Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 329, Novembre 2002

1. 765. The Committee has already examined the substance of this case on three occasions, at its November 2000, June 2001 and March 2002 meetings when it submitted interim reports to the Governing Body [see 323rd Report, paras. 525-543, 325th Report, paras. 547-560 and 327th Report, paras. 868-883, respectively].
2. 766. The Government provided further information in communications dated 25 March, 30 May and 7 June 2002. The complainant forwarded additional information in communications dated 22 May and 10 July 2002.
3. 767. Ukraine 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 768. At its meeting in March 2002, in the light of the Committee’s interim conclusions, the Governing Body approved the following recommendations:
   • (a) With regard to the allegations of a legislative nature related to certain provisions of the Act on “Trade Unions, their Rights and Safeguard of their Activities”, the Committee takes due note that a bill amending the said provisions was examined at a session of the Supreme Council. It once again asks the Government to continue to keep it informed of the measures effectively taken to bring the said Act into full conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
   • (b) The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of whether the Volynskaya Province division of the All-Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Regions” has been registered with the local authorities.
   • (c) With regard to the case of Mr. Linik, the Committee requests the Government to set up an independent inquiry into his dismissal and if there was evidence that he had been dismissed for reasons linked to his legitimate trade union activities, to take all necessary measures to reinstate him in an appropriate position, without loss of wage and benefits. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the situation of Mr. Jura, trade union leader at the Volynoblenergo enterprise.
   • (d) In the light of the continued allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination at the Lutsk Bearing Plant, the Committee urges the Government to investigate these allegations and, if they are proven to be true, to take all necessary measures to put an end to these acts. The Committee also asks the Government to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee also asks the Government to provide its observations on the recent allegations put forward by the complainant organization in its communications of 1 and 21 November 2001, and 9 January 2002.

B. The complainant’s new allegations

1. 769. In a communication dated 10 July 2002, the complainant organization once again expresses its deep concern over the draft proposals on the amendments of sections 16 and 39 of the Act on “Trade Unions, their Rights and Safeguard of the Activities”. The complainant organization is concerned that the content of section 16 of the Act, which provides for the registration of trade unions, will amount to previous authorization for the establishment of trade unions. Furthermore, section 39 of the Act, which deals with the termination of an employment contract, would, according to the complainant, give the employer too broad powers in order to decide if a trade union, which is in disagreement with the termination of employment, has clearly motivated its position. The complainant organization further indicates that negotiations on the draft proposals on the amendments to the Act on “Trade Unions, their Rights and Safeguard of their Activities” will be carried out until 2 September 2002.

C. Further replies of the Government

1. 770. In its communications dated 25 March, 30 May and 7 June 2002, the Government firstly acknowledges that there had been in the past violations of trade union rights by the management of certain enterprises. However, once these violations were confirmed, the relevant authorities took measures to remedy the said violations and settle the labour disputes. For example, a number of violations were acknowledged on the part of the management of the Volynoblenergo enterprise in its relations with the complainant organization. Therefore, on 12 March 2002, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy sent a letter to the Chairman of the board of this enterprise requesting him to take appropriate measures to eliminate the existing shortcomings on the part of the administration in its relations with the abovementioned union. Following this request, the management of the Volynoblenergo enterprise has provided the trade union committee of the All-Ukraine Trade Union, “Capital/Regions” with premises, means of communication and other facilities needed for its work, and the said union is able to carry out its mandate without problems. As a general rule, the examination of all complaints is carried out on the spot, in conjunction with the local authorities as well as the regional offices of the National Service of Mediation and the State Labour Inspection. In this regard, the Government points out that in numerous cases, the facts stated in the complaints are not confirmed in the course of inspections and there appears to be a lack of good will on the part of certain trade union leaders to settle labour disputes.
2. 771. As for the situation of the Volynskaya Province division of the All-Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Regions”, the Government indicates that according to the Volynskaya Regional Directorate of Justice, the regional organization of the All-Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Regions” has not to date submitted its registration documents. The Government further indicates that during the current year, the Chief Directorate of Labour and Social Protection of the Volynskaya region has received no complaints concerning violations of rights from workers at the Lutsk Bearing Plant or at the Volynoblenergo enterprise.
3. 772. Finally, as regard the case of the dismissal of the forge worker Mr. Linik, the Government insists that it has already transmitted all the relevant information and that in accordance with the legislation in force in Ukraine, the matter of Mr. Linik’s reinstatement can only be decided following due judicial process.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 773. The Committee recalls that this case related to two sets of allegations, namely, allegations of a legislative nature concerning certain provisions of the Act on “Trade Unions, their Rights and Safeguard of their Activities”, and allegations of a factual nature related to the denial of legal recognition of trade unions, harassment and intimidation of trade union activists as well as unlawful dismissals.
2. 774. With regard to the allegations of a legislative nature related to certain provisions of the Act on “Trade Unions, their Rights and Safeguard of their Activities”, the Committee had previously noted that according to the Government, a bill amending several sections of the Act had been examined at a session of the Supreme Council and adopted as a basis for further discussion. The drafting process would also take into account the conclusions of the ILO mission which visited the country in April 2001. The Committee understands from the complainant’s statement that the discussions on the draft amendments to the Act were to be concluded in the course of the autumn of 2002. The Committee also takes note of the renewed concern of the complainant organization over certain provisions of the Act, and in particular section 16, which concerns registration requirements for trade unions. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that it has already examined and commented on the disputed provisions of this Act, in particular, in a previous examination of this case [see 323rd Report, paras. 538-539] as well as in the context of Case No. 2038 [318th Report, paras. 517-533]. Therefore, while taking due note that the discussions on the draft amendments to the Act are still ongoing, the Committee asks once again the Government to continue to keep it informed of the measures effectively taken to bring the said Act into full conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
3. 775. With regard to the continued allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination at the Lutsk Bearing Plant and Volynoblenergo enterprise which had been put forward by the complainant organization throughout the years 2000-01, the Committee notes that the Government itself acknowledged that there had been in the past violations of trade union rights by the management of these companies. However, the Committee notes that according to the Government, measures were taken in order to put an end to these violations and that no complaints from workers at the Lutsk Bearing Plant or at the Volynoblenergo enterprise have been filed with the Chief Directorate of Labour and Social Protection of the Volynskaya region so far this year.
4. 776. As regards the question of trade union registration, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that according to the Volynskaya Regional Directorate of Justice, the regional organization of the All-Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Regions” has not to date submitted its registration documents. Yet, in a previous examination of the case, the Committee had noted the registration of the All-Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Regions” and the acquisition of legal personality of its affiliates. Furthermore, in its most recent reply, the Government indicates that the management of the Volynoblenergo enterprise has provided the trade union committee of the All-Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Regions” with premises and that the said union is able to carry out its mandate. In this regard, recalling that the founders of a trade union should comply with the formalities prescribed by legislation but that these formalities should not be of such a nature as to impair the free establishment of organizations, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the situation of the Volynskaya Province division of the All-Ukraine Trade Union “Capital/Regions” as far as its registration with local authorities is concerned. It asks the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
5. 777. With regard to the case of Mr. Linik, the Committee notes that the Government merely states that his reinstatement can only be decided following due judicial process. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in its previous examination of the case, in view of the contradicting statements from the complainant and the Government, it had asked the Government to set up an independent inquiry into the dismissal of Mr. Linik. The Committee reiterates this request and, if there is evidence that Mr. Linik had been dismissed for reasons linked to his legitimate trade union activities, trusts that the Government will take all necessary measures to reinstate him in an appropriate position without loss of wage and benefits. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee further asks the Government once again to keep it informed of the situation of Mr. Jura, who was a trade union leader at the Volynoblenergo enterprise and had been allegedly threatened with dismissal for his trade union activities in 2000.