Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. In addition, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 2251 and 2216 (333rd and 334th Reports, March and June 2004 respectively).

Scope of the Convention. In its previous direct request the Committee requested the Government to provide information about the trade union rights of the persons under a civil law contract with an employer, who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code, and to indicate any restriction concerning trade union rights imposed by the federal law on persons mentioned in section 11 of the Code (in particular, managers of organizations, personnel combining jobs, women, persons bearing family responsibilities, youth, state employees and "other persons"). The Committee notes that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. The Committee therefore reiterates its request.

Article 1. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to specify the sanctions imposed on employers found guilty of anti-union discrimination and indicate the relevant legislative provisions. The Committee notes that in its reply, the Government refers to section 419 of the Labour Code which states that persons found guilty of violation of laws and other instruments containing standards of labour law bear disciplinary responsibility in the procedure stipulated by the Code, other federal laws, as well as civil law, and also bear administrative and criminal responsibility in the procedure provided for by federal law. The Government also refers to section 30 of the Act on Trade Unions of 1996 which is a similar provision. The Government further mentions the case where a trade union member at "Cheliabinsk Charcoal Company" was compelled to leave his union by the head engineer of "Kapitalnaya" mine, who was eventually found guilty of anti-union discrimination and sanctioned to pay a fine. The Committee requests the Government to specify the concrete sanctions imposed on employers found guilty of anti-union discrimination and to mention the relevant provisions.

Article 2. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the sanctions imposed on those found guilty of acts of interference, and indicate the relevant legislative provisions.

Article 4. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the civil servants and employees engaged in military service and in the system of execution of penal sentences are granted collective bargaining rights. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that according to section 9 of the Act on Basics of Civil Service, civil servants have the right to establish and join trade unions. The Government further indicates that considering that the legislation does not provide specific provisions for participation in social partnership by civil servants, this category of employees also enjoys the right to collective bargaining. The Government refers to the existence of the Trade Union of State Bodies and Civil Service Employees. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with examples of collective agreements applicable to civil servants and civil employees of military service and the system of execution of penal sentences.

With respect to its previous request to indicate whether there are cases in which representatives of non-unionized workers can negotiate even if a trade union exists at the enterprise, the Committee notes that the Government refers to section 31 of the Labour Code according to which when the trade union represents less than half of the workers at the enterprise, other representatives could represent workers’ interests. The Committee considers that, in these circumstances, direct negotiation between the undertaking and its employees, bypassing sufficiently representative organizations where these exist, might be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 31 so as to ensure that it is clear that it is only in the event where there are no trade unions at the workplace that an authorization to bargain collectively can be conferred to other representative bodies.

As concerns its previous request to indicate whether primary trade unions could be assisted by higher-level workers’ organizations during collective bargaining, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that this right is generally provided for in Chapter 2 of the Act on Trade Unions.

The Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to take the necessary measures so as to ensure that the legislation provides for a possibility to conclude an agreement at the occupational or professional level.

Finally, with respect to its previous request to clarify whether the legislation imposes compulsory arbitration in the event where the dispute is not settled with the help of a mediator (sections 402 and 403 of the Labour Code and 6(7) of the Law on Collective Labour Disputes), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that such a regulation is needed in order to prevent a deadlock while resolving collective labour disputes. The Committee recalls that it is difficult to reconcile arbitration imposed by the authorities at their own initiative with the principle of the voluntary nature of negotiation established in Article 4 of the Convention. Noting that the Government mentions six cases where the dispute was settled through arbitration without providing any further details, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with more information in this respect.