Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 340, Mars 2006

Cas no 2251 (Fédération de Russie) - Date de la plainte: 03-FÉVR.-03 - Clos

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

1. 195. The Committee examined these cases at its June 2005 meeting [see 337th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 293rd Session, paras. 140-155] and referred the legislative aspects of these cases in respect of the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. As concerned the practical application of the Conventions, the Committee requested the Government: (1) to keep it informed of the outcome of the investigation on the alleged violations of trade union rights of the URALPROFCENTRE by the administration of the UECE; (2) to initiate the relevant inquiries into the allegations made by the TRTUC concerning the refusal to establish a unified representative body for collective bargaining purposes at the “Managing Company for Housing Communal Services UG”; and (3) in the light of the complainant’s allegation to the effect that, in practice, strikes are often postponed or declared illegal, to provide relevant information, including statistical information, on how the right to strike is exercised in practice.
2. 196. In its communication of 29 August 2005, the Russian Labour Confederation (KTR), the complainant organization in Case No. 2251, reiterated its concerns over certain provisions of the Labour Code previously commented upon by the Committee. It further referred to a number of cases of violation of trade union rights in practice. More particularly, as concerned the right to strike in the railway sector, the KTR alleged that the Strike Committee of the Russian Union of Railway Locomotive Teams (RPLBZh), established to carry out a one-hour warning strike at the Russian Rail Roads Co., received a warning from the Moscow Transport Prosecutor’s Office on inadmissibility of such a strike. This warning referred to section 26 of the new Law on Rail Transport, which restricted the right to strike for railway workers. In Perm City, the Perm Regional Court, also invoking section 26 of the same Law, declared a potential strike illegal.
3. 197. With regard to section 37(5) of the Labour Code and the preference given by the Labour Code to majority unions in the collective bargaining process, the complainant submitted that while, as previously noted by the Committee, this section provided that a chair was kept for other primary trade unions for their participation in the collective bargaining process, the legislation did not provide for any legal remedy in case of a refusal by the majority trade union to admit a minority union to the single representative body. The complainant alleged that when the RPLBZh addressed a demand to be included in the collective bargaining process at the Moscow Rail Road Co., the negotiation committee replied that “the Committee was already formed and making any changes would be inexpedient”. An attempt by the RPLBZh to protect its right to participate in collective bargaining in court was not successful. On 17 January 2005, the Meschansky District Court of Moscow refused to receive the RPLBZh’s claim to consider the signed collective agreement invalid. The Court considered that, as a non-party to the collective agreement, the RPLBZh had no right to request its annulment. The Moscow City Court upheld the District Court ruling.
4. 198. The KTR once again raised the question of representation of workers during collective bargaining at the enterprise level by trade unions other than primary trade unions. It submitted a court decision relieving the Aeroflot Co. from its obligations under the collective agreement to the Trade Union of the Aviation Specialists of the Aeroflot Co. (PrAS), one of the signatories of the agreement. The decision was based on the fact that the union in question was not a primary trade union (organizational structure of a trade union) but had a territorial status. Consequently, by its Order of 14 April 2005, the employer withdrew the right previously granted to the PrAS trade union officers to access the workplace of their trade union members, stopped the check-off facilities, withdrew the right to use premises and means of communication and excluded the PrAS representatives from the Committee on Social and Labour Relations and the Committee on Labour Disputes.
5. 199. The KTR further alleged that, in practice, all demands a trade union wished to make of the employer had to be confirmed by a meeting (conference) of all workers and referred to two cases (“Yefremovskiy Glucose and Molasses Co.” in Yefremov City in Tula Region and “Khladoproduct Co.” in Timoshevsk City in Krasnodar Region) where an employer refused to consider a trade union demand which did not satisfy this requirement.
6. 200. Finally, the KTR stated that the State Duma was considering a draft law to amend the Labour Code.
7. 201. In its communication of 21 October 2005, the KTR regretted that none of the recommendations made by the Committee in Case No. 2251 had been implemented by the Government. It further stated that the position of a total denial of the existence of violations of freedom of association on the part of the Government made any constructive discussion on amendments of the Labour Code virtually impossible. However, according to the complainant organization, the Government had recently changed its position. On 13 September 2005, a meeting took place between the Ministry of Health and Social Development and representatives of the KTR and the Russian Seafarers’ Union (RPSM) concerning complaints in Cases Nos. 2216, 2244 and 2251. It was agreed by the parties that it was essential for the Government to implement the Committee’s recommendations. It was further decided that the RPSM and the KTR would participate in the drafting of the amendments to the Labour Code.
8. 202. In its communication of 24 October 2005, the RPSM confirmed the establishment of a working group for the purpose of formulating proposals regarding amendments to the Labour Code in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee made in Cases Nos. 2216 and 2251. While viewing this as a positive step towards implementing the Committee’s recommendations, the RPSM expressed its concern over the fact that, in practice, no real action had so far been made by this working group.
9. 203. By its communication of 7 October 2005, the Government informed of the meeting held on 13 September 2005 between the Ministry of Health and Social Development and representatives of the KTR and RPSM, during which the parties agreed to continue working together on improvement of the Labour Code.
10. 204. The Committee notes the information provided by the complainant organizations and the Government. It regrets, however, that the Government failed to submit its observations on the effect given to its recommendations related to practical application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 as well as on the allegations made by the KTR in its communication of 29 August 2005. It requests the Government to provide its observations on the issues related to the practical application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 raised in these cases without delay. The Committee does note with interest, however, that the Government and the complainant have recently had constructive discussions on the measures necessary for the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations in these and other cases, including through the amendment of the labour legislation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard.