Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2011, publiée 101ème session CIT (2012)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Azerbaïdjan (Ratification: 1992)

Articles 1 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 4 August 2011 alleging that despite an adequate protection of trade union rights in law, trade union activities in multinational companies are often reprimanded in practice. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted similar comments made by the ITUC in 2007, which also alleged that employers often delayed negotiations and unions rarely participated in determining wage levels and were often bypassed in the conclusion of bilateral agreements between the Government and multinational enterprises. The Committee regrets that the Government’s report contains no observations on the ITUC 2007 comments. Once again recalling that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure the application of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to initiate an investigation into the ITUC’s allegations and to provide information on the measures taken in this respect. It further requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC’s allegations.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains information on the protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and the collective bargaining procedure.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the legislation made a distinction between a “collective agreement”, concluded at the enterprise level following bipartite negotiations between workers and employers, and a “collective accord”, concluded at industry, territorial or national levels following bipartite (between trade unions and the authorities) or tripartite (between trade unions, employers’ organizations and the authorities of the appropriate level) negotiations. The Committee recalled that while tripartism was particularly appropriate for the regulation of questions of a larger scope (drafting of legislation, formulating labour policies), the principle of tripartism should not replace the principle of autonomy of workers’ organizations and employers (or their organizations) in collective bargaining on conditions of employment. The Committee also recalled that, according to Article 4 of the Convention, free and voluntary bargaining with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment should be conducted between workers’ organizations and an employer or employers’ organization and therefore requested the Government to take measures to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. It therefore reiterates its previous requests and reminds the Government that ILO technical assistance remains at its disposal on the abovementioned issues.