Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 353, Marzo 2009

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 141. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2008 session [see 350th Report, paras 1409–1422] and made the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee regrets that the Government failed to provide information on most of the outstanding issues and once again requests the Government to instigate the necessary inquiries into the alleged acts of interference in the internal affairs of the CSRM and its affiliate organizations and the other allegations of government interference in the establishment and functioning of workers’ organizations and to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (b) The Committee also once again requests the Government to actively consider, in full and frank consultations with social partners, legislative provisions expressly sanctioning violations of trade union rights and providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference in trade union internal affairs. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case and recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard.
   • (c) The Committee expects that the Government will transmit the judgements relating to Mr Molosag without delay and further requests the complainants in this case to transmit these judgements so that the Committee may examine the allegation of wrongful dismissal of Mr Molosag from the post of president of the SINDASP in full knowledge of the facts.
2. 142. In a communication dated 29 May 2008, the Union of Public Authorities and Public Services Unions of the Republic of Moldova (USASP) provide the following information. Since 2003, interference by the public authorities in trade unions affairs affiliated to the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CSRM) has intensified, especially with regard to the Federation of Trade Unions of Public Service Employees (SINDASP). As a result, a number of district-level unions have broken away from the SINDASP and a trade union federation under the same name has been established within the “Solidaritate” Confederation (organization supported by the Government) and registered by the Ministry of Justice under the same registration number. In 2006, the SINDASP Federation (with Mr Molosag as its president), member of the CSRM, comprised over 400 primary organizations and a total membership of around 10,000. In August 2006, Mr Molosag, in violation of the Federation’s statutes, transferred the assets and all documentation of the SINDASP Federation to the “parallel” SINDASP Federation. Mr Molosag’s actions caused an outrage among trade union activists and rank and file members of the SINDASP Federation affiliated to the CSRM. A decision was made to set up an organizing committee with a view to establishing a new branch trade union centre. The new trade union, the USASP, was established on 3 February 2007. On 6 February 2007, its founding members submitted the documents for registration to the Ministry of Justice. On 17 March 2007, an employee of the registration department of the Ministry of Justice urged the union to request a suspension of the registration to allow time for the necessary establishment of federations of trade union organizations in the regions. This process was carried out throughout March and April 2007 and on 2 May 2007, all the necessary documents were lodged with the Ministry. The Ministry raised no objections regarding these documents and a draft registration certificate was drawn up. However, this process was discontinued by the Deputy Minister of Justice on 5 June, who, in the presence of the USASP president, instructed the chief of the administration department to write a letter of refusal to register the USASP. The complainant alleges that it received this notification of refusal dated 4 June on 13 June 2007.
3. 143. In the light of the fact that one of the reasons for the denial of registration was the provision contained in article 1 of the USASP statutes to the effect that it was the legal successor of the SINDASP Federation, on 1 July 2007, the National Council of the USASP decided to exclude this provision from the text of its statutes. On 3 July 2007, an application for the registration was sent to the Ministry. However, the registration was once again denied. On 8 August 2007, the USASP petitioned the Court of Appeal of Chisinau. On 3 December 2007, after several sittings, the Appeal Court ordered registration. However, the Ministry of Justice lodged an appeal with the High Court of the Republic of Moldova, which in its decision of 5 March 2008 referred the case back to the Court of Appeal. On 19 May 2008, the court examined the case and concluded the hearing process. It rejected the Ministry of Justice application to call the SINDASP Federation (formerly “Solidaritate”) as its witness and indicated that it would hand down a ruling on the case on 26 May 2008. On 26 May, however, the court resumed hearings on the case and this time upheld the application to allow the SINDASP to appear for the Ministry of Justice. According to the complainant, there is sufficient evidence that the court changed its position as a result of pressure from the Ministry of Justice, the SINDASP Federation and the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova.
4. 144. The complainant organization states that it requested the Prosecutor General of the Republic to examine the legality of the refusal of registration on the grounds that the Ministry of Justice had falsified the date of its refusal to register the statutes of the USASP (on 5 June 2007, the date of the meeting with the Deputy Minister of Justice, that document did not yet exist, but on 13 June the USASP received it under the registration No. 17.1 of 4 June 2007). The complainant alleges that it received the dismissive responses from the Office of the Public Prosecutor in breach of the legal deadline for replying.
5. 145. In its communication dated 4 September 2008, the Government indicates that all information concerning this case has been already provided to the Committee. With regard to the allegation of refusal to register the USASP, the Government indicates the following. On 19 February 2007, the USASP applied for registration as a national branch trade union centre. Having examined the documents, on 17 March 2007, the Ministry of Justice informed the applicants about the suspension of their request and explained that for the registration of a national branch trade union centre, the establishment of the territorial trade union organization was necessary. After this task was fulfilled during March–April 2007, on 5 May 2007, the national branch trade union centre reapplied for registration. On 4 June 2007, the Ministry of Justice issued the decision to refuse registration of the USASP for the following reasons:
   • – According to section 1 of the Trade Unions Law of 7 July 2000, the National Branch Trade Union Centre is a free (voluntary) association of trade unions which, as a rule, belong to the same branch. For the registration of these organizations as a national branch trade union centre it is required that the founders must be registered organizations having a status of a legal personality, which should be attested by the relevant documents.
   • – The statute of the USASP does not correspond to the requirements of section 186(2) of the Civil Code, as it does not contain the data about its founders, the mode and conditions of its reorganization, as well as the information about the mode of establishment and liquidation of its subsidiaries.
   • – The fact that the USASP declares itself a successor of the Public Services Trade Unions Federation of the Republic of Moldova is a serious violation of the legislation in force.
6. 146. On 3 July 2007, the USASP addressed a letter to the Ministry of Justice in which it requested to repeal the decision of 4 June 2007 and to register its statute. By the answer of the Ministry of Justice of 27 July 2007, the applicant was informed that it will be registered after presentation of the establishing acts which satisfy the requirements of the legislation in force. On 8 August 2007, the USASP instituted legal proceedings in the Court of Appeal against the Ministry of Justice, demanding registration of its statute, an amendment of the registration procedure under the Trade Unions Law and a reimbursement of the material and moral damage caused by refusal of the registration. On 3 December 2007, the Court of Appeal partially satisfied the claim, obliging the Ministry of Justice to register the statute of the USASP. On 24 December 2007, the Ministry of Justice submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice a writ of appeal. On 5 March 2008, the Supreme Court of Justice admitted the Ministry of Justice claim and returned the case for a retrial to the Court of Appeal. On 2 June 2008, the Court of Appeal once again obliged the Ministry of Justice to register the statute of the USASP. On 13 June 2008, the Ministry of Justice appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal and the case is now pending before the Supreme Court of Justice. The Government states that it will observe and execute every lawful decision issued by the courts.
7. 147. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s and the complainant’s communications. It recalls that in its previous examinations of this case, it had expressed its concerns that the merger of the Confederation “Solidaritate”, allegedly supported by the Government, and the main central complainant organization, the CSRM, had taken place within the framework of persistent allegations of interference and pressure on trade unions to change their affiliation to become members of the Confederation “Solidaritate”.
8. 148. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government once again failed to provide any information on whether it had conducted inquiries into the alleged acts of interference in the internal affairs of the CSRM and its affiliate organizations and the other allegations of government interference in the establishment and functioning of workers’ organizations.
9. 149. The Committee takes note of the detailed information submitted by the USASP, an organization created by the trade union members of the SINDASP, which was previously affiliated to the CSRM. The Committee understands that the USASP was established following a disagreement with the decision taken by the then president of the SINDASP, Mr Molosag, to transfer the SINDASP under the umbrella of the Confederation “Solidaritate”. The Committee notes that the registration of the newly created union was denied and that the case of registration is once again pending before the Supreme Court of Justice.
10. 150. The Committee considers that the Government’s failure to seriously investigate the numerous and grave allegations of interference in the Moldova trade union movement is all the more disturbing in view of these latest allegations relating to the refusal to register a trade union that apparently chose to voluntarily constitute itself outside of the single united structure that has been allegedly under the Government’s control. Indeed, the question of the rightful successor to the SINDASP – one of the initial reasons for refusing registration – should be a question for the courts and not the government authorities.
11. 151. The Committee trusts that the Supreme Court will be seized of all the information relating to USASP’s creation, including the history of this case, and that it will render a judgement consistent with freedom of association principles. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the court proceedings and to provide a copy of the final ruling. Finally, the Committee reiterates its previous request to the Government to initiate independent inquiries into all outstanding allegations in this case in relation to the Government’s interference in the trade union movement.