Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

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

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report.

Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether the provisions of section 230 of the Labour Code, as amended in 1992, and which appeared to maintain trade union monopoly in enterprises, had been repealed. The Committee notes from the Government's report that, while this provision has not yet been repealed, it is not included in the draft Labour Code which has been prepared. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in respect of the draft Labour Code and to transmit a copy of the text upon its adoption.

The Committee had noted that the application of the Act on trade unions of 1996 to trade unions of various categories of public employees was to be determined by the respective laws (Article 4). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the laws in question and a copy of the relevant texts, particularly in respect of employees of Russian Federation internal affairs agencies, agencies of the Federal Security Service, Russian Federation customs agencies, Federal Fiscal Police Agencies, judges and prosecutors.

Article 3. The Committee noted that, according to section 14(5) the Act on procedures for the resolution of collective labour disputes of 1995, the decision to declare a strike had to indicate the duration thereof. The Committee had asked the Government to state what the consequences were, for workers or their organizations, when a strike exceeded the stated duration.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that workers who do not cease strike action on the day after the notified date on which the strike is to end may be subjected to disciplinary penalties under the Labour Code, including rebukes, reprimands or, as a last resort, dismissal. Recalling that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests, the Committee is of the view that requiring a precision to the duration of a strike would eventually be admissible only as a general indication on the part of the workers but should not be subject to disciplinary penalty, including dismissal, as it would restrict the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee would ask the Government, including in the course of the revision of the Labour Code, to amend it's legislation to ensure that disciplinary penalties cannot be imposed for failure to end a strike on a predetermined date.

The Committee would also recall its previous comment that the Law on procedures for the resolution of labour disputes does not allow a clear determination of the circumstances in which strikes are authorized. It once again encourages the Government to endeavour to clarify the relevant provisions to ensure unambiguously the right of trade unions to organize their activities.