ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

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

Other comments on C098

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its comments on the 2012, 2014 and 2015 observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) which referred to cases of anti-union discrimination, interference by employers in trade union internal affairs and refusal to bargain collectively. The Committee notes with deep regret that once again, no information has been provided by the Government in reply to the numerous allegations of the violation of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR) received on 31 October 2017, which refer to the matters raised by the Committee below and to numerous cases of alleged violations of the Convention. Noting with concern the persistence and seriousness of the numerous allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on the abovementioned observations and to ensure that investigations are conducted by the authorities into the 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2017 ITUC and KTR allegations.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments the Committee had noted section 136 of the Criminal Code which punishes acts of discrimination, including anti-union discrimination, and had requested the Government to provide information on the number of people found guilty and convicted under the abovementioned provision, as well as the penalties imposed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no such information exists. The Government refers, nevertheless, to two cases where the courts have concluded to the absence of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes, however, that according to the KTR, no one has ever been found guilty and convicted pursuant to section 136 of the Criminal Code; moreover, no one has ever been prosecuted for violation of trade union rights, including acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, in general.
Further in this respect, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments, the Committee had deeply regretted the lack of progress in the implementation of 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, which the Government and employers’ representatives had agreed to examine in the framework of the Russian Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations (RTK). The Committee recalls that this proposal refers to the need to draft specific legislative provisions with a view to render protection against violations of trade union rights, in general, and anti-union discrimination, in particular, more effective, and suggests to create a body with a specific mandate to examine cases of violations of trade union rights, including anti-union discrimination (such a mandate can also be undertaken by an existing body). The proposal also calls for training of relevant bodies and courts on freedom of association. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that these recommendations were considered in 2013 by a tripartite working group of the RTK and in December 2016 and were included in the plan of action for 2017. The Government further indicates that a number of legal acts aimed at the development of social partnership have been adapted, several pieces of legislation amended and a number of activities were held to promote social partnership at the regional level. The Committee notes the KTR’s indication that it had tried to engage with the Office of the Prosecutor on a possible way forward in addressing violations of trade union rights, in particular as regards anti-union discrimination and interference to no avail. The Committee further notes the statistics collected by the KTR on the alleged violations of the Convention in 2016–17. The Committee once again deeply regrets the lack of progress in the implementation of the KTR–FNPR proposal, and in particular in the drafting of specific legislative provisions protecting workers from anti-union discrimination, as well as the lack of engagement from the relevant authorities in addressing issues of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee once again urges the Government to implement, in consultation with the social partners and without further delay, the 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. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted 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 noted with concern that despite its several requests, section 31 of the Labour Code had not been amended. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the election of a representative body other than the primary trade union is an extreme measure and occurs only when there is no full representation (more than 50 per cent) of workers’ interests by a trade union organization; the Government thus considers that there is no need to amend section 31 of the Code. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, the right of collective bargaining lies with workers’ organizations of whatever level, and that negotiation between employers or their organizations and representatives of non-unionized workers should only be possible when there are no trade unions at the respective level. The Committee emphasizes that where there exists a representative trade union and it is active within the enterprise or branch of activity concerned, the authorization for other workers’ representatives to bargain collectively not only weakens the position of the trade union, but also undermines ILO rights and principles on collective bargaining (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 239–240). The Committee deeply regrets that despite its numerous requests, section 31 of the Labour Code has not been amended. The Committee expects the Government to take immediate and decisive action to amend section 31 of the Labour Code and requests it to provide information on any progress made in this regard.
The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer