Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 337, Juin 2005

1223. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 11 December 2002 from the Russian Labour Confederation (KTR).

1. 1224. The Government forwarded its observations in communications dated 5 September 2003 and 1 March 2005.
2. 1225. The Russian Federation 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 complainant’s allegations

1. 1226. In its communication dated 11 December 2002, the KTR alleges the violation of trade union rights of the Russian Trade Union of Railway Engine Crews (RTUREC), the KTR’s affiliate.
2. 1227. The KTR states that the RTUREC, representing workers of engine crews of railway transport enterprises of the Russian Federation, was established in January 1992. On the date of the complaint it had the status of an All-Russian union and represented over 3,500 people. Before 1992, for about 70 years there was only one trade union active within railway transport – the Russian Trade Union of Railway Workers and Transport Builders (Rosprofzhel).
3. 1228. The complainant further states that the Ministry of Communication Lines (MCL) is in charge of all railway transport enterprises. The MCL is a federal executive body charged with implementing the state policy in the railway transport, as well as with regulating the economic activities of the railways in the Russian Federation. The KTR submits that as all the directives of the MCL are binding for railway enterprises, it is the MCL that regulates working conditions in these enterprises.
4. 1229. According to the KTR, the emergence of an independent trade union in the railway transport caused an extremely negative reaction on the part of the employers at all levels, from the administration of separate railway transport subdivisions to the MCL officials. The complainant alleges that from the moment the RTUREC was established, it has not been recognized and its actions were hindered by the MCL. In particular, the complainant alleges lack of consultations with workers’ representatives on issues affecting their social and labour rights; refusal to bargain collectively; denial of registration of the newly formed organizations and of the amendments made to the rules of the existing ones; interference of the authorities in trade union activities and violation of the right to draw up their rules in full freedom; ban on strikes; and favouritism towards the Rosprofzhel and discrimination against all other trade unions that exist in the railway transport.
5. Lack of consultations with workers’ representatives
6. on issues affecting their social and labour rights
7. 1230. The complainant submits that in accordance with section 11 of the Law on Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of Activity of 12 January 1996 (further Law on Trade Unions), “drafts of normative legal acts affecting workers’ social and labour rights shall be considered and adopted by executive and local municipal bodies with due account of the opinion of the respective trade unions”. However, on 8 May 2001, the Government adopted the Programme of the Structural Reform of the Railway Transport, which directly influenced workers’ social and labour rights as it provided for a reduction of number of workers, decrease of social expenses, changes in the system of paying wages, etc., without any consultation with the RTUREC despite the numerous appeals to participate at the MCL board dealing with the issues of the structural reform.
8. 1231. The KTR points out that the railway transport enterprises have a practise of consulting only with the Rosprofzhel. Furthermore, once the administration adopts the documents, the RTUREC finds it impossible to get familiarized with these documents.
9. Refusal to bargain collectively
10. 1232. According to the complainant, the Russian legislation does not assign the role to conclude collective agreements to the most representative trade union, but confers this right to all trade unions. It points out that pursuant to section 6 of the Law on Collective Agreements of 11 March 1992, if there are several workers’ organizations at the enterprise, or at the federal, sectoral, professional or other levels, each of them shall be given the right to bargain on behalf of their trade union members or workers they represent. This section also obliges employers to bargain collectively on the issues put forward by trade unions. The complainant alleges that in October-November 1997, several primary trade union organizations of the RTUREC brought forward their demands to the administration of their respective enterprises. However, the heads of the locomotive depots refused to start conciliation procedures, claiming that only the Moscow Railways (MR) could satisfy demands brought by these trade unions. From February 1997 till August 1998, demands were repeatedly sent to the head of the MR together with a proposal to start collective bargaining. Asserting that the MR was not the employer, the MR refused to bargain collectively. The complainant points out that such a problem has never occurred with the Rosprofzhel. The complainant explains that by its letter of 27 May 1998, the MR administration notified the RTUREC of its refusal to negotiate. The KTR points out, however, that in the same letter, the MR referred to the existence of the collective agreement it negotiated with the Rosprofzhel in 1997. The KTR further states that the Moscow Office of Transport Prosecutor concluded to the illegality of the refusal of the MR administration to bargain collectively and requested the Department of the Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes and the Development of Social Partnership of the Ministry of Labour and Social Development to take measures to settle the dispute. It recognized that the MR represented the interests of the railway transport and had the power to conclude collective agreements. The central interregional body of the Ministry of Labour and Social Development concluded that the MR was competent to address the demands brought by the RTUREC. Seeking to settle the conflict, the RTUREC requested the assistance of the Moscow Tripartite Commission for Regulating Social and Labour Relations. On 27 April 1998, in conformity with section 17 of the Law on the Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes, according to which in the cases where strike is prohibited, the President of the Russian Federation makes the decision concerning the labour dispute within ten days, the union addressed the President of the Russian Federation. The issue was passed over to the Government and then to the MCL for consideration. Seeing no results, the chairpersons of primary trade union organizations once again addressed the President but that did not bring any results either.
11. 1233. Up to the date of the complaint, the RTUREC has not managed to bargain collectively with the railway transport enterprises in order to elaborate and include in the collective agreement provisions reflecting specific working conditions of engine crew workers. The situation is allegedly aggravated by the Rosprofzhel’s refusal to form a unified body for the collective bargaining purposes. The complainant states that even in cases where the RTUREC representatives at separate enterprises are able to become members of the commission elaborating collective agreement, the administration accepts to sign the agreement only with the Rosprofzhel.
12. 1234. According to the complainant, the Russian legislation does not provide that sectoral tariff agreements should be concluded by the most representative trade union organization. All All-Russian trade unions and their associations are given the right to conclude such agreements. The RTUREC, in its quality of All-Russian trade union, is therefore guaranteed the right to conclude tariff agreement in transport sector. However, the MCL refuses to negotiate with it referring to the existence of the sectoral tariff agreement concluded with the Rosprofzhel, which covers all workers of the federal railway transport. The complainant alleges that the MCL suggested that the RTUREC formed a unified representative body with the Rosprofzhel. However, the latter did not reply to the numerous proposals of the RTUREC and sectoral tariff agreements for 1998-2000 and 2001-03 were concluded without the RTUREC’s participation.
13. Denial of registration of the newly formed trade unions and of the amendments made to the trade union rules
14. 1235. The complainant explains that the legislation allows trade unions to carry out their activities without being registered with the institutions of justice. Registration is necessary for a trade union to obtain the status of a legal entity. Article 8 of the Law on Trade Unions provides for an obligation for the institution of justice to register trade unions. However, according to the complainant, this norm is virtually ineffective in practise. The KTR claims that the institutions of justice systematically refuse to register the rules of the newly formed organizations of the RTUREC and amendments to the rules of the existing trade unions. The absence of the status of a legal entity often impedes effective protection of workers’ interests. In particular, the KTR refers to the following cases of denial of registration:
15. – the main board of Justice of Moscow has twice denied registration of the Interregional Association of the Trade Unions of Moscow Railways;
16. – on 21 April 2000, registration was denied to the territorial organization of the RTUREC of the Moscow Railways; and
17. – registration was twice denied to the primary trade union organization of the RTUREC of the Uzlovaya locomotive depot of Moscow Railways.
18. 1236. The KTR submits that the reasons given by the State authorities for denial of registration relate either to the failure to submit all documents for registration within one month from the day the trade union was formed, or to the fact that the internal structure of trade unions is different from the structure provided for in section 3 of the Law on Trade Unions. The KTR states that although section 8 of the Law on Trade Unions provides for one-month period to register a trade union, section 21 of the Law on Non-Profit Associations provides for a three-month period. Moreover, the complainant states that, according to the Law on Trade Unions, a trade union has the right to decide independently whether to register as a legal entity or not, and that the decision to register could be taken at any time. As concerns the internal structure of trade unions, the complainant refers to section 14 of the Law on Non-Profit Associations, which allows non-profit organizations to form such structural subdivisions as branches and representatives. The complainant further states that the list of the documents to be submitted for the registration is provided for in section 8 of the Law on Trade Unions. However, the bodies of the Ministry of Justice requests instead the documents listed in the normative acts of the Ministry of Justice. Finally, the KTR points out that the bodies of the Ministry of Justice, pursuant to the Regulation for Considering Applications for the State Registration of Non-profit Associations, can recommend that the trade union in question eliminates the violations found in its constituent documents. The KTR concludes that it became impossible to register a trade union until the violations are eliminated.
19. Interference of the authorities in trade union
20. activities and violation of the right to draw up
21. their rules in full freedom
22. 1237. The KTR alleges that existence of legal provisions guaranteeing trade union independence does not guarantee their application in practise. The complainant refers to one example of interference in trade union affairs. It alleges that the administration of the Golutvin permanent way division of the Ramenskoye station of Moscow Railways tried to put pressure on members of the Trade Union of Railways Workers (TURW). After some unsuccessful attempts of the administration to make the union stop its activities, the Prosecutor’s Office also begun to put pressure on the union. On 31 July 1998, the Moscow-Ryazan Transport Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Ramenskoye People’s Court of the Moscow Region requesting to declare the Rules of the TURW of the Golutvin permanent way division null and void. The Court obliged the trade union to make amendments to its Rules. As the result of never-ending pressure on the part of the administration and the law enforcement authorities, the trade union ceased its existence.
23. Ban on strikes in railway transport
24. 1238. The KTR submits that the Law on the Federal Railway Transport deprives all railway transport workers of their right to strike. This ban concerns all categories of the railway transport workers, irrespective of whether work stoppage would lead to an obvious and inevitable danger to people’s lives, their personal safety and to the health of the population. The Law provides for a possibility of imposing a disciplinary action for work stoppage.
25. 1239. As an alternative procedure, the Law on the Order of Settling Collective Labour Disputes provides for an appeal to the President of the Russian Federation who has to reach a decision within ten days. According to the complainant, this procedure is not efficient since in practise, the issues are settled by specific federal bodies, and in the case of railway transport, by the MCL, which, due to its direct interest in the matter, is not capable of settling the collective labour dispute objectively. The complainant refers to a particular case where, in 1997, a collective labour dispute following the employer’s refusal to start a collective bargaining, the RTUREC applied to the President requesting him to settle the conflict. However, the appeal was transferred for consideration to the Government and then to the MCL and the Ministry of Labour and Social Development.
26. Favouritism and discrimination in
27. respect of particular organizations
28. 1240. The complainant submits that despite section 2 of the Law on Trade Unions, which provides for the equality of rights of all trade unions, in reality, this norm is not only unobserved, but the inequality is sanctioned by other legislation which provides individual benefits to the trade union convenient for the MCL. The complainant indicates that the Law on the Federal Railway Transport of 20 July 1995 gives the Government the right to define the order and terms of free use of transport for the workers of the railway transport enterprises and institutions. On 24 June 1996, the Government issued a Decree that gave the right to obtain, for their personal needs, free single tickets to the full-time officials of trade union organizations operating in the federal railway transport. On the basis of this Decree, the MCL adopted the Regulation on Issuing Free Tickets to the Federal Railway Transport Workers. Although several trade unions were active at the federal railway transport, only the Rosprofzhel officials were provided with tickets. The KTR claims that by such a policy, the MCL supported trade union monopoly of the Rosprofzhel. The KTR indicates that the then chairperson of the RTUREC primary trade union applied to the Supreme Court requesting to declare null and void the abovementioned Regulation. The Court rejected the claim, but declared in its decision of 23 June 1997 that “the RTUREC is also a sectoral trade union, i.e. a union operating within one sector and uniting workers by their professional interests. Therefore, officials of this trade union […] should enjoy the right to free use of transport in case of their domestic and personal needs”. At the same time, the Court considered it legal that only the Rosprofzhel officials should be granted the right to free transport. The failure of the administration to provide tickets to the officials of the RTUREC has been repeatedly appealed. In October 1998, the Zheleznodorozhnyi City Court ruled that the refusal to allow free use of transport to the chairperson of the territorial organization of the Moscow Railway of the RTUREC was illegal. However, this ruling was later contested and overruled.
29. 1241. On 22 September 1999, the Government amended the Decree of 24 June 1996. In accordance with the amendments, only the full-time officials of the Rosprofzhel could enjoy the right to free use of transport for their domestic and personal needs. Thus, the officials of the railway transport enterprises received legal grounds to refuse to provide free tickets to the full-time officials of the RTUREC. These changes were appealed in court but without any result. On 21 July 2000, the chairperson of the territorial organization of the RTUREC applied to the Russian Government requesting to amend the Decree so as to repeal the advantages given to one trade union. This application was transferred to the MCL, which did not find any violation of the ILO Conventions. On 26 April 2001, the RTUREC applied to the President of the Russian Federation requesting him to deal with the matter and eliminate the discriminating situation. The matter was passed to the MCL for consideration, but to the date of the complaint there was no answer given to the trade union concerned.
30. B. The Government’s reply
31. 1242. In its communications of 5 September 2003 and 1 March 2005, the Government explains that social and labour relations between employees and their representatives, on one hand, and employers and their representatives, on another, are governed by the Labour Code. The draft version of the Code was discussed by the conciliation commission, which included representatives of All-Russian trade union organizations, All-Russian employers’ associations and other public organizations.
32. 1243. The Government further indicates that in accordance with section 29 of the Labour Code, employees can be represented in social partnership by trade unions and their associations, or by other union organizations provided for in the by-laws of the All-Russian trade unions, or, in certain cases defined by law, by other representatives elected by workers at the general assembly (section 31 of the Code). The participation of other representatives alongside representatives of primary trade union organizations is possible only at the enterprise level and for the purposes of collective bargaining, conclusion and amendment of collective agreements, follow up of their implementation, as well as during the exercise of the right to participate in the management of an enterprise and in the investigation of labour disputes between employees and employers.
33. 1244. Where several primary trade unions exist within an enterprise, each of them has the right to be represented in a single representative body created for collective bargaining purposes on the basis of proportional representation. The right to bargain collectively and to sign agreements in the name of all workers is granted to the majority union only in the absence of an agreement to form a single representative body. In this case, minority trade unions retain the right to be represented in the single representative body up to the time of the signing of a collective agreement. This procedure is described in section 37 of the Labour Code.
34. 1245. As concerns higher-level trade unions, section 36(2) of the Labour Code states that unions and their associations have the right to bargain collectively at the level of the Russian Federation, its constituent territory, industry and region. If several unions exist at a particular level, they each have the right to be represented in a single representative body for the collective bargaining purposes on a basis of proportional representation. The right to bargain collectively is granted to the majority union only in the absence of an agreement to form a single representative body. Collective agreements can be concluded to protect specific interests and regulate particular aspects of specific occupations and can be concluded at any level of social partnership.
35. 1246. As regards the disagreements between different trade unions on the question of representation, the Government indicates that this matter is an internal trade union matter in which it should not interfere.
36. 1247. In its communication of 1 March 2005, the Government indicates that as a result of administrative reform, radical changes have taken place in the structure of the transport sector. The Ministry of Transport, which was created by Presidential Decree No. 649 of 20 May 2004, is not a party to sectoral tariff agreements; neither does it monitor the implementation process of such agreements. Reorganization in the federal railways has led to the creation of a single carrier – a commercial organization Open Stock Company “Rossiiskie Zheleznye Dorogi” (OAO RZhD) or Russian Railways, which forms the sole employer in the sector. Moscow Railways (MR) is an affiliate of OAO RZhD. The Government notes that the greatest number of complaints of failure to observe the principles of social partnership were formulated by the RTUREC against the MR. In the Government’s opinion, it would be more constructive for the RTUREC to resolve disputes that have arisen at local level by working together with the MR and the OAO RZhD. The Government further indicates that the first conference of workers of the OAO RZhD was held on 21 October 2004. The delegates approved the General Collective Agreement for 2005, which increases the level of social protection of railway workers. This Agreement is valid for all workers irrespective of their trade union membership. Among other social benefits provided for by the Agreement is a right to have one-day free train ticket for personal use.
37. 1248. Concerning the right to strike, the Government indicates that such a right is recognized by the Russian Constitution. The right to strike as a means of resolving collective labour disputes is permitted under section 409 of the Labour Code. Sections 409-415 regulate the strike action. The Government further indicates that since the decision to declare a strike affects personal rights of every worker, such a decision should be confirmed at every enterprise by an assembly of workers (section 410 of the Code).
38. 1249. Federal legislation lays down procedures and time limits for the presentation of demands, the declaration and the conduct of strike action and requires that a certain minimum level of necessary services be carried out during the strike. Legislation has also been introduced to limit the right to strike for various categories of workers. The purpose of these laws is to minimize the negative effect of a strike on the economy, society’s vital activities, the economic activities of the enterprises in question and the position of its workers. The legislation aims to spur workers and their representatives to strive to resolve collective labour disputes through conciliation procedures before declaring strike action.
39. 1250. As concerns the restriction on strike action imposed by the legislation in the transport sector, the Government indicates that these restrictions should not be seen as totally prohibiting strike actions. The Government explains that when a trade union organizes a strike to resolve a collective labour dispute, the organizers have an accompanying obligation to guarantee a minimum level of necessary work (services). In accordance with section 412 of the Labour Code, and Government Decree No. 901 of 17 December 2002, the relevant lists of minimum necessary tasks (services) to be guaranteed during a strike in transport establishments have been compiled in agreement with the national sectoral trade unions and approved by the Ministry of Communication Lines (MCL) (by Order No. 12 of 27 March 2003, registered by the Ministry of Justice on 11 April 2003 as No. 4408) and the Ministry of Transport (by Order No. 197 of 7 December 2002, registered by the Ministry of Justice on 6 January 2004 as No. 5379). Moreover, in order to meet the requirements of labour legislation regulating labour relations in the transport sector, a list of occupations (positions) and duties directly associated with transport is currently being compiled by the newly formed Ministry of Transport. It will help to implement the standards of Federal Act. No. 17-FZ of 10 January 2003 “On rail transport in the Russian Federation”, which regulates the procedure of declaring a strike in rail transport unlawful.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1251. The Committee notes that the complainant in this case alleges the violation of trade union rights of the Russian Trade Union of Railway Engine Crews (RTUREC) and, in particular, lack of consultations with workers’ representatives when decisions affecting their social and labour rights are being adopted, refusal to bargain collectively; denial of registration of the newly formed organizations and of the amendments made to the rules of the existing ones; interference by the public authorities in the administration and activities of the trade union, including ban on strikes; and favouritism towards the other trade union (Rosprofzhel) and discrimination against all other trade unions that exist in the railway transport. The Committee notes that the Government limits its comments to general observations.
2. Lack of consultations with workers’ representatives
3. on issues affecting their social and labour rights
4. 1252. As concerns the first set of allegations, the Committee notes that the complainant refers more particularly to the lack of consultations with the RTUREC over the Programme of the Structural Reform of the Railway Transport, adopted by the Government, and which affected workers’ social and labour rights, despite the numerous appeals to participate at the meetings dealing with the issues of the structural reform. Moreover, the complainant alleges that the railway transport enterprises have a practise of consulting only with the Rosprofzhel. Furthermore, once the administration adopts the documents, the RTUREC finds it impossible to get familiarized with these documents.
5. 1253. The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that consultations with trade unions do take place and, as an example, it states that the draft Labour Code was discussed by a commission which included representatives of All-Russian trade unions.
6. 1254. The Committee emphasizes the importance that should be attached to full and frank consultation taking place on any questions or proposed legislation affecting trade union rights. The Committee considers it useful to refer to the Consultation (Industrial and National Levels) Recommendation, 1960 (No. 113), Paragraph 1 of which provides that measures should be taken to promote effective consultation and cooperation between public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organizations without discrimination of any kind against these organizations. In accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Recommendation, such consultation should aim at ensuring that the public authorities seek the views, advice and assistance of these organizations, particularly in the preparation and implementation of laws and regulations affecting their interests [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 927 and 928]. The Committee further refers to the Workers’ Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143), Paragraph 16 of which provides that the management should make available to workers’ representatives such […] information as may be necessary for the exercise of their functions. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take measures so as to ensure that, in practise, trade unions can participate in consultation on any questions or proposed regulation affecting the rights of workers they represent. It further requests the Government to ensure that trade unions have access to the information concerning rights of workers they represent. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
7. Refusal to bargain collectively
8. 1255. The Committee notes the complainant’s statement to the effect that the Russian legislation does not assign the role to conclude collective agreements to the most representative trade union, but confers this right to all trade unions. According to the complainant, it follows from section 6 of the Law on Collective Agreements of 11 March 1992, that if there are several workers’ organizations at the enterprise, or at the federal, sectoral, professional or other levels, each of them shall be given the right to bargain on behalf of their trade union members or workers they represent. The Committee further notes the complainant’s allegation that despite numerous demands to bargain collectively with a view to include in the collective agreement provisions reflecting specific working conditions of engine crew workers, and despite numerous complaints to the relevant instances, the management of railway transport enterprises, including the Moscow Railways, refused to bargain collectively with the RTUREC. According to the complainant, another trade union, the Rosprofzhel, constantly refuses to form a single unified body for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee further notes the similar allegations as concerns collective bargaining at sectoral level.
9. 1256. The Committee notes that the Government states that, according to section 37 of the Labour Code, where several primary trade unions exist within an enterprise, each of them has the right to be represented in a single representative body created for collective bargaining purposes on the basis of proportional representation. The right to bargain collectively and to sign agreements in the name of all workers is granted to the majority union only in the absence of an agreement to form a single representative body. In this case, minority trade unions retain the right to be represented in the single representative body up to the time of the signing of a collective agreement. At a higher level (level of the Russian Federation, its constituent territory, industry and region), if several unions exist, each of them has the right to be represented in a single representative body for collective bargaining purposes on a basis of proportional representation. The right to bargain collectively is granted to the majority union only in the absence of an agreement to form a single representative body. Collective agreements can be concluded to protect specific interests and regulate particular aspects of specific occupations and can be concluded at any level of social partnership. As regards the disagreements between different trade unions on the question of representation, the Government indicates that this matter is an internal trade union matter in which it should not interfere. The Committee further notes the Government’s information on the recent restructuring in the transport sector, which took place with the creation of the Russian Railways Company. The Government further states that a general collective agreement, applicable to all railway workers, was concluded for 2005 at the Russian Railways Company.
10. 1257. The Committee notes that since the day of the complaint, a new Labour Code, which regulates the procedure of collective bargaining, was enacted. The Committee recalls that it had examined the wording of section 37 of the Labour Code in Cases Nos. 2216 and 2251. In these cases, the Committee concluded that, according to section 37(5), at the enterprise level, a protection is afforded by keeping a chair for other primary trade unions for their participation at any further time in the collective bargaining process. The Committee also considered that the approach favouring the most representative trade union for collective bargaining purposes at the enterprise or a higher level is not incompatible with Convention No. 98 [see 332nd Report, Case No. 2216, para. 907 and 333rd Report, Case No. 2251, para. 979]. The Committee further notes with interest the conclusion of a general collective agreement applicable to all railways workers.
11. 1258. The Committee notes the complainant’s statement to the effect that the RTUREC represents over 3,500 workers and has a status of All-Russian trade union. While it is not clear to the Committee whether its primary trade unions represent the majority of workers at transport enterprises where the administration refused to bargain collectively with the RTUREC’s representatives, as well as in the transport sector in general, the Committee recalls the importance which it attaches to the obligation to negotiate in good faith for the maintenance of the harmonious development of labour relations [see Digest, op. cit., para. 814].
12. Denial of registration of the newly formed trade unions and of the amendments made to the trade union rules
13. 1259. The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the institutions of justice systematically refuse to register the newly formed organizations of the RTUREC, as well as the amendments to the rules of the existing trade unions. In particular, the KTR refers to the following cases of denial of registration: the main board of Justice of Moscow has twice denied registration of the Interregional Association of the Trade Unions of Moscow Railways; registration was also denied to the territorial organization of the RTUREC of the Moscow Railways and twice denied to the primary trade union organization of the Russian Trade Union of Railway Engine Crews of the Uzlovaya locomotive depot of Moscow Railways. The KTR submits that the reasons given by the state authorities for denial of registration relate either to failure to submit all documents for registration within one month from the day the trade union was formed or to the fact that the internal structure of trade unions is different from the structure provided for in section 3 of the Law on Trade Unions. The KTR states that although section 8 of the Law on Trade Unions provides for a one-month period to register a trade union, section 21 of the Law on Non-Profit Associations provides for a three-month period. Moreover, the complainant states that according to the Law on Trade Unions, a trade union has the right to decide independently whether to register as a legal entity or not, and that the decision to register could be taken at any time. As concerns the internal structure of trade unions, the complainant refers to section 14 of the Law on Non-Profit Associations, which allows non-profit organizations to form structural subdivisions as branches and representatives. The complainant further states that the list of the documents to be submitted for registration is provided for in section 8 of the Law on Trade Unions. However, the bodies of the Ministry of Justice request instead the documents listed in the normative acts of the Ministry of Justice. Finally, the KTR points out that the bodies of the Ministry of Justice, pursuant to the Regulation for Considering Applications for the State Registration of Non-profit Associations, can recommend that the trade union in question eliminates the violations found in its constituent documents. The KTR concludes that it became impossible to register a trade union until the violations are eliminated.
14. 1260. The Committee notes that no information was provided by the Government in respect of the allegations thereof.
15. 1261. The Committee recalls that member States can provide such formalities in their legislation as appear appropriate to ensure the normal functioning of occupational organizations. Such formalities are compatible with the provisions of Convention No. 87, provided, of course, that these regulations do not impair the guarantees laid down in the Convention. The Committee considers that the time frame of one month to register an organization is reasonable. As concerns the structural organization of trade unions, the Committee finds that the KTR’s allegation is unclear. The Committee therefore is unable to reach a conclusion in this respect. Finally, as concerns the documents required for trade union registration, the Committee notes that the KTR indicates that, if registration is denied on the basis that not all documents were provided, the bodies of the Ministry of Justice, pursuant to the Regulation for Considering Applications for the State Registration of Non-profit Associations, can recommend that the trade union in question eliminates the violations found in its constituent documents. The Committee considers this approach to be in line with Convention No. 87.
16. 1262. As concerns the particular cases of denial of registration of the trade unions mentioned by the complainant, the Committee requests the Government to provide the reasons therefor.
17. Interference of the authorities in trade union
18. activities and violation of the right to draw
19. up their rules in full freedom
20. 1263. The Committee notes that the KTR refers to one particular example of the alleged interference in trade union affairs. It alleges that the administration of the Golutvin permanent way division of the Ramenskoye station of Moscow Railways tried to put pressure on members of the Trade Union of Railways Workers (TURW). After some unsuccessful attempts of the administration to make the union stop its activities, the Prosecutor’s Office also began to put pressure on the union. On 31 July 1998, the Moscow-Ryazan Transport Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Ramenskoye People’s Court of the Moscow Region requesting to declare the Rules of the TURW of the Golutvin permanent way division null and void. The Court obliged the trade union to make amendments to its Rules. As the result of never-ending pressure on the part of the administration and the law enforcement authorities, the trade union ceased its existence.
21. 1264. The Committee notes that no information was provided by the Government in respect of the allegations thereof.
22. 1265. Recalling that pressure exerted on workers may be an informal way of influencing their trade union membership and in the view that no information was provided by the Government, the Committee requests the Government to conduct, without delay, an independent inquiry on the allegation of pressure and interference by the enterprise administration and authorities as concerns the TURW at the Ramenskoye station of Moscow Railways and keep it informed in this respect.
23. Ban on strikes in railway transport
24. 1266. The Committee notes the KTR’s allegation that the Law on the Federal Railway Transport deprives all railway transport workers of their right to strike. This ban concerns all categories of the railway transport workers, irrespective of whether work stoppage would lead to an obvious and inevitable danger to people’s lives, their personal safety and to the health of the whole population or its part. The Law provides for a possibility of imposing a disciplinary action for work stoppage. The complainant further explains that as an alternative procedure, the Law on the Order of Settling Collective Labour Disputes provides for an appeal to the President of the Russian Federation who has to reach a decision within ten days. According to the complainant, this procedure is not efficient since in practise, the issues are settled by specific federal bodies, and in the case of railway transport, by the MCL, which, due to its direct interest in the matter, is not capable of settling the collective labour dispute objectively. The complainant refers to the particular case where, in 1997, a collective labour dispute following the employer’s refusal to start collective bargaining, the RTUREC applied to the President requesting him to settle the conflict. However, the appeal was transferred for consideration to the Government and then to the MCL and the Ministry of Labour and Social Development.
25. 1267. The Committee notes that the Government generally states that the right to strike is recognized by the Russian Constitution. The right to strike as a means of resolving collective labour disputes is permitted under section 409 of the Labour Code. The Government further indicates that federal legislation lays down procedures and time limits for the presentation of demands, the declaration and the conduct of strike action and requires that a certain minimum level of necessary services be carried out during the strike. Legislation has also been introduced to limit the right to strike for various categories of workers. The purpose of these laws is to minimize the negative effect of a strike on the economy, society’s vital activities, the economic activities of the enterprises in question and the position of its workers. The legislation aims to spur workers and their representatives to strive to resolve collective labour disputes through conciliation procedures before declaring strike action. The Committee further notes that in its recent communication, the Government indicates that there is no general prohibition of strike in the transport sector and that organizers of strike have an obligation to ensure the minimum services. The Government refers to the following pieces of legislation: section 412 of the Labour Code, Government Decree No. 901 of 17 December 2002, MCL Order No. 12 of 27 March 2003 and the Ministry of Transport Order No. 197 of 7 December 2002, listing minimum necessary services to be guaranteed during a strike in transport, as well as the Federal Act. No. 17-FZ of 10 January 2003 “On rail transport in the Russian Federation”.
26. 1268. The Committee recalls that it had to examine the allegation concerning restrictions on the right to strike imposed on railroad employees in Case No. 2251. On that occasion, the Committee recalled that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited: (1) in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the state; (2) in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population); and (3) in the event of an acute national emergency [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 526 and 527]. The Committee pointed out that railway transport does not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term and therefore requested the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that railroad employees enjoy the right to strike [see 333rd Report, paras. 992 and 993]. The Committee notes that a new law on rail transport has been since adopted, Federal Act No. 17-FZ of 10 January 2003. By virtue of section 26 of the Act, a strike as a means of collective dispute settlement by the workers of railways in services related to the traffic, shunting, service to passengers, freight, as provided by the federal law is illegal and prohibited. On the other hand, the Government also refers to the provisions relative to the establishment of a minimum service in the Labour Code and a number of decrees and orders setting out the minimum services to be guaranteed during a strike in the transport sector, which had been compiled in agreement with the national sectorial trade unions. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to amend section 26 of the Federal Act on Rail Transport so as to bring it into conformity with the abovementioned principles and the apparent practise referred to by the Government under the minimum services provisions of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.
27. 1269. As concerns the question of settlement of collective labour disputes when the right to strike is subject to restrictions or a prohibition, the Committee notes that the new Labour Code takes precedence over the Law on the Order of Settling Collective Labour Disputes. The Committee notes, however, that section 413 of the Labour Code provides that the decisions on collective agreement disputes are made by the Government of the Russian Federation. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, if the right to strike is subject to restrictions or a prohibition, workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example, conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned which should provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 546 and 547]. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that in those cases any disagreement concerning a collective agreement is settled by an independent body and not by the Government, and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.
28. Favouritism and discrimination in respect
29. of particular organizations
30. 1270. The Committee notes that the complainant alleges that following the Government’s Decree of 24 June 1996, as amended on 22 September 1999, only full-time officials of the Rosprofzhel can enjoy the right to free use of transport for their domestic and personal needs. The complainant states that such favouritism towards the Rosprofzhel reinforces the policy of the Ministry of Communication Lines (MCL) to support trade union monopoly in the transport sector.
31. 1271. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the new collective agreement for 2005 provides for the right to have a one-day free train ticket for the personal use of workers.
32. 1272. The Committee understands that although the facilities in question do not generally relate to the exercise by the trade union officials of trade union activities, such an advantage given to the Rosprofzhel’s officials by national legislation may give an impression of clear preference by the authorities of the Rosprofzhel. The Committee considers that by according favourable or unfavourable treatment to a given organization as compared with others, a government may be able to influence the choice of workers as to the organization which they intend to join. In addition, a government which deliberately acts in this manner violates the principle laid down in Convention No. 87 that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the rights provided for in the Convention or impede their lawful exercise; more indirectly, it would also violate the principle that the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in the Convention. It would seem desirable that, if a government wishes to make certain facilities available to trade union organizations, these organizations should enjoy equal treatment in this respect [see Digest, op. cit., para. 304]. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the provisions of the Decree of 24 June 1996 (as amended on 22 September 1999) conferring privileges to the Rosprofzhel’s officials was repealed with the restructuring of the transport sector and the entry into force of a new collective agreement.