Informe provisional - Informe núm. 287, Junio 1993

1. 417. The International Union of Workers in the Food and Related Industries (IUF) submitted, on behalf of its affiliate, the Unified Trade Union of Fishery Workers of the Commonwealth of Independent States (UTFW-CIS), a complaint against the Government of the Russian Federation, dated 4 March 1992, alleging violations of freedom of association. It subsequently sent additional information supplied by its affiliate and dated 15 June and 30 October 1992, together with documents supplied by the Trade Union Council of Fishery Workers of the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking of Vladivostok.
2. 418. The Government sent its comments and observations on this case in a letter dated 12 February 1993.
3. 419. The Russian Federation has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It has not, however, ratified the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 420. In a letter dated 4 March 1992, the IUF alleges that the Government of the Russian Federation has violated Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 135.
2. 421. The IUF explains in detail that on 3 October 1991, upon the orders of the Director of the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking, Mr. Y. Didenko, the trade union council's premises were closed, its property removed, the locks changed and the doors sealed, all of which infringes section 233 of the Labour Code, which states the following:
   • Section 233. Undertakings, establishments or organizations shall provide free of charge to local, factory or plant trade union councils the necessary premises, with all the equipment, the heating, lighting, cleaning and security facilities that are necessary to the council's own work and to the holding of workers' meetings.
   • Managements shall provide transport and communication facilities free of charge to local, factory or plant trade union councils.
3. 422. According to the IUF, the Director of the undertaking took those measures in retaliation for criticism expressed by the trade union council over the management's adoption of several unilateral decisions without the council's agreement, including the arbitrary dismissal of 50 fishing workers employed on the vessel "Victoria".
4. 423. The IUF adds that the UTFW has in vain approached several state bodies, including the Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, in an attempt to obtain justice. It attaches to its complaint copies of various articles of correspondence from the UTFW to the Public Prosecutor and the Congress of Peoples Deputies, together with a copy of the negative response received by the UTFW from the Deputy Public Prosecutor.
5. 424. The requests addressed to the Public Prosecutor by the central committee of the UTFW were to the effect that he take a decision concerning the violations both of the labour legislation and of the rights of the trade union council of the undertaking in question.
6. 425. In his response to the requests by the UTFW, the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation points out that a new independent trade union has been established and registered at the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking, in accordance with the law. According to the Deputy Public Prosecutor, the rights of the complainant trade union council, at the time of the establishment of the other trade union council accounting for over 60 per cent of the workers at the undertaking, were not violated. He states that both of the trade union councils have in fact had the use of premises, telephone and transport facilities and maintenance services, all free of charge, in accordance with section 133 of the Labour Code and section 21 of the Act on Trade Unions.
7. 426. The allocation to the complainant trade union council of the premises which it occupied until 1990 in the undertaking's administrative building had been decided by the management without consultation of the workforce. The Dalmoreprodukt undertaking subsequently decided to allocate to the complainant trade union council other premises comprising three rooms, still without the agreement of the workforce. However, according to the Deputy Public Prosecutor, there is no cause for bringing proceedings against the Director of the undertaking, Mr. Didenko, since in this individual case it was not possible, with the majority of the undertaking's workers away at sea, to call a meeting of the workforce to decide upon the matter, and since, in any case, the legal requirements had been met, the complainant trade union council having been allocated free premises together with telephone and transport facilities.
8. 427. Subsequently, in a letter dated 15 June 1992, the IUF states that threats of anti-union reprisals were made by the management of the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking in response to its having participated in the lodging of this complaint, and it therefore requests that the ILO intervene as a matter of urgency should those threats be implemented.
9. 428. Finally, the IUF states, in a letter dated 30 October 1992, that a "new trade union" under the full control of the undertaking's general management has been established. According to the IUF, this trade union, which is non-representative and controlled by the management, is not registered and is not affiliated to any regional or national trade union organization in the fishing industry. Furthermore, in October 1992, the trade union council affiliated to the UTFW was ordered by the management to leave the premises in which it was located. According to the IUF, any further delay in examining the complaint as a result of the Government's slowness in responding will lead de facto to the elimination of the existing trade union at the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking.

B. The Government's reply

1. 429. In its reply of 12 February 1993, the Government states that it is up to the courts to rule on conflicts between trade union organizations and undertakings. In the present case, the Public Prosecutor of Russia expressed the view, in February 1992, that there was no cause for bringing proceedings against the management of the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking on the grounds of violation of the labour legislation. Since that time, the Government has not been aware of any other appeals being lodged by the complainant trade union council, with the courts, the Public Prosecutor's Office or the Russian Ministry of Labour - a fact which does not help to clarify the situation.
2. 430. On the other hand, the Government states that the new trade union at the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking (an independent trade union organization) was established in full conformity with the legislation in force and that it was registered on 14 July 1991 by the Executive Committee of the Justice Department of Primorskij, in accordance with the relevant procedure. According to the Government, this trade union covers the very great majority of the workers at the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking.
3. 431. The Government gives its assurance that the Ministry of Labour will do its best to shed light on the circumstances of this matter, and that this will include the intervention of the Tripartite Commission on Social and Occupational Relations.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 432. In the present case, the allegations of the complainant organization relate to the closure of the premises used by the trade union council of an undertaking by the Director-General of that undertaking. According to the complainant, this measure was taken because the trade union council had criticized several decisions taken unilaterally by the management, particularly the arbitrary dismissal of 50 fishing crew.
2. 433. On the other hand, the Government understands from the reply of the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation that an independent trade union accounting for over 60 per cent of the workers in the undertaking was established and registered, on 14 July 1991, in accordance with the law. The Committee notes that this statement is in contradiction with the statement of the complainant which considers that the new trade union is not representative. However, according to the Deputy Public Prosecutor, it would appear that the trade union rights of the complainant trade union council have not been violated, since the undertaking allocated premises and other facilities to both trade union councils.
3. 434. The Committee further notes that the Government refers, in its communication of 12 February 1993, to the decision of the Deputy Public Prosecutor of February 1992 and adds that it has not been aware of any other appeals being lodged by the complainant trade union council. The Committee notes that the Government has undertaken to shed light on the circumstances of this matter.
4. 435. It therefore appears that, at least initially, the two rival trade union councils at the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking had the benefit of premises.
5. 436. However, more recent allegations indicate that threats of anti-union discrimination had been made by the Director of the Dalmoreprodukt undertaking against the leaders of the complainant union and that in October 1992 the complainant trade union council was expelled from the premises which had been allocated to it. In order to enable it to formulate its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts, the Committee therefore requests the complainant organization to submit its comments and observations on the statement of the Prosecutor concerning the representativity of the new trade union. It also requests the Government to furnish its observations on the more recent allegations according to which threats of anti-trade union reprisals were made against leaders of the complainant organization and that the complainant trade union council was expelled in October 1992 from the premises which had been allocated to it.