once it has been adopted.

Penal Code

The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the Penal Code actually in force.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's latest reports and the examination by the Committee on Freedom of Association of Case No. 1849 (311th Report, November 1998).

1. Right of workers' organizations not to be suspended by administrative authority. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the suspension by administrative decision (Presidential Decree No. 336) of the Free Trade Unions of Belarus (FTUB) following a strike in the transport sector and expressed the firm hope that the necessary measures would be taken to revoke this Decree so as to enable the Free Trade Unions of Belarus to carry out their trade union activities once again.

Referring to its previous comments, the Committee now notes with satisfaction from the Government's report that paragraph 1 of the Presidential Decree which suspended the operation of the FTUB was repealed by Presidential Decree No. 657 of 29 December 1997. It further notes with interest that the FTUB has been registered and is functioning and that a representative of the Democratic Trade Union of Transport Workers has been appointed to the National Labour and Social Council.

2. Right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to amend Order No. 158 of 28 March 1995, which established a list of essential services in which strikes were prohibited, in order to ensure that workers' organizations in the transport sector unequivocally enjoyed the right to strike for the defence of their economic, social and occupational interests. The Committee notes with interest from the Government's latest reports that the Bill to amend and supplement the Act respecting the procedure for the settlement of collective labour disputes would repeal section 16 of the Act which established a list of sectors, organizations and enterprises where strike action was prohibited and upon which Order No. 158 was based.

The Committee now understands that this Bill has been passed by Parliament and will become law as soon as it has been signed by the President. It expresses the firm hope that this amending Act will enter into force shortly and that it will ensure full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in this regard and to transmit a copy of the final version of the Bill which was passed by Parliament.

3. Right of workers and employers to establish organizations without previous authorization; 1994 Act on Social Associations. The Committee notes that the Government's report refers on numerous occasions to the Law on Social Associations and its impact on the application of the Convention. Indeed, the Committee further notes that section 3 of the 1992 Trade Union Act provides that the constitutions and by-laws of trade unions shall be registered in the manner established by the Acts governing social organizations. However, it would appear from section 1, paragraph 2 of the Act on Social Associations that trade unions are not covered by its scope. Given that this contradiction in law could easily give rise to difficulties in respect of the applicable rules for trade union registration, the Committee would request the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to eliminate this contradiction so as to ensure that workers' and employers' organizations are established, subject only to the rules of the regulations concerned, without previous authorization.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

With reference to its observation, the Committee notes that the draft amendments to the Act on the settlement of labour disputes would appear to replace section 16 of the Act which concerns the prohibition of strikes with a section calling for the maintenance of a necessary minimum service in enterprises, institutions and organizations where the interruption of certain work would endanger the safety and health of the population or the vital interests of society. The draft further provides that the necessary minimum service shall be determined by agreement between the parties, together with the local executive body. The Committee welcomes this proposal and trusts that, when determining the necessary minimum service, measures will be taken to ensure that it is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 161).

The Committee also notes that, while section 20 of the Act provides generally for the determination of an illegal strike to be made by the court, the amendment proposes that the President of the Republic shall take a decision on a dispute with respect to a strike declared illegal because it constitutes a real threat to national security and the health of other persons. Firstly, the Committee recalls that it has considered that strikes may be restricted only in cases of acute national crisis, in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and with respect to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. It therefore trusts that, if the term "national security" is retained in the amendments, it will be restrictively interpreted in accordance with the above-noted situations where strike may be restricted.

The Committee would also point out that, responsibility for declaring a strike illegal should not lie with the government, but with an independent body which has the confidence of the parties involved. It trusts, therefore, that the final determination of strikes which threaten "national security and the health of the population" will lie with the courts. Moreover, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraph 164 of its 1994 General Survey wherein it indicates that workers who are restricted or prohibited from strike action should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of a deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned. The Committee therefore considers that independent and impartial machinery for resolving disputes should be established, including final and binding arbitration awards when all else has failed, in cases where strike action has been restricted under section 20.

As concerns the draft Labour Code, the Committee notes that the list of enterprises and branches where strikes are prohibited shall be defined by the Council of Ministers. The Committee recalls that restrictions of the right to strike should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, to essential services in the strict sense of the term and to cases of acute national crisis. The Committee therefore trusts that any future list adopted in this regard will be limited to these situations or categories of workers. The Committee would also recall that workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned.

As concerns the requirement in the draft Labour Code that there be a quorum of over 50 per cent of workers for a strike ballot and that a two-thirds majority must vote for the strike in order for the strike to be legal, the Committee recalls that the quorum and majority required for a strike ballot should not be such that the exercise of the right to strike becomes very difficult or even impossible in practice. Any such legislative requirements should therefore ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast and the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level (see the 1994 General Survey, paragraph 170).

The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the Labour Code as soon as it is adopted and trusts that, in its final version, it will take full account of the above-noted principles.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 1997, and the discussion which took place therein. It further notes with interest that an ILO advisory mission took place in October 1997. The Committee also takes note of the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1885 (see 306th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association approved by the Governing Body at its 268th Session (March 1997)) and the follow-up examination of Case No. 1849 (308th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 270th Session in November 1997).

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments the Committee urged the Government to amend Order No. 158 of 28 March 1995 which establishes a list of essential services in which strikes are prohibited, in order to ensure that workers' organizations in the transport sector unequivocally enjoy the right to strike for the defence of their economic, social and occupational interests. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest that, subsequent to the ILO mission, a draft Act to amend and supplement the Act respecting the procedure for the settlement of collective labour disputes has been prepared. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning these draft amendments, as well as the draft Labour Code.

The Committee trusts that the proposed amendments to the Act on the settlement of labour disputes will be adopted in the near future and that it will ensure full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

Article 4. In its previous comments the Committee noted the suspension by administrative decision (Presidential Decree No. 336) of the Free Trade Unions of Belarus following a strike in the transport sector. The Committee notes with regret that, despite a Constitutional Court judgement which concluded that the pertinent sections of Decree No. 336 were unconstitutional, a subsequent Presidential Order (No. 259 of 29 December 1995) was issued ordering the implementation of this decree. The Committee must once again stress that, under Article 4 of the Convention, workers' and employers' organizations shall not be liable to dissolution or suspension by administrative authority. It therefore expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to abrogate Decree No. 336 so as to enable the Free Trade Unions of Belarus to carry out their trade union activities once again.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report.

The Committee notes with concern the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1849 relating to serious complaints of violations of freedom of association in law and in practice (see 302nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association approved by the Governing Body at its Session of March 1996).

The Committee notes in particular that these complaints concern the suspension by administrative decision of trade unions following a transport strike. The Committee stresses that under Article 4 of the Convention, workers' and employers' organizations may not be dissolved or suspended by administrative decision. It therefore urges the Government to refrain from resorting to such measures.

In addition, the Committee asks the Government, as did the Committee on Freedom of Association, to reestablish freedom of association in law and in practice. It asks the Government in particular to amend Order No. 158 adopted on 28 March 1995 by the Cabinet of Ministers to remove the transport sector from the list of essential services in which strikes are banned (pursuant to section 16 of the Act of 18 January 1994 on the settlement of collective disputes). In this connection, the Committee has expressed the opinion that to ban strikes by workers other than public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, health or safety of the whole or part of the population, seriously restricts the means of action available to trade unions.

The Committee urges the Government to amend its legislation so that transport workers' organizations unequivocally enjoy the right to strike in order to defend the economic, social and professional interests of their members since, in the Committee's view, the transport service as such cannot be regarded as an essential service in which strikes are banned. However, a negotiated minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear, could be envisaged provided that the workers' organization concerned may participate if it so wishes, in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities (see paragraph 161 of the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining).

The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken in this respect to bring its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention, and to keep it informed of progress made.

Furthermore, the Committee emphasizes that ILO technical assistance is at the Government's disposal in order to allow it to draw up legislation that is in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It asks the Government to send a copy of the Labour Code as soon as it is adopted, so that it may check its conformity with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report as well as of the following legislation: the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus of 1994, the Act on Trade Unions of 1992, the Act of the Republic of Belarus on the Fundamental Principles of Employment in the Public Service of 1993, the Law on the Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes of 1994 and the draft Labour Code of 1994.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. 1. The Committee notes that according to section 2, paragraph 1, of the Act on Trade Unions of 1992 "citizens" have the right to establish trade unions. The Committee considers that the right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations implies that any worker or employer residing in the territory of a given State shall benefit from the right of organization provided by the Convention, without any distinction based on nationality (1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 63). Noting with interest that the draft Labour Code of 1994 provides that workers and employers without distinction have the right to associate (section 6.1.0-1), it requests the Government to indicate in its next report what measures have in fact been taken to ensure that foreign workers - and in particular residing migrant workers - and employers enjoy the right of association, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that article 36, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of Belarus of 1994 states that "every person shall be entitled to freedom of association" and that article 36, paragraph 2, states that "Judges, employees of the procurator's office, organs of internal affairs (militia), the Accounting Chamber of the Republic of Belarus, organs of state security, and servicemen may not be members of ... public associations which pursue political goals". The Government's report states that "an exception is made" for these categories as regards freedom of association. The Committee of Experts in its General Survey has stated that barring senior public officials from the right to join trade unions which represent other workers is not necessarily incompatible with freedom of association if they are entitled to establish their own organizations and if this category is limited to persons exercising senior managerial or policy-making functions (op. cit., paragraph 57). The Committee would request the Government to provide specific information on whether employees under article 36, paragraph 1, of the Constitution are granted the right of association in line with its above views. Furthermore, the Government is requested to indicate whether the employees of organs of internal affairs, of state security and whether servicemen are, in the Government's view, to be assimilated to members of the police and armed forces (Article 9 of Convention No. 87).

3. Section 6.2.0-6 of the draft Labour Code of 1994 provides that no manager shall be a member of the trade union established with the employer concerned. The Committee considers that provisions which prohibit workers in this category from joining trade unions in which other workers are represented are not necessarily incompatible with the Convention, provided they have the right to establish their own organizations and that the right to belong to those organizations is restricted to persons performing senior managerial or decision-making functions (op. cit., paragraph 66). Therefore the Committee would ask the Government to indicate whether these persons are granted the right of association and supply the relevant provisions, if any.

4. Section 6.2.0-4 of the draft Labour Code of 1994 requires, among others, a union to submit, in order to be registered, a list of members and that it may be denied registration if this list is not "authentic". The Committee considers that formalities covered by the concept of registration may include details of the founding members and of the constituent meeting (op. cit., paragraph 73). The Committee would request the Government to provide information on whether the list of members required for registration concerns the founding members which have confirmed the endorsement of the Charter or concerns all union members.

Article 3. Right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. 1. The Committee notes that section 12, paragraph 1, of the Act on the Fundamental Principles of Employment in the Public Service of 1993 stipulates that public service employees may not take part in strikes. In the Committee's view the right to strike may only be curtailed for those "public servants exercising authority in the name of the State". Moreover, if the right to strike is subject to restrictions or a prohibition and workers are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests, they should be offered compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures, leading in the event of a deadlock, to arbitration machinery (op. cit., paragraph 164). The Act on the Fundamental Principles of Employment in the Public Service of 1993 is not specific in this respect. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate which compensatory guarantees are afforded to the employees covered by this Act.

2. With reference to its previous comments in relation to the prohibition of strike action in support of political demands (section 18, paragraph 2, of the Act on Trade Unions of 1992) where the Committee recalled that trade unions should have the possibility of recourse to protest strikes aimed at criticizing a government's economic and social policy, the Committee notes that the Government has indicated in its report there is merit in that reasoning and the attention of the legislature has been drawn to the Committee's view. The Committee would ask the Government to ensure that article 18, paragraph 2, of the Act does not prohibit workers' organizations to use protest strike for seeking solutions to economic and social policy positions and other labour problems which are of direct concern to the workers. In the Committee's view, trade unions should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and workers in general (op. cit., paragraph 165). The Committee would request the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to ensure the full exercise of the right to strike in line with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee also notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has before it a complaint (Case No. 1849) concerning the alleged infringements of trade union rights in Belarus. The Committee will examine any aspects of this complaint touching upon the application of the Convention once the Committee on Freedom of Association has concluded its examination, if it considers it appropriate.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes with interest that Belarus has adopted an Act on trade unions of 22 April 1992 whose provisions would appear to be in conformity with the Convention. It notes however that section 18(2) of this Act prohibits trade unions from conducting strike action in support of political demands. The Committee would recall that while it considers that strikes that are purely political in character do not fall within the scope of the principles of freedom of association, trade unions nevertheless ought to have the possibility of recourse to protest strikes, in particular where aimed at criticizing a government's economic and social policies (General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, 1983, paragraph 216).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Act on trade unions of 22 April 1992 provides for independent trade unions (section 3(1)), voluntary membership (sections 2(1) and 4)) and freedom to organize and carry out actions in defence of workers' rights including the right to strike (sections 2(3), 3(2) and (4), 18(1) and 23(2)).

The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on one aspect of this Act which relates to the application of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes with satisfaction that section 6 of the Constitution of the Byelorussian Republic, which had set out the leading role of the Communist Party in economic and social life, has been amended and that, as amended, it lays down the principle of pluralism for political parties and public organisations.

The Committee also notes, from the Government's report, that in October 1990 the Congress of Trade Unions of the Byelorussian Republic was held, during which, among other instruments, the Charter of the new Federation of Byelorussian Trade Unions and a Bill on the rights and guarantees of trade unions were adopted.

The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the above texts.

Finally, with reference to section 5 of the Order of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the coming into force of the USSR Act concerning trade unions of 10 December 1990 - which, as the Committee of Experts has indicated in its comments to the Government of the USSR, opens the way to trade union pluralism - the Committee notes that the supreme bodies of the Republics of the Union are recommended to align the legislation of their Republic with the provisions of the Act.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the measures that have been taken under this provision in order to eliminate any ambiguity that may persist in the legislation of the Republic as regards the possibility of a genuine system of trade union pluralism and to supply the relevant texts.

The Committee refers to the direct request it is addressing to the Government of the USSR on the Law of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the settlement of collective labour conflicts, dated 9 October 1989.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report in reply to the comments that it addressed to the Government of the USSR. The Committee therefore asks the Government to refer once again to the comments that it has made concerning the USSR under this Convention.