Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO362, November 2011

1. 1458. The complaint is set out in communications by the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine (KVPU) and the Federation of Trade Unions of Small and Medium Enterprises of Ukraine (FPPMSPU) dated 22 March and 21 April 2011, respectively. The KVPU sent additional information in communications dated 12 July and 8 September 2011.
2. 1459. The Government submitted its reply in communications dated 4 and 23 May, and 8 June 2011.
3. 1460. Ukraine 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 complainants’ allegations

1. 1461. In their communications dated 22 March, 21 April, 12 July and 8 September 2011, the complainants, the KVPU and FPPMSPU, explain that on 23 December 2010, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Parliament) passed the Law on Social Dialogue in Ukraine. Despite the KVPU’s request addressed to the President of Ukraine to veto the legislation, on 11 January 2011, the President signed the Law. Both trade union organizations consider that this legislation has harmful effects on the ability of trade unions to represent their members in social dialogue and collective bargaining.
2. 1462. The complainants explain that the Law sets out the representativity criteria for trade union organizations and their associations at different levels. Namely, section 6 of the Law stipulates that at the national level, trade union associations are deemed representative to participate in collective bargaining for the purpose of signing a general agreement, and to delegate representatives to the National Tripartite Social and Economic Council, the managing bodies of state social insurance funds and other tripartite social dialogue bodies and participate in international events if they are: (1) legalized (registered) in accordance with the legislation; (2) all-Ukrainian trade union associations enlisting at least 150,000 members; (3) composed of at least three all-Ukrainian trade unions; and (4) located in the majority of administrative and territorial units of the country.
3. 1463. The KVPU and FPPMSPU further indicate that the criterion of representativity at the branch (industry) and territorial levels is also problematic. The representative trade union has to cover at least 3 per cent of workers of a certain industry. However, Ukrainian legislation does not provide for a definition of the term “industry”.
4. 1464. The complainants consider that for a country where the trade union movement is still under transformation and new independent unions are in the process of organizational growth, such criteria to determine representativity is absolutely unacceptable. They further consider that under the new legislation, independent trade unions will find themselves outside of the social dialogue and will not be able to represent the interests of workers both at the national and international levels.
5. 1465. The complainants further allege that the rights of independent trade unions are being violated. According to the KVPU, the Ministry of Justice blocks the legalization of its regional unions in the Khmelnitsky region and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as well as the legalization of the all-Ukrainian trade union Ridna Zemlya. According to the same organization, there are examples of pressure being put on activists and members of independent trade unions, including at mining enterprises Frunze, Nikopol Plant of Ferroalloys and Kryvy Rih Iron Ore Complex. The complainants further argue that when trade unions experience difficulties in registering new local unions, they face even greater challenges in meeting the burdensome reprsesentativity criteria under the new legislation.
6. 1466. The complainants believe that the mechanism established in the Law for determining representativity lacks independence and objectivity and is based on a “permissive” approach. In particular, they refer to section 7 of the Law, according to which “the procedure for assessment of conformity with the representativity criteria of trade unions and employers’ organizations shall be approved by the National Service of Mediation and Reconciliation (NSMR) (under the President of Ukraine) upon prior consultations with the parties to social dialogue”. For the complainants, this means that the trade union and employers’ organizations from the Soviet-era will have the power to influence a procedure that has yet to be determined and to decide which organizations will be accepted in the social dialogue and to bargain collectively.
7. 1467. The KVPU informs that upon its request, on 3 August 2009, the ILO issued its Memorandum on the draft Law on Social Dialogue of Ukraine, in which the Office indicated that the draft legislation’s provisions relating to the representativity criteria violated ILO core Conventions ratified by Ukraine. According to the trade union, since then, only cosmetic changes have been made to the legislation. The KVPU further claims that observations concerning the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) were based on false information provided by the Government. The complainant stresses, in particular, that contrary to what the Government has indicated in its report to the CEACR, it had never organized any meetings to discuss the issue of the representativity criteria.
8. 1468. According to the complainants, their affiliates are already eliminated from the social dialogue, and the Ukrainian authorities seek to deal only with the old post-Soviet trade unions and their associations. In this respect, the KVPU indicates that it was not informed about the date and time of signing of the General Agreement for 2010–12. Moreover, none of its arguments on the inadmissibility of adoption of provisions which would worsen workers’ status in comparison to the previous General Agreement, presented to the joint representative trade union body, have been taken into account.
9. 1469. The KVPU also alleges that its affiliates are prevented from collective bargaining, signing and joining collective agreements. It refers to the case of the Free Trade Unions of Medical Workers of Ukraine (FTUMWU), which in 2010, intended to join the already signed branch agreement between branch union of medical workers of Ukraine affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine (FPU) and the Ministry of Health Care. The FPUaffiliated union, turned down the FTUMWU’s request, and all FTUMWU’s requests to meet and develop common provisions remained without response. Instead, the FPUaffiliated union demanded the FTUMWU to submit personal data and information about its members. The KVPU indicates that the Ministry of Health Care itself has no objection as regards the FTUMWU’s participation in collective bargaining and has indeed asked the union to develop amendments to the branch agreement for consideration and discussion.
10. 1470. According to the KVPU, a similar situation has occurred with respect to its affiliate, the Free Trade Union of Education and Science of Ukraine (VPONU). While before the beginning of collective bargaining, an agreement on creating a joint representative trade union body between the VPONU and the FPU-affiliated branch Union of Education and Science (STESU) of Ukraine had been signed, the collective bargaining was conducted and the agreement for 2011–12 signed without VPONU’s participation. The latter succeeded, however, in suspending the registration process of the signed agreement.
11. 1471. Finally, at the local level in April 2011, a primary trade union of workers of the National Museum of Fold Architecture affiliated to the all-Ukrainian union “Defence of Justice” was also denied from joining a collective agreement. The museum management claimed that the museum labour collective, by a majority of votes, decided to refuse the free trade union to join the agreement. The KVPU claims, however, that this decision was made by the management and the FPU-affiliated primary trade union, as under the national legislation, the labour collective has no such powers.
12. 1472. In its communication dated 8 September 2011, the KVPU states that it began to feel the negative effects from the implementation of the Law on Social Dialogue. It claims to be totally excluded by the authorities from social dialogue and collective bargaining, managing social insurance funds, and participating in controlling health and safety activities. In this respect, it refers to the abovementioned examples and describes further instances where the officers of the Independent Union of Miners of Ukraine (NPGU),and/or its primary trade unions, were not included in a body of the State Inspectorate for Supervision of Observance of Health and Safety and special commissions established to investigate the accidents that had occurred in two mines in July and August 2011 and which have involved members of the NPGU primary trade unions. In addition, the KVPU alleges that employers and the authorities put pressure on the NPGU primary trade unions with the aim of decreasing their membership and thereby leading to their nonconformity with the representativity criteria.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1473. In its communications dated 4 and 23 May and 8 June 2011, the Government indicates that the Law on Social Dialogue in Ukraine defines social dialogue as a process for defining and bridging the gap between differing positions for reaching agreements and adopting agreed decisions by social partners who represent the interest of workers, employers, executive bodies and local administrative authorities, on issues pertaining to the formulation and implementation of state social and economic policy and regulation of labour, social and economic relations. Section 6(5) of the Law states that unions and their federations and employers associations that do not meet the representativity criteria may, by a decision of their elected bodies, authorize representative organizations and associations at the appropriate level to represent their interests or put forward the proposals for consideration by the appropriate social dialogue bodies. Those proposals must be considered by the parties concerned when agreed positions are adopted and decisions taken.
2. 1474. The Government further indicates that the General Agreement for 2010–12 was signed in November 2010 by the chairperson of the KVPU, Mr Volynets, and all other allUkrainian unions and federations of trade unions. In view of the large number of signatories from the union side, the signing procedure was carried out in an order accepted by the parties.
3. 1475. With regard to the participation in the collective bargaining process, the Government indicates that pursuant to section 12 of the Labour Code, if more than one primary union is established at an enterprise or organization, the unions in question are required to set up a joint representative body on the basis of proportional representation. Thus, a primary trade union organization that refuses to participate in such a body forfeits the right to represent workers’ interests when a collective agreement is concluded. Furthermore, under section 4 of the Law on Collective Agreements, if more than one trade union or trade union federation or other representative body are authorized by the workforce to operate at an enterprise or at the state, branch or territorial level, such organizations are required to form a joint representative body for the collective bargaining purpose.
4. 1476. The Government indicates that the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy has examined the representation dated 3 March 2011 by the Member of Parliament, Mr Volynets, requesting not to register the branch agreement between the Ministry of Education and Science, Youth and Sport and the Central Committee of Education of the Union of Science Workers of Ukraine and alleging that the latter had infringed the fundamental principle of equality of trade unions and the legislation on collective agreements. The Government points out that pursuant to the Regulations on the procedure for registration of branch and regional accords and collective agreements of 5 April 1994, the registration may be refused only if the texts and copies of the agreement submitted are not authentic. It further points out that in accordance with the national legislation, trade unions and their federations are independent from the state and local authorities, employers and political parties, and organize their work in an autonomous manner. Interference by employers and state bodies in trade union activities is prohibited (section 12 of the Law on Trade Unions). Similarly, section 6 of the Law on Collective Agreements prohibits any interference that might restrict the rights of workers and their representatives. In light of the above, and in view of the seriousness of the circumstances described in Mr Volynets’ representation, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy has asked the FPU and the Ministry of Education and Science, Youth and Sport for help in rectifying the situation that has arisen with the conclusion of the branch agreement. Mr Volynets has been informed of this in a letter dated 12 March 2011. Thus, the branch agreement has been revoked by the parties and is being revised.
5. 1477. With regard to the legalization of the KVPU-affiliated unions, the Government indicates that as of 29 April 2011, territorial justice departments had legalized such organizations in 11 provinces of Ukraine and in the city of Kiev. With regard to the unions in the Khmelnitsky province, the Government indicates that a notification from the Khmelnitsky province KVPU organization concerning its affiliation (as an organizational unit) to the KVPU was received by the Main Justice Department in Khmelnitsky province on 18 May 2009 and again on 31 December 2009. In the course of the examination of documents submitted, it was established that, the Khmelnitsky province KVPU did not comply with the requirements of section 8(4) of the Law on Trade Unions, according to which, the status of trade union associations is defined by the status of their affiliates. Therefore, in accordance with section 16(6) of the Law on Trade Unions, the union was invited to rectify the situation and resubmit its request.
6. 1478. The Government further explains that on 7 July 2009, the Ministry of Justice received the by-laws and a notification of establishment of the KVPU of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as a confederation with republic-level status and its affiliation to the KVPU as an organizational unit. As in the situation above, the applicant was informed that it did not comply with sections 8 and 11 of the Law on Trade Unions.
7. 1479. Finally, the Government indicates that the all-Ukraine trade union Ridna Zemlya was legalized by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on 27 August 2009 (certificate No. 3173) as a union with all-Ukraine status. As of 29 April 2011, the territorial justice department had legalized subsidiary organizations of Ridna Zemlya as corresponding to the claimed status in 14 provinces of Ukraine and in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. All notifications concerning affiliation of such organizations to the all-Ukraine union Ridna Zemlya were duly legalized.
8. 1480. With regard to the criteria of representativeness set by the Law on Social Dialogue, the Government indicates that sections 5 and 6 of the Law define both general criteria of representativeness and criteria of representativeness at the national, branch, territorial and local levels. According to section 7 of the Law, the National Mediation and Conciliation Service (NSPP) at the national and branch levels, and the regional departments of that service at the territorial level is the body responsible for verifying that trade unions and their federations and employers’ organizations and their associations comply with the established criteria of representativeness. The procedure for verifying and confirming that unions and employers’ organizations meet the criteria in question is approved by the NSPP following consultations with the social partners at the national level. The NSPP is a standing public body set up by the President with the aim of promoting the settlement of collective labour disputes. The mandate of the NSPP, as defined by its own Regulations, includes action to ensure social dialogue and to verify, where necessary, the credentials of any parties to a labour dispute. Under the terms of the Law on Social Dialogue, the NSPP mandate also includes the following duties: (1) assessing the representativeness of workers’ and employers’ organizations in light of the established criteria; (2) formally confirming the representativeness of these organizations; and (3) maintaining a register of representative organizations and associations. Official confirmation of the representative status of unions and employers’ organizations is given by the NSPP and its subordinate departments once every five years. Unions and their federations and employers’ organizations, including newly established ones, are entitled to apply to the NSPP or its departments for assessment of their compliance with the established criteria where there are grounds for doing so, but not more frequently than once a year (section 7(2)). Currently the draft Procedure for assessing and confirming compliance with the criteria of representativeness is the subject of a broad public discussion in which all the social partners concerned can participate.
9. 1481. Under section 9(5) of the Law, trade unions and employers’ organizations whose representative status has been confirmed, independently determine the procedures of election (appointing) their representatives to social dialogue bodies at meetings of accredited representatives of organizations authorized to participate in social dialogue at the corresponding level. Such a meeting may be convened at the request of any representative organization at a given level which duly notifies all other representative organizations not later than one month before the meeting is to be held. A meeting of accredited representatives is deemed to be “authorized” if representatives of more than half of the representative organizations at the corresponding level that have agreed to participate in the meeting attend. In order to participate in such a meeting, organizations that have received such notification are required to submit to the organizers, not later than ten days before the meeting is due to be held, the confirmation of their representative status. Allocation of voting rights among different unions is proportionate to the number of workers employed at the enterprises affiliated to the employers’ organizations in question, but ensuring at least one representative from each representative union and each employers’ organization. In accordance with voting rights established at the meeting of accredited representatives, representative unions and employers’ organizations appoint their delegates to represent them in social dialogue bodies on the basis of the corresponding members of those bodies. Any actions by the organizers of a meeting of accredited representatives that infringe the right of the social partners may be challenged in the court.
10. 1482. With regard to the definition of the term “branch”, the Government points out that according to section 260 of the Economic Code of Ukraine, the totality of production units involved in predominantly identical or similar forms of productive activity comprise a “branch”. The general classification of branches of the national economy is an integral part of the system of classification and codification of technical-economic and statistical data used by economic entities and others involved in economic relations, and by the state authorities or local authorities in the process of economic management. Collection, processing, analysis and dissemination of statistical information is based on national statistical standard DK 009:2005 “Classification of types of economic activity”, which is harmonized with the EU Statistical Classification of Economic Activities and approved by Order No. 75 (as amended) of the State Committee of Ukraine on Technical Regulation and Consumer Policy of 26 December 2005. The classification covers all forms of economic activity of economic entities which at the highest hierarchical levels constitute branches. The more generalized groupings of forms of economic activity at the level of sections, subsections and divisions make it possible to differentiate the fundamental economic branches and take into account the requirements of the state statistical authorities for mapping/plotting statistical data.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1483. The Committee notes that in this case, the complainants allege that the newly adopted Law on Social Dialogue impedes the establishment of workers’ organizations. They further allege refusal by the Government to legalize KVPU-affiliates and violation of the KVPU’s collective bargaining rights.
2. 1484. With regard to the Law on Social Dialogue, the Committee notes that the new legislation was passed by the Parliament in December 2010. The Committee notes the complainants’ allegation that contrary to what the Government has indicated in its report to the CEACR, it had never organized any meetings to discuss the issue of the representativity criteria. The Committee understands from the information available to the Office that the discussions at the national level of the representativity criteria involved unions with allUkrainian status, including the KVPU.
3. 1485. The Committee notes that with regard to this legislation, the complainants’ allegations concern mainly the following: levels of social dialogue and, specifically “branch of industry” level (section 2 of the Law); representativity criteria (sections 5 and 6 of the Law) and the body responsible for confirming trade union representativity (sections 7 and 11–14 of the Law).
4. 1486. With regard to the branch level of social dialogue, the Committee notes the complainants’ allegation that the Law does not define what constitutes a branch level. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s explanation that the general classification of branches of the national economy is an integral part of a system of an official classification and codification. It further notes the list of the basic types of economic activities (branches) submitted by the Government.
5. 1487. With regard to the issue of representativity in general, the Committee has pointed out on several occasions, and particularly during discussion on the draft of the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, that the International Labour Conference referred to the question of the representative character of trade unions, and, to a certain extent, it agreed to the distinction that is sometimes made between the various unions concerned according to how representative they are. article 3(5), of the Constitution of the ILO includes the concept of “most representative” organizations. Accordingly, the Committee feels that the mere fact that the law of a country draws a distinction between the most representative trade union organizations and other trade union organizations is not in itself a matter for criticism. Such a distinction, however, should not result in the most representative organizations being granted privileges extending beyond that of priority in representation, on the grounds of their having the largest membership, for such purposes as collective bargaining or consultation by governments, or for the purpose of nominating delegates to international bodies. In other words, this distinction should not have the effect of depriving trade union organizations that are not recognized as being among the most representative of the essential means for defending the occupational interests of their members, for organizing their administration and activities and formulating their programmes, as provided for in Convention No. 87 [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 346]. In the present case, it appears from the legislation that the only distinction between representative and other trade unions is that the former can sign collective agreements, sit on joint committees and participate in international events. The Committee considers that such privileges granted to representative trade unions are not excessive. At the same time, the Committee would like to recall that the establishment of the notion of representativity presupposes that governments ensure an atmosphere in which trade union organizations are able to freely flourish in the country.
6. 1488. With regard to the criteria to determine representativity, the Committee recalls that the determination of the most representative trade union should always be based on preestablished, precise and objective criteria [see Digest, op.cit., para. 348]. The Committee notes that according to section 5, representativity criteria are based on the following: numerical thresholds, sectoral and territorial diversity and legalization (registration). The Committee understands that higher thresholds and additional criteria were proposed in the initial draft legislation and that these thresholds were lowered and additional criteria removed from the final version, following the Memorandum of 3 August 2009 referred to by the complainants.
7. 1489. With regard to the numerical thresholds, sectoral and territorial diversity, the Committee notes that according to section 6, at the national level, trade union association should be of all-Ukrainian status and should enlist at least 150,000 members, should be composed of trade unions and their organizations located in the majority of administrative and territorial units of Ukraine and include at least three all-Ukrainian trade unions. The Committee understands that several organizations meet this criteria at national level, including the KVPU. At the sectoral level, trade unions and their associations should be of all-Ukrainian status and affiliate at least 3 per cent of the labour force of the relevant sector. At the territorial level, trade unions and their associations should be of regional or local status, be established on a territorial basis and affiliate at least 2 per cent of the labour force of the relevant administrative and territorial unit. At the local level, workers interests are represented by primary trade unions and in their absence, by freely elected representatives. The Committee further notes that section 6(5) of the Law states that unions and their federations and employers’ associations that do not meet the representativity criteria may, by a decision of their elected bodies, authorize representative organizations and associations at the appropriate level to represent their interests or put forward the proposals for consideration by the appropriate social dialogue bodies. Those proposals must be considered by the parties concerned when agreed positions are adopted and decisions taken. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that these thresholds are acceptable.
8. 1490. With regard to the requirement of legalization (registration), the Committee has always considered that a registration system set up by law which grants exclusive negotiation rights to registered unions would not be incompatible with the principles of freedom of association provided that the registration is based on objective and predetermined criteria [see Digest, op. cit., para. 358]. The Committee notes, however, that the CEACR has raised concern at the contradiction that currently exists in Ukrainian national legislation with regard to the requirement of registration versus the requirement of legalization imposed on trade unions. In particular, the CEACR noted that at present, there was a contradiction between section 87 of the Civil Code (2003), according to which, an organization acquires its rights of legal personality from the moment of its registration, on the one hand, and section 16 of the Law on Trade Unions, as amended in June 2003, providing that a trade union acquires the rights of a legal person from the moment of the approval of its statute and that a legalizing authority confirms the status of a trade union and no longer has a discretionary power to refuse to legalize a trade union, on the other. In October 2006, the Law of Ukraine on the State Registration of Legal Persons and Physical Persons-entrepreneurs was amended so as to exclude trade unions from its scope and therefore from the requirement of registration. Recalling that it has already commented on this contradiction in its examination of a previous case against the Government of Ukraine (Case No. 2038, 336th Report), the Committee once again requests the Government to amend section 87 of the Civil Code so as to eliminate the contradiction within the national legislation and so as to fully guarantee the right of workers to establish their organizations without previous authorization.
9. 1491. The Committee notes the KVPU’s allegations of refusal by the authorities to legalize (register) its affiliates in the Khmelnitsky region, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as well as of the Ridna Zemlya union. The Committee notes the Government’s observations thereon and its indication that the latter union was in fact registered on 27 August 2009 followed by the registration of its subsidiary organizations in 14 provinces and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The Committee notes the explanation provided by the Government with regard to the reasons for the non-registration of the KVPU affiliates in the Khmelnytsky region and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It notes in particular, that according to the Government, the relevant organizations have been duly informed of the grounds for not considering their registration requests and were requested to rectify the omissions and resubmit the request. The Committee requests the Government and the KVPU to provide information as to the registration status of these organizations.
10. 1492. With regard to the body responsible for confirming trade union representativity, the Committee recalls that the determination to ascertain or verify the representative character of trade unions can best be ensured when strong guarantees of confidentiality and impartiality are offered. Thus, verification of the representative character of a union should a priori be carried out by an independent and impartial body [see Digest, op. cit., para. 351]. The Committee notes that in terms of the new legislation, the NSMR is a tripartite body and expects that this body will meet these criteria of confidentiality, independence and impartiality in practice. The Committee further expects that the powers of the NSMR under section 7 of the Law on the Social Dialogue will be limited to the examination of whether a given organization meets the established objective representativity criteria.
11. 1493. The Committee notes the KVPU’s allegations relating to violation of its collective bargaining rights. In particular, the KVPU alleges that it was not informed of the date and time of the signing of the General Agreement for 2010–12. In this respect, the Committee understands that on behalf of trade unions, this Agreement was negotiated by the joint representative body composed of representatives of all-Ukrainian trade unions and trade union associations. The Committee notes that according to Annex 2 to this Agreement, which lists all such organizations, parties to the Agreement, the KVPU is one of the organizations represented in the joint negotiation body.
12. 1494. Noting that the branch agreement in the education sector has been revoked following Mr Volynets’ (member of Parliament and the KVPU Chairperson) representation, the Committee requests the Government and the KVPU to indicate whether a new agreement has been reached and whether the KVPU has participated in the collective bargaining. The Committee also requests the Government and the KVPU to indicate whether amendments to the health sector agreement proposed by the KVPU have been considered and adopted.
13. 1495. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that pursuant to section 12 of the Labour Code, if more than one primary union is established at an enterprise or organization, the unions in question are required to set up a joint representative body on the basis of proportional representation and that under section 4 of the Law on Collective Agreements, if more than one trade union or trade union federation or other representative body authorized by the workforce to operate at an enterprise or at the state, branch or territorial level, such organizations are required to form a joint representative body for the purpose of collective bargaining.
14. 1496. The Committee notes that some of the complainants’ allegations are directed at the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine and its affiliates. The Committee notes, in particular, the allegation that the FPU-affiliated trade unions deny the KVPU or its affiliated trade unions the right to participate in collective bargaining and/or join a concluded collective agreement. The Committee notes the examples referred to by the complainant and observes the KVPU’s statement that seems to imply that the Government is willing to negotiate with both unions and their affiliated organization when concluding relevant branch agreements. The Committee therefore understands that the issue raised, concerns inter-union relations and recalls that by virtue of Article 3 of Convention No. 87, the only obligation of the Government is to refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of the workers’ and employers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, and to refrain from any interference which would impede the lawful exercise of that right. Article 2 of Convention No. 98 is designed to protect workers’ organizations against employers’ organizations or their agents or members and not against other workers’ organizations or the agents or members thereof. Inter-union rivalry is outside the scope of the Convention [see Digest, op.cit., paras 1117–1118]. In the absence of information from the complainant on the manner in which the Government may have interfered in this regard, the Committee will not pursue the examination of this aspect of the complaint.
15. 1497. The Committee notes the general allegations of pressure put on trade unions activists at certain mining enterprises (Frunze, Nikopol Plant of Ferroalloys and Kryvy Rih Iron Ore Complex) and mines mentioned in the KVPU communication dated 8 September 2011. It requests the Government to institute an independent investigation in respect of this matter and to keep it informed of the outcome.
16. 1498. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case.