Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO355, November 2009

1. 1129. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Russian Labour Confederation (KTR) dated 8 May 2008.
2. 1130. The Government sent a partial response in a communication dated 4 September 2008.
3. 1131. The Russian Federation has ratified 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). It has not ratified the Workers’ Representative Convention, 1972 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 1132. In its communication dated 8 May 2008, the KTR, a national trade union association, submits a complaint against the Government of the Russian Federation for violation of trade union rights of members of the primary trade union organization of the Russian Trade Union of Dockworkers (RPD) at the Murmansk Commercial Seaport (MMTP).
2. 1133. The KTR explains that the RPD primary trade union has been operating at the MMTP since 2 July 1991. According to the complainant, from the beginning of 2004, the port management has repeatedly pressured the union, prevented it from doing its work and caused workers to leave the union.
3. 1134. In particular, the complainant alleges that since June 2004, the RPD primary trade union representatives have been unable to exercise their duties and rights, per section 11 of the Law on Trade Unions, to oversee the observance of labour, health and safety legislation. In particular, from September 2004, the enterprise management has been denying access to the workplace to trade union officers Mr Zamyatin, the law inspector, and Mr Maximov, a member of the health and safety commission. It has also denied them access to the administrative building by installing a checkpoint and requiring visitors’ passes. The complainant considers that in doing so, the enterprise management has violated sections 5 and 11 of the Law on Trade Unions, according to which, trade unions are independent from executive and local self-governance bodies and employers, and have the right to represent and protect employees’ social and labour rights and interests.
4. 1135. In September 2004, the RPD primary trade union filed a lawsuit with the Leninsky District Court of Murmansk. In June 2005, the court concluded that no violations of trade union rights had occurred: while Mr Zamyatin and Mr Maximov had been denied access, other trade union officers, its chairperson Mr Klyuev and accountant Ms Ageeva, had access to the administrative building. On the appeal, in September 2005, the Murmansk Oblast Court upheld this decision. Informally, the RPD primary trade union was advised to reapply for passes to the Administration of the Murmansk Sea Port (AMSP), a federal state office whose duties include setting up procedures for admittance to the port territory which houses the MMTP.
5. 1136. The chairperson of the RPD primary trade union applied to the AMSP for permanent, 24hour passes on 22 December 2005 but was refused, on 17 January 2006, on the grounds that Mr Klyuev, Mr Zamyatin, and Mr Maximov were not employees of the enterprise. The decision stated that pursuant to the Regulations on Security and Admittance at the MMTP, permanent passes are given to people permanently employed with the MMTP. The complainant alleges that for two months the RPD primary trade union negotiated with the AMSP, but to no avail. During that period, Mr Klyuev entered the port on passes paid for in cash out of his own money, but ultimately, the AMSP and the enterprise management issued an oral order to stop giving him passes.
6. 1137. In March 2006, the RPD primary trade union filed a new lawsuit with the Leninsky District Court of Murmansk claiming that the denial of passes to the union’s representatives violated trade union rights. In its 4 July 2006 decision, the court ruled against the union, stating that it had not provided all the documents required to obtain such passes. This is disputed by the complainant, which states that the RPD primary trade union provided all necessary documents. The Murmansk Oblast Court, on appeal, upheld this decision without examining the case its merits.
7. 1138. The complainant alleges that in December 2006, the RPD primary trade union once again applied to the AMSP for passes for 2007, providing in advance all documents specified in the latest court decision. The AMSP did not reply. Having received no reply from the AMSP and having no access to its members’ workplaces, in February 2007, the RPD primary trade union filed another lawsuit demanding passes. This case is pending.
8. 1139. The KTR further alleges that as of May 2004, the management stopped sending the RPD primary trade union the enterprise internal regulations. In its 7 June 2005 decision, the Leninsky District Court found that trade union rights had been violated. The union consequently received copies of decrees and information on social and labour issues for the period preceding the court case. However, no subsequent information has been provided to the union.
9. 1140. The KTR also alleges that in 2004, the company began a campaign to evict the RPD primary trade union from its office up until then provided by the enterprise. In August 2005, the union was denied access to its office space and property inside it. The union’s office was transferred to the port’s security service and in December 2005, its property was moved out.
10. 1141. The complainant indicates that section 377 of the Labour Code requires an employer to provide premises for primary trade unions’ elected bodies to hold meetings and store documents free of charge, as well as opportunities to post information in a place accessible to all employees. The Law on Trade Unions contains a similar provision (section 28). In accordance with this provision and the collective agreement, the enterprise management had provided the union with an office space. The agreement concluded to that effect on 15 December 2002 specified that the union could use the space until the expiration of the collective agreement signed on 18 June 2002 for three years. In addition, according to a memo of 24 July 2001, the enterprise management promised the union committee a free access to the office space at any time.
11. 1142. The complainant alleges that on 20 July 2004, the enterprise management sent the RPD primary trade union a proposal to terminate the abovementioned agreement and to vacate the office space within five days claiming that it had been used after business hours. The union refused on the grounds that the Labour Code provided that a union could be evicted only if it was provided with another office space. In July 2004, the enterprise addressed the Arbitration Court of Murmansk Oblast with a request to terminate the agreement. On 15 December 2004, the Court decided in favour of the RPD primary trade union and the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeals upheld this award on 3 May 2005.
12. 1143. In August 2005, the enterprise applied to the Arbitration Court of Murmansk Oblast for the second time for permission to evict the union, claiming that the office space was needed for other purposes. On 24 October 2005, the Arbitration Court of Murmansk Oblast decided in favour of the enterprise, concluding that the employer had the right to evict the union without providing a replacement space. On 15 February 2006, the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeals agreed with this award.
13. 1144. The complainant alleges that even before the case was considered (for the second time), the enterprise management denied union officers access to the trade union office and to its property stored there. At the end of August, all union property and documents were inventoried by the management and transported to an unknown location, in the absence of trade union officers. In October 2005, the enterprise management offered an unsuitable office space, which the union refused. As a result of the 24 October 2005 arbitration award, the union, which had been evicted even before its issuance, remained without an office space.
14. 1145. In July 2005, a collective agreement for 2005–08 was signed at the enterprise. The agreement required the employer to provide primary trade unions of the company with at least one equipped office space free of charge. The KTR alleges that the RPD primary trade union has repeatedly asked the employer to provide it with an office space in accordance with the law and the collective agreement. In 17 March 2006 and 4 April 2006 memos, the enterprise notified the union that it could have a space in the storage of the port. The RPD primary trade union filed a lawsuit with the Leninsky District Court of Murmansk demanding an office space free of charge for an unlimited period of time. On 10 July 2006, the Court ruled in the union’s favour and ordered the enterprise to comply within a month. When the enterprise failed to do so, the union appealed to the bailiff service for enforcement. In response, the enterprise rented a hotel room in another area of the city where it would be difficult for trade union members to come and where the union committee could not set up its operations. In addition, according to the complainant, the legislation on fire safety forbids setting up offices and operations in hotel buildings and rooms. To date, the RPD primary trade union has no office space.
15. 1146. The complainant also alleges that the enterprise stopped withdrawing trade union member dues from the members’ monthly wages, without any warning or explanation and despite employees’ personal written requests to withdraw and transfer their dues to the union’s account. The KTR explains that section 379 of the Labour Code requires the employer to calculate, withdraw from members’ wages and transfer members’ dues to the union’s account. The enterprise collective agreement for 2005–08 determines this procedure.
16. 1147. The RPD primary trade union addressed the Arbitration Court of Murmansk Oblast requesting a transfer of trade union dues for the period of January through April 2006 (485,586.74 rubles). On 18 July 2006, while the court agreed that trade union rights had been violated, it could not satisfy the union’s claim because the employer had not even withdrawn the payments from the employees’ wages. In August 2006, the union filed a lawsuit with the district court to oblige the enterprise to withdraw and transfer trade union dues. The case is pending. Consequently, for almost two years the RPD primary trade union has been collecting dues “by hand” in cash. Considering the lack of access to union members (because of the unavailability of passes) and of an office space, the process is very time and energy consuming, resulting in the collection of only 40 to 50 per cent of dues.
17. 1148. In September 2007, the enterprise requested the Fiscal Crimes Department to check the legitimacy of trade union dues collection. The complainant alleges that this was a severe interference with its internal operations. The union chair and lawyers were summoned to the Fiscal Crimes Department to respond to the enterprise’s allegations.
18. 1149. The complainant alleges that as a result of all of the aforementioned systematic and purposeful illegal actions by the enterprise, as well as the courts’ and state authorities’ passivity, the union’s operation has been extremely complicated for several years. It faces insurmountable obstacles in overseeing the implementation of members’ rights and interests as regards labour and health and safety legislation. As it is essentially cut off from its members and their workplaces, it is unable to properly run its operations or organize and conduct events planned by trade union bodies and supported by members. The bulk of the union’s work concentrates on protecting members’ rights in courts, with hearings conducted almost daily. In sum, the union’s operation is practically paralysed. As a result, and due to permanent pressure from the enterprise management, membership has decreased from 330 to 170 people. The complainant indicates that the RPD primary trade union and its members employ all available resources to cope but the current situation cannot be tolerated for long, and requires the intervention of international trade unions and other international structures. The complainant submits several documents, including copies of court judgements, pertaining to this case.
19. 1150. In its communication, the complainant also alleges that the RPD primary trade union chairperson is under threat of eviction from his dormitory room where he has lived since 1984. The KTR explains that the dormitory room was provided to him because of his employment and because he does not own a house. Since 1994, the dormitory has been the private property of the enterprise. In 2004, the enterprise management decided to make office spaces in the dormitory and launched a campaign to move out its residents. Most of the residents were moved out but Mr Klyuev refused on the grounds that it violated his constitutional rights. The enterprise filed a lawsuit with the Leninsky District Court of Murmansk to evict him and to move him to another dormitory; the court dismissed the case.
20. 1151. In October 2004, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Leninsky District of Murmansk filed a lawsuit on behalf of the dormitory residents challenging the leasing out of the dormitory premises. The Leninsky District Court ruled in favour of the residents. In response to the appeal by Mr Klyuev claiming ongoing violations pertaining to the dormitory leasing, the Prosecutor’s Office wrote a memo urging the enterprise to cease the violations. The management took no action. A second suit filed by Mr Klyuev was dismissed by the Leninsky District Court of Murmansk. Subsequently, the enterprise filed a lawsuit with a Justice of the Peace to determine who had the right to use the property. The court granted Mr Klyuev the right to use one more room. The complainant alleges that despite this decision, Mr Klyuev began receiving written eviction notices and on several occasions, attempts have been made to break into his room. The complainant alleges that Mr Klyuev appealed to the Prosecutor’s Office to open a criminal case. Currently, he must remain in his dormitory room at all times to ensure he is not evicted in his absence.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1152. In its communication dated 4 September 2008, the Government indicates that it examined the complaint submitted by the KTR and the RPD to the ILO. The Government states that these trade union organizations have never addressed the federal executive bodies, responsible for supervision of application of labour law and further indicates that the dispute in question is now being dealt with by the relevant courts. The Government submits several documents, including copies of court judgements, pertaining to this case.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1153. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations of violations of trade union rights of the primary trade union organization of the RPD by the management of the MMTP. In particular, the complainant alleges that the enterprise management has denied access to the workplace to the representatives of the RPD primary trade union, failed to forward the internal regulations of the enterprise and information on social and labour issues, evicted the primary trade union from its premises, withdrew check-off facilities and evicted the union’s chairperson from his room in the dormitory.
2. 1154. The Committee regrets that the Government limited itself to sending partial observations although it was requested on several occasions to provide full information, including comments of the enterprise concerned, since the allegations refer to violations of trade union rights in a specific enterprise. The Committee has always considered that the replies of governments against which complaints are made should not be limited to general observations. Governments should recognize the importance of formulating detailed replies to the allegations brought by complainant organizations, so as to allow the Committee to undertake an objective examination [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 24 and 25]. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
3. 1155. The Committee notes the relevant decisions and arbitration awards, copies of which have been provided by the complainant and the Government.
4. 1156. The Committee notes that this case concerns the issue of granting facilities to workers’ representatives in order to enable them to carry out their functions, such as access to the workplace, access to information, material facilities, including office space, and check-off facilities.
5. 1157. With regard to access to the workplace, the Committee notes that, according the complainant, the RPD primary trade union officers have been denied access passes to the enterprise, including workplaces and administrative building. The Committee further notes that this dispute was examined by the courts on several occasions in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The Committee notes, in particular, two judgements pronounced on 17 June 2005 and 11 October 2006 by the Leninsky District Court of Murmansk and its civil affairs chamber, respectively.
6. 1158. In its June 2005 decision, the court, dealing with the question of whether the enterprise has violated section 11 of the Law on Trade Unions by refusing to grant access to the workplaces and administrative building to trade union employees, Mr Zamyatin and Mr Maximov, considered that pursuant to this provision, trade union representatives have the right to freely visit organizations and workplaces of their members in order to fulfill their statutory rights. The MMTP, as the owner of the building situated at Murmansk, Port Passage 34, is entitled, pursuant to section 209 of the Civil Code, to the rights of possession, use and disposal of his property. Pursuant to agreement No. 153 of 15 December 2002, the trade union organization is provided with an office space at the address above for a temporary use, free of charge. By virtue of their contracts of employment, Mr Zamyatin and Mr Maximov are staff members of the union. Between 8 September and 1 November 2004 and 29 November 2004 to 11 January 2005, Mr Zamyatin and Mr Maximov were denied access to the workplaces. However, other trade union officers, including its chairperson Mr Klyuev and accountant Ms Ageeva, were granted access to the administrative building. Therefore, in the court’s opinion, the enterprise management did not violate the abovementioned section of the Law on Trade Unions, as only some, but not all, trade union representatives were denied access to the workplaces.
7. 1159. The 11 October 2006 decision of the civil affairs chamber (which examined on appeal the Leninsky District Court of Murmansk dated 4 July 2006) established that the applications submitted by the trade union organization on 22 December 2005 and 3 March 2006 to the AMSP with a view of obtaining permanent passes for members of the trade union committee, Mr Klyuev, Mr Zamyatin and Mr Maximov did not bear the trade union seal, as per the requirements of the Regulations on Security and Admittance to the Murmansk Sea Commercial Port and that establishing documents of the union, as well as the documents confirming the authority of its chairperson, its executive bodies and representatives, and documents confirming trade union membership of the MMTP workers were not annexed to its application made on 25 March 2006. Without examining the purpose of the procedure of granting passes to the territory of the MMTP established by the said Regulations, the court considered that the failure to submit the abovementioned documents constituted sufficient grounds for refusals to grant passes. The trade union contends that these documents were provided.
8. 1160. The Committee notes that in February 2007, the RPD primary trade union filed another case with regard to the same matters. This case is still pending.
9. 1161. Without reviewing the merits of the decisions above, it appears to the Committee that these decisions only confirm that for a number of years, the representatives of the RPD primary trade union face difficulties with obtaining access to the workplaces and administrative building of the enterprise. The Committee draws the attention of the Government to the principle that workers’ representatives should enjoy such facilities as may be necessary for the proper exercise of their functions, including access to workplaces. Governments should guarantee the access of trade union representatives to workplaces, with due respect for the rights of property and management, so that trade unions can communicate with workers in order to apprise them of the potential advantages of unionization and carry out their representation function. Trade union representatives who are not employed in the undertaking but whose trade union has members employed therein should be granted access to the undertaking. The granting of such facilities should not impair the efficient operation of the undertaking concerned [see Digest, op. cit., paras 1102–1106].
10. 1162. The Committee further notes from the complainant’s allegations and the court decisions above that certain trade union representatives, i.e. its law inspector and a member of the health and safety commission, have specifically been denied access to the workplaces by the enterprise and the authorities (AMSP), whereas other trade union representatives have been allowed access. With regard to the question of who should be allowed access to the workplaces, the Committee considers that the term “trade union representatives” means representatives designated or elected by a trade union or by the members of such a union. The Committee recalls in this respect that freedom of association implies the right of workers to elect and designate their representatives in full freedom [see Digest, op. cit., para. 388]. It is essential that the public authorities and employers refrain from any intervention which might impair the exercise of this right and exercise great restraint in relation to intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that this principle is respected by bodies responsible for granting access to the workplaces to trade union representatives and to keep it informed in this regard.
11. 1163. The Committee notes that section 11 of the Law on Trade Unions grants trade unions the right to represent and protect workers’ social and labour rights and interests, through, inter alia, granting trade union representatives the right of access to the workplaces. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to encourage the enterprise management and the RPD primary trade union to strive to reach an agreement on access to the workplaces, during and outside working hours, without impairing the efficient functioning of the enterprise. It further requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the trade union’s occupational health and safety inspectors are granted access to the enterprise in order to exercise their rights to oversee the observance of labour, health and safety legislation, conferred to them by the Law on Trade Unions. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
12. 1164. With regard to the complainant’s allegation that the enterprise management has failed to forward internal regulations and information on social and labour issues, the Committee notes the 7 June 2005 decision of the Leninsky District Court of Murmansk. In its decision, the court referred to sections 11 and 17 of the Law on Trade Unions, according to which, trade unions shall have the right to receive from employers and their associations, free of charge and without any obstruction, information on social and labour issues. The court further referred to the relevant sections of the Labour Code and the provisions of the collective agreement in force until 17 June 2005, which obliged the enterprise to provide copies of the management’s orders concerning personnel of the enterprise. In view of the above, the court ordered the MMTP to provide the RPD primary trade union with copies of the management’s orders concerning personnel of the enterprise for the period ending with the expiration of the collective agreement, as well as with any other information on social and labour issues.
13. 1165. The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that while the enterprise complied with the abovementioned decision and provided the documents mentioned in the judgement, no subsequent information has been provided to the union. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the Workers’ Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143), concerning protection and facility to be afforded to workers’ representatives in the undertaking, which provides that the management should make available to workers’ representatives such material facilities and information as may be necessary for the exercise of their functions. Noting that this principle has been translated into the national legislation, the Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary measures in order to ensure its application by the management of the MMTP. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the RPD primary trade union receives all information on social and labour issues affecting its members it has the right to receive pursuant to the national legislation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
14. 1166. With regard to the allegation of eviction of the RPD primary trade union from its premises, the Committee notes the arbitration awards of 15 December 2004, 3 May and 24 October 2005 and 15 February 2006 establishing the following facts. On 30 July 2001, the enterprise and the RPD primary trade union concluded a contract on temporary use of an office situated at the enterprise premises free of charge. The contract did not provide for a validity period. On 18 June 2001, a collective agreement for 2002–05 was concluded at the enterprise with the participation of the RPD primary trade union. According to the agreement, the employer was to provide trade union committees, signatories of the agreement, with separate office spaces free of charge. To that end, a contract had to be concluded between the employer and the relevant trade union organization. The collective agreement further provided that all previously signed contracts and agreements would cease to have effect on the day of the signature of the 2002–05 collective agreement. On 15 December 2002, pursuant to this collective agreement, a contract was concluded between the employer and the RPD primary trade union organization providing the union with an office space. According to the contract, the office was provided free of charge until the expiration of the collective agreement. This collective agreement expired on 17 June 2005, with the adoption of a new collective agreement for 2005–08. Pursuant to the new collective agreement, the employer was required to provide trade union committees active at the enterprise with at least one office space free of charge. To that end, a contract should be concluded between the employer and the relevant trade union organization. The employer reserved the right to provide premises which are either his own or rented. The collective agreement did not specify where the offices were to be situated. The RPD primary trade union did not participate in the collective bargaining which led to the signing of this collective agreement.
15. 1167. In relation to these cases, the Committee notes that in July 2004, the enterprise addressed the Arbitration Court seeking trade union eviction. Considering the abovementioned facts, by its 15 December 2004 decision, the Arbitration Court ruled in favour of the RPD primary trade union. This decision was upheld by the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeals on 3 May 2005.
16. 1168. The Committee further notes that once the 15 December 2002 contract between the enterprise and the union lapsed due to the expiration of the 2002–05 collective agreement on 17 June 2005, the enterprise applied to the Arbitration Court of Murmansk Oblast to evict the union, claiming the office space was needed for other purposes. On 24 October 2005, the Arbitration Court of Murmansk Oblast ruled in favour of the enterprise. The Committee notes that in its October 2005 decision, the court stressed that the union did not participate in the negotiation of the 2005–08 collective agreement and therefore did not contribute to the insertion of the clause concerning office spaces to be provided by the employer to trade unions; recalled section 209 of the Civil Code which entitled an owner to the rights of possession, use and disposal of his/her property at his/her discretion; and considered that the obligation imposed by the legislation and the collective agreement to provide trade union organizations with an office space should not be in conflict with the enterprise’s rights to use and dispose of its own property. On 15 February 2006, the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeals established that the 2005–08 collective agreement provided for the granting to the RPD primary trade union of an office space without specifying where it was to be situated, that the union refused to accept the office space offered by the employer and therefore upheld the ruling of the first instance.
17. 1169. The Committee notes that the RPD primary trade union filed a lawsuit with the Leninsky District Court of Murmansk requesting it to oblige the enterprise to grant to the union an office space situated on the territory of the enterprise. On 10 July 2006, the Court ordered the enterprise to comply with section 377 of the Labour Code and section 28 of the Law on Trade Unions providing for an obligation imposed on the employer to create conditions for the activities of elected trade union committees, through, among others, granting, free of charge premises, which can either belong to the employer or be rented by him. The court dismissed, however, the union’s request for the premises to be situated on the territory of the enterprise.
18. 1170. The Committee understands that the legislation of the Russian Federation obliges employers to create conditions for the activities of elected trade union committees, through, among others, granting premises free of charge. The Committee notes that according to the complainant, an office space, a hotel room in another distant area of the city, has been offered to it free of charge. The union turned this offer down as the legislation on fire safety forbids setting up offices and operations in hotel buildings and rooms and because these premises were situated in a distant and not easily accessible area of the city. The complainant indicates that it is still without an office space.
19. 1171. The Committee recalls Article 9 of the Workers’ Representatives Recommendation (No. 143), according to which:
20. (1) Such facilities in the undertaking should be afforded to workers’ representatives as may be appropriate in order to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently.
21. (2) In this connection, account should be taken of the characteristics of the industrial relations system of the country and the needs, size and capabilities of the undertaking concerned.
22. (3) The granting of such facilities should not impair the efficient operation of the undertaking concerned.
23. 1172. The Committee underlines the need to strike a balance between two elements: (i) facilities in the undertaking should be such as to enable trade unions to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently and (ii) the granting of such facilities should not impair the efficient operation of the undertaking. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to facilitate finding a mutually acceptable solution on the question of premises to be granted to the RPD primary trade union taking into account the principle above and pursuant to the legislative provisions in force. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
24. 1173. With regard to the allegation of eviction and moving out of trade union property undertaken by the enterprise while the case was still pending on appeal, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the importance of the principle that the property of trade unions should enjoy adequate protection [see Digest, op. cit., para. 189] and considers that such actions by the enterprise, without a court order, constitutes an infringement of the right of trade unions to own property and undue interference in trade union activities. With regard to the allegation that the management denied trade union officers the access to the office space even before the second lawsuit was considered, the Committee recalls that the access of trade union members to their union premises should not be restricted. The Committee requests the Government to ensure respect for these principles in the future.
25. 1174. With regard to the allegation of withdrawal of check-off facility, the Committee notes the decision of the Arbitration Court of Murmansk Oblast dated 18 July 2006. The Committee notes from this decision that the complainant claimed 457,957.65 rubles of trade union dues, which the enterprise failed to transfer to the union account in the period between January and April 2006. In the decision, reference is made to section 377 of the Labour Code and section 28 of the Law on Trade Unions, according to which, upon trade union members’ written applications, an employer shall monthly and free of charge transfer onto the trade union’s account trade union membership dues withdrawn from their wages, in conformity with the collective agreement. Such procedure was provided for by the 2005–08 collective agreement. The court established, however, that despite written applications to this effect, trade union dues were not withdrawn from workers’ salaries and therefore were not transferred to the trade union account. In these circumstances, the court concluded that the trade union cannot claim the transfer of trade union dues which had not been withdrawn.
26. 1175. The Committee notes that in 2006, the complainant filed a lawsuit with the district court requesting it to oblige the enterprise to withdraw and transfer trade union dues. The complainant indicates that this case is still pending and that for the last two years it has been obliged to collect trade union dues “by hand” in cash. Considering the lack of access to its members and of an office space, this has been very difficult and resulted in a loss of up to a half the amount of trade union dues.
27. 1176. The Committee notes that national legislation provides for a possibility for workers to opt for deductions from their wages under the check-off system to be paid to their trade union organization. The Committee further notes that the enterprise, in violation of the legislation and the collective agreement in force, withdrew the check-off facility. The Committee considers that the withdrawal of the check-off facility, which could lead to financial difficulties for trade union organizations, is not conducive to the development of harmonious industrial relations and should therefore be avoided [see Digest, op. cit., para. 475]. Noting that due to withdrawal of the check-off facility, the RPD primary trade union has been facing serious financial difficulties, further noting that the case filed in 2006 before the district court is apparently still pending, and recalling that a considerable delay in the administration of justice is tantamount in practice to a denial of justice, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the check-off system is restored without delay, pursuant to section 377 of the Labour Code and section 28 of the Law on Trade Unions. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
28. 1177. With regard to the allegations of eviction of the trade union chairperson from his dormitory room, the Committee notes that this measure concerned all residents of the dormitory. The Committee further notes that the complainant does not allege that the eviction is connected to Mr Klyuev’s trade union activities. The Committee recalls that it has no competence to examine complaints related to housing rights. In these circumstances, it considers that this particular question calls for no further examination.
29. 1178. The Committee expresses its concern at what appears to be systematic and repeated actions by the enterprise management aimed at effectively interfering with the union’s work, functioning and exercising of its rights, thereby undermining its role of workers’ representative. The Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary measures, including through the issuance of relevant instructions to the enterprise management, in order to ensure that the RPD primary trade union can organize its administration and activities for the furtherance and defence of its members without interference by the employer. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect.