Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 1996, Publicación: 85ª reunión CIT (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's report. It notes with interest that the Act on procedures for the resolution of labour disputes, and the Act on trade unions were adopted on 23 November 1995 and 12 January 1996 respectively. It notes that these texts take account of some of its comments. However, it raises certain points which call for comments or additional information.

Article 2 of the Convention. According to the definition given under Article 3 (Basic Terms) of the Act on trade unions, a primary trade union organization is a "voluntary association of trade union members" working, as a rule, at one and the same enterprise, institution or organization, irrespective of form of ownership or subordination. The rules governing primary trade union organizations fall within the competence of the "trade unions" (Article 71). The Committee asks the Government to provide clarification regarding the right of workers to form, if they so wish, directly at the level of the enterprise, organizations of their choosing, which depend on no existing trade union.

Referring to its previous direct request, the Committee again asks the Government to state whether the provisions of section 230 of the Labour Code, as amended in 1992, and which appeared to maintain trade union monopoly in enterprises, have been repealed.

The Committee notes that the application of the Act on trade unions to trade unions of various categories of public employees must be determined by the respective laws (Article 4). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the laws in question and a copy of the relevant texts, particularly in respect of employees of Russian Federation internal affairs agencies, agencies of the Federal Security Service, Russian Federation customs agencies, Federal Fiscal Police Agencies, judges and prosecutors.

Article 3. The Committee notes that, according to the Act on procedures for the resolution of collective labour disputes, the decision to declare a strike must indicate the duration thereof. The Committee asks the Government to state what the consequences are, for workers or their organizations, when a strike exceeds the stated duration.

The Committee further notes that under section 14(2), a strike can be called further to a vote requiring a 75 per cent quorum and a 50 per cent majority of those voting. The Committee considers that the cumulative effect of these provisions could prevent recourse to strike action, particularly in big enterprises and that the quorum requirement should be set at a reasonable level.

The Committee again asks the Government to state whether the Law on emergency powers of 3 April 1990, the Decree of the President of the USSR of 16 May 1991 and section 190.3 of the Penal Code, which contain major restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike and provide for severe penalties, including imprisonment for up to three years, have been repealed by a specific text, as the Committee requested in its previous comment.

The Committee considers that the Law on procedures for the resolution of labour disputes does not allow a clear determination of the circumstances in which strikes are authorized. It encourages the Government to endeavour to clarify the relevant provisions to ensure unambiguously the right of trade unions to organize their activities.

Article 7. The Act on trade unions (Article 8.1), expressly allows trade unions not to register. In this case, they do not acquire the rights deriving from legal personality. The Committee asks the Government to clarify this provision, in particular by stating what activities are authorized for trade unions which do not register.

The Committee reminds the Government that, should it so wish, it may avail itself of ILO assistance with a view to taking the measures necessary to proper application of the Convention.