ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

CMNT_TITLE

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Russian Federation (RATIFICATION: 1956)
Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 - Russian Federation (RATIFICATION: 2019)

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - SpanishAlle anzeigen

1. Legislation concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life". In its previous observations, the Committee referred to the provisions of section 209 of the Penal Code concerning persons "leading a parasitic way of life". Noting that the fundamental principles of penal legislation were currently under review, the Committee expressed the hope that the Government would be able to envisage adopting measures to clearly exclude from the legislation any possibility of compulsion to work that is not in conformity with the Convention, either by repealing section 209 of the Penal Code or by limiting the scope of these provisions to persons engaging in illegal activities. The Committee hoped that the Government would supply information on developments in this direction, as well as on the application in practice of the provisions of section 209, including copies of any judicial decisions that define the scope of the terms of "unearned income" and "means obtained through unlawful methods".

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that in the period July 1989-June 1991, no decisions on issues concerning the Convention were made by the courts. The Government also indicates that new statutory instruments have been adopted to improve the legislation and bring it into more complete compliance with the provisions of the Convention, and that the general trend in the development of labour legislation from the point of view of the Convention is marked by a re-examination of the principle of the obligation to work as a principle capable of opening the door to certain forms of forced labour. Thus in Article 1 of the Fundamental Principles governing Employment Legislation in the USSR and its Union Republics, dated 15 January 1991, it is stated that "administrative coercion in any form to engage in work is not permitted, with the exception of cases provided for in the legislation. Voluntary unemployment on the part of citizens may not serve as grounds for taking administrative, criminal or other proceedings against them".

The Committee notes these indications with interest. It notes that the principles referred to have also been included in the Employment Law of the Russian Federation. Referring also to its general observation concerning the Russian Federation, the Committee hopes that in the ongoing review of the principles of penal legislation, section 209 of the Penal Code is being re-examined in the light of the developments in labour legislation referred to by the Government of the USSR, and that the Government will supply full information on any measures taken or envisaged to amend or repeal section 209 of the Penal Code.

2. Freedom to leave the service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government of the USSR according to which the right of career members of the armed services and persons working in other special services of the State bodies (Ministry of the Interior, militia, etc.) to leave the service on their own initiative is governed by the General Military Service Act of the USSR of 12 October 1967, as amended and supplemented, and the regulations governing the terms of recruitment, discharge and service of particular categories of personnel. The Government of the USSR also indicated that an examination was being made of draft regulations on the service of the officer corps of the armed services, which provide, inter alia, that career officers who have served for ten years may terminate their service in the armed forces at their own request.

The Committee requested the Government to supply copies of the legislative texts referred to and of the regulations on the service of the officer corps in the armed forces, once adopted.

In the absence of information on these matters in the Government's report, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any developments in this regard and to supply copies of the relevant provisions of the following legislative texts or of any more recent texts having taken their place:

- Act of the USSR dated 12 October 1967 relating to the General Obligation to Perform Military Service; - Ordinance of the USSR Council of Ministers dated 18 March 1985 relating to Adoption of the Regulations Governing Performance of Military Service by the Officers of the USSR Armed Forces; - Ordinance No. 241 dated 18 March 1985 of the USSR Council of Ministers relating to Amendment of the Decision of the Government of the USSR Providing for the Rights of Servicemen in the USSR Armed Forces; - Ordinance No. 934 of the USSR Council of Ministers dated 2 October 1985 relating to Adoption of the Regulations on Performance of Military Service by Ensigns and Non-Commissioned Officers in the USSR Armed Forces.

The Committee hopes that, in the drafting of any new provisions in this field, statutory effect will be given to the freedom of career members of the armed forces to leave the service in time of peace on their own initiative after a reasonable period, either by giving notice or at specified intervals.

3. Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee has taken note of the comments made by the Malopolski Regional Direction of the Independent Self-Governing Trade Union "Solidarity" (Solidarnosc) in a letter received in February 1991 and by the Local Committee of the Kharkov City Trade Union Organisation of Engineering Workers in communications received in March and April 1991 and in February 1992. Copies of these communications were transmitted to the Government of the USSR or, for the last one received, to the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as to the Government of Ukraine, which alone has commented on the allegations. In these communications it is alleged that forced labour has been used over many years everywhere in the former USSR in building factory and residential buildings, on vegetable production bases and in the execution of practically all kinds of agricultural tasks.

In agriculture, the application of forced labour is stated to have been based on decisions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted every year in violation of the labour legislation in force and Convention No. 29; such work is said to have been imposed on children of school age, with prolonged separation from their families, on students, workers and employees. Refusal to take part in such work was considered as an opposition against the fulfilment of decisions of the Government of the USSR and was openly prosecuted by the administration: school children were given bad evaluations, depriving them of the possibility to complete the last degree of middle school or to be admitted to institutions of higher education; students were deprived of their scholarships, place in a student's hostel and even could be relegated from the institute; workers and employees were exposed to disciplinary sanctions, a lowering of remuneration for their principal, professional work, lessening of trade union privileges and dismissal from employment.

In its communication received February 1992, the Organisation of Engineering Workers alleges that this practice continues in the Russian Federation and transmits a copy of an article published 21 September 1991 in the "Komsomolskaya Pravda" by a correspondent from Sverdlovsk (now Ekaterinburg) which refers to an unexplained epidemy among students taking part, as every year, in the potato and onion harvests; the Committee notes that the article contains no allegations of forced labour.

In their comments on the application of the Convention, the above-mentioned trade union organisations further allege that the use of forced labour of free citizens for the execution of unqualified work in industry and on building sites is arbitrarily imposed by local administration without any base in decisions of higher authority (such as alleged to be taken with regard to agriculture). The Committee notes that the concrete allegations in this respect centre on one enterprise in the city of Kharkov, outside the Russian Federation.

The Committee requests the Government to comment in its next report on the allegations made. In this connection, the Committee hopes that detailed information will be supplied on the manner in which auxiliary labour of students and any other persons for agricultural tasks is being organised, including copies of any relevant decisions and regulations. Furthermore, the Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to supply in its next report full particulars on measures taken to ensure, in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention, that the penalties imposed by law for the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour are really adequate and are strictly enforced.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer