Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2013, Publication: 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

The Government provided the following written information.

In recent years, relations between the social partners have substantially stabilized. As at 1 January 2013, 554 agreements (one general agreement, 47 sectoral wage agreements and 506 local agreements) and 18,351 collective agreements were in force in Belarus; at the various levels (national, sectoral, provincial, district and municipal), there were 319 councils for labour and social issues. In the last ten years, the number of agreements has increased by 50 per cent and the number of collective agreements by 40 per cent, while the number of councils has doubled.

All interested parties are involved in work on the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry, including the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) and employers’ associations. In this regard, it is particularly necessary to highlight the positive role played by the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (hereinafter the Council), which has met twice in 2013, on 26 March and 30 May.

In 2012 there were no cases of trade unions being refused registration. There have been no instances in the Republic of Belarus of citizens being punished by being charged with administrative or criminal offences in respect of trade union activities. This issue is under special state supervision. All complaints are examined carefully. The results indicate that the cases of individual trade union activists being charged with administrative offences, to which the CDTU refers, are in no way connected with the trade union activities of the individuals concerned. With regard to the cases of Mr M. Kovalkov and Mr P. Stanevsky referred to by the CDTU, Mr Kovalkov was charged with an administrative offence and fined 35,000 Belarus rubles (around €3) for committing an administrative violation under section 18.14 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Belarus (failure to observe road traffic signals and breaking rules on carrying passengers). Mr Kovalkov was not held in administrative detention. Mr Stanevsky, according to information from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was in a public place near 38 Serdich Street (in Minsk) when he started being openly disrespectful to those around him and swearing obscenely at passers-by. Mr Stanevsky failed to react to repeated warnings from police officers and became aggressive. In order to put a stop to Mr Stanevsky’s unlawful actions, the police officers used force and special measures (handcuffs). On 21 April 2011, the Frunzensky district court in Minsk found Mr Stanevsky guilty of an administrative offence under section 17.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (petty hooliganism) and sentenced him to administrative detention for eight days.

With regard to trade union compliance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 24 “On receiving and using foreign direct aid” (28 November 2003), in 2012, the FPB and the Mogilev provincial organization of the Belarusian Agricultural Sector Workers’ Union (ASWU) registered foreign direct aid for social assistance amounting to US$23,031 with the Department of Humanitarian Activities of the Office of the President of the Republic of Belarus. There have been no instances of trade unions being refused registration of foreign direct aid. Thus, despite a number of unresolved disputes, recent years have seen a clear tendency towards stabilization in Belarus. Tension between the social partners has eased. There are still a significant number of controversial issues. It is obvious, however, that this is an integral part of the process of social dialogue, which is not free from disputes in any country.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus and the social partners are devoting the utmost attention to improving legislation, in line with the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. In this regard, at a meeting of the Council for Improving Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, held on 30 May 2013, the issue was raised of the need to abolish the requirement that at least 10 per cent of the total number of workers in an enterprise was needed to found a trade union, during discussion of the measures being taken in the country to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and suggestions for further work. This requirement is contained in Presidential Decree No. 2 “On various measures to regulate the activities of political parties, trade unions and other public associations” of 29 January 1999 (hereinafter “Decree No. 2”). The Council supported the proposal made by the Government that it would be appropriate to exclude this provision from Decree No. 2 and instructed the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, in its capacity as secretariat to the Council, to inform the Government of the Republic of Belarus accordingly so that the necessary action could be taken. The Ministry of Labour and Social Protection transmitted this suggestion to the Cabinet on 4 June 2013. A definite step has thus been taken towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in terms of improving legislation on registering trade unions. It should be emphasized that the Government of Belarus is open to dialogue and the discussion of all problematic issues with the social partners and the ILO. In this regard, the Government of Belarus would favour holding a seminar, in conjunction with the social partners and the ILO, on developing social dialogue in the Republic of Belarus, at which future steps towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry should be identified. The Government of Belarus has repeatedly suggested such a seminar to the ILO, and also to the social partners within the framework of the Council for Improving Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative, referring to the written information provided concerning the application of the Convention, wished to add that trade unions were the most important organizations in society and represented 90 per cent of the economically active population. Her Government supported and applied the principles of trade union pluralism. The right of every person to join any trade union without prior authorization, provided that they respected the union’s by-laws, was guaranteed in law. The two trade union federations operating in the country were the FPB and the CDTU. They participated in social dialogue and advisory bodies and in the preparation and conclusion of collective agreements. Unions, whether large or small, could take part in collective bargaining, as demonstrated by bargaining in two large enterprises, where the two organizations had been involved in preparing the collective agreement. The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry provided guidance for the Government and the social partners with the aim of developing constructive cooperation. A positive trend had been seen in recent years, with no cases in 2012 of a trade union being refused registration. The Government paid particular attention to issues relating to the non interference by enterprise managers in the internal affairs of trade unions, irrespective of the size or affiliation of trade unions. The Trade Unions Act was a guarantee of trade unions independence in exercising their prerogatives, and any violation in that regard involved liability to criminal sanctions. If it was so provided for in a collective agreement, the law authorized an employer to work with trade unions to regulate certain matters.

With regard to social dialogue, the positive role played by the tripartite Council, which had been operating in its new format since 2009, should be emphasized. It consisted of seven members from each of the three sides, including representatives of the FPB and the CDTU. The Council functioned as an independent body, founded on the principle of pluralism and providing a forum in which each party could propose topical issues for inclusion on the agenda concerning the right to freedom of association, with a view to resolving them. The meetings held in 2013 had taken into account the proposals made by the FPB and the CDTU. The FPB’s proposal to amend legislation on the conclusion of collective agreements had resulted in the creation of a tripartite working group that had been asked to make proposals in that regard. For its part, the CDTU had asked for the situation at the enterprise Granit to be discussed. The meetings had provided an opportunity for a constructive exchange of views and had again demonstrated the complexity of the current situation. Amending legislation was not a straightforward process, as it required balanced solutions to be found that were acceptable to all parties. Nevertheless, the Government realized that it was necessary to make progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on legislative matters. The tripartite Council was the body best suited to do that. It had examined the issues at its last meeting, on 30 May 2013, at which it had supported the Government’s proposal to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 by revoking the requirement for a minimum of 10 per cent of workers in an enterprise to establish a trade union. The Government and the social partners now needed ILO support to hold a tripartite seminar on developing social dialogue and tripartism. It had been proposed by the Government in 2011, but it had not yet proved possible to organize, as the CDTU was opposed to holding a seminar with the participation of the ILO. Such a seminar could, however, make a useful contribution to the development of social dialogue in Belarus, in the same way as the 2009 Minsk seminar, organized jointly by the ILO, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), had done in enabling the creation of the tripartite Council.

The Government respected the principles on which the ILO was founded and the procedures relating to international labour standards. It also greatly appreciated the cooperation with the ILO, which had often helped to bring the parties closer together. The Government was open to dialogue and ready to discuss any problematic issues. It was fully aware of the fact that it had not yet fully carried out the tasks set out in the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It therefore did not wish to delay, but would make all the necessary efforts to develop constructive relations with the social partners and cooperation with the ILO.

The Worker members said that it was discouraging to have to discuss once again a case on which the Committee of Experts had been commenting for over 20 years concerning the failure to comply with Convention No. 87 and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Conference Committee had also adopted a number of conclusions in view of the Government’s failure to intensify its efforts to ensure that freedom of association and civil liberties were fully ensured. Numerous complaints had also been made to the Committee on Freedom of Association. In 2003, a complaint under article 26 of the Constitution had resulted in a Commission of Inquiry, the report of which contained 11 recommendations calling, inter alia, for free and independent trade unions to be able to play their proper role in the country’s social and economic development. In 2010, when the situation in Belarus, in relation to the Convention, had been examined, the Conference Committee had noted a number of apparently positive developments involving the Council and the registration of some trade unions. At the time, the Conference Committee had nevertheless regretted that there had been no concrete proposals to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 on trade union registration, the Act on Mass Activities or Presidential Decree No. 24 on the use of foreign gratuitous aid, as requested by the Commission of Inquiry. In 2011, the Conference Committee had again discussed Belarus in the context of Convention No. 98 and had noted with regret new allegations of interference in trade union activities, pressure and harassment. It had expressed its concern that the determination of trade union representativeness could not be meaningful until the Government first put in place the necessary measures to ensure full respect for freedom of association for all workers, and guarantees for the registration of freely chosen workers’ organizations and the promotion of their right to collective bargaining. The European Union (EU) had also voiced its concern at the failure of Belarus to respect human rights and had emphasized the need to put a stop to the harassment of members of the opposition and civil society and decided to take restrictive measures so as to maintain the pressure on the country at least until October 2013. Because the rights guaranteed by Conventions Nos 87 and 98 were human rights, Belarus would have to respect them before those restrictions could be lifted.

They noted the Employer members had emphasized, that in 2012, the Government had been unwilling to send a report of its own accord in response to the many observations made by the Committee of Experts. This year’s report again contained no new information concerning the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in 2004. The Committee on Freedom of Association had also expressed its deep concern at the Government’s lack of cooperation. The situation was therefore deteriorating after the glimmer of hope that had emerged from the discussion in 2010. There was a lack of willingness to cooperate with the ILO and there was more of a tendency to destroy independent trade unionism.

The request to amend Presidential Decree No. 2 on the registration of trade unions and its implementing regulations had not been welcomed by the Government, thereby perpetuating the minimum threshold of 10 per cent of the workforce. Under the new interpretation of paragraph 3 of Decree No. 2, other obstacles seemed to be raised for registration, the right of trade unions to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration. Other cases should also be noted. The management of the Granit enterprise had refused, in violation of the Convention, to grant the legal address required by Presidential Decree No. 2 to a new first-level organization, the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU); registration had been denied to independent trade unions, such as the Razam Union and Delta Style, and the leaders of the independent trade unions in several enterprises had all been dismissed; the CDTU had referred a case to the National Council of Labour and Social Issues concerning the refusal to register a first-level union in light of the 10 per cent membership threshold, even though the rule requiring a minimum of 10 per cent of the workforce was not applicable to first-level unions; temporary employment contracts were being used systematically to exert greater control over workers in order to obstruct the development of independent unions; and practices tantamount to forced labour existed in the wood processing industry.

The Worker members emphasized that the case merited the Committee’s full attention since both the credibility of the ILO supervisory mechanisms and respect for the workers who belonged to independent trade unions were at stake. The EU, which had expressed its dismay with regard to the issues under discussion, was also concerned by the work of the Committee, which should take a firm stand regarding the Government’s obligation to intensify its efforts to ensure that freedom of association and respect for civil liberties were fully guaranteed in law and practice.

The Employer members recalled that when the present case had been discussed by the Committee in 2007, they had noted an apparent change in the attitude of the Government towards the issues raised. On that occasion, the Government had recognized that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry did not need to be adjusted to national conditions, had dropped the legislative proposals that went in the wrong direction, and had instituted social dialogue. Following the discussion of the case in 2010, the Employer members had considered that the Government had been cooperating with the ILO and that there was a positive social dialogue process. However, they had noted that much still needed to be done as fundamental legislative issues had not yet been addressed. Although the Government was faced with the diverging interests of employers and workers, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry addressed issues relating to anti-union discrimination and the registration of trade unions. At that time, it had then been the opinion of the Employer members that it was time for the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in law and practice.

The Employer members noted that the most recent comments by the Committee of Experts consisted of a follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, although they wished to recall that the Committee of Experts had made comments on provisions of the Labour Code dealing with the right to strike, even though there was no consensus in the Conference Committee that the right to strike was recognized under Convention No. 87. The position of the Employer members on that issue had been stated clearly during this year’s discussion of the General Survey and the General Report of the Committee of Experts, and it was their view that those points could not be reflected in the conclusions of the Conference Committee. The Committee of Experts had noted with regret that the Government’s report contained no new information on the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry or the requests made by the Conference Committee. The Committee of Experts had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Presidential Decree No. 2, to eliminate the obstacles to trade union registration, although no information had been provided in that respect. The Employer members expressed deep concern at the failure of the Government to provide information concerning the status of Presidential Decree No. 2 and therefore assumed that no tangible measures had been taken for its amendment. However, they welcomed the indication by the Government representative that the tripartite Council had been operating again since 2009, that the relations between the social partners had stabilized and that a number of collective agreements had been concluded. They also noted that there had been no cases of the refusal to register trade unions in 2012 and that the Government had indicated an openness to enter into dialogue with the social partners and the ILO, as well as suggesting the holding of a seminar which could examine future measures to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Employer members noted with deep regret that it appeared that no substantial progress had been made in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. They therefore urged the Government to take the necessary steps, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that freedom of association was guaranteed in law and practice. They called upon the Government to intensify its cooperation with the social partners for that purpose and to avail itself of the expert advice and assistance of the ILO. It was also imperative for the Government to provide a report on the measures implemented. They regretted to note that the progress hoped for, when the case had last been addressed by the Conference Committee, had not been achieved and emphasized that it was now time to move from words to action. They hoped to be able to note changes in the situation in the immediate future.

The Employer member of Belarus indicated that progress had been made with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, particularly with regard to the national legislation, including more detailed regulations regarding the relations between the social partners. He referred to the equal treatment of all trade unions by employers; the eligibility for collective bargaining of all trade unions, including the CDTU; and the coverage of all workers by the law on unjustified dismissal irrespective of their membership in a particular trade union. Trade unions were being actively involved in the improvement of legislation in the National Council on Labour and Social Issues, and had participated in the development and implementation of the national policy on wages and working conditions. He considered that social dialogue was now systematically applied in the country and indicated that further technical assistance would contribute to a better understanding of social dialogue. In the current conditions and the problems the country was facing, sanctions were not justified. He would therefore welcome the decision of the United States Labor Department and the European Union to lift sanctions. Referring to the cooperation project “Eastern Partnership” he hoped for the normalization in the relationship between Belarus and the European Union. The Employers recognized that the 10 per cent threshold to establish a union was an issue, and indicated that a decision should be made taking into account the interests of both employers and workers. He requested a realistic assessment by the Committee concerning the development of social dialogue in the country.

The Worker member of Belarus recalled that the ILO had been making recommendations with regard to freedom of association in Belarus for almost ten years now, and the Government had been working on them constantly. He indicated that the FPB had more than 4 million members, which was almost half of the population of the country and could not be compared to very small unions. While in 2002, neither social dialogue nor collective agreements had existed, more than 550 wage agreements and more than 18,000 collective agreements were now in force in the country. However, despite invitations from the FPB, other trade unions participated very little in collective bargaining. In order to defend the interests of workers and the population, the FPB was working with the Government to further its claims, particularly in terms of employment creation and social protection. He drew attention to the similarities between several elements of the ILO Director-General’s Report and the action of the FPB, and expressed surprise at the criticisms that had been levelled at his Federation by the smaller unions in the country on the pretext that it had achieved wage increases in some sectors only. The Worker member spoke out against the sanctions the EU had imposed on several bodies in Belarus. Those measures were harmful, particularly for the well-being of the population. He highlighted the fact that the ILO and the EU were radically different institutions and any confusion in that regard should be avoided. He then stated that ten of the 12 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had already been implemented and that the Government was currently working on the 10 per cent membership threshold required to form a union in an enterprise. Turning to the general issue of the registration of unions, he noted that the issue had been discussed for ten years and was no longer on the agenda. As illustrated by the fact that there were 45,000 private enterprises solely in Minsk which did not require a legal address to create a trade union organization, although small trade unions not affiliated to FPB did not use this opportunity, though they had such right. He also asked the Conference Committee to support the efforts being made by the Government, and supported the proposal of the Government to organize a meeting in Minsk, which would provide the opportunity to address the issues that still had to be discussed.

A representative of the European Union, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Croatia, Iceland, Montenegro, Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Norway, indicated that they remained gravely concerned about the lack of respect for human rights, democracy and rule of law in Belarus. Democracy could not exist without freedom of expression, opinion, assembly and association. They called on the Government to cooperate fully with the ILO to provide information on the follow-up given to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to eliminate obstacles to trade union registration, in particular the requirements imposed by Decree No. 2. Necessary measures had to be taken in consultation with the social partners, so as to ensure that the right to organize was effectively guaranteed. Presidential Decree No. 9, signed on 7 December 2012, which prevented the employees in the wood-processing sector from resigning unilaterally until the end of the modernization of their companies, was concerning. Also the legislation that further restricted the Belarusian citizens’ freedom of assembly gave raise to great concern and any penalization or discrimination against those exercising their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly had to be ended. They requested the authorities to amend or repeal legislation not in conformity with the right of workers to organize, in line with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry made in 2004. The speaker expressed the commitment of the countries on behalf of which he spoke to a policy of critical engagement, including through dialogue and participation in the Eastern Partnership, and recalled that the development of bilateral relations under the Eastern Partnership was conditional on progress towards respect by Belarus for the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. They were willing to assist the Government to meet its obligations in this regard and would continue to monitor closely the situation in the country.

The Employer member of Uzbekistan considered that significant progress had been made with the strengthening of social dialogue in accordance with ILO standards, for instance through the conclusion of collective agreements in all sectors and the registration of the CDTU. The technical assistance provided by the ILO had proved beneficial in this regard. He insisted that sanctions undermined social partnerships and were unacceptable, not suitable to solve the problems, and only exacerbated the situation for workers and enterprises. Constructive dialogue should be continued.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) emphasized that in Belarus state control over the trade union movement was total and it was impossible to establish independent trade unions. He cited several examples of mass dismissals of workers who had taken part in the formation of trade unions, and those practices had subsequently been endorsed by the courts. Administrative sanctions were also used as a means of pressure without provoking any response from the public prosecutor. Moreover, work meetings aimed at expressing solidarity during the 1 May celebrations had been banned. In more general terms, the mechanisms for implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been used in a manipulative way and the real issues had not been tackled at all. The observer hoped that the ILO would persist in its efforts to ensure that freedom of association would finally be respected in Belarus. The defenders of freedom had to pay a very high price in Belarus but no price could be put on democracy.

The Government member of the Russian Federation stated that the report submitted and the statements made by the Government were comprehensive and showed its commitment to cooperate and maintain a dialogue with the ILO. He understood that the Council of Ministers of Belarus was currently considering proposals for the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 2, particularly with a view to abolishing the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement for the registration of trade unions. The allegations of numerous violations, harassment, denial of registration and arrest were not supported by facts. He was also surprised by the fact that the Committee of Experts had not taken into account the explanations of the Government with regard to the situation in the two enterprises mentioned in the Committee of Experts’ report. His Government called on this Committee to strive for an objective and unbiased assessment of the situation with regard to the implementation of ILO Conventions.

The Government member of Cuba stated that ILO technical cooperation had played a key role, making a tangible contribution to the implementation of the Convention. There had been progress in social dialogue, as illustrated by the increase over the previous ten years in the number of collective agreements and the fact that in 2012, no cases had been submitted concerning the denial of trade union registration. The Government, together with the social partners, attributed great importance to improving the legislation, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Recently, there had been specific proposals and measures in that regard, particularly on registering trade unions. Her Government welcomed the Government’s willingness and its efforts to maintain constructive relations, social dialogue and to work in close cooperation with the ILO, and called for the continuation of technical assistance in order to achieve the objectives established by the Convention.

The Government member of Canada indicated that his Government was gravely concerned by the overall situation of human rights, including labour rights, in Belarus. His Government was disturbed by continued reports of numerous violations of the Convention, including interference by the authorities in the activities of trade unions, arrests and detention of members of independent trade unions, anti-union dismissals, threats and harassment. His Government urged the Government to take the necessary measures to address these serious allegations and to make a real effort to eliminate violations of trade union rights, including the right of workers to participate in peaceful protests to defend their occupational interests, in their country. His Government was also gravely concerned by the very minimal degree of cooperation exhibited by the Government with the supervisory bodies of the ILO. The Government was failing to provide follow-up information to the 2004 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The observations of the Committee of Experts also detailed numerous other instances where the Government had failed to provide responses or had failed to cooperate in other ways. Cooperation with the ILO supervisory mechanisms was a critical component of good faith membership in the Organization. His Government urged the Government to respect its obligations and to cooperate fully with the ILO.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation stated that freedom of association could not be freely exercised in Belarus. The close ties between the two countries allowed Russian trade unions access to reliable information sources revealing police pressure, mass dismissal of union leaders and an absence of social dialogue. Furthermore, there had been reports of some instances of forced labour. He regretted that a kind of feudal system still existed in the heart of Europe and that the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations remained empty words. He said that a proper system to monitor the situation should be put in place and requested the Government to present concrete evidence which might refute the ongoing allegations of violations of the Convention.

The Government member of China indicated that the issue of trade union registration improved every year and that no complaint in this regard had been presented in 2012; Decree No. 2 should be applied. She stressed the important role of the Council and requested that the Government’s efforts to implement fully the Convention be supported in the context of technical assistance.

The Worker member of Poland considered that no progress had been made towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and improving the application of the Convention. She regretted to inform the Committee of new cases of violations of trade unions rights which had occurred in several companies. The violations of trade union rights included the denial to register the independent unions, harassment and dismissal of new union leaders and activists, interference in the union activities, excluding the independent trade unions from collective bargaining, the denial of the right to run meetings and manifestations, and prosecuting trade union leaders under criminal pretexts. In addition, the existing legislation was also being used against workers and members of the independent trade unions, as illustrated by the difficulties encountered by the newly established independent union at the Granit Company in Mikashevichi to register and pursue claims of reinstatement of their leaders who had been dismissed on the basis of the provisions of the Labour Code. The requirement of a legal address and the 10 per cent threshold for trade union registration were some of the main obstacles for the independent trade unions to act freely. From the reports of the Committee of Experts and the statements made by the Government, it could be concluded that no concrete, effective measures had been taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government’s declarations on social dialogue were empty and improved in no way the situation of workers and independent trade unions. The Government’s declarations should be reflected in concrete actions. She recalled that freedom of association could not be fully exercised in a context in which civil liberties were not respected. She was therefore convinced that the Government should first introduce a system which guaranteed and would respect such civil liberties for all. As long as the Government failed to comply with its international obligations, the international pressure would continue.

The Worker member of Egypt endorsed the position of the Worker member of Belarus with respect to the positive steps taken by the Government on the Convention. He underlined that tripartite social dialogue was an important tool to ensure the progress of any country and the observance of ILO Conventions and workers’ rights. Referring to the social dialogue system, he described it as efficient through the National Council of Labour and Social Issues which included an equal number of representatives from trade unions, employers and the Government. Most trade unions participated in the negotiation of collective agreements and in the elaboration of legislation which was the basis of social dialogue. In this respect, 18,000 collective agreements had been adopted by workers’ and employers’ organizations in the country. The speaker concluded by expressing his conviction that the continued dialogue between the ILO and Belarus had guaranteed the right to join trade unions in recent years, and that there was progress in implementing Convention No. 87.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that his Government welcomed the strengthening of social dialogue in the country, which had resulted in the full recognition of trade union rights, and an increase in the number of collective agreements and councils for labour and social issues. His Government was confident that the Government would continue adopting measures that would benefit the stability of the country in terms of freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. The Government was committed to that endeavour, as illustrated by the ILO proposal to organize a seminar with the social partners on the work of the Council, with the participation of the FPB and the CDTU. His Government called for the Committee to highlight the Government’s progress in terms of implementing the recommendations the Commission of Inquiry had made concerning the Convention.

The Worker member of Sudan supported the position of the Worker member of Belarus and other members of the Committee about some positive changes that could be noted with regard to the application of the Convention. He was encouraged by the participation of all social partners in a broad dialogue with the ILO, and noted the participation of the trade unions of Belarus in the process of implementing ILO recommendations. Noting with interest the absence of problems with registration of unions since 2012, the positive steps in improving the legislation, and the broad social dialogue, he concluded that compliance with the Convention had improved through the efforts of the ILO.

The Government member of Uzbekistan stated that the written and oral information provided by the Government showed that the situation regarding freedom of association in the country had stabilized and that the Government had been able to collaborate with all trade unions (including the FPB and the CDTU). The Council was working to improve the situation and resolve contentious issues. There had been no issues relating to the registration of trade unions in 2012, which showed that progress had been made. The discussion on the removal of the 10 per cent threshold for trade union registration was also one of the positive steps taken, and all these initiatives should be duly reflected in the Committee’s discussions.

An observer representing the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) fully endorsed the stance of the FPB, which represented 4 million workers throughout the country. She was familiar with the labour and economic situation of Belarus and expressed satisfaction at the significant progress that had been made in the country. Belarus currently had an unemployment rate of just 1.6 per cent, it occupied ninth place in the world in terms of the level of employment and was 13th in the league table of illiteracy-free countries. It was the richest State in the Eurasian Economic Community and one of the most industrialized countries in the region. In her visit to the country in 2012 she had been able to verify the high level of participation in enterprises enjoyed by workers and the guarantees they had with regard to respect for freedom of association and workers’ rights. Moreover, she had been able to confirm the conditions in which more than 30 national trade unions were able to fight for and defend the social and economic rights of workers without any discrimination on the part of the authorities. She emphasized that all the social partners were working to implement the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the Commission of Inquiry.

The Government member of the United States expressed her Government’s regret regarding the serious lack of progress made by the Government in implementing the 2004 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in view of the time that had passed. This was especially troubling given the detail with which this situation had been examined throughout the ILO’s supervisory system, and the extent to which the ILO Office had provided its technical advice and assistance. Hence, her Government urged the Government once again to take all necessary measures without further delay to ensure that freedom of association was effectively guaranteed, and again strongly encouraged the Government to work closely with the social partners and to hold regular consultations with the ILO, so that the ILO supervisory bodies would soon be in a position to confirm substantive, concrete and sustainable progress. Recalling the joint statement on democracy and human rights made by the Governments of the United States and Belarus in 2010, she noted that free and vibrant trade unions were vital to democracy. Her Government was looking forward to the day when the ILO supervisory bodies could confirm this statement.

The Government member of Switzerland stated that her Government shared the concern expressed by the European Union regarding the democratic situation in Belarus in general and freedom of association in particular. It was, therefore, vital to ensure that the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations were followed up. The Government, in collaboration with the social partners, should do all it could to ensure the effective application of the Convention.

The Government member of India expressed his Government’s satisfaction at the steps taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The role of the Council was particularly noteworthy and the fact that both the FPB and the CDTU were represented in the Council was to be welcomed. All of this showed the positive intentions of the Government to implement the said recommendations and his Government commended the ILO for the technical cooperation and assistance to Belarus in implementing the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations and hoped that this constructive engagement could continue in the future.

The Government representative stated that there were a range of questions that still needed to be resolved and that her Government would continue to take steps to develop pluralism. International labour standards were given a prominent place in national legislation and observance of ratified Conventions was a priority. Her Government fully observed its commitments towards the ILO supervisory bodies and had submitted two reports to the Committee on Freedom of Association as well as the report on the application of the Convention under article 22 of the ILO Constitution. The situation in the “Granit” enterprise had been reviewed and the results had been communicated to the Office. With respect to Presidential Decree No. 2, the proposal from the Council in June of this year related not to the interpretation of the Decree’s standards but amendments to the Decree that would remove the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement. This amendment had been designed to meet the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Industrial relations gave rise to conflicts all around the world, particularly concerning the relationship between employers and trade union organizations in the workplace, and there were different causes for these conflicts independent from national legislation or policy. Recalling a case in which the former vice-president of a trade union had been dismissed from the trade union congress, which was thereafter sanctioned for not respecting the time frame for such dismissal, the speaker stated that when employers clearly violated workers’ rights, even if they were trade unions, the Government was obliged to respond in accordance with the provisions of existing legislation. While speakers had given different assessments of the level of progress achieved in Belarus in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, there were objective facts that could not be denied, including the opportunity for all trade unions to represent workers regardless of the number of workers they represented. All social partners could engage in social dialogue. The Council was in operation and was taking a special decision on the effectiveness of the amendments to the legislation on trade unions. The speaker proposed that a tripartite seminar be held with the participation of the ILO. She assured the Committee that her Government would continue to be a firm advocate of the principles of the ILO in the areas of freedom of association and tripartism.

The Worker members said that the picture painted by the Government representative did not match the reality experienced by the independent trade unions. The situation, far from improving, was getting worse. The tripartite body was no longer meeting and there had been no significant follow-up to the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. Perhaps a decisive point had been reached, but nobody knew in which direction. The only direction that could be taken was towards implementing the Commission’s recommendations. The Council had examined the question of founding trade unions, but there was nothing to indicate that its examination would be followed up, and the independent trade unions doubted the Council’s credibility. With regard to the seminar proposed by the Government, the Worker members expected nothing to come of it. The legislation restricting trade union rights should be revised, taking into account the comments of the supervisory bodies. Given how old the case was, and in view of the Government’s inertia, sending a direct contacts mission was entirely justified in order to obtain a legal and institutional response to the acts suffered by the independent trade unions. The Government should be invited to provide information on progress made in that regard. The Worker members also asked for the conclusions on the case to be included in a special paragraph in the Committee’s report.

The Employer members concluded that this was a serious case in relation to the exercise of trade union rights and issues with respect to the freedom of association but remained optimistic in view of the developments that had taken place since 2007. There had been progress although it was slow. Currently, the situation was at crossroads: the Government could choose to either continue to progress at a gradual rate, or commit to accelerating its efforts in order to achieve compliance with the provisions of the Convention. The social dialogue process that had begun was essential and should continue. The full application of the Convention could only be secured through the adoption and strict implementation of necessary legislation and compliance could only be achieved by beginning to change the situation both in law and in practice. The Employer members requested the Government to intensify its cooperation with the social partners and to avail itself of the expert advice and assistance of the ILO. In this regard, the Employer members supported the request of the Worker members that the Government should accept a direct contacts mission.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that ensued.

The Committee recalled that the outstanding issues in this case concerned the need to ensure the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing and organize their activities and programmes free from interference by the public authorities in law and in practice. The Committee further highlighted the long outstanding recommendations from the Commission of Inquiry for amendments to be made to Presidential Decree No. 2 dealing with trade union registration, Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid and the Law on Mass Activities.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government on the work of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation on the Social and Labour Sphere and, in particular, its decision to support the amendment of Decree No. 2 by repealing the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement for the establishment of trade unions at the enterprise level. The Committee further noted the Government’s stated commitment to social dialogue and cooperation with the ILO.

The Committee noted with regret new allegations of violations of freedom of association in the country, including allegations of interference in trade union activities, pressure and harassment. In particular, while observing that the Government stated that there were no registration refusals in 2012, the Committee took note of the allegations of the refusal to register the BITU primary organization at “Granit” enterprise and the subsequent indication by the Government that this matter was addressed by the tripartite Council.

The Committee observed with deep regret that no new information was provided by the Government nor had any tangible result been achieved in implementing the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry of 2004.

Recalling the intrinsic link between freedom of association, democracy, the respect for basic civil liberties and human rights, the Committee urged the Government to intensify its efforts to bring the law and practice into full conformity with the Convention, in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee urged the Government to take immediately all measures necessary to ensure that all workers and employers in the country may fully exercise their rights to freedom of expression and of assembly. The Committee invited the Government to accept a direct contacts mission with a view to obtaining a full picture of the trade union rights situation in the country and assisting the Government in the rapid and effective implementation of all outstanding recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It expected that the Government would submit detailed information on proposed amendments to the abovementioned laws and decrees to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year and trusted that it would be in a position to note significant progress with respect to all remaining matters at its next session.

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

The Government representative indicated that her Government had taken note of the conclusions but would give its final decision on whether they were acceptable and well-found only after examining very carefully the discussions that had taken place in this Committee.