Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 335, Novembre 2004

1. 1043. The Federation of Trade Unions of Public Service Employees (SINDASP) forwarded its complaint in communications dated 20 January 2004. In communications dated 20 November 2003, 29 January, 5 March, 9 April and 30 June 2004, the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CSRM) forwarded similar allegations. In communications dated 10 and 25 June 2004, the National Federation of Trade Unions of Workers of Food and Agriculture of Moldova (AGROINDSIND) sent further allegations concerning this case. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the General Confederation of Trade Unions (GCTU), the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) and the Public Services International (PSI) associated themselves with the complaint in communications dated 30 April, 1 and 7 June and 15 September 2004, respectively. The PSI and the IUF submitted additional information in communications dated 11 October and 21 October 2004, respectively.
2. 1044. The Government forwarded its observations in communications dated 10 May, 22 June and 11 October 2004.
3. 1045. The Republic of Moldova 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 complainants’ allegations

1. 1046. In its communications dated 20 January 2004, the Federation of Trade Unions of Public Service Employees (SINDASP), one of the affiliates of the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CSRM), alleges that, in October 2003, the president of the Communist Faction of Parliament ordered employees of the public administration at the national, regional and local levels to withdraw their trade union membership from the SINDASP and to join the “Solidaritate” trade union, supported by the Communist Party. The complainant indicates that, at the date of the complaint, trade union organizations from six districts and some organizations from the municipality of Chisinau were forced to leave the SINDASP and affiliate to the “Solidaritate”. In violation of the statutes of the SINDASP, the procedure of disaffiliation took place without a representative of the SINDASP being present and without an official report being made to the SINDASP. The complainant alleges that the CSRM has informed the President of the Republic of Moldova and the First Secretary of the Communist Party of this situation. No answer had been received at the date of the complaint.
2. 1047. In communications dated 20 November 2003, 29 January, 5 March, 9 April and 30 June 2004, the CSRM forwards similar allegations. In its communication of 29 January 2004, the complainant indicates that the period of transition to a market economy in the Republic of Moldova gave rise to anti-unionism as trade unions are considered to be obstacles to the transition to a market economy. The complainant indicates that anti-union tactics carried out by the employers under the pressure of public authorities take the form of opposition by employers to the establishment of trade union organizations. In this respect, the CSRM points out that the administration of the Ecological College and the Lyceum “Mircea Eliade” opposed the establishment of trade union organizations in these institutions.
3. 1048. According to the CSRM, the anti-union intentions of the authorities can be observed through the legislation it is currently trying to adopt. The complainant mentions the proposal to amend section 11 of the Law on trade unions, to provide that the activities of trade unions could be prohibited or suspended on the grounds provided for in the Law on prevention of extremist activities. Furthermore, the draft Law on non-commercial organizations contains a section which provides that the Registrar has a right to conduct verification of trade union documents, to participate in actions undertaken by the trade unions, etc. The same draft Law also provides that trade unions would have an obligation to annually inform the Registrar of their activities and to present annual reports in writing. The Registrar would have the right to initiate a procedure of dissolution of a trade union organization.
4. 1049. The CSRM furthermore alleges that legislation and decisions are often adopted without any consultation with trade unions or discussions at the Republican Commission for Collective Bargaining. Moreover, the complainant states that the Commission is established by Presidential Decree and is not a permanent body. Its decisions are not always taken into account by the public authorities or employers.
5. 1050. The complainant alleges that the authorities also adopted a plan of action to ensure affiliation of the CSRM members to the “Solidaritate”. According to this plan of action, trade union members were to be threatened with dismissals if they did not change their union membership. The plan also provided for establishment of district trade union councils and the calling of extraordinary conferences to examine the question of disaffiliation from the SINDASP and affiliation to the “Solidaritate”. The complainant alleges that, to implement this plan of action, trade union meetings were chaired by the authorities in the districts of Ocnita, Briceni and Edinet. Furthermore, prior to the SINDASP conference of 17 October 2003, instructions on the actions to take in order to ensure the process of disaffiliation from the SINDASP and consequent affiliation to the trade union under the Government’s control were distributed to the trade union leaders by the local authorities.
6. 1051. The CSRM further mentions cases of disaffiliation of its members and their consequent affiliation to the unions supported by the authorities. In this respect, the CSRM lists the following unions, previously members of the CSRM, which under the pressure of the authorities and employers changed their affiliation and became members of alternative trade unions: the Federation of Unions of Chemical Industry and Energy Workers, the “Moldsindcoopcomet” Federation, the “Raut” Trade Union and the Trade Union of Workers of Cadastre, Geodesy and Geology “SindGeoCad”.
7. 1052. In its communication of 5 March 2004, the CSRM provides further details of the alleged acts of interference by the authorities in the trade union activities of its affiliates – the National Federation of Trade Unions of Workers of Food and Agriculture of Moldova (AGROINDSIND), the Union of Education and Science and the SINDASP.
8. 1053. As concerns the AGROINDSIND (in its communication of 10 June 2004, the AGROINDSIND forwarded the same complaint), the complainant alleges that, since the beginning of 2002, state officials and employers have been trying to break it up. The reason for the systematic interference in the activities of the AGROINDSIND was its refusal, on 19 February 2002, to associate itself with a declaration of support for government policy. At the meeting in Parliament, the President of the Parliament labelled as enemies all trade unions which refused to join the declaration. Two days later, on 21 February 2002, two officials from the Tax Inspectorate came to the AGROINDSIND office, supposedly to carry out a routine investigation into “certain aspects of financial activities of the AGROINDSIND”. They were accompanied by an official of the Information and Security Service of the Republic of Moldova. The investigations lasted from 13 March to 7 June 2002, when a criminal investigation was initiated against the trade union. However, the AGROINDSIND was not informed of this decision until 25 August 2002. On 20 August, an investigator from the Prosecutor’s Office came to the trade union’s office with a demand to hand over financial documents of the Federation. The complainant indicates that, since then, there has been no sign of any investigation being conducted. The financial documents seized from the Federation on 20 August 2002 were not returned. On 5 September 2002, the AGROINDSIND national conference discussed and approved the report of the trade union’s audit committee, which confirmed the correctness of the expenditures. The complainant points out that this fact proves that its financial activities are in order and are approved by the trade union members and, therefore, there should be no further investigation by the public authorities. In its communication of 21 October 2004, the IUF submits that, since the proceedings were instituted in June 2002, no information on the progress of the case has been presented to the AGROINDSIND. The IUF considers that this case is an additional means aimed at undermining the union and intimidating its members. In its view, the inability of the Prosecutor’s office to prove the case after such a long period only underlines its lack of merits. The IUF officially appealed to the Government of Moldova to dismiss the case and provide necessary explanations to the AGROINDSIND. However, no reply was received by the IUF nor by the AGROINDSIND.
9. 1054. According to the CSRM, the state authorities, having failed to intimidate the leadership of the AGROINDSIND through the different investigations conducted by the Security and Information Service, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Tax Inspectorate, changed their strategy to now direct it at splitting the AGROINDSIND and transferring it to the “Solidaritate” favoured by the Government. This task is being carried out by the public authorities and employers, acting themselves under the pressure of the authorities.
10. 1055. The CSRM alleges that, as the result of this strategy, on 13 November 2003, following pressure on trade union activists by the director of Viorika-Cosmetic Ltd. and the Ministry of Agriculture, the trade union committee of the enterprise voted for the transfer of their affiliation to “Solidaritate”.
11. 1056. Moreover, on 13 November 2003, during the wine-producers’ conference, Mr. Mironesku, the managing director of the “Moldova-Vin” state enterprise instructed directors of vineyards to “work” on local unions so as to ensure that they agreed to leave the AGROINDSIND and join the “Solidaritate”. Blank forms were provided to the managers of wine producing enterprises for holding trade union meetings to decide to withdraw their membership of the AGROINDSIND. Mr. Mironesku also personally spoke with the chairpersons of some trade unions in the wine industry about the need to leave the AGROINDSIND.
12. 1057. The CSRM alleges that the following events took place after that meeting. On 22 December 2003, at the Kozhushna Wine Producing Company, members of the trade union committee were summoned by the director of the company who demanded that they leave the AGROINDSIND and join the “Solidaritate”. In January 2004, an official of the “Moldova-Vin” state enterprise went to the Mileshti-Mish Winery and strongly demanded that the vineyard collectively leave the AGROINDSIND by the specific deadline and join the “Solidaritate”. On 13 January 2004, following the instruction of the enterprise’s director, the trade union committee (and not the conference as required by the trade union statutes) of the Barza Alba Brandy Factory Ltd. took the decision to leave the AGROINDSIND. On 16 January 2004, under pressure from the 18 members of the management board present, the conference of the Balti Drinks Company trade union also voted for disaffiliation from the AGROINDSIND. During January 2004, officials of the “Moldova Vin” state enterprise exercised pressure of the deputy chairperson on the trade union committee of the National Chamber of Wine Producers and Wine Growers. The managing director of the enterprise demanded that the union leave the AGROINDSIND and join “Solidaritate” by 31 January. The complainant states that, as a result of this pressure, three out of the 39 trade union committees of wine collectives had taken the decision to leave the AGROINDSIND.
13. 1058. The complainant alleges that the managing director of the “Moldova-Vin” state enterprise admitted to Mr. Porchesku, the chairperson of the AGROINDSIND, that he himself was under pressure from the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, who regularly asked for concrete progress reports in that respect.
14. 1059. In order to further divide the AGROINDSIND, on 27 January 2004, the Government of Moldova removed the chairperson of the AGROINDSIND, Mr. Porchesku, from the Executive Board of the “Moldova-Vin” state enterprise and appointed to the board the chairperson of the “Solidaritate”.
15. 1060. The CSRM further alleges that the heads of local authorities also carry out tactics against the AGROINDSIND. In December January, the president of the Ungheni district had repeated meetings with the leadership of the local AGROINDSIND trade union during which he exerted pressure on trade union leaders and encouraged the transfer of the trade union to the “Solidaritate”. On 16 January 2004, the president of the Calarasi district, in a meeting with the chairperson of the local AGROINDSIND trade union, stressed the need to transfer the trade union to the “Solidaritate”. Despite the refusal of the trade union chairperson, the Calarasi district president’s proposal was presented to the meeting of workers at the Agricultural Machinery Plant where, under pressure from the management, the decision was taken to leave the AGROINDSIND and join the “Solidaritate”. A few months earlier, on 13 August 2003, the same meeting had unanimously decided to maintain its membership in the AGROINDSIND.
16. 1061. On 23 January 2004, the Balti City Council held a meeting with directors and accountants of different companies, during which the mayor and his deputy told them that they must work through “Solidaritate”. The director of the “Barza Alba” Company and the Drinks Company were recognized for their success concerning the transfer of trade unions from the AGROINDSIND to the “Solidaritate”. At the same meeting, the deputy mayor of Balti was elected deputy president of the interregional trade union council of the “Solidaritate”.
17. 1062. As concerns the Union of Education and Science, the CSRM alleges that in November 2003, the head of the Department of Education, Youth and Sport of the Floresti district council convened a meeting of members of the board of the council, where he ordered them to sign documents approving the affiliation to the “Solidaritate”. Those who were against were threatened with forced resignation.
18. 1063. On 12 January 2004, following the instructions of the head of Gagauzia, the head of the general administration of education, youth and sport in Gagauzia called a meeting of heads of educational institutions and chairpersons of trade union committees in the region with Mr. Lashku, the chairperson of the “Solidaritate”, who urged trade unions to withdraw their membership from the Union of Education and Science and join the “Solidaritate”.
19. 1064. On 23 January 2004, the deputy mayor of the municipality of Balti and the head of the municipal Department of Education, Youth and Sport summoned the directors and the chairpersons of the trade union committees of Schools Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 18 where they were strongly urged to change their affiliation to the “Solidaritate”.
20. 1065. On 4 February 2004, trade union leaders in Ocnita districts were also called for the meetings with heads of educational institutions where they were told to transfer affiliation of their local unions to “Solidaritate”. Under pressure from the Department of Education, Youth and Sport of Ocnita, an trade union extraordinary conference was held on 10 February 2004. Following a vote of two-thirds of the 50 delegates present, including the heads of educational institutions, it was decided that the union should become an affiliate of the “Solidaritate”. Although, officially, all trade unions of workers in educational institutions in the Ocnita district were transferred to the “Solidaritate”, none of them has been notified of that decision.
21. 1066. As concerns the SINDASP, the CSRM alleges that local authorities, using various means (face-to-face conversations, telephone calls and letters) have exerted pressure on trade union leaders in order to achieve a complete transfer of the SINDASP to the “Solidaritate”.
22. 1067. In its communication of 9 April 2004, the CSRM alleges that the Government confers privileges on the “Solidaritate” by including representatives of this organization in the work of certain tripartite councils, while excluding the representatives of the CSRM. For example, by Government Decision No. 74 of 30 January 2004, the president of the “Solidaritate” became a member of the council responsible for granting government prizes for quality, productivity and competitiveness achievements. By Government Decision No. 270 of 17 March 2004, the president of the “Solidaritate” became also a member of the Council on Economic Affairs to the Prime Minister. Furthermore, the chairperson of the “Viitorul” Union, which is a member of the “Solidaritate”, was appointed by the Government to the working group on reorganization of the Lyceum “B.P. Hasdeu”.
23. 1068. The CSRM also alleges that, on 10 March 2004, the deputy president of the Rezina district ordered the mayors to take all the necessary measures to ensure that school directors ensure that trade unions affiliated to the Union of Education and Science affiliate to the “Viitorul”. To this effect, copies of the minutes of trade union meetings to be held on the question of affiliation were distributed to those present at the meeting for subsequent distribution by school directors among trade union leaders. Following this meeting, directors of several schools in Balti held meetings with workers to whom they presented prepared documents attesting the change of trade union affiliation. Similar events took place in the district of Edinet.
24. 1069. In its communication of 30 June 2004, the CSRM alleges cases of interference in the activities of the “Sanatate” Trade Union – one of its affiliates. The complainant indicates that, on 25 May 2004, the Minister of Health gave orders to the leaders of the medico sanitarian institutions to take urgent measures in order to ensure that trade union organizations in the health field (otherwise affiliated to the “Sanatate” Trade Union) join the “Solidaritate”. Under the pressure of the Minister, on 27 May 2004, during a meeting of the staff of the Ministry of Health, a decision was taken to disaffiliate from “Sanatate”. By its communication of 11 October 2004, the PSI submits several documents in support of the allegations of interference in the activities of the “Sanatate” Trade Union. In particular, the PSI provides a copy of a “Declaration” made by the Minister of Health on 1 June 2004, where he suggests that the Ministry of Health takes “a constructive, independent position and distances itself from the policy promoted by the leaders of the CSRM”.
25. 1070. In its communications of 25 June and 16 July 2004, the AGROINDSIND further provides details on the alleged acts of interference in its activities. In particular, it alleges that the management of “Moldcarton” enterprise is now trying to convince its workers to file claims to return trade unions dues which were deducted from their salaries during the last three years but never transferred to the trade union account. Despite two court decisions binding the enterprise to transfer deducted but not transferred trade union dues, the enterprise’s administration printed and distributed to the workers applications requesting reimbursement of the deducted fees.
26. 1071. The complainant further alleges that, on 11 March 2004, the director of “Mileshti Mish” prevented representatives of international trade union organizations, the ICFTU and the IUF, as well as of the chairperson and two other representatives of the AGROINDSIND, from participating in a trade union meeting which took place on enterprise premises. In its communication of 21 October 2004, the IUF corroborates this allegation.
27. 1072. Finally, AGROINDSIND indicates that, on 29 June 2004, under employers’ and state authorities’ control, a new national branch trade union centre of food industry, affiliated to “Solidaritate”, was created. Under the pressure made by employers, trade union organizations from the following enterprises affiliated to the newly created union: “Tutun CTC”, “Aroma”, “Cricova”, “Barza Alba”, “Franzeluta” and the Factory of Food Products of Balti municipality.

B. The Government’s replies

1. 1073. In its communications of 10 May, 22 June and 11 October 2004, the Government states that the existence of two trade union confederations at the national level gives the opportunity to trade union organizations to make their own choice and define their relations with the branch federations and to adhere to any of the existing structures in a democratic way. The Government, in its position as social partner, treats these confederations equally and in no case gives priority to any of them in social partnership relations. Both confederations are members of the National Commission for Consultations and Collective Bargaining on an equal basis and participated in negotiations of the Collective Labour Agreement at the national level for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Furthermore, representatives of both organizations participate on an equal basis in the drafting of laws, decisions and regulations. As social partners, both organizations are recognized by all state structures and employers’ organizations. The chairpersons of the confederations participate in the annual International Labour Conference.
2. 1074. As regards the allegation that certain privileges were conferred on the “Solidaritate” by including representatives of this organization in the work of certain tripartite councils, the Government confirms that only representatives of the “Solidaritate” have been included in the work of the council responsible for granting government prizes for quality, productivity and competitiveness achievements, the Council on Economic Affairs to the Prime Minister and the Departmental Council Agroindsind “Moldova-Vin”. The Government states however that the choice of the “Solidaritate” representatives was based on the fact that the abovementioned councils dealt with the sectors of economy represented by the “Solidaritate”.
3. 1075. As regards the specific allegations of the instances of interference in the activities of the CSRM, the Government indicates that the process of trade union organizations moving from one sectoral trade union to another or from one confederation to another is conducted according to their own will and free choice. The Government had not dissolved or suspended, on an administrative basis, any trade union organization from either of the two confederations.
4. 1076. The Government indicates that neither the Federation of Trade Unions of Public Service Employees (SINDASP), nor the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CSRM) had contested the decisions of their members to change their affiliation. As concerns the cases of the National Federation of Trade Unions of Workers of Food and Agriculture of Moldova (AGROINDSIND) and the Union of Education and Science, the Government points out that there is no concrete proof of direct interference or pressure exercised by the public authorities.
5. 1077. The Government further states that, according to the regulations of the SINDASP, in order to withdraw a territorial trade union organization from the Federation, an application to this effect and a decision signed by the higher body of the organization should be deposited with the Operational Committee. The Operational Committee examines the application and adopts the final decision in this respect. The Government indicates that no such decision has been adopted. Therefore, the territorial trade union organizations from Ocnita, Briceni, Floresti, Chisinau, Riscani, Cimislia, Donduseni, Balti, Calarase, Ungheni and Edinet continue to be members of the SINDASP. At the same time, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection had supervised the situation in the SINDASP when the primary organizations and the territorial association of 18 districts and municipalities had decided to withdraw from this Federation and to affiliate to the “Solidaritate”. It points out that all persons involved in the process were members of the SINDASP and their actions could only be evaluated as members of the trade union and not as public employees exercising their duties.
6. 1078. The Government further indicates that, upon the request of the CSRM, the ICFTU mission had visited the Republic of Moldova to meet both Confederations, branch trade unions and their members. The recommendations of the ICFTU to improve the reciprocal constructive collaboration between trade unions and to stop the internal confrontations have been accepted by both Confederations. The Government also emphasizes that the Law on trade unions ensures the right to establish trade unions and provides for the necessary guarantees of their administration and activities.
7. 1079. According to the Government, the existing situation is the result of divergences and problems that appeared in the trade union movement many years ago and are of an internal character. The state bodies do not create obstacles and do not interfere in trade union activities and their internal matters.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1080. The Committee notes that this case was presented by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CSRM) and by two of its affiliates – the Federation of Trade Unions of Public Service Employees (SINDASP) and the National Federation of Trade Unions of Workers of Food and Agriculture of Moldova (AGROINDSIND). In addition to the direct complainants, this case also concerns the Union of Education and Science and the “Sanatate” Trade Union, also affiliates of the CSRM. The Committee notes that the complainants allege that the Government is trying to adopt legislation contrary to freedom of association. They further allege various acts of interference by the authorities and the employers in the internal matters of their organizations and, in particular. acts of pressure on trade union members to change their union membership to become members of trade unions supported by the Government.
2. 1081. As concerns the first set of allegations, the Committee notes the CSRM’s allegation to the effect that the Government is trying to adopt legislation contrary to freedom of association. The complainant mentions the proposal to amend section 11 of the Law on trade unions, which would provide that the activities of trade unions could be prohibited or suspended on the grounds provided for in the Law on prevention of extremist activities. According to the complainant, the draft Law on non-commercial organizations contains a section which provides that the Registrar has a right to conduct verification of trade union documents, to participate in actions undertaken by trade unions, etc. The same draft Law also provides that trade unions would have an obligation to annually inform the Registrar of their activities and to present annual reports in writing. The Registrar would also have the right to initiate a procedure of dissolution of a trade union organization. Moreover, the complainant states that the legislation and decisions are often adopted without any consultation with trade unions or discussions at the Republican Commission for Collective Bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government provides no information on the draft laws in question, but submits that trade unions participate in the drafting of laws, decisions and regulations. The Government also states that the present Law on trade unions ensures the right to establish trade unions and provides for the necessary guarantees of their administration and activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the draft laws mentioned and to send its observations in this regard.
3. 1082. The Committee further notes the complainant’s allegation that the Government confers privileges on the “Solidaritate” trade union by including representatives of this organization in the work of certain tripartite Councils and by excluding the CSRM representatives from such commissions. For example, by Government Decision No. 74 of 30 January 2004, the president of the “Solidaritate” became a member of the council responsible for granting government prizes for quality, productivity and competition achievements. By Government Decision No. 270 of 17 March 2004, the president of the “Solidaritate” became also a member of the Council on Economic Affairs to the Prime Minister. Furthermore, the chairperson of the “Viitorul” union, a member of the “Solidaritate”, was appointed by the Government to the working group on reorganization of the Lyceum “B.P. Hasdeu”. The CSRM further states that the Government removed the chairperson of the AGROINDSIND, Mr. Porchesku, from the Executive Board of the “Moldova-Vin” state enterprise and replaced him with the chairperson of the “Solidaritate”. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the reason behind the choice of the “Solidaritate” representatives is that the abovementioned councils deal with the sectors of the economy represented by “Solidaritate”. The Government further states that, in its position as social partner, it treats both confederations equally and that this is proven by the fact that the chairpersons of both confederations participate in the annual International Labour Conference. The Government points out that both organizations are members of the National Commission for Consultation and Collective Bargaining and that both of them participated in negotiations of the Collective Labour Agreement at the national level for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
4. 1083. The Committee notes the Government’s statement concerning the participation of “Solidaritate” in certain tripartite councils. It nevertheless recalls that the fact that a trade union organization is debarred from membership of joint committees does not necessarily imply infringement of the trade union rights of that organization. However, for there to be no infringement, two conditions must be met: first, that the reason for which a union is debarred from participation in a joint committee must lie in its non-representative character, determined by objective criteria; second, that in spite of such non-participation, the other rights which it enjoys and the activities it can undertake in other fields enable it to effectively further and defend the interests of its members within the meaning of Article 10 of Convention No. 87 [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 946]. The Committee also considers that certain advantages, especially with regard to representation, might be accorded to trade unions by reason of the extent of their representativeness. But, the intervention of the public authorities as regards such advantages should not be of such a nature as to influence unduly the choice of the workers in respect of the organization to which they wish to belong [see Digest, op. cit., para. 311].
5. 1084. As concerns the allegations of interference in the internal matters of trade unions, the Committee notes that the CSRM alleges that employers often oppose the establishment of trade union organizations at their enterprises, as was the case at the Ecological College and the Lyceum “Mircea Eliade”. The Committee regrets that no information was provided by the Government in this respect. Recalling that Article 2 of Convention No. 98 prohibits employers from interfering in the establishment of trade unions, the Committee requests the Government to conduct an independent inquiry into this allegation and keep it informed in this respect.
6. 1085. The Committee further notes that the AGROINDSIND alleges that the management of “Moldcarton” enterprise is trying to convince its workers to file claims to return trade unions dues which were deducted from their salaries for the past three years but never transferred to the trade union account. Despite two court decisions binding the enterprise to transfer deducted but not transferred trade union dues to the trade union account, the enterprise administration printed and distributed applications to the workers requesting reimbursement of the deducted fees. The Committee regrets that no information was provided by the Government in this respect. The Committee considers that such action on behalf of the management of “Moldcarton” enterprise constitutes an act of interference in the internal affairs of the trade union and is therefore contrary to Article 2 of Convention No. 98. The Committee requests the Government to take all the necessary measures in order to ensure that court decisions ordering the enterprise to transfer deducted trade union dues to the trade union account are enforced without delay and to keep it informed in this respect.
7. 1086. The Committee notes the allegation of the AGROINDSIND that, on 11 March 2004, the director of “Mileshti-Mish” prevented representatives of international trade union organizations, the ICFTU and the IUF, as well as the chairperson and two other representatives of the AGROINDSIND, from participating in the trade union meeting which took place on enterprise premises. The Government provides no information in this respect.
8. 1087. The Committee considers that, for the right to organize to be meaningful, the relevant workers’ organizations should be able to further and defend the interests of their members by enjoying such facilities as may be necessary for the proper exercise of their functions. It further recalls that governments should guarantee access of trade union representatives to workplaces, with due respect for the rights of property and management [see Digest, op. cit., para. 954]. The Committee further considers that trade union organizations should be allowed to benefit from their international trade union contacts. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that access to enterprise premises during trade union meetings is allowed to trade union leaders and representatives with due respect for the rights of property and management. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
9. 1088. The Committee further notes the AGROINDSIND’s allegation that, since the beginning of 2002, public authorities have been trying to break up the Federation. Different tactics have allegedly been used to achieve this aim, including investigations into financial activities of the Federation conducted by the Security and Information Service, the Tax Inspectorate and the Prosecutor’s Office. These investigations were followed by the opening of a criminal investigation. The complainant indicates that since the beginning of the criminal investigation in 2002, there has been no sign of it being conducted. Moreover, the documents seized from the trade union in 2002 have still not been returned. The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information concerning this allegation and requests it to send its observations as a matter of urgency.
10. 1089. As concerns the allegations concerning pressure exercised since the end of 2003 by the authorities and the employers on trade unions affiliated to the CSRM, in order to force these unions to change their affiliation and become members of the “Solidaritate”, the Committee notes the following. As concerns the SINDASP, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that employees of the public administration were ordered to withdraw their membership from the SINDASP and join the “Solidaritate”. The complainant mentions in particular that, in the districts of Ocnita, Briceni and Edinet, trade union meetings chaired by the authorities’ representatives were called to decide on the question of disaffiliation from the SINDASP and affiliation to the “Solidaritate”. Following pressure and threats of dismissal of trade unionists, trade unions from six districts and the municipality of Chisinau were forced to leave the SINDASP and to affiliate to the “Solidaritate”. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the Government provided no answer to its numerous complaints.
11. 1090. The Committee notes that the CSRM lists the following unions, previously members of the CSRM, which allegedly, under the pressure of the authorities and employers, changed their affiliation and became members of alternative trade unions: the Federation of Unions of Chemical Industry and Energy Workers, the “Moldsindcoopcomet” Federation, the “Raut” Trade Union and the Trade Union of Workers of Cadastre, Geodesy and Geology “SindGeoCad”.
12. 1091. As concerns the AGROINDSIND, the Committee notes that the complainants list the following examples where pressure was exercised upon local trade unions by the employers of the enterprises, who themselves acted under the pressure of the authorities: the trade unions of the Wine Producing Company, Mileshti-Mish Winery and of the National Chamber of Wine Producers and Wine Growers were ordered to change their affiliation. As a result of this pressure, trade unions of Viorika-Cosmetics Ltd., “Barza Alba”, “Tutun CTC”, “Aroma”, “Cricova”, “Franzeluta”, Agricultural Machinery Plant in the Calarasi district and the Factory of Food Products of Balti municipality were forced to change their affiliation.
13. 1092. As concerns the Union of Education and Science, the Committee notes the complainants’ allegation that, under pressure from the head of the general administration of education, youth and sport, the heads of the departments of education, youth and sport of the Floresti, Gagauzia, Balti, Ocnita and Edinet districts held meetings with trade union leaders and instructed them to ensure disaffiliation from the Union of Education and Science and consequent affiliation to the “Solidaritate” and “Viitorul”. The complainants indicate that, following a vote at the extraordinary conference of the trade union in Ocnita district, where heads of educational institutions were present and voted, all local trade unions of the Union of Education and Science in Ocnita district were transferred to the “Solidaritate”.
14. 1093. As concerns the “Sanatate” Trade Union, the Committee notes that the complainants allege that, on 25 May 2004, the Minister of Health gave orders to the leaders of the medico-sanitarian institutions to take urgent measures in order to ensure that trade union organizations in the health field (affiliated to the “Sanatate” Trade Union), join the “Solidaritate”. The complainants indicate that under the pressure of the Minister, on 27 May 2004 during a meeting of the staff of the Ministry of Health, a decision was taken to disaffiliate from the “Sanatate”.
15. 1094. The Committee notes the Government’s statement, according to which the process of trade union organizations moving from one sectoral trade union to another or from one confederation to another is conducted according to their own will and free choice. The Government indicates that it has not dissolved or suspended, on an administrative basis, any trade union organization from either of the two confederations. Moreover, the Government considers that as concerns the cases of the AGROINDSIND, and the Union of Education and Science, there is no concrete proof of direct interference or pressure exercised by the public authorities. Concerning the SINDASP, the Committee notes that, on the one hand, the Government indicates that the territorial trade union organizations from Ocnita, Briceni, Floresti, Chisinau, Riscani, Cimislia, Donduseni, Balti, Calarase, Ungheni and Edinet are still members of the SINDASP. On the other hand, it indicates that all persons involved in the process of disaffiliation of the SINDASP primary and territorial organizations of 18 districts and municipalities and consequent affiliation to the “Solidaritate” were members of the SINDASP and their actions could only be evaluated as members of the trade union and not as public employees exercising their duties. The Government points out that neither the SINDASP nor the CSRM had contested the decisions of their members to change their affiliation. Finally, the Government states that the existing situation is the result of divergences and problems which first appeared in the trade union movement many years ago and are of an internal character and the state bodies do not create obstacles and do not interfere in trade union activities and their internal matters. The Committee notes that no information concerning “Sanatate” was provided by the Government.
16. 1095. The Committee notes that the Government denies the complainants’ allegations of interference by the authorities and more particularly the pressure it had exercised directly or through employers. It further notes that the Government provides rather ambiguous information concerning SINDASP. The Committee understands, however, that massive disaffiliation from the CSRM and consequent affiliation to the “Solidaritate” took place in different sectors and within a short period of time. In these circumstances, the Committee has reasons to doubt that this process was due only to the free will and free choice of the organizations concerned. The Committee therefore requests the Government as a matter of urgency to conduct independent inquiries into the allegations of pressure being exerted upon trade unions in the districts of Ocnita, Briceni, Edinet and the municipality of Chisinau, as concerns the SINDASP; in the districts of Floresti, Gagauzia, Balti, Ocnita and Edinet, as concerns the Union of Education and Science; at the Wine Producing Company, Mileshti-Mish Winery, the National Chamber of Wine Producers and Wine Growers, the Viorika-Cosmetics Ltd., “Barza Alba”, “Tutun CTC”, “Aroma”, “Cricova”, “Franzeluta”, Agricultural Machinery Plant in the Calarasi district and the Factory of Food Products of Balti municipality as concerns the AGROINDSIND. It further requests the Government to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of the CSRM concerning trade union organizations in the health field and, more particularly, as concerns the disaffiliation of the trade union of the Ministry of Health from the “Sanatate” Trade Union, as well as into the circumstances of disaffiliation of the Federation of Unions of Chemical Industry and Energy Workers, the “Moldsindcoopcomet” Federation, the “Raut” Trade Union and the Trade Union of Workers of Cadastre, Geodesy and Geology “SindGeoCad” from the CSRM. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of these investigations.