Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2007, Publication: 96th ILC session (2007)

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

A Government representative said that, since the last session of the Committee, the situation regarding the implementation by Belarus of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had drastically changed. Over the past year, the Government had taken a series of concrete measures that had led to certain of those recommendations being implemented in full. Significant progress had been made with the others. He referred in this respect to the written information provided to the Committee.

In relation to recommendation No. 2 of the Commission of Inquiry, a draft Trade Union Law was being developed, the aim of which was to simplify the procedures for establishing and registering trade unions. The draft Law was an attempt by the Government to adapt the legislation to the current situation and to create a legal basis for further and more intense development of trade union pluralism in the country. The adoption of the new Law would solve the problems in the legislation that had been raised by the Commission of Inquiry.

Throughout its elaboration of the draft Law, the Government had undertaken intensive consultations with the ILO. It had discussed the initial concept of the draft law with the Office in October 2006. Consultations had taken place in Minsk in January 2007 and in Geneva in February. The Government had also actively discussed the draft Law with the social partners in the country. Three expert meetings had taken place on the issue of improving legislation in the labour and social sphere and the draft Law had been discussed in that context. All interested parties had been involved in the consultation process: the Government, the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Belarus Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) and employers' organizations. Further discussions had been held with the ILO in Geneva in May 2007.

Each article of the draft Law had been reviewed and positive steps were taken by the Government to resolve a series of issues that had been noted. The standards about which the ILO had particular concerns had also been discussed. The Government and the ILO had agreed to continue working jointly on the draft Law. Towards the end of June 2007, consultations would resume in Minsk with the participation of the Government, all trade union and employers' organizations and the ILO.

The concerns raised by the Committee of Experts would be addressed by the new Law. It would not prohibit the creation of a second primary trade union organization in those enterprises where an organization with over 75 per cent of the workers as members already existed. The draft Law guaranteed the right to create trade unions at all levels and in any organization. This resolved two of the main issues raised by the Commission of Inquiry: the need for a legal address and the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement. These requirements had been abolished. The draft Law was advantageous to small trade unions. A trade union could be formed in any enterprise, as long as it had three members. Instead of a legal address, all that was needed was a contact address. Trade unions with a legal address had the right to obtain legal personality. Those without a legal address, however, would have the same rights to undertake trade union activities and defend the interests of their members.

The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry touched upon issues relating to the creation of trade unions at the enterprise level, which was also dealt with in the draft Law. In addition, the draft Law considerably relaxed the procedures for establishing trade unions of workers from various enterprises. The fact that such trade unions could be set up with a minimum membership of 30 people was in accordance with ILO principles. The provisions of the draft Law relating to the representativeness of trade unions were also in accordance with ILO standards. All trade unions, regardless of their level of representativeness, would enjoy the rights and guarantees needed to ensure that they could function normally and protect the interests of workers. They also had the right to the following: independently establish their statutes; elect their officers and organize their activities; collect dues from their members; establish and join federations; receive and disseminate information relating to their statutory activities; participate in discussions between employers and workers on labour issues; defend the rights of their members, including by representing them in court; organize strikes; and undertake industrial action. Thus, their authority was safeguarded. The additional rights of representative trade unions included the right to engage in collective bargaining, become involved in the development of government policy and monitor observance of labour laws.

The draft Law stipulated that an enterprise-level trade union would be recognized as representative if its membership included no fewer than 10 per cent of the enterprise's workers. A trade union operating throughout the country would be recognized as representative if it had no fewer than 7,000 members, or one-third of the workers in a specific branch or profession. The Government's opponents asserted that the issue of representativeness had been included in the draft Law only to drive the CDTU from the process of social dialogue. That was not true. The draft Law took into account the interests of the various types of trade unions and it created the necessary conditions for the development of trade union pluralism. Most importantly, it guaranteed that the right of freedom of association could be exercised by anyone who so desired. It was therefore clear that the presence or absence of the additional rights afforded to representative trade unions would not exert an excessive influence on the choice of a trade union organization by workers.

The promotion of social dialogue in general had been one of the principal achievements of the Government over the past year. In terms of the draft Law, the consultations between the Government and the social partners had led to concrete results. At first, the draft Law had stated that no fewer than 8,000 members were required for recognition of a trade union as representative at the national level. Following consultations, however, that figure had been reduced to 7,000. Furthermore, two Republic-wide trade unions had previously been required to create a trade union association. That number was now only one. There were currently two such associations in Belarus: the FPB, with 4 million members, and the CDTU, which had 10,000 members. The changes introduced by the draft Law provided an opportunity for both of them to confirm their status as national associations and to take part in social dialogue at national level, which included representation on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues. Nevertheless, the absence of national-level status in no way impinged on the possibility of creating a trade union or association of trade unions.

In order to further encourage the development of the trade union movement, the draft Law provided for a waiver on state registration fees. This was particularly important for small trade unions. In addition, the registration procedure had been simplified and the creation of trade unions had been made easier in general. At the enterprise and regional levels, it significantly reduced the minimum requirements for numbers of members. For nationwide trade unions, however, the figure remained at 500, a number that had never been criticized by the ILO.

The adoption of the Law would be a major step forward in guaranteeing the right of freedom of association in Belarus and a real contribution to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The draft was not yet in its final state and the process of intensive negotiations would continue. In July 2007, it would be examined by the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) and was due to be considered by Parliament later in the year. The Government considered it a well-balanced Law that was in full accordance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

In 2006, the Government had undertaken a series of other steps to implement the recommendations. It had embarked upon a process of relaxing the procedures for the registration of trade unions and had abolished the Republican Registration Commission, thus implementing recommendation No. 3. The Ministry of Justice was now responsible for the registration. In December 2006, it had posted on its web site information on membership which explained that citizens had the right to create trade unions of their own choosing and to join trade unions if they were willing to comply with their union's statutes. In 2006, six applications for registration had been received. Four trade unions had been registered and two applications had been denied, but the reasons were mainly that they were violating their own statutes. Nevertheless, they had the right to reapply.

Regarding the full dissemination of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, recommendation No. 4, the Government had published them in its official journal Respublika, which had a large countrywide circulation. It had also informed members of the judicial system of the need to examine complaints from trade unions thoroughly. In January 2007, a seminar had been organized, in conjunction with the ILO, with the aim of raising awareness among the judiciary. Given the success of the event, the Government had approached the ILO regarding the possibility of holding another seminar on issues of discrimination in labour relations as a result of membership of a trade union. He added that the Government had provided the ILO with detailed information on the cases of the eight workers who had been dismissed due to their trade union membership, and he was pleased to inform the Committee that air traffic controller Mr Oleg Dolbik had been re-engaged.

Social partnership bodies were fully involved in the process of implementing the recommendations. On 31 January 2007, the National Council on Labour and Social Issues had admitted Mr Yaroshuk, Chairperson of the CDTU. Thus, recommendation No. 11 had been implemented in full. The social partners were constantly and systematically involved in consideration of issues relating to the interaction between the boards of enterprises and trade unions, in accordance with recommendation No. 6.

Belarus had also set up additional mechanisms to protect the rights of trade unions and their members. The Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had assumed the role of an independent body for examining complaints related to interference in trade union affairs, thereby implementing recommendation No. 5. It would examine cases brought by workers relating to discrimination as a result of membership of a trade union. By guaranteeing independent review of the cases, it was implementing recommendation No. 7.

He observed that the working methods of the Conference Committee meant that it concentrated on the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Yet the situation in Belarus had changed substantially since the comments had been made; he therefore urged the Conference Committee to take the current situation into account in its deliberations. He said that ILO decisions would also be used by other international organizations. The European Union (EU) had referred to the ILO's position when introducing economic sanctions against the country, and the conclusions of the present session of the Committee could be used by the EU to justify its position. At its present session, the Conference had set up a committee to examine the ILO's position on ensuring the sustainable activity of enterprises. Support for and the development of sustainable enterprises was one of the pillars of the ILO strategy for achieving decent work. Such enterprises ensured economic growth, and jobs and income for workers. The EU's economic sanctions would have a negative effect on the performance of enterprises.

In conclusion, he said that his Government had done everything it could to implement as fully as possible the conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee the previous year. He called on the Committee to support the efforts made by the Government and to adopt conclusions that confirmed the existence of real and tangible progress.

The Employer members recalled that the case had a long history going back over 15 years, including a Commission of Inquiry, a process reserved for the most serious cases. They noted that, in comparison with 2005 and 2006, the Government's orientation to the case appeared to have changed. It had previously maintained that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry needed to be adapted to national conditions. It was now saying that it would fully implement them. The change was to be welcomed.

The Employer members noted that in the oral and written information that had been provided, reference had been made to a number of possible changes in the law. There would also be a high-level visit to the country by the ILO immediately following the Conference. While the latest version of the draft Trade Union Law appeared to address some of the matters at issue, a minimum number of measures needed to be taken in this serious and long-standing case. Firstly, the Government needed to repair the damage suffered over recent years by employers' and workers' organizations so that there could be full, complete and vibrant social dialogue. Secondly, as everyone was aware, even with the best intentions, there could be a gap between the provisions of draft legislation and the requirements of the Convention. It was not possible to review the proposed text of the draft Law in the Conference Committee and, even if the text had tripartite support, this did not necessarily mean that it fulfilled all of the Government's obligations. The ILO therefore needed to provide the Government with an opinion on whether all aspects of the draft legislation met the obligations of the Convention. The Government, in consultation with the employers' and workers' organizations, needed to reach agreement on the revised draft Law, which should be submitted in time for consideration by the Committee of Experts at its next session. This would provide the Conference Committee with a basis for assessing the real situation next year. Although the Employer members expressed a certain level of hope, they still remained concerned in view of the history of the case. They therefore hoped to see progress in the case in the very near future.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the oral and written information and emphasized that the application of Convention No. 87 in Belarus was one of the cases with which the ILO supervisory bodies were most familiar. Since 1995, the serious and systematic violations of the Convention in Belarus had been the subject of repeated observations by the Committee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Credentials Committee and the Conference Committee. In 2003, the Governing Body had decided to establish a Commission of Inquiry, a measure reserved for the most serious cases of non-compliance with ratified Conventions. The Commission of Inquiry had issued 12 recommendations, most of which should have been implemented two years ago. Unfortunately, progress had clearly not been sufficient. In view of the serious implications of this discussion of the case, the developments that had occurred since the publication of the report of the Committee of Experts could not be ignored, with particular reference to the discussion in the Committee on Freedom of Association and the conclusions of the Governing Body in March 2007.

The Worker members took note of the exhaustive information provided by the Government. However, in their view the information was confusing at best, misleading at worst, and did not address the heart of the matter. The present discussion should focus on only two matters: whether the observations of the Committee of Experts had been addressed, and whether the Government had implemented two very simple requests in the conclusions adopted by the Governing Body in March 2007. The Governing Body had called upon the Government to ensure that all workers' and employers' organizations could function freely and without interference, and obtain registration; and to abandon the approach set out in the conceptual framework on the Trade Union Law, which had now become a draft, while reviewing the national legislation in full to ensure that the right to organize was fully protected.

They acknowledged the developments mentioned by the Government representative, namely the granting to the CDTU of a seat on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues, the disbandment of the Republican Registration Commission, the re-engagement of Oleg Dolbik and the recent registration of a few independent trade union organizations. These were steps in the right direction, but they did not resolve all the pending issues. Moreover, none of the independent trade union organizations specifically mentioned in the report of the Commission of Inquiry had so far been registered, even though the Committee of Experts had called on the Government to take immediate measures for the registration of those organizations and of the territorial organizations of the CDTU, namely those in Mogilev, Baranovici and Novopolotsk-Polotsk. In the meantime, the Committee on Freedom of Association continued to examine new cases of the refusal to register independent trade unions. Even where such unions won their battle for registration, the workers suffered unacceptable humiliation in the process. For example, the Radio-Electronic Workers' Union (REWU) had suffered unacceptable interference by the Ministry of Justice, which had itself been closely involved in dialogue between the ILO and the Government. Moreover, immediately after the Conference last year, the Ministry of Justice had issued its own interpretation of the REWU's constitution, prohibiting workers who were not employed in the radio-electronic industry from joining the union, even if the union itself was prepared to accept them. This interpretation had led to a situation in which prosecutors refused to address cases of harassment of REWU members, effectively giving a green light to union-busting campaigns. Examples included the registration of the Borisov union in February 2007, as indicated by the Government representative, who should have added that it was the union's sixth application for registration and that the previous application had been refused because of the font size of the related documents.

The Worker members recalled that, according to Convention No. 87, as interpreted by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association, the registration procedure should be a mere formality. This was not the case in Belarus. Trade unions could not register unless they could provide a legal address, for which a number of rules existed. For example, enterprise unions in the structures of the official FPB could use the legal address of the company, but independent trade unions could not, as employers refused their consent. In view of the large number of state enterprises in the country, consent for the use of legal addresses could easily be controlled by the State. The ILO had urged the Government to repeal Presidential Decree No. 2, which set out the provisions referred to above. However, the Government had still expressed no commitment to make this change and the draft Law was, to their understanding, still not compatible with the Convention. It was to be regretted that the text of the draft had not been placed before the Committee. The Worker members recalled that the new Trade Union Law was not one of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. What was needed was to repeal or amend Presidential Decrees Nos 2, 11 and 24. The new Law would only be a positive development if it were in full conformity with the Convention, which it was not. The unacceptable registration requirements were still in place, at least for unions wishing to acquire legal personality. The fear was that the adoption of the new Law would mean that all trade unions would have to go through difficult re-registration procedures once again.

The Worker members noted with interest the re-engagement of the trade unionist, Mr Dolbik, although on a fixed-term contract. However, the Government had not indicated what had happened to other people in similar situations. The Committee on Freedom of Association had before it new cases of anti-union harassment, including the non-renewal of the fixed-term contracts of the members of the independent trade union in the Avtopark No. 2 in Gomel and discrimination against independent trade unionists in the Belshina enterprise, which had resulted in the President of the union going on a hunger strike.

One of the urgent requests of the Committee of Experts was for the Government to repeal the Law on Mass Activities and the corresponding Presidential Decree No. 11, which made it practically impossible for trade unions to organize public protest actions because of the administrative obstacles and high fees. However, nothing had been done to change these rules and pickets and demonstrations organized by independent trade unions were simply prohibited or moved to other locations. Workers in Belarus did not have full freedom to join an organization of their choosing. If they wished to form an organization outside the official structures, which was the essence of Convention No. 87, they would probably have to fight a long battle for registration, face strong pressure from the Government or the authorities and, if they persevered, they would still not have the right to organize mass activities.

The Worker members referred to the overall political and human rights climate in the country, where the independent trade union movement, despite the many obstacles it had to overcome, was one of the very few elements in society that stood up to what was basically an authoritarian regime. Other civil society organizations, including employers and their associations, also faced limitations of their fundamental rights. Although there was on-going dialogue between the Government and the Office, the danger was that the dialogue was being diverted from the main issue and that it was only taking place in view of the international pressure faced by the Government, notably the decision by the European Union to withdraw trade preferences temporarily. While the Government was making every effort to prevent that decision from being enforced, it had shown no intention of genuinely implementing the Convention. Instead, it was introducing a few purely cosmetic changes, while engaging in an organized lobbying campaign that desperately sought to prevent the case from being assessed on its merits. The Worker members therefore called on the Committee to consider the merits of the case at least as seriously as it had in previous years.

The Worker member of Belarus said that the process of formulating the draft Trade Union Law had addressed a number of issues raised in the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. All types of trade unions had been involved in the process, including those that were not members of the FPB. The text of the draft Law had been studied and amendments would be proposed, as his initial impression of the text was that it needed much improvement. He therefore hoped that the comments made by the FPB would be taken into account so as to offer greater protection for trade union activities and strengthen the text in other areas, such as the minimum number of members required to achieve representative status. He believed that the trade unions in the country would be in a stronger position to bargain with the Government if they achieved greater unity amongst themselves.

He also agreed that constructive dialogue was taking place between the Government and the Office and he hoped that it would lead to the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, leading to full protection and freedom of action for trade unions. The FPB was a confederation with 4 million members, but it always supported equal relations with other unions. He therefore welcomed the fact that the Government was implementing the majority of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He believed that their implementation would be reinforced through the adoption of the new Trade Union Law, which he hoped would be fully in line with ILO standards and would be adopted in the near future.

However, he expressed concern at the negative consequences of the decision by the European Union to withdraw the trade preferences for Belarus. He believed that the decision was premature, as it was still too early to assess the extent to which the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were being implemented. Although he could understand the concern of the European Union, he believed that it would be more appropriate for the ILO itself to address issues relating to the fulfilment of the Government's commitments in relation to ILO standards, especially since the action proposed by the European Union was likely to have a particularly prejudicial effect on working and living standards in the country in general.

He therefore concluded that there had been progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, although much still remained to be done. The trade union legislation was being improved and trade unions would be able to operate more effectively. It was therefore to be hoped that the European Union decision would not be put into effect.

The Employer member of Belarus assured the Committee that employers' organizations in Belarus, together with the Government and trade unions, were working to fulfil the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and that the situation had improved considerably over the past months. A number of important steps had been taken, as indicated by the Government representative. Nevertheless, there remained a number of unresolved issues in the work of employers' organizations with the Government, including questions relating to taxation, the business environment, bureaucratic barriers to business and the adoption of laws enabling companies to operate more freely. As co-chair of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues he reaffirmed that dialogue on social issues had been activated recently and hoped that the progress already made would lead to substantial results.

However, he expressed great concern at the intention of the European Union to exclude Belarus from the generalized system of preferences (GSP). If the decision were enforced, it would result in a considerable decline in trade with European countries to the detriment not only of businesses in Belarus, but also their European partners. Those who suffered the most would be small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and particularly exporters of textiles, where the main workforce was made up of women. Moreover, a large number of SMEs were located in the Chernobyl area. Such a negative impact on trade and economic cooperation with the European Union was not in the interests of those seeking stability and economic and social security in Europe. The continuation of dialogue with the ILO and the European Union would be much better than measures which would jeopardize the situation of thousands of people in the country. He called on the Committee to take a position against the implementation of the decision by the European Union to exclude Belarus from the GSP.

The Government member of the Russian Federation noted that a number of important steps had been taken and that the Government was making progress in its efforts to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. A new version of the draft Trade Union Law had been submitted to the Office for evaluation, demonstrating the cooperation between the Government and the ILO. The draft Law no longer contained a minimum membership requirement of 10 per cent of employees for the creation of a trade union and a legal address was no longer required for registration. The decision to include the Chairperson of the CDTU as a member of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues was another such positive step. The conceptual framework of the draft Law, and subsequently the draft Trade Union Law, had been discussed repeatedly with trade union representatives, as a result of which significant changes had been made to the draft Law. Dialogue with the social partners was systematic in the Council for the Improvement of the Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, where the CDTU had two seats.

More progress was of course needed, but it could not be achieved overnight. More work and better cooperation with the ILO was also required. The Belarusian Government was clearly committed to the process of implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, in law and in practice, as demonstrated by the participation of the Deputy Prime Minister in the Conference Committee.

During the last session of the Governing Body, most participants had noted the progress made by the Government in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and bringing the law into line with the provisions of Convention No. 87. The Conference Committee should in turn be unbiased, conscientious and objective in its deliberations. Cooperation, not penalization, was the order of the day. The country should be provided with the assistance needed to enable it to fulfil its obligations. The fact that progress had been achieved and that the Government was moving in the right direction should be reflected in the Committee's conclusions.

The Government member of Germany also speaking on behalf of the Government members of the European Union represented in the Committee and the Government members of Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia; in addition, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine aligned themselves with her statement. She recalled that in the Governing Body in March 2007 the European Union had strongly supported the conclusions on Belarus adopted by the Governing Body in March 2007 which, inter alia, called upon the Government to cooperate fully with the Office for the implementation of all the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government had been urged to review all of its legislation in full consultation with all the social partners concerned with a view to ensuring the right to organize in both law and practice so that free and independent trade unions could exercise their full rights. The European Union had also noted with interest various of the activities carried out by the Government and the signs of the political will to cooperate with the ILO at a high level. However, it had been necessary to acknowledge that the high-level activities were in contrast with the outcomes on the ground, where there had been no substantial progress on most of the essential issues. In particular, the European Union had called on the Government to amend the draft Trade Union Law to ensure the right of trade unions to be established and function freely and without interference.

She expressed disappointment that the Committee of Experts had been forced to conclude that the current situation remained far from ensuring full respect for freedom of association. The European Union shared the concern with regard to the conceptual framework of trade union legislation and its possible impact on trade union pluralism. The focus on representativeness in the new draft Law was likely to have a serious impact on the existence of first-level organizations and their corresponding federations at the level of the Republic, thereby giving rise to a de facto union monopoly. She once again urged the Government to abandon this approach and to take the necessary steps to ensure that the relevant legislation fully ensured freedom of association and the right of all workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing at whatever level.

With regard to the right of trade unions to be established freely and to operate without obstacles, she acknowledged the disbandment of the Republican Registration Commission and the adjustments to the registration process. She firmly hoped that the process of registration in its present form did not in practice amount to a requirement of previous authorization. She also regretted that no progress had been made in complying with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association to register the first-level organizations covered by the complaint, and hoped that all the necessary measures would be adopted for their immediate re-registration. She further regretted the failure to amend the Law on Mass Activities, the implementation of which in practice routinely rendered meaningless the right to demonstrate.

In conclusion, she once again urged the Government to fully and effectively implement all of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry with a view to ensuring full respect for freedom of association in consultation with all trade unions. To this end, she strongly encouraged the Government to continue a transparent and close dialogue with the ILO, and indicated that the European Union would follow closely and with great interest any further developments in the country.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation recalled that, for seven years, the violation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 by the Government of Belarus had been discussed at almost every International Labour Conference and Governing Body session. During that period, the Commission of Inquiry had visited Belarus, which had also received several high-level ILO missions. The Governing Body had last examined the case in March 2007, when the Workers' group, as a concession, had not called for it to be included on the agenda of the present session of the Conference. They had therefore accorded the Government more time to implement in full all 12 recommendations, noting that certain progress had been made in relation to some of them. However, the Government had not taken any of the measures that were urgently required to redress the situation.

Referring to the proposed creation of a state union between Belarus and the Russian Federation, he said that Russian trade unions would not accept violations of workers' rights and the non-observance of freedom of association in part of a future united state. Thus, on 4 June 2007, the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) had sent a letter to the President and Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus expressing the hope that the authorities would heed the views of the international community and take decisive measures swiftly to implement in full the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Two other Russian union organizations had sent similar letters.

He sincerely hoped that, by the next session of the Governing Body, the Government would have fulfilled its promises to implement in full the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, thereby demonstrating compliance with its international obligations and re-establishing its authority in the world and in Europe. Furthermore, it would have a positive impact on the development of trade unions in the country and create a climate of trust and non-interference as a basis for real tripartite cooperation, which would be to the benefit of the rights and interests of all parties.

The Worker member of Germany said that the Governing Body and the Committee on Freedom of Association continued to express concern about the situation of independent trade unions in Belarus and that they reviewed the case on a regular basis. The ILO was providing the country with a very high level of assistance and support, and would undoubtedly continue to do so. It had therefore been a matter of great surprise to hear the Government representative at the last Conference accusing the Office of merely criticizing Belarus and in so doing acting in the interests of the West. Hardly any other member State received so much support from the ILO, including missions at all levels, to help bring its law and practice into accordance with the freedom of association Conventions. It was therefore all the more worrying that there remained severe obstacles to the exercise of freedom of association and to the establishment and membership of independent trade unions. Although the Governing Body and the Committee on Freedom of Association had been able to note certain progress, a great deal still remained to be done. Even where unions were set up, their action was restricted and they could not organize the necessary protest and industrial action. Until the Government repealed the Law on Mass Activities and renounced interference in all types of protest activities, free trade union activity would hardly be possible. She therefore urged the Government to give effect to the many commitments that it had made before the November session of the Governing Body, which would have to decide on further action with a view to ensuring the application of the Convention.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela commended the Government of Belarus for its efforts. He stated that the Government had adopted substantive measures since the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference. They had been sovereign efforts and should therefore be taken into consideration in the conclusions.

The Worker member of Ecuador speaking on behalf of the Andean Labour Consultative Council, the Andean Coordinating Unit for Women Workers and 16 confederations in five Andean countries: Colombia, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, said that any type of sanction intended to affect the economy of a country which prejudiced men and women workers was not compatible with ILO principles or with workers' solidarity. He emphasized that for this reason he was opposed to the exclusion of Belarus from the European Union's General System of Preferences, which was not in accordance with the recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry.

The linking of labour standards with trade sanctions was unacceptable and dangerous, particularly when it could be seen that once again, as a result of the position of the Employer members, it had not been possible for the Committee on the Application of Standards to examine the extremely serious case of Colombia. It was therefore unacceptable that sanctions should be imposed on Belarus, where there were no murders of trade union leaders. These practices were in violation of the ILO's spirit of persuasion, particularly as Belarus was making efforts to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In conclusion, he called on the Worker members to show solidarity with the workers of Belarus and to oppose the decision of the European Union.

The Government member of Canada thanked the Office for its continuing efforts to encourage the Government to promote and protect human rights, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He noted that the Government had taken some specific steps since 2006 to implement these recommendations and had requested technical assistance from the Office in relation to the trade union legislation. His Government, however, remained deeply concerned by the blatant denial of fundamental rights and democratic principles which permeated all spheres in the country, and particularly freedom of assembly and trade union rights. He emphasized the importance for the Government to recognize the gravity of the situation and to take prompt action to redress the effects of severe violations of the most basic elements of the right to organize. He urged the Government to collaborate closely with the Office and to keep it fully informed of further developments in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of the Syrian Arab Republic, recalling the fundamental importance of the impartiality of the ILO, criticized the approach of imposing economic sanctions and restrictions on Governments on account of their political positions, as well as other factors. Such measures were prejudicial to the people, workers and their interests. His own country was exposed to economic sanctions and the real victims were the Syrian people and workers, not its Government.

He therefore called on the ILO to adopt a clear position in opposing economic sanctions, whatever the political pretext, as they had a harmful effect on the interests of workers, on opportunities to achieve development, on social security protection and on the reduction of unemployment. He reiterated the importance of continued efforts to strengthen the application of international labour standards and other relevant international instruments. In conclusion, he reaffirmed his solidarity with the trade unions in Belarus and called on the European Union to refrain from imposing economic sanctions and instead to engage in effective dialogue.

The Government member of China noted the observation made by the Committee of Experts in relation to Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and stated that he had listened very carefully to the statement by the Government representative. His Government noted with satisfaction that the Government had been faithfully implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry since the Conference in 2006. The Government had been engaged in drafting the Trade Union Law in cooperation with the social partners and the Office, as well as the establishment of a tripartite dialogue mechanism and the protection of trade union rights. He considered that meaningful measures had been put in place and positive progress was being made. He called on the Committee to recognize and encourage these efforts and the progress made by the Government and its willingness to continue the ongoing cooperation with the Office. He expressed the hope and belief that further cooperation between the Government and the Office would promote the effective application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

The Worker member of Finland noted that, according to the information provided by the Government, under the proposed new system there would be several different kinds of trade unions. There would be those with legal personality, and those without legal personality. There would also be representative and non-representative trade unions. Trade unions with a different status would have different kinds of rights and obligations. For instance, non-representative trade unions would not have the right to negotiate collective agreements. Although the Government representative had claimed that the conditions were being created for the development of smaller trade unions, it was clear that the Government believed that small trade unions were acceptable only if they remained silent. When examining the status of representative trade unions and the acquisition of national status, the picture was even more confusing. Who would have the power to confirm the status of a national association and what formalities would be involved? Would that mean new forms of interference, such as having to produce a list of members? The prerequisite that had been mentioned of 7,000 members, or one-third of the workers in a particular branch or profession, for the acquisition of national status appeared far too high in a country where workers were still being harassed for trying to establish or join a trade union outside the traditional structure. It appeared that the intended structure was designed to make workers choose between traditional trade unions enjoying all the necessary rights, and other trade unions without such rights in the areas of collective bargaining, supervision of compliance with labour law, and also such aspects as housing. Moreover, she wondered whether the focus on the definition of representative trade unions was not an attempt to draw attention away from the core issues.

She emphasized that Convention No. 87 was not about different thresholds for trade unions of different kinds and on different levels. It was not about making life difficult for trade unions. The Convention created an obligation to implement freedom of association and protection of the right to organize in law and practice. It was a fundamental ILO principle that freedom of expression and freedom of association were essential to sustained progress, and that injustice anywhere constituted injustice everywhere. She therefore urged the Government to comply with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to guarantee the right of collective bargaining in full freedom to all trade unions voluntarily elected by workers.

The Government member of Cuba considered that the Committee should recognize that since the last International Labour Conference, the Government of Belarus had adopted a series of measures to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and that tangible progress had been observed as a result of their implementation. Belarus had taken a number of measures to improve its legislation, in close collaboration with the ILO and the social partners. The Government had also paid attention to monitoring and analysis of practices relating to the registration of trade unionists and had emphasized the need to strictly comply with the right of freedom of association, as well as the inadmissibility of taking decisions which were not in compliance with the law. The recommendations made in this respect were being addressed through the development of a new Trade Union Law.

On the one hand, the information provided to the Commission revealed the political will of the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and, on the other, that the channels of communication between the Government of Belarus and the ILO were working well. Such efforts should be supplemented by greater ILO technical cooperation, and should be adequately reflected when drafting the conclusions on the case.

The Government member of the United States recalled the comprehensive assessment provided by the Commission of Inquiry of the serious fundamental violations of freedom of association and of trade union rights. The Commission of Inquiry's recommendations contained 12 specific measures to be taken by the Government without delay to bring its law and practice into compliance with international labour standards. The implementation of these recommendations was still the benchmark for measuring progress.

She noted the consultations and technical discussions which had been held in the past few months between the Government and the Office and with the social partners, and expressed the hope that the dialogue would continue. She also noted the oral and written information provided by the Government concerning recent developments in the preparation of the draft Trade Union Law and other measures that had been taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. These developments needed to be analysed and evaluated by the Committee of Experts.

Her Government would continue to expect the Government of Belarus to implement fully all of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. She looked forward to the day when genuine freedom of association became a reality in Belarus and when no barriers existed, in law or practice, which impeded the right of workers and trade unions to associate, organize, register and to express their opinions without threat of interference or reprisal.

The Worker member of Ukraine said that democracy ended when the state authorities tried in any way to subordinate and control trade unions, which were among the most basic and influential institutions of civil society. He described some of the violations of workers' rights that had occurred in Belarus: the prevention of the creation of trade union organizations; unjustifiable suppression of industrial action; and the issuing of short-term contracts to undermine the basis of collective bargaining and trade unions. The fundamental rights enshrined in ILO standards were being undermined in law. Trade unions were being hindered at all levels and were often required to pay for certain services that ought to be provided free of charge.

Referring to the decision by the European Union to exclude Belarus from the Generalized System of Preferences in trade relations with the European Union, he said that it was important to remember that responsibility for the exclusion did not lie with the trade unions, but with the Government. The Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine (FTUU) had sent a letter to the President of Belarus indicating that specific measures were needed to ensure observance of trade union rights. He emphasized that, in the twenty-first century, a country could not develop normally in isolation. Only through cooperation could the rights of workers and trade unions as a whole be protected. He hoped that the Committee's conclusions would emphasize the need for Belarus, as well as other countries, to respect those rights.

The Government member of India noted with satisfaction the statement by the Government representative informing the Committee of the recent concrete developments with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in 2004, as well as the recommendations made by the International Labour Conference and the Governing Body in 2006. He also noted that the Government had continued to engage in dialogue with workers and employers and had discussed the draft Trade Union Law, in collaboration with the Office. These steps were encouraging and should lead to steady progress and therefore should be viewed as signs of commitment and progress.

He recommended that the Committee reflect positively in its conclusions the developments and progress made, with a view to encouraging the Government to speed up the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. He also noted that the Government delegation was once again led by the Deputy Prime Minister, which was indicative of the continued importance attached by the Government to this matter. He welcomed the Government's continued commitment to engage with the ILO at such high level to further facilitate the process of cooperation with the ILO.

The Government member of Bangladesh called upon the ILO to ensure that its standards were applied in a manner which accommodated local needs. Due to the differing levels of development and challenges faced by developing countries, the standards that could be applied in a developing country were not necessarily the same as those in a developed country. He noted that the Government of Belarus had made remarkable progress in line with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. A number of trade unions had been registered in 2006-07 and the Ministry of Justice was taking measures for the strict observance of the right of freedom of association. Cooperation was continuing with the ILO for the drafting of a new labour law, in which the requirement of 10 per cent support for the establishment of a trade union, which was well beyond the requirement of the related Conventions, had been abolished. An independent body, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which had the confidence of the parties, had been established to maintain dialogue and interaction between the Government, trade unions, employers and non-governmental organizations. The Government was striving to make progress and there had been tremendous development over the last two years. Belarus should therefore be given adequate time to achieve implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of the Islamic Republic of Iran, referring to the opinion expressed by the Worker member of the Syrian Arab Republic, indicated that imposing economic sanctions did not resolve a country's problems. On the contrary, the direct and harmful repercussions would be felt by the population. He hoped that the ILO would be impartial and provide the necessary technical assistance for the full observance of international labour standards.

The Worker member of Colombia, who spoke on behalf of Colombian trade unions (the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC)), indicated that the opinion expressed by the Worker member of Ecuador did not represent them. He said that such a position had been formulated without prior consultation with the above trade unions. It was not appropriate for workers to speak in the name of a trade union to justify positions held without consultations. It was for that reason that he requested that, in future, he did not speak on behalf of the above trade unions.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) commented on the implementation by the Government of Belarus of each of the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry.

He said that recommendation No. 1 had not been implemented as independent trade unions could not normally create and register new organizations, and thus in the absence of a legal status many had ceased to exist altogether. Recommendation No. 2 had not been implemented as the draft law elaborated by the Government would serve to curtail the independent trade union movement, worsen the legal situation, tighten controls and further complicate the process of registration for trade unions. Regarding recommendation No. 3, the Republican Registration Commission had been abolished and its functions delegated to the Ministry of Justice. Recommendation No. 4 had not been implemented as the population of Belarus had not been clearly informed of the problems at the heart of the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. Nowhere did the publicity mention the violation of trade union rights, and the state mass media had even described the ILO's position as prejudiced. Furthermore, although law enforcement bodies had been asked to place utmost importance on dealing with violations of trade union rights, it was still the case that organizations and individuals were being subjected to pressure, blackmail, threats and persecution, including from the courts. Recommendation No. 5 had not been implemented as no independent arbitration body had been set up. The Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere could not be considered as such a body.

Regarding recommendation No. 6, which aimed to stop any interference by the management of enterprises in trade union affairs, the exact opposite was occurring in practice. As a result of pressure, the Grodno-Azot trade union had lost 700 members, or 80 per cent of its membership, and the Belshina trade union lost two-thirds of its members. In relation to recommendation No. 7, only one of the ten people who had been unlawfully dismissed as a result of belonging to an independent trade union had been reinstated. Furthermore, the use of certain contractual forms of employment seriously undermined the rights of workers. With regard to recommendation No. 8, the Belarusian courts remained under the complete authority of the Government. There had been no progress at all in implementing recommendation No. 9. Regarding recommendation No. 10, when planning industrial action, trade unions had to pay thousands of dollars for the services of various organizations. This had prevented them from undertaking any industrial action for the past two years. In relation to recommendation No. 11, the CDTU had been given a seat on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues. Nevertheless, as the CDTU was not covered by the general agreement, it was forced to continue to cover its own costs in terms of rent, heating and other such services. Finally, regarding recommendation No. 12, government control over the formation and development of independent structures of workers' organizations had tightened rather than diminished.

He therefore concluded that the Government had done very little to implement the recommendations, and the situation regarding trade union rights in the country had not improved. How long that would be allowed to continue depended on the Conference Committee, which needed to remember all those in Belarus who were suffering from injustice, harassment and violence. The Committee should not under any circumstances allow evil to triumph.

The Government representative said that he had listened carefully to the discussion and would take into account all the comments that had been made in relation to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. While he wished to comment on some of the observations, he said that it was difficult to judge what was being achieved in the country if the information provided was not taken into account. The Government had been careful to provide full and detailed information on the work that had been carried out since the discussion of the case the previous year. He added that a number of allegations had been made. For example, the observer representing the ITUC had indicated the previous year that he did not believe that he would be allowed to return to the Conference: the fact that he had just spoken in the debate showed that this type of allegation was baseless. While it was clear that social development was taking place, and that the Government had every intention of pursuing such development, allegations continued to be made. Nevertheless, the fact that progress was being achieved was illustrated this year by the fact that there had not been the normal campaign of complaints to the ILO prior to the Conference. In practice, there were remedies that could be used by workers if they considered themselves under pressure within their enterprises, including through the courts. Trade unions could provide assistance to their members in this respect. He added that collective agreements were also being concluded.

He recalled that the improvements that were being made in labour and social matters were discussed by the social partners in the National Council on Labour and Social Issues. He added, with regard to the draft Trade Union Law, that the present version was very different from the one examined by the Committee of Experts and the Governing Body. A copy of the new text had been supplied to the Office recently and comments had been prepared on it. It had been found that, in comparison with the conceptual framework and the February version of the draft Law, the May 2007 version did not contain provisions on a single union system at the enterprise level. Moreover, the numerical requirements for trade union registration had also been lowered. Dialogue on the draft Law was continuing and he believed that the Government was in the process of establishing a legal framework within which trade unions could develop. However, he warned that the same standards should be applied to all countries. For example, there were many European countries where there was a single main confederation of workers' organizations, as was the case in his own country, but they did not appear to be subjected to criticism by the ILO supervisory bodies in the same way as Belarus. It was therefore the intention of the Government to prepare a balanced law governing trade unions. In so doing, it was working with the trade unions in the country, including the FPB, which had 4 million members. In that context, it was not unrealistic to set a national total of 7,000 members to achieve representative status at the national level. At lower levels, lower thresholds applied. Other procedural requirements were also set out in the draft Law, such as the need for trade unions to have a legal address. This was a normal requirement and merely meant, for example, an address to which post could be sent, such as the registered office of the trade union. In the case of enterprise unions, it could be the address of the enterprise. In addition, other documents were needed, such as the constitution of the trade union, records of recent meetings and lists of the officers of the trade union. All of the documents were fully justified and could be easily prepared by the trade unions themselves.

In conclusion, he believed that the Government had demonstrated its commitment to developing cooperation with its international partners, and in particular with the ILO. He therefore hoped that when preparing its conclusions, the Committee would take into account the progress achieved and the good will shown by the Government.

The Employer members concluded that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had yet to be implemented and that there was no full compliance with Convention No. 87. For that reason, the Employer members had asked that the conclusions on the case appear in a special paragraph. However, in view of the positive steps taken by the Government, they considered that the designation in the special paragraph of continued failure to comply would no longer be appropriate.

The Worker members welcomed the varied information supplied by the Government and that it had adopted a new attitude. However, they felt that the steps were insufficient to conclude that real and tangible progress had been made. Very little had been done to ensure that trade unions could operate and exercise their legitimate activities in full freedom, without interference. Significant efforts were needed to ensure even modest results, but the Worker members welcomed the fact that work had already begun and hoped that it would continue. However, they harboured serious doubts as to whether those results meant that the Government had genuinely understood the objectives of the ILO supervisory bodies and the technical assistance provided. There were clearly good intentions, but the information provided was confusing.

The Worker members recalled that the conclusions of the 2006 Conference Committee had indicated that the Government had not understood the seriousness of the situation and that no tangible progress had been achieved. Therefore, the Committee entrusted the Governing Body with reassessing whether the Government could report any tangible progress at the end of November 2006, and, if no tangible progress could be reported, to consider further measures provided for in the ILO Constitution. The fact that the 298th Session of the Governing Body (March 2007) had not explicitly decided on further measures was not because the developments in Belarus had been satisfactory, but because no real progress had been noted, although dialogue with the ILO had begun. The Worker members considered that giving the Government additional time was a significant favour. While the Government had made an effort to seize that opportunity, it did not completely understand its nature.

Specific results had been scant and some recommendations by the Commission of Inquiry had been partially addressed. However, the Government had failed to address the concerns of the Committee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Governing Body since Decree No. 2, which established a procedure for trade union registration tantamount to requesting prior authorization, remained in place. The new draft legislation followed essentially the same approach that the Government had been urged to abandon. Moreover, refusals of registration, anti-union harassment and interference in trade union affairs were still commonplace. The Government had stated that there were no new complaints, but the Committee on Freedom of Association had established that complaints were numerous. The Law on Mass Activities and the respective decree still prevented trade unions from freely exercising their right to collective action. Therefore, the Worker members urged the Government to reflect on the fact that, while work had finally begun, no real and tangible progress had been made. They requested the dialogue between the ILO and the Government to continue, but they harboured serious doubts as to whether technical assistance alone could lead to any further improvements. Dialogue had only become possible following the adoption of the conclusions of the Conference Committee and the Governing Body, and as a result of decisions reached by other international bodies, principally the European Union (EU).

With regard to the measures taken by the EU, the Worker members stressed that they could not be blamed on anyone other than the Government itself. The Government knew exactly what it needed to do, and by when. The Worker members would never call on measures that harmed workers. The Government's credibility and international reputation were at stake. The statement by the few Worker members pleading against the EU measures were ill-informed, last-minute, manipulated and they did not represent the majority, let alone the consensus of the Worker members, whether in the Conference Committee or in the full Conference. The Worker members found it remarkable that such an important international body as the EU based its own decisions on the assessment of the ILO, standing as an example of the credibility and influence of the ILO on the international stage. The EU and the ILO were separate, legally distinct mechanisms, and should remain so. The EU measures would not necessarily be permanent and the Government knew that it had to implement the ILO recommendations quickly and in their entirety. If so, the Worker members would acknowledge the measures taken and other bodies could draw their own conclusions accordingly.

Since the attention focusing on the case and the assistance provided had so far produced modest results, the Worker members saw no other option but to ensure that the issue remained high on the ILO agenda. They asked the Government to take urgent measures to ensure that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as well as the Committee of Experts' observations, were implemented without further delay. They asked the Governing Body to reassess the situation at its 300th Session (November 2007). If no real and tangible progress had been noted by then, the Governing Body should consider what further measures could be taken under the ILO Constitution. The Worker members asked that the Committee's conclusions be included in a special paragraph of its report.

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the discussion that took place thereafter. The Committee recalled that it had been examining this case ever since the issuance of the report of the Commission of Inquiry and had, on each occasion, deplored the absence of any real concrete and tangible measures on the part of the Government to implement the Commission's recommendations.

The Committee noted the statements made by the Government representative according to which the Government had been and was actively continuing its consultations with the ILO and the social partners, in respect of a draft Trade Union Law which would be discussed yet again in the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere in July. It observed that the text of that draft had not been made available to the Committee. It further noted the detailed information provided by the Government on steps it had taken since this Committee's discussions of the case in June 2006.

The Committee took due note of progress made in respect of some of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendations, particularly as regards the seat for the Belarus Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI), the disbandment of the Republican Registration Commission, the re-engagement of Oleg Dolbik - whose contract had not been renewed following his having provided testimony to the Commission of Inquiry - the publication of the Commission of Inquiry recommendations in the Government's official newspaper, and a few recent registrations of independent trade union organizations. Nevertheless, the Committee expressed its concern since these steps were clearly insufficient and did not address the heart of the matter. The Committee recalled that what was at stake in this case was the imperative need for the Government to act without delay to ensure that all workers' and employers' organizations could function freely and without interference and obtain registration without previous authorization.

The Committee noted the concerns raised relating to the draft Trade Union Law. Noting the statements made to the effect that the registration requirements remained quite complicated and that the requirements that had been criticized by the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee of Experts for many years were still necessary to obtain legal personality, the Committee urged the Government to vigorously pursue its consultations with all social partners in the country, and its cooperation with the ILO, with a view to making the legislative changes required to bring the law and practice into full conformity with the Convention and the Commission of Inquiry recommendations. It further urged the Government to take active steps to redress the damage suffered by workers' organizations that had been noted in the report of the Commission of Inquiry.

Welcoming the Government's statement that it would continue to cooperate with the national social partners and that it had invited a high-level ILO mission immediately following the Conference, the Committee expressed the firm hope that significant progress in ensuring full respect for freedom of association would be made without any further delay. In order to appropriately monitor developments in this regard, the Committee recommended that the Governing Body reconsider this matter in November 2007.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.