Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 332, November 2003

Case No 2079 (Ukraine) - Complaint date: 02-FEB-00 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 175. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2003 meeting when it requested the Government to clarify the situation of the Volynskaya Province division of the All-Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Region” as far as its registration with local authorities is concerned. The Committee further requested the Government to set up an independent inquiry into dismissal of Mr. Linik and if there was evidence that he had been dismissed for reasons linked to his legitimate trade union activities, to take all necessary measures to reinstate him in an appropriate position without loss of wages or benefits [see 330th Report, paras. 157-161].
2. 176. In its communications dated 2 January and 5 May 2003, the complainant alleges violations of trade union rights of the divisions of the All-Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Region” at the following enterprises: “Volynoblenergo”, Lutsk Bearing Plant and “AY-I EC Rovnoenergo”. More particularly, the complainant states that delegates to the labour conference, at the “Volynoblenergo” enterprise, are chosen by the employer. Such situation facilitates the adoption of collective agreements suitable to the employer and their unilateral amendment by the employer. The complainant further states that the Government has not undertaken an independent investigation of Mr. Linik’s dismissal from the Lutsk Bearing Plant. As regards “AY-I EC Rovnoenergo”, the complainant states that employer ignores the complainant’s organization, publicly calls it semi-legal and prefers to deal and conduct collective bargaining with a “more suitable” trade union. None of the facilities, which should be provided to the trade union under the legislation, are afforded to the complainant’s organization. Moreover, the employer puts various forms of psychological pressure on trade union members and its leaders. In its communication of 12 May 2003, the complainant further alleges anti-union discrimination at the “AY-I EC Rovnoenergo” enterprise, where certain trade union members were threatened with dismissal or dismissed without approval by the trade union organization.
3. 177. In its communications of 14 April, the Government states that in April 1999, the Territorial State Labour Inspectorate examined the representation of Mr. Linik concerning his dismissal on grounds of staff reduction and established that the dismissal procedure was carried out in accordance with the labour legislation. As concerns the allegations of anti-union discrimination at the “AY-I EC Rovnoenergo” enterprise, in its communications of 11 July and 8 August 2003, the Government states that the Rovenskaia regional administration examined the complaint and concluded that the existence of trade union rights’ violations were not confirmed. The Government states that only Mr. Slipenko was dismissed from the “AY-I EC Rovnoenergo” enterprise, on the grounds of drunkenness at the workplace. On 5 May 2003, the management of the “AY-I EC Rovnoenergo” enterprise addressed the trade union with the request to approve the dismissal of Mr. Slipenko. However, the management had never received a response from the workers’ organization, which, according to the legislation in force, has ten days to respond. Finally, the Government indicates that on 30 May 2003, Mr. Slipenko withdrew his membership from the complainant’s organization and joined the Energy and Electrotechnical Industry of Ukraine Worker’s Union.
4. 178. The Committee notes the statements of the complainant and the Government. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in respect of its previous request to clarify the situation of the Volynskaya Province division of the All?Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Region” as far as its registration with local authorities is concerned. It once again requests the Government to provide information in this respect. The Committee further observes that, since February 2000, it has been asking the Government to set up an independent inquiry into the dismissal of Mr. Linik. The Committee therefore reiterates this request and, if there is evidence that Mr. Linik had been dismissed for reasons linked to his legitimate trade union activities, once again request the Government to take all the necessary measures to reinstate him in an appropriate position without loss of wage and benefits. As concerns the allegations of violation of trade union rights at the “AY-I EC Rovnoenergo” enterprise, the Committee notes the Government’s statement concerning the allegations of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes, however, that the statements of the Government and the complainant on this matter are contradictory. Moreover, no information was provided by the Government as concerns other allegations of violation of trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to set up an independent inquiry into all the alleged violations of trade union rights at the “AY-I EC Rovnoenergo” enterprise and keep it informed in this respect. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the alleged violations of trade union rights at the “Volynoblenergo” enterprise.