Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Russian Federation (Ratification: 1956)

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its comments on the 2012 observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) which concerned violations of the Convention in practice and referred, in particular, to cases of anti-union discrimination, interference by employers in trade union internal affairs and refusal to bargain collectively. Regretting that no information has been provided by the Government thereon and noting similar allegations submitted by the ITUC in 2014 and 2015, the Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on all outstanding comments relating to the application of the Convention.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR) received on 1 September 2015 referring to the matters raised by the Committee below. The Committee notes with concern the KTR allegations of ineffective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in practice outlined in its 2015 communication. According to the KTR this is due to: the lack of training of law enforcement and judicial staff; inadequate legal definition of discrimination under section 3 of the Labour Code; lack of any extrajudicial mechanisms that could effectively resolve labour disputes involving allegations of discrimination; lack of understanding by the courts of facts that need to be proven and burden of proof to establish discrimination, and the absence of clear indication in the law of the legal consequences or sanctions in cases of discrimination. The KTR refers to several examples of impunity in cases of anti-union discrimination suffered by workers. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government, during the first half of 2015, 194,256 complaints have been lodged with the State Labour Inspectorate, 28 of which included matters relating to anti-union discrimination. The Government refers to section 136 of the Criminal Code, which punishes acts of discrimination by a fine of between 100,000 and 300,000 Russian rubles (RUB), or a fine based on the salary or any other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or by deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or to engage in a certain activity for a period of up to five years, or by community service for a period of up to 480 hours, or by unpaid labour for a period of up to two years, or by forced labour for up to five years or deprivation of liberty for the same period. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of people found guilty of anti-union discrimination and convicted under section 136 of the Criminal Code, as well as the penalties imposed.

The Committee had previously noted a proposal prepared by the KTR and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), following an ILO technical mission in the framework of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) Case No. 2758 in 2011. The proposal aimed at improving protection against violations of trade union rights, in general, and anti-union discrimination and interference, in particular. It called for the training of relevant bodies and courts on freedom of association and suggested the creation of a body with a specific mandate to examine cases of violations of trade union rights. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to implement this proposal so as ensure the application of the Convention in practice.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that a working group composed of representatives of the social partners was established in November 2013 to analyse the CFA recommendations in Cases Nos 2758, 2216 and 2251 with a view to improving the current regulatory and legislative framework. It further notes that the discussion of the implementation of the CFA recommendations in these cases by the Russian Tripartite Commission was scheduled to take place in October 2015. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the conclusions and recommendations of the CFA in these cases, which concerned, among others, allegations of anti-union discrimination and the absence of effective mechanisms to ensure protection against such acts, denial of facilities for workers’ representatives, violation of the right to bargain collectively and the failure of the State to investigate those violations. The Committee deeply regrets the lack of progress in the implementation of concrete proposals for addressing the issues raised above made by the two trade union centres in the country and supported by the Government and the employers’ organization during the visit of the ILO mission in 2011. The Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary measures without further delay to implement the KTR–FNPR proposals to which it had previously agreed. It requests the Government to provide information on the developments in this regard. The Committee further reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this respect.

Article 4. Parties to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that, pursuant to section 31 of the Labour Code, when an enterprise trade union represents less than half of the workers in that enterprise, other non-unionized representatives could represent workers’ interests. Considering that, in these circumstances, direct negotiation between the undertaking and its employees, bypassing sufficiently representative organizations where these existed, might be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 31 so as to ensure that it was clear that it was only in the event where there were no trade unions at the workplace that an authorization to bargain collectively could be conferred to other representative bodies. The Committee notes with concern that despite its several requests, section 31 of the Labour Code has not been amended. The Committee is, therefore, bound to reiterate its previous request and expects that the Government’s next report will contain information on the measures taken to that end.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]