Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO323, November 2000

1. 493. This complaint was presented in a communication dated 9 August 1999 from the Primary Trade Union Organization Zashchita (Defense) of the Murommashzavod Company.
2. 494. The Government indicated in a communication of 3 January 2000 that it needed more time to investigate and report on the matter. The Committee postponed the examination of this case on three occasions. At its June 2000 meeting (see 321st Report, para. 9), the Committee addressed an urgent appeal to the Government, drawing its attention to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it might present a report on the substance of this case at its next meeting if the Government's information and observations were not received in due time.
3. 495. The Russian Federation has ratified both 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).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 496. In its communication of 9 August 1999, the complainant organization submits that it was accredited as representative of the workers at Murommashzavod Ltd., a mechanical engineering plant located in the City of Murom, Department of Vladimir, and registered on 12 July 1996 with the Ministry of Justice. Up to October 1995, in accordance with Agreement No. 13 of 6 December 1994, the trade union dues withheld from the members' pay were credited to Zashchita's account. Since November 1995, however, the employer continued to deduct trade union dues but failed to credit them to the trade union account. Zashchita made repeated enquiries with the company's management, without any reply whatsoever.
2. 497. The complainant instituted proceedings before the Arbitration Tribunal of the Vladimir Oblast, which ruled in its favour on 28 April 1999, and ordered the company to pay Zashchita arrears of 8.089,50 roubles (a copy of the order is attached to the complaint). As management refused to comply, the complainant applied on 26 May 1999 to the municipal bailiff of Murom for enforcement of the Tribunal's order. The bailiff has failed to enforce the order so far.
3. 498. The complainant submits that through its actions the employer is in violation of Agreement No. 13 of 6 December 1994, article 314 of the Civil Code, as well as articles 225, 226, 228 and 232 of the Labour Code, and that it also failed to comply with the Tribunal's ruling.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 499. The Committee deplores the fact that, despite the time which has elapsed since this complaint was filed, the Government has not replied to the allegations, although it was invited to do so on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal at its June 2000 meeting.
2. 500. In these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable rule of procedure (see 127th Report of the Committee, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session), the Committee is obliged to submit a report on the substance of this case in the absence of the information it had hoped to receive from the Government. The Committee reminds the Government firstly that the purpose of the procedure instituted by the International Labour Organization to examine allegations concerning violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect for trade union rights in law and in fact. If this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies concerning the substance of the allegations brought against them (see First Report of the Committee, para. 31).
3. 501. The Committee notes that this case concerns the refusal by an employer to remit to the organization representing its workers the trade union dues collected on their behalf. It also notes that the Arbitration Tribunal upheld the complaint filed by the trade union in this respect, but that the authorities in charge of the execution of court orders failed to take measures to enforce it.
4. 502. The Committee further observes that whilst, generally speaking, "the deduction of trade union dues is a matter which should be dealt with through collective bargaining between employers and all trade unions without legislative obstruction" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 4th edition, 1996, para. 326), the obligation to withhold and remit trade union dues in this case is not only a legal one but is also founded on an agreement dating back to 1994, with an established practice akin to a vested right.
5. 503. The Committee underlines that the Zashchita trade union has had to operate without these resources for five years now, which could cause its increasing financial difficulties and, in practice, could prevent workers and their organization from enjoying the rights provided for in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Committee therefore requests the Government urgently to take all appropriate measures so that the arrears owing to Zashchita be paid immediately by Murommashzavod Ltd., and that the situation be remedied as regards future remittances. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments.
6. 504. Noting that the authorities in charge of the execution of court decisions failed to take such measures in this case, in spite of an unequivocal order to that effect, the Committee recalls that a "considerable delay in the administration of justice with regard to the remittance of trade union dues withheld by an enterprise is tantamount to a denial of justice" (Digest, ibid., para. 328). It invites the Government to give appropriate directions to said authorities to promptly enforce the execution of court decisions and to avoid the repetition of such situations in the future.