Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 338, November 2005

835. The complaint is contained in communications dated 29 September and 10 December 2004 and 25 May 2005 from the Georgian Trade Union Amalgamation (GTUA). In a communication dated 25 March 2005, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) associated itself with the complaint and provided additional information. The ICFTU provided further additional information in a communication dated 23 September 2005.

1. 836. The Committee has been obliged to postpone its examination of the case on two occasions [see 335th and 336th Reports, paras. 5 and 6, respectively]. At its meeting in May-June 2005 [see 337th Report, para. 10], the Committee issued an urgent appeal to the Government, indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting even if the information or observations requested had not been received in due time. No reply from the Government has been received so far.
2. 837. Georgia 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).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 838. In their communications of 29 September and 10 December 2004, and 25 March and 25 May 2005, the Georgian Trade Union Amalgamation (GTUA) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleged the Government’s interference in the GTUA internal affairs. More particularly, they alleged that the Government seized trade union assets, intimidated the GTUA leaders by publicly and privately threatening them with imprisonment and made derogatory statements in the mass media about the GTUA. They further indicated that despite the repeated attempts of the GTUA to resolve the matters through constructive dialogue, the state authorities continued to ignore them.
2. 839. The GTUA alleged that after the Rose Revolution in November 2003, the property, which the GTUA had acquired following the collapse of the USSR and the old soviet trade union system, became the target of the new Government. The authorities question the rights of trade unions to continue to use property dating back to the soviet era. The GTUA had repeatedly pointed out that the Georgian Constitution protects property rights and the Trade Unions Act and Constitution allow trade unions to own property. Moreover, in summer 2003, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the GTUA was the legitimate successor and owner of the trade union property of the USSR Central Council of Trade Unions. These arguments did not, however, seem to carry much weight with the new authorities.
3. 840. On 21 June 2004, during a session of the Parliamentary Office, the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee was requested to examine the question of property belonging to the GTUA with a view to paving the way for its confiscation. On 13 July 2004, the Legal Affairs Committee asked the chairperson of the GTUA, Mr. Irakli Tugushi, to provide information on all assets owned by the unions.
4. 841. According to the complainants, the authorities also used force and intimidation. On 3 August 2004, Mr. Tugushi was met by four officials of the State Security Service, who brought him to the Office of the Prosecutor-General. There, he was informed that on 7 July 2004, the Office of the Prosecutor-General had received material pertaining to a piece of investigative journalism – a videocassette recording of a Georgian TV programme “60 minutes” dated from 1999. In the programme, a number of leaders of the GTUA-affiliated trade unions were accused of illegally acquiring property and embezzlement. On the basis of the contents of the broadcast, criminal proceedings were initiated in July 2004 under section 182 of the Georgian Penal Code (“Misappropriation and embezzlement”). The complainants stated that in 1999, the GTUA took legal action against the producers of the programme to protect its honour, dignity and reputation. The dispute was resolved following a public acknowledgement that he programme was biased and based on uncorroborated evidence.
5. 842. On 29 July, the Director of the Investigations Department of the Office of the Prosecutor-General ordered an audit of all financial and economic activities of the GTUA. The official order required that: (1) a documentary audit be carried out of all GTUA’s financial and economic activities; (2) the audit be entrusted to the special investigation centre of the Ministry of Justice; and (3) the legality of the accounting and the ownership of the GTUA’s principal assets between 1 January 1992 and 1 July 2004 be determined and that the GTUA’s revenues for the period in question be reviewed. Judicial approval for the audit was given on 9 August 2004. The auditing commission carried out a meticulous study of the assets and finances of the GTUA-affiliated unions and produced an interim report on 2 November 2004. The report stated that the “the GTUA was the lawful owner of its assets, which it used in a manner consistent with the Constitution and laws of Georgia”. The Director of the Investigations Department was, however, not satisfied with this conclusion and asked the court to extend the court order of 9 August 2004 and to change the membership of the Commission. The district court granted this request on 11 November 2004 and the audit continued. The GTUA’s basic documents (records, accounts, etc.) have been seized and placed under seal, and the office of Ms. Londa Sikharulidze, the GTUA deputy chairperson, had been sealed. On 6 December 2004, the district court in Tbilisi granted another request to carry out a financial audit of the economic structure of the GTUA’s health and recreational association “Profkurort”, which managed the GTUA’s holiday facilities. All relevant financial documents were seized and the office of the enterprise director was closed and sealed off. On 23 February 2005, the same court satisfied a request of the Director of the Serious Crimes Investigations Department of the Office of the Prosecutor-General to seize the accounts of all facilities owned by the GTUA (sanatoria, resorts, sports and holiday facilities, and others). Documents were seized from 104 such facilities. As appears from the ICFTU’s communication, also in February, Ms. Sikharulidze and the manager of the “Kurortinvest” had been questioned in the Prosecutor-General’s office. The GTUA deputy chairperson had been unambiguously told that she could be arrested next time.
6. 843. The complainants furthermore alleged that the President of Georgia declared on national TV, that the unions were “useless, mafia-type organizations” and demanded that they hand over their assets to the State without delay; failure to do so, would mean that the Prosecutor-General would be instructed to investigate the activities of the GTUA and its chairperson. According to the complainants, the President used the following language: “If the unions do not hand over their assets in Borzhomi – and elsewhere – within a week, their leaders will be brought to the Prosecutor’s office in handcuffs”. The complainant submitted that the authorities adopted an attitude implacable hostility towards the unions. Despite the repeated appeals by the GTUA, the Government refused to have a dialogue with the union and instead have embarked on the path of prosecution and blackmail.
7. 844. In its communication of 25 March 2005, the ICFTU submitted that letters of international solidarity only made the authorities increase their pressure on trade unions. In its assessment of the situation, the ICFTU stated that the GTUA had been prepared to discuss the question of assets and to return most of them, provided that negotiations were carried out in a legal, honest and responsible manner. The actions taken by the authorities appeared to demonstrate that they considered to be preferable to force the GTUA leaders to make decisions against the GTUA interests and to waive the assets rather than to achieve the same goal through transparent negotiations. The ICFTU raised suspicions about the ultimate goal of the attacks on the GTUA – which, according to this organization, may not be limited to getting hold of trade union possessions, but aimed rather to discredit the GTUA and break the trade union movement from inside.
8. 845. The complainants further alleged that on 12 February 2005, Mr. Tugushi was summoned by the Minister of Economics and was told to give all the GTUA property to the State, with the exception of the GTUA offices. The ICFTU pointed out in this respect that the property to be given to the State would include the Palace of Culture, the venue of trade union congresses and councils that had been returned to the GTUA by decision of the constitutional court. The Minister came up with the theory that the GTUA property was amassed under pressure, since during the USSR times, workers had been forced to join trade unions. According to the ICFTU, this indicated that international labour standards, human rights and the rule of law were sacrificed to what appeared to be the financial interests of the State.
9. 846. Apart from the never-ending financial audits and inspections, the state authorities have been using various other means of putting pressure on the unions in order to coerce them into handling over their assets. Knowing that if they nationalized union assets, they would be obliged to pay a reasonable sum in compensation, the Government sought a way of appropriating the assets by other means. Also, aware of previous attempts of the GTUA to defend its rights by appealing to the Supreme Court, the constitutional court and the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, the authorities have sought to use methods that could not be challenged in those bodies. On 19 February 2005, the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee drew up a bill to amend the Trade Unions Act. This bill provided for compulsory re-registration of trade union members by 15 March 2005. The bill passed at its first reading. In its communication, the ICFTU stated that as of 14 March 2005, the new legislation was not yet adopted but that it had been explained to the GTUA that the re-registration of trade union members would be introduced in one way or another, depending on whether the GTUA gave its assets to the State. According to the ICFTU, the text of the amendment left no doubt that it aimed to intimidate trade unions and create chaos in the GTUA. The amendment would add a new chapter comprising a single section called “transitional provision” at the very end of the Trade Unions Act and this provision would consist of a single line as follows: “The registration of trade union members must be accomplished by 15 March 2005.” There were no rules provided for the process of registration, entities or institutions responsible for registration, no provisions authorizing the Government or any government institution to issue by-laws, no procedure to contest the results of the re-registration and no personal data protection clause. The explanatory memorandum did not provide any reason for the re-registration except the fact that the number of civil servants had decreased, so re-registration was necessary for the protection of trade union members. Another bill, “on trade union assets”, which would allow the seizure of trade union assets, was also drafted.
10. 847. Furthermore, emphasizing the lack of dialogue on social-economic issues, the ICFTU stated that amendments to the labour laws that made dismissals easier were adopted in June 2004 without any form of consultation with the GTUA. Though some meetings on the new draft Labour Code took place in spring 2004, the Code was currently rushed through without involving the trade unions. The ICFTU expressed its concern that the reforms of labour and trade union legislation without involving the workers’ representatives may result in socially unacceptable legislation and unrest which would hold back the country’s development.
11. 848. On 19 February 2005, Mr. Lasha Chichinadze, the GTUA deputy chairperson, was arrested by the financial police and charged with a criminal offence under section 182 of the Penal Code (appropriation of assets belonging to another person or persons with the intention of unlawfully taking possession of them by means involving deception). This section provided for fines or community service for periods of between 170 and 200 hours, or corrective labour for up to two years, or detention for up to three months, or loss of liberty for up to three years. His apartment was searched on the same day. During the search, only trade union material was seized, including an inventory of union assets. According to the complainants, that only confirmed their suspicion that the arrest of Mr. Chichinadze was a deliberately provocative act intended to intimidate the GTUA’s leaders and to force the union to sign away its assets.
12. 849. A financial police investigator of the Ministry of Finance applied to the Supreme Court to authorize preventive detention of Mr. Chichinadze. On 22 February 2005, a public hearing was held during which, a Supreme Court judge acknowledged that while the evidence suggested that there were grounds for indicting Mr. Chichinadze, they were insufficient to warrant preventive detention. Mr. Chichinadze was released. However, the prosecutor lodged an appeal against this ruling in the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court. On 25 February 2005, the ruling of 22 February was reviewed. The presiding judge set aside the Supreme Court ruling of 22 February and ordered that Mr. Chichinadze be held in preventive detention for three months.
13. 850. In the circumstances of such pressure, the GTUA council met on 25 February 2005. The council was obliged to take a decision about the transfer without compensation of the greater part of its holiday and sports facilities. An agreement to that effect was concluded with the Ministry of Economic Development on 27 February 2005. Under the terms of the agreement, some 102 items of the GTUA real estate (as over 90 per cent of its property) were transferred to the Government. The agreement contained a clause according to which, the property transferred did not include seven properties in Tbilisi and a number of holiday facilities. Immediately after the agreement was signed, all inspections at entities transferred to the state ownership ceased. However, inspections continued at the entities and facilities remaining in the GTUA’s ownership. In its communication of 23 September 2005, the ICFTU submitted that in order to strengthen its rights to the confiscated property, on 1 March 2005, the Ministry of Finance submitted an application to the court to confirm that the GTUA had not followed the agreed procedure for the transfer of property to the State and that the State was the rightful owner of the property. A court hearing was scheduled for 7 March 2005, i.e. before the completion of the one-month term specified in the property transfer contract. The GTUA, knowing that in the absence of an independent judicial system, the State would obtain the required court ruling, and fearing the legal charges related to the compulsory execution (which constitute 7 per cent of the suit sum, and would, in this case, amount to millions of lari), was forced into an amicable agreement. Hence, the GTUA confirmed the property transfer in court.
14. 851. In the same communication, the ICFTU stated that during Mr. Chichinadze’s imprisonment, no attempt was made to make progress in investigating the charges against him. In fact, the investigators never talked to or interrogated the prisoner. A day before the end of Mr. Chichinadze’s three-month preventive detention, the Prosecutor requested an extension of his detention. Despite the previous intervention by the chairperson of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee, who drew the attention of the Prosecutor-General to a number of inaccuracies and uncorroborated allegations in the case of Mr. Chichinadze, as well as interventions by the Georgian Human Rights Commissioner, by the head of the Office of the People’s Defender and by the GTUA, offering to stand bail for Mr. Chichinadze in a sum of 679,124 lari (US$377,300), on 18 May 2005, the court extended Mr. Chichinadze’s detention by two months. On 23 May 2005, the Supreme Court upheld this decision.
15. 852. On the same day, 23 May 2005, the President of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, made another statement on national television that the Georgian unions had not yet transferred the sports centre “Stormy Petrel” (“Burevestnik”) in Tbilisi and demanded that the sports centre in question be handed over to the State.
16. 853. As a result of such pressure, the GTUA council’s meeting held on 21 June 2005 voted to hand over the rest of the GTUA property to the State. The action was seen as the only possible way to protect people and trade unions. The GTUA retained only a few pieces of real estate property. The GTUA was also to hand over the building in Tbilisi where its offices and the offices of the industry sector unions were located. Within several days of the decision to transfer the second portion of the trade union property, all investigations into the GTUA’s financial affairs stopped. Prosecution officers returned the keys from Ms. Sikharulidze’s office which had been kept sealed before and returned all documents seized from the office.
17. 854. In its last communication, the ICFTU also stated that on 9 July 2005, two weeks after signing the contract on granting the GTUA property to the State, Mr. Chichinadze was released on bail. The court hearing to consider his application to be released on bail took place on a Saturday evening and was closed to journalists and the general public. The secrecy of the hearings was a condition of Mr. Chichinadze’s release, as he and his lawyers had been told. According to the ICFTU, the fact that Mr. Chichinadze was released soon after the signing of the contract concerning the complete transfer of the GTUA property to the Georgina Government and the fact that the court was satisfied with a negligible deposit of only 5,000 lari to secure his release, confirmed that Mr. Chichinadze’s detention had been used by the State authorities as a means of exerting pressure on the GTUA to make it hand over the property. The Prosecutor’s office offered to end the case on the grounds that the crime was not dangerous. Mr. Chichinadze requested for the case to be referred to the court to determine whether there was a crime. Prosecution officers opposed the referral. An admission by a court that there was no crime would be indirect proof of the fact that all agreements were signed under pressure and with use of force.
18. 855. According to the ICFTU, the Georgian authorities were now selling off the property handed over by the GTUA. Three establishments have already been sold. According to the GTUA estimates, they were sold at a price which was clearly lower than the market value. For example, the “Batumi” holiday resort, which attracted offers of $3 million to the GTUA, was sold for the official sum of $970,000.
19. 856. On 1 September 2005, the Mayor of Tbilisi, Mr. Ugulava, met the GTUA president and asked the GTUA to yield the Palace of Culture to the city of Tbilisi. This was the only building of the GTUA in Tbilisi and where the GTUA was to move after giving away the House of Unions (which accommodated the GTUA and sectoral unions) to the State. In return, Mr. Ugulava offered two buildings to the GTUA, the total value of which was less than half of the value of the Palace of Culture. The GTUA refused.
20. 857. The complainants also alleged that, on 4 November 2004, the Minister of Defence issued Order No. 323 rescinding a Ministry of Defence order issued in 1999 allocating premises for the use of the GTUA Committee for Armed Forces personnel. On 7 December 2004, the Ministry of Defence applied to the Vakesaburtalin court to annul the registration of the union representing armed forces personnel. The complaints pointed out that, under the terms of the Georgian Constitution, every citizen has the right to establish a union. The GTUA appealed to the Parliamentary Defence and Security Committee, and the Minister of Defence. No reply was ever received and the case was still pending in court.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 858. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was first presented, the Government has not replied to any of the complainants’ allegations, although it has been invited on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on the case. The Committee strongly urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 859. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee finds itself obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without the benefit of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 860. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident, that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations made against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
4. 861. The Committee notes that the complainants in this case alleged that the Government interfered in the GTUA internal affairs. More particularly, they alleged that the Government was trying to seize trade union assets. To this end, it used various means of pressure: intimidating statements addressed to the GTUA, drafting of legislation violating trade union rights, arrest and detention of GTUA leaders, numerous audits of the GTUA financial activities and overall refusal of the Government to have a constructive dialogue with the GTUA. The Committee recalls that at its March 2003 meeting, the Committee examined Case No. 2144 concerning a complaint presented by the same trade organization [see 330th Report, paras. 692-720]. The allegations in that case also concerned seizing of trade union property and interference in trade union matters. The Committee deeply regrets that since this case was examined, the Government did not provide any information on the effect given to the Committee’s recommendation
5. 862. The Committee also notes the allegations that trade unions were generally not involved in the drafting of the new Labour Code. As concerns the drafting of the bill amending the Trade Unions Act, which provided for compulsory re-registration of trade union members, and the Bill on Trade Union Assets, which would allow a seizure of trade union assets, the Committee notes that not only the legislation was drafted without any consultation with the trade unions but also that once the GTUA agreed to transfer a substantial part of its property to the State, the work on drafting and amending trade union legislation was stopped. In these circumstances, the Committee cannot rule out the contentions made by the complainants that the legislative powers were used as a means of pressure to settle the question of trade union property. The Committee recalls that in Case No. 2144, it had stressed that Article 3 of Convention No. 87 provided that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without any interference from the authorities. It reminded the Government that if it intended to reconsider the legislation in force, it should hold full and frank consultations with the social partners [see 330th Report, para. 717]. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that these principles are respected without delay. The Committee further requests the Government to keep it informed of the current status of the abovementioned bills and of any changes brought to the legislation regulating trade union rights and their activities.
6. 863. The Committee further notes that criminal charges were brought against the chairperson of the GTUA, Mr. I. Tugushi, and his deputy, Mr. L. Chichinadze. Mr. Tigushi was accused of misappropriation and embezzlement in July 2004 and the charges were based on a recording of a TV programme dated from 1999, which was later publicly admitted by the producers of the programme to be biased. In cases involving the arrest, detention or sentencing of a trade union official, the Committee, taking the view that individuals have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty, has considered that it was incumbent upon the Government to show that the measures it had taken were in no way occasioned by the trade union activities of the individual concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 65]. The Committee therefore requests the Government to either provide information demonstrating that the charges brought against Mr. Tugushi were not due to his legitimate trade union activities and have him rapidly brought to trial or drop the charges against him. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
7. 864. As regards, Mr. Chichinadze, the Committee notes that he was accused of fraud (section 182 of the Penal Code) and had spent five months in preventive detention. The Committee notes that the chairperson of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee and the Georgian Human Rights Commissioner pointed to the inaccuracies and uncorroborated allegations in his case. The Committee notes that according to the communication of the ICFTU of 23 September 2005, Mr. Chichinadze was released and the Prosecutor’s office offered to end the case on the grounds that the crime was not dangerous. The Committee further notes that Mr. Chichinadze requested for the case to be referred to the court to determine whether there had been a crime but this initiative met opposition from the prosecution. Firstly, the Committee points out that, although the exercise of trade union activity or holding of trade union office does not provide immunity as regards the application of ordinary criminal law, the continued detention of trade unionists without bringing them to trial may constitute a serious impediment to the exercise of trade union rights. The prolonged preventive detention of a person without bringing him or her to trial is a practice, which involves an inherent danger of abuse; for this reason it is subject to criticism [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 87 and 90]. Secondly, considering that no criminal record should be maintained against Mr. Chichinadze in these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether Mr. Chichinadze has been cleared of all charges of fraud brought against him and if not, to take immediate action to do so or refer the case to the court, as requested by Mr. Chichinadze. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
8. 865. As concerns the audits carried out into the financial activities of the GTUA, the Committee notes that, unsatisfied by the conclusions of the commission that conducted the first audit in August 2004, the Government requested the second audit by a different commission. For the purpose of the second audit conducted in November 2004, the GTUA’s documents were seized. The office of the then vice-chairperson of the union was sealed. The Committee recalls that the occupation or sealing of trade union premises should be subject to independent judicial review before being undertaken by the authorities in view of the significant risk that such measures may paralyse trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 183]. The Committee notes that another audit was conducted in December 2004 and concerned the health and recreational association “Profkurort” belonging to the GTUA. Again, all relevant documents were seized and the office of the director of the enterprise managing the GTUA’s health and recreational facilities was sealed. On 23 February 2005, another audit of all recreational facilities owned by the GTUA was authorized. Documents were seized from 104 such facilities. In these circumstances, and in the light of the anti-union atmosphere (where threats against the GTUA are made publicly) and of the fact that these allegations have not been denied by the Government, the Committee is bound to conclude that the numerous financial audits were employed as a means of pressuring the GTUA to hand over its property to the State. The Committee recalls that as regards certain measures of administrative control over trade union assets, such as financial audits and investigations, the Committee considers that these should be applied only in exceptional cases, when justified by grave circumstances (for instance, presumed irregularities in the annual statement or irregularities reported by members of the organization), in order to preclude the danger of excessive intervention by the authorities which might hamper a union’s exercise of the right to organize its administration freely, and also to avoid harmful and perhaps unjustified publicity of the disclosure of information which might be confidential [see Digest, op. cit., para. 444]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure the application of this principle. Noting that the documents seized from the GTUA have not been returned and that no formal accusations have been brought against the GTUA, the Committee considers that the trade union documents in question should be returned to the GTUA and requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.
9. 866. The Committee notes the ICFTU’s statement that the Georgian authorities were now selling off the property handed over by the GTUA for a considerably lower price than its market value. Three establishments were already sold. The Committee further notes that the GTUA was recently requested by the authorities to yield the Palace of Culture, its only building in Tbilisi where the GTUA was to move after giving away the House of Unions to the State. In return, it was offered two buildings, the total value of which, according to the complainants, was less than half the value of the Palace of Culture. The GTUA refused.
10. 867. In examining this case of assignment of trade union property, that the GTUA acquired as a successor of the soviet trade unions, the Committee is fully aware of the great complexity of the matters raised. This complexity is due to several factors: the diversity and origin of the resources held by the former Georgian trade unions (state subsidies and contributions from their members), the nature of the functions of trade unions in a post-soviet area and the democratization process. The Committee nevertheless condemns the anti-union tactics, pressure and intimidation the Government chose to use in dealing with this issue. The Committee regrets that the Government has so far refused all dialogue with GTUA. The Committee emphasizes the importance, for the preservation of a country’s social harmony, of constructive dialogue between public authorities and trade union organizations. It therefore urges the Government to engage in consultations with the trade union organizations concerned in order to settle the questions of the assignment of property. It requests the Government to provide information on the development of the situation and, in particular, on any agreement which may be reached in this respect.
11. 868. Finally, as concerns the right to organize members of the armed forces, the Committee notes that the complainants provided no information on the membership of the union representing armed forces personnel. In these circumstances, the Committee would recall that although Article 9 of Convention No. 87 authorizes the exclusion from the right to organize of the armed forces, civilians working in the services of the army should have the right to form trade unions.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 869. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
2. (a) The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was first presented, the Government has not replied to any of the complainants’ allegations. The Committee strongly urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
3. (b) The Committee stresses that Article 3 of Convention No. 87 provides that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without any interference form the authorities. It reminds the Government that if it intended to reconsider the legislation in force, it should hold full and frank consultation with the social partners. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that these principles are respected without delay. The Committee further requests the Government to keep it informed of the current status of the bill amending the Trade Unions Act and of the bill on trade union assets, and of any changes brought to the legislation regulating trade union rights and their activities.
4. (c) As concerns the criminal charges brought against two trade union leaders:
5. – the Committee requests the Government to either provide information demonstrating that the charges brought against Mr. Tugushi were not due to his legitimate trade union activities and have him rapidly brought to trial or drop the charges against him;
6. – considering that no criminal record should be maintained against Mr. Chichinadze, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether he has been cleared of all charges of fraud brought against him and, if not, to take immediate action to do so or refer the case to the court, as requested by Mr. Chichinadze.
7. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
8. (d) The Committee considers that financial audits should be carried out only in exceptional cases, when justified by grave circumstances, in order to preclude the danger of excessive intervention by the authorities which might hamper a union’s exercise of the right to organize its administration freely, and also to avoid harmful and perhaps unjustified publicity of the discloser of information which might be confidential. The Committee requests the Government to ensure the application of this principle.
9. (e) Noting the documents seized from the GTUA have not been returned and that no formal accusations have been brought against the GTUA, the Committee considers that the trade union documents in question should be returned to the GTUA and requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.
10. (f) The Committee condemns the anti-union tactics, pressure and intimidation the Government chose to use in dealing with this issue and regrets that the Government has so far refused all dialogue with the GTUA. The Committee therefore invites the Government to engage in consultations with trade union organizations concerned in order to settle the question of the assignment of property. It requests the Government to provide information on the development of the situation and, in particular, on any agreement which may be reached in this respect.