Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO332, November 2003

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

1. 146. The Committee examined this case at its June 2003 meeting [see 331st Report, paras. 660?677] and on that occasion it requested the Government to initiate an independent inquiry into the allegations concerning the creation of a “yellow” trade union at the OAO Novorossiisk Commercial Sea Port (OAO NMTP). It further requested the Government and the complainant to keep it informed of any developments concerning the establishment of a unified representative body on the basis of proportional representation for the conclusion of a new collective agreement.
2. 147. In their communication of 20 August 2003, the Trade Union of Water Transport Workers (PRVT) and the FNPR indicated that the collective agreement between workers and the OAO NMTP was concluded in violation of the Russian legislation since no conference at the workplace was held and the collective agreement was signed on the basis of a decision of the drafting committee. Although the committee included representatives of the complainant organization, the PRVT states that it was impossible to put forward any serious proposals, since the management’s representatives put them to a vote and they were withdrawn from discussion by the votes of the representatives of the “yellow” trade union. The complainants provide further information on the continuing discriminatory policy of the OAO NMTP management towards the PRVT primary trade union and on the pressure exercised on individual members of the trade union to leave the PRVT.
3. 148. In its communication of 5 September 2003, the Government states that the Russian legislation provides for adequate protection against acts of interference in trade union affairs and trade union rights in general. The Government states that the General Office of Prosecutor conducted an inquiry into allegations of the primary trade union organization of the Azov-Black Sea Interregional Organization of the PRVT addressed to the Office of Prosecutor of the Krasnodar territory concerning the actions of the administration of the OAO NMTP aimed at withdrawal of the port workers from the PRVT and their subsequent entry into the new trade union. The Government states that those allegations were not confirmed.
4. 149. The Government indicates that the process of withdrawal from the PRVT began over ten years ago and not in 2000, as the complainant in this case indicates. The new trade union of seaport workers was set up in early 2001 and registered in April 2001 in accordance with the legislation. The trade union was founded on the initiative of a group composed of 11 persons. According to minute No. 1 of the meeting of 17 January 2001, the founders of the trade union elected a committee of three people to deal with the questions of establishment of the trade union. Following the general conference where all the port workshops could delegate their representatives, the trade union was established. No evidence confirming the participation of the port management in the creation of the trade union was found. The alleged facts of appointment of workers to the conference by the port management were not confirmed.
5. 150. According to the findings of the inquiry conducted by the Office of Transport Prosecutor in June-July 2001 many members of the PRVT did not request in writing the transfer of the trade union dues to the new trade union of the seaport workers. On the order of the Office of Prosecutor this violation was obviated.
6. 151. The Government further states that this case raises the issue of collective labour disputes. In this respect, it states that the Russian legislation provides for the procedure of settlement of collective labour disputes. In particular, according to section 29 of Federal Act (No. 10?FZ) on trade unions, their rights and guarantees of their activities, “the judicial protection of the rights of trade unions shall be guaranteed. Cases of breach of trade union rights shall be heard by a court of law on the petition of a prosecutor or on a statement of claim or bill of complaint filed by the respective body of the trade union or primary trade union organization”. The complainant did not lodge any complaint with the National Labour Inspectorate of the Krasnodar territory; neither did the trade union submit any complaint to the relevant judicial bodies. Therefore, all national remedies were not exhausted.
7. 152. The Committee notes the information provided by the complainant and by the Government. The Committee notes from the Government’s statement that the allegations of creation of a “yellow” trade union by the port management and the campaign launched by the enterprise aimed at the withdrawal of the port workers from PRVT and their subsequent entry into the “yellow” union were not confirmed by the inquiry conducted by the General Office of Prosecutor and that the new trade union of seaport workers was legally created. The Committee recalls from the previous examination of this case that the complainants had submitted a copy of minute No. 1, referred to by the Government and which provides for the names and the post of the three members of the committee responsible for establishing the trade union. Among them are the director of the Human Resources Department and the head of the Department of the State Property. The Committee also recalls that the commission of inquiry established by order of the Transport Prosecutor in May 2001, the report of which was also submitted by the complainant, confirmed the abovementioned allegations. It further notes that in this connection, the Transport Prosecutor has requested the Director of the OAO to obviate all the violations of the Law on Trade Unions. In the light of these circumstances as well as of the recent communication of the complainants to the effect that the port administration continues to put pressure on the members of the primary trade union of the complainant organization, the Committee once again requests the Government to initiate an independent inquiry into these allegations and to keep it informed of the outcome.
8. 153. The Committee further notes the information provided by the PRVT concerning the negotiation of a collective agreement. The Committee notes that the representative of the complainant organization has participated in the drafting of the collective agreement, but that according to the complainant, it could not successfully put forward any serious proposals as they were vetoed by the representatives of the alleged “yellow” trade union. The Committee notes that the complainant organization does not indicate whether the drafting committee was established on the basis of proportional representation, as provided for in section 37 of the Labour Code. The Committee notes the Government’s statement according to which the complainant did not lodge any complaint with the National Labour Inspectorate of the Krasnodar territory nor with the relevant judicial bodies. The Committee recalls from the previous examination of this question, that the complainant addressed the Office of Public Prosecutor with a request to issue a legal opinion on the procedure of conducting collective bargaining and on the consequences of non-respect of the legislative procedure. According to the opinion of the prosecutor, attached to the complaint, the procedure of conducting collective bargaining was not respected at the OAO NMTP; the complainant was therefore advised to appeal the actions of the port administration according to the legislation in force. The Committee request the complainant to indicate whether it considers appealing to the relevant judicial body with a view to annul the collective agreement in question. The Committee regrets that no actual information was provided by the Government to its request to keep it informed of any developments concerning the establishment of a unified representative body on the basis of proportional representation for the conclusion of a new collective agreement at the OAO MNTP.
9. 154. The Committee further requests the Government to reply to the observations of the complainants contained in the communication of 20 August 2003.