Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Belarus (Ratification: 1956)

With reference to its observation, the Committee notes that the draft amendments to the Act on the settlement of labour disputes would appear to replace section 16 of the Act which concerns the prohibition of strikes with a section calling for the maintenance of a necessary minimum service in enterprises, institutions and organizations where the interruption of certain work would endanger the safety and health of the population or the vital interests of society. The draft further provides that the necessary minimum service shall be determined by agreement between the parties, together with the local executive body. The Committee welcomes this proposal and trusts that, when determining the necessary minimum service, measures will be taken to ensure that it is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 161).

The Committee also notes that, while section 20 of the Act provides generally for the determination of an illegal strike to be made by the court, the amendment proposes that the President of the Republic shall take a decision on a dispute with respect to a strike declared illegal because it constitutes a real threat to national security and the health of other persons. Firstly, the Committee recalls that it has considered that strikes may be restricted only in cases of acute national crisis, in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and with respect to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. It therefore trusts that, if the term "national security" is retained in the amendments, it will be restrictively interpreted in accordance with the above-noted situations where strike may be restricted.

The Committee would also point out that, responsibility for declaring a strike illegal should not lie with the government, but with an independent body which has the confidence of the parties involved. It trusts, therefore, that the final determination of strikes which threaten "national security and the health of the population" will lie with the courts. Moreover, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraph 164 of its 1994 General Survey wherein it indicates that workers who are restricted or prohibited from strike action should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of a deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned. The Committee therefore considers that independent and impartial machinery for resolving disputes should be established, including final and binding arbitration awards when all else has failed, in cases where strike action has been restricted under section 20.

As concerns the draft Labour Code, the Committee notes that the list of enterprises and branches where strikes are prohibited shall be defined by the Council of Ministers. The Committee recalls that restrictions of the right to strike should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, to essential services in the strict sense of the term and to cases of acute national crisis. The Committee therefore trusts that any future list adopted in this regard will be limited to these situations or categories of workers. The Committee would also recall that 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.

As concerns the requirement in the draft Labour Code that there be a quorum of over 50 per cent of workers for a strike ballot and that a two-thirds majority must vote for the strike in order for the strike to be legal, the Committee recalls that the quorum and majority required for a strike ballot should not be such that the exercise of the right to strike becomes very difficult or even impossible in practice. Any such legislative requirements should therefore ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast and the required quorum and majority are fixed at a reasonable level (see the 1994 General Survey, paragraph 170).

The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the Labour Code as soon as it is adopted and trusts that, in its final version, it will take full account of the above-noted principles.