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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR) communicated with the Government’s report and referring to the issues examined by the Committee below, as well as the Government’s reply thereon.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comment, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the developments regarding the implementation of the proposals by the KTR and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), pertaining to anti-union discrimination, which the Government and employers’ representatives had agreed to examine in the framework of the Russian Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations (RTK). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it believes the cooperation between the relevant federal authorities and the social partners, within the framework of the working group established under the Ministry of Labour to develop proposals to improve the current regulatory legal framework and law enforcement procedure is effective. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the frequency and format of the working group meetings and the last in-person meeting was held in July 2022. The Government indicates that the issue of discrimination is one of the key subjects of discussion put on the agenda by trade unions. The Committee notes the KTR allegation that the existing mechanisms are inefficient and ineffective in addressing cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government disagrees with the KTR in this regard. The Committeedeeply regretsthat over 11 years after the above-mentioned proposals were made, there has been no concrete outcome in their implementation and urges the Government to strengthen its efforts to examine and implement the proposals pertaining to anti-union discrimination without further delay, as well as to inform the Committee of all developments.

Article 4. Parties to collective bargaining. The Committee had requested the Government to amend section 31 of the Labour Code, which provides that when an enterprise trade union represents less than half of the workers in that enterprise, other non-unionized representatives could represent workers’ interests, so as to ensure that only in the absence of trade unions at the enterprise, can the authorization to bargain collectively be conferred on other representatives elected by workers. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous explanation of the procedure for the election of a representative body. The Committee further notes that while the Government considers that the legislation in force is balanced and aims at protecting workers’ interests and therefore, its amendment would be contrary to workers’ interests, it would welcome receiving information on best international practice of trade unions representing the rights and interests of workers. The Committee notes with regret the KTR’s allegation that nothing has been done by the Government to address this long-standing request of the ILO supervisory bodies. Whilewelcoming the Government’s request for information on best practices, the Committee urges the Government to engage with the social partners in order to review the legislation so as to clearly establish that it is only in the event where there are no trade unions at the workplace that an authorization to bargain collectively could be conferred to other representative bodies. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

Promotion of collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes the KTR’s allegation that there are no available statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded and workers covered by such agreements, especially at the regional level. The Committee further notes the KTR allegation of insufficient penalties that can be imposed on employers for not respecting collective agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is preparing a new draft Code of Administrative Offenses, which has been discussed twice during the working group of the RTK with the participation of the KTR and that the consultations with the social partners will continue in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote collective bargaining across the different sectors of the economy and the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the previous observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR) on the application of the Convention. It welcomes the Government’s indication that these observations will be further examined together with the social partners in the framework of activities aimed at giving effect to the Convention. Noting the Government’s undertaking to report on the progress made in its next report, the Committee trusts that the Committee’s comments below will be given effect, in consultation with the social partners.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments the Committee had deeply regretted the lack of progress in the implementation of a proposal prepared by the KTR and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), following an ILO technical mission in the framework of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) Case No. 2758 in 2011, which the Government and employers’ representatives had agreed to examine in the framework of the Russian Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations (RTK). The Committee recalls that this proposal refers to the need to draft specific legislative provisions with a view to make protection against violations of trade union rights, in general, and anti-union discrimination, in particular, more effective, and suggests to create a body with a specific mandate to examine cases of violations of trade union rights, including anti-union discrimination (such a mandate can also be undertaken by an existing body). The proposal also calls for training of relevant bodies and courts on freedom of association.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a tripartite working group of the RTK met in August 2018 and will continue to meet on a regular basis to discuss the issue of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. At the same time, the Government points out that the Ministry of Labour had examined, on several occasions, the proposals for legislative amendments aimed at bringing the national legislation into conformity with the international labour standards submitted by the KTR. The Ministry pointed out to the KTR that the majority of its proposals for amendment had previously formed part of two legislative drafts to amend the Labour Code, which were subsequently not supported by the Government and were dismissed by the Duma; therefore, it could not support the resubmission of the same proposals. The Government further indicates that the existing levels of protection of trade union rights and its members is sufficient and once again refers in this respect to the legislative provisions of the Law on Trade Unions, Code of Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Code. While the statistical data on criminal and civil cases related to anti-union discrimination is not collected by the courts, according to the Government, this does not mean that such cases are not being considered. The Government indicates that as from 1 January 2019, the Federal Service for Labour and Employment (Rostrud) will begin collecting the relevant statistics for submission, on a semi-annual basis, to the Ministry of Labour. The latter indicates its readiness to work together with the KTR to identify and analyse cases of anti-union discrimination, including in the framework of the RTK, as well as with the ILO with a view to possible development of new instruments in the field of protection against trade union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s request for technical assistance in this regard. In addition, the Government informs that the issue of protection of trade union rights is part of the regular training for labour inspectors and that it intends to hold a seminar on the relevant standards for the judiciary in the last quarter of 2018.

The Committee notes the observations of the KTR and the FNPR submitted with the Government report. The FNPR considers that the level of protection of trade unions and their members is not sufficient and is thus not in full conformity with the Convention and refers to several examples of anti-union discrimination affecting its members. It further points out that the Rostrud (labour inspection) does not deal with the issue of anti-union discrimination and that rather, this was under the competence of the prosecutors and courts. The FNPR considers that the collection of statistics in relation to the alleged cases of anti-union discrimination can be further discussed with the relevant authorities (Rostrud, Office of the Prosecutor and the judicial department of the Supreme Court). Furthermore, and with reference to the 2011 agreement, should it be decided that the RTK is to deal with the alleged cases of anti-union discrimination the necessary regulatory measures should be taken to that effect. The observations of the KTR are to the same effect.

Noting with interest the Government’s stated intention to address, including with the technical assistance of the Office, the issues it has been raising for a number of years, the Committee expects that consultations with the social partners towards the implementation of proposals to which it had previously agreed will continue and would lead to giving full effect to the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on the developments in this regard.

Article 4. Parties to collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, pursuant to section 31 of the Labour Code, when an enterprise trade union represents less than half of the workers in that enterprise, other non-unionized representatives could represent workers’ interests. Considering that, in these circumstances, direct negotiation between the undertaking and its employees, bypassing sufficiently representative organizations where these existed, might be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted, the Committee expected the Government to take immediate and decisive action to amend section 31 of the Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous explanation that the election of a representative body other than the primary trade union is an extreme measure and occurs only when there is no full representation (more than 50 per cent) of workers’ interests by a trade union organization. The Government thus considers that this standard allows for the most optimal representation of the interest of workers within an organization or undertaking. However, it is ready to use all available opportunities to improve social dialogue using the best international practices and in this respect, would appreciate receiving technical assistance of the Office. The Committee notes that the FNPR is also of the view that this provision needs to be amended so as to ensure that other representatives can be elected only in the absence of another trade union. The Committee welcomes the Government’s request for the technical assistance of the Office and trusts that this assistance will be provided in the near future with a view to ensuring that the national legislation is amended so as to give full effect to the Convention. It requests the Government to inform it of the progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its comments on the 2012, 2014 and 2015 observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) which referred to cases of anti-union discrimination, interference by employers in trade union internal affairs and refusal to bargain collectively. The Committee notes with deep regret that once again, no information has been provided by the Government in reply to the numerous allegations of the violation of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR) received on 31 October 2017, which refer to the matters raised by the Committee below and to numerous cases of alleged violations of the Convention. Noting with concern the persistence and seriousness of the numerous allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on the abovementioned observations and to ensure that investigations are conducted by the authorities into the 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2017 ITUC and KTR allegations.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments the Committee had noted section 136 of the Criminal Code which punishes acts of discrimination, including anti-union discrimination, and had requested the Government to provide information on the number of people found guilty and convicted under the abovementioned provision, as well as the penalties imposed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no such information exists. The Government refers, nevertheless, to two cases where the courts have concluded to the absence of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes, however, that according to the KTR, no one has ever been found guilty and convicted pursuant to section 136 of the Criminal Code; moreover, no one has ever been prosecuted for violation of trade union rights, including acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, in general.

Further in this respect, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments, the Committee had deeply regretted the lack of progress in the implementation of a proposal prepared by the KTR and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), following an ILO technical mission in the framework of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) Case No. 2758 in 2011, which the Government and employers’ representatives had agreed to examine in the framework of the Russian Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations (RTK). The Committee recalls that this proposal refers to the need to draft specific legislative provisions with a view to render protection against violations of trade union rights, in general, and anti-union discrimination, in particular, more effective, and suggests to create a body with a specific mandate to examine cases of violations of trade union rights, including anti-union discrimination (such a mandate can also be undertaken by an existing body). The proposal also calls for training of relevant bodies and courts on freedom of association. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that these recommendations were considered in 2013 by a tripartite working group of the RTK and in December 2016 and were included in the plan of action for 2017. The Government further indicates that a number of legal acts aimed at the development of social partnership have been adapted, several pieces of legislation amended and a number of activities were held to promote social partnership at the regional level. The Committee notes the KTR’s indication that it had tried to engage with the Office of the Prosecutor on a possible way forward in addressing violations of trade union rights, in particular as regards anti-union discrimination and interference to no avail. The Committee further notes the statistics collected by the KTR on the alleged violations of the Convention in 2016–17. The Committee once again deeply regrets the lack of progress in the implementation of the KTR–FNPR proposal, and in particular in the drafting of specific legislative provisions protecting workers from anti-union discrimination, as well as the lack of engagement from the relevant authorities in addressing issues of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee once again urges the Government to implement, in consultation with the social partners and without further delay, the proposals to which it had previously agreed. It requests the Government to provide information on the developments in this regard. The Committee further reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this respect.

Article 4. Parties to collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, pursuant to section 31 of the Labour Code, when an enterprise trade union represents less than half of the workers in that enterprise, other non-unionized representatives could represent workers’ interests. Considering that, in these circumstances, direct negotiation between the undertaking and its employees, bypassing sufficiently representative organizations where these existed, might be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted, the Committee had noted with concern that despite its several requests, section 31 of the Labour Code had not been amended. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the election of a representative body other than the primary trade union is an extreme measure and occurs only when there is no full representation (more than 50 per cent) of workers’ interests by a trade union organization; the Government thus considers that there is no need to amend section 31 of the Code. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, the right of collective bargaining lies with workers’ organizations of whatever level, and that negotiation between employers or their organizations and representatives of non-unionized workers should only be possible when there are no trade unions at the respective level. The Committee emphasizes that where there exists a representative trade union and it is active within the enterprise or branch of activity concerned, the authorization for other workers’ representatives to bargain collectively not only weakens the position of the trade union, but also undermines ILO rights and principles on collective bargaining (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 239–240). The Committee deeply regrets that despite its numerous requests, section 31 of the Labour Code has not been amended. The Committee expects the Government to take immediate and decisive action to amend section 31 of the Labour Code and requests it to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its comments on the 2012 observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) which concerned violations of the Convention in practice and referred, in particular, to cases of anti-union discrimination, interference by employers in trade union internal affairs and refusal to bargain collectively. Regretting that no information has been provided by the Government thereon and noting similar allegations submitted by the ITUC in 2014 and 2015, the Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on all outstanding comments relating to the application of the Convention.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR) received on 1 September 2015 referring to the matters raised by the Committee below. The Committee notes with concern the KTR allegations of ineffective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in practice outlined in its 2015 communication. According to the KTR this is due to: the lack of training of law enforcement and judicial staff; inadequate legal definition of discrimination under section 3 of the Labour Code; lack of any extrajudicial mechanisms that could effectively resolve labour disputes involving allegations of discrimination; lack of understanding by the courts of facts that need to be proven and burden of proof to establish discrimination, and the absence of clear indication in the law of the legal consequences or sanctions in cases of discrimination. The KTR refers to several examples of impunity in cases of anti-union discrimination suffered by workers. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government, during the first half of 2015, 194,256 complaints have been lodged with the State Labour Inspectorate, 28 of which included matters relating to anti-union discrimination. The Government refers to section 136 of the Criminal Code, which punishes acts of discrimination by a fine of between 100,000 and 300,000 Russian rubles (RUB), or a fine based on the salary or any other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or by deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or to engage in a certain activity for a period of up to five years, or by community service for a period of up to 480 hours, or by unpaid labour for a period of up to two years, or by forced labour for up to five years or deprivation of liberty for the same period. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of people found guilty of anti-union discrimination and convicted under section 136 of the Criminal Code, as well as the penalties imposed.

The Committee had previously noted a proposal prepared by the KTR and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), following an ILO technical mission in the framework of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) Case No. 2758 in 2011. The proposal aimed at improving protection against violations of trade union rights, in general, and anti-union discrimination and interference, in particular. It called for the training of relevant bodies and courts on freedom of association and suggested the creation of a body with a specific mandate to examine cases of violations of trade union rights. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to implement this proposal so as ensure the application of the Convention in practice.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that a working group composed of representatives of the social partners was established in November 2013 to analyse the CFA recommendations in Cases Nos 2758, 2216 and 2251 with a view to improving the current regulatory and legislative framework. It further notes that the discussion of the implementation of the CFA recommendations in these cases by the Russian Tripartite Commission was scheduled to take place in October 2015. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the conclusions and recommendations of the CFA in these cases, which concerned, among others, allegations of anti-union discrimination and the absence of effective mechanisms to ensure protection against such acts, denial of facilities for workers’ representatives, violation of the right to bargain collectively and the failure of the State to investigate those violations. The Committee deeply regrets the lack of progress in the implementation of concrete proposals for addressing the issues raised above made by the two trade union centres in the country and supported by the Government and the employers’ organization during the visit of the ILO mission in 2011. The Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary measures without further delay to implement the KTR–FNPR proposals to which it had previously agreed. It requests the Government to provide information on the developments in this regard. The Committee further reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this respect.

Article 4. Parties to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that, pursuant to section 31 of the Labour Code, when an enterprise trade union represents less than half of the workers in that enterprise, other non-unionized representatives could represent workers’ interests. Considering that, in these circumstances, direct negotiation between the undertaking and its employees, bypassing sufficiently representative organizations where these existed, might be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 31 so as to ensure that it was clear that it was only in the event where there were no trade unions at the workplace that an authorization to bargain collectively could be conferred to other representative bodies. The Committee notes with concern that despite its several requests, section 31 of the Labour Code has not been amended. The Committee is, therefore, bound to reiterate its previous request and expects that the Government’s next report will contain information on the measures taken to that end.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Russian Labour Confederation (KTR) and the Seafarers’ Union of Russia (RPSM) alleging numerous violations of trade union rights in practice, including acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by employers in trade union internal affairs, as well as ineffective mechanisms of protection against such violations. The Committee notes that similar allegations have been submitted by these organizations in 2011. The Committee notes that an ILO mission visited the country in October 2011, in order to discuss a complaint pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association with all interested parties. The Committee also notes the Government’s report submitted in 2011.

The Committee further notes the comments made by the ITUC in a communication dated 31 July 2012 alleging new violations of the Convention in practice and referring in particular, to cases of anti-union discrimination, interference by employers in trade union internal affairs and refusal to bargain collectively. It requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Articles 1–3 of the Convention. The Committee had previously noted relevant provisions of the Labour Code, Criminal Code and Code of Administrative Offences providing for sanctions which could be imposed on employers found guilty of anti-union discrimination, as well as sanctions imposed for acts of interference by workers’ or employers’ organizations or their agents in each other’s affairs, particularly in the establishing, functioning and administration of the organizations. Referring, however, to the allegations of ineffective mechanisms of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by employers in trade union internal affairs submitted by the ITUC, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of these legislative provisions in practice and to indicate the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference submitted, investigated and prosecuted within the last two years, as well as on the number of persons punished and the concrete sanctions imposed. The Committee notes that in its 2011 report, the Government once again reiterated the information it had previously provided describing the relevant applicable legislative provisions and once again stressed that the legislation contains appropriate penalties for offences concerning non-compliance with the labour legislation. The Government further indicates that there have been no recent court rulings dealing with complaints lodged by trade unions alleging anti-union discrimination.

The Committee notes, in this respect, the information contained in the report of the abovementioned mission. It notes, in particular, that according to the KTR despite the fact that the law provides for the prohibition of discrimination, protection, especially against acts of anti-union discrimination, is virtually non-existent in practice and that the bodies whose roles should be to protect trade union rights are not effective. The KTR representatives explained that the system of protection of labour rights involved three bodies: the Prosecutor’s Office, courts and the labour inspectorate. The Prosecutor Office’s mandate is to deal with the supervision of the application of the legislation and allegations of violations of human rights. However, according to the KTR, it often refuses to deal with the alleged violations of trade union rights considering that such violations fall outside its sphere of competence and should rather be brought to the attention of labour inspectors. Yet, the KTR informs that the labour inspectorate’s position was that trade union rights are outside the scope of the labour law; thus, it was not competent to deal with the alleged violations of trade union rights. The trade unions were therefore referred to courts. According to the KTR, in the case of anti-union discrimination, this became particularly difficult as such cases were very difficult to prove; even if discrimination is established by the court, the Prosecutor’s Office does not pursue the cases against employers, who refuse to reinstate or compensate a worker who had been subjected to anti-union discrimination; while the legislation provides for administrative and criminal responsibility, in practice, violations of trade union rights are not punished. The KTR representatives explained that administrative responsibility can only be engaged within two months after the lodging of a complaint; in such case, an investigation is carried out but it usually takes over two months. According to the KTR there are no cases where an employer or an official has been found criminally responsible for violating trade union rights.

The Committee further notes that representatives of the State Labour Inspectorate (Rostrud), competent to deal with violations of labour legislation, including alleged cases of discrimination, in general, and anti-union discrimination, in particular, confirmed that it is extremely difficult to prove cases of discrimination in court. They added that trade unions therefore most often file complaints with Rostrud; however, employers, having sufficient means and resources to appeal the decisions of labour inspectors in court do not hesitate to do so. They confirmed that, in practice, if a complaint is lodged with the court, the labour inspection cannot intervene. With regard to the application of penalties, Rostrud officials considered that in general, the fines are very small, to the point that some enterprises preferred to pay fines than to comply with the labour legislation.

The Committee notes the concluding remarks of the mission, which considered that further action is needed to strengthen the protection against violations of freedom of association both in law, and in practice, and that better knowledge of available procedures and further clarification of the practices would help both the social partners and the different state bodies to navigate in a context where responsibilities are not always clear. This applies in particular to the relationship between Rostrud, the Prosecutor’s Office and the courts. The Committee notes that a proposal for addressing, among others, the abovementioned matters has been drafted by two trade union centres in the country – the KTR and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) – and that the Government and employers’ representatives agreed that it should be examined in the framework of the Russian Tripartite Commission (RTK). The proposal refers to the need to draft specific legislative provisions with a view to render protection against violations of trade union rights, in general, and anti-union discrimination, in particular, more effective, and suggests to create a body with a specific mandate to examine cases of violations of trade union rights, including anti-union discrimination (such a mandate can also be undertaken by an existing body). The proposal also calls for training of relevant bodies and courts on freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the action taken to consider and make progress on the KTR–FNPR proposal, including the plans for ensuring the application of Articles 1 to 3 of the Convention in practice. In this respect, the Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical cooperation of the Office if it so wishes.

Article 4. Parties to collective bargaining. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 31 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that it is clear that it is only in the event where there are no trade unions at the workplace that an authorization to bargain collectively can be conferred to other representative bodies. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government. It is therefore bound to reiterate its previous request.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s indication that pursuant to sections 402–404 of the Labour Code, labour arbitration can only be established upon agreement of both parties to the dispute, who also elect the arbitrators, and that the only exception to this rule is set out by section 404 (part 7) of the code. The Committee had noted that this provision referred to section 413 (parts 1 and 2) of the code, dealing with illegal strikes, and thereby imposed compulsory arbitration not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in other services determined by federal laws. The Committee notes that in its 2011 report, the Government indicates that together with the social partners it had drafted amendments to the Labour Code with a view to improve and increase efficiency of procedures for settling collective labour disputes. The Committee notes that the Labour Code was amended in November 2011. It understands, however, that the abovementioned provision of section 413 remained unchanged. The Committee recalls that recourse to compulsory arbitration in cases where the parties do not reach an agreement is generally permissible only in the context of essential services in the strict sense of the term or in the case of civil servants exercising authority in the name of the State. Noting the Government’s statement that in order to achieve compliance with international labour standards, the labour legislation is under constant review in the framework of the RTK, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the relevant sections of the Labour Code so as to ensure the application of the abovementioned principle and to indicate measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) alleging numerous violations of trade union rights in practice, including acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by employers in trade union internal affairs, as well as ineffective mechanisms of protection against such violations. The Committee further noted the comments submitted by the Russian Labour Confederation (KTR) and the Seafarers’ Union of Russia (RPSM) in a communication dated 16 December 2009. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments of the ITUC, which it will examine in the framework of the regular reporting cycle. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the KTR and RPSM.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 24 August 2010 alleging numerous violations of trade union rights in practice, including acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by employers in trade union internal affairs, as well as ineffective mechanisms of protection against such violations. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it had also noted communications submitted by the ITUC containing similar allegations. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by the Russian Labour Confederation and the Seafarers’ Union of Russia in a communication dated 16 December 2009 alleging that the work on amending the Labour Code pursuant to the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies was not moving forward. The Committee notes with regret that the Government once again does not provide observations on the comments submitted by ITUC and other workers’ organizations and expects that the Government will provide its observations on the 2006, 2008 and 2010 comments of ITUC with its next report.

Articles 1–3 of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to specify concrete sanctions imposed on employers found guilty of anti-union discrimination, as well as sanctions imposed for acts of interference by workers’ or employers’ organizations or their agents in each other’s affairs, particularly in the establishing, functioning and administration of the organizations, and to indicate the relevant legislative provisions. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government refers to the provisions of the Labour Code (section 195), Criminal Code (sections 201 and 285) and Code of Administrative Offences (sections 5.28–5.34).  In particular, it indicates that section 195 of the Labour Code provides for a possibility of bringing the head of an organization/undertaking and his or her deputies to the disciplinary liability, including dismissal, for violation of labour legislation and trade union rights. The Committee notes that this section imposes an obligation on an employer to consider an application by an employees’ representative body alleging violations of labour laws, other normative legal acts and terms of a collective agreement by the head of an organization/undertaking and/or his or her deputies and, if such violations are confirmed, to impose a disciplinary penalty, including dismissal, on the person responsible. The Committee further notes sections 201 and 285 of the Criminal Code, both punishing abuse of power, concern crimes against the interests of services in profit-making and other organizations, and crimes against State power and interests of the civil service and the service in local self‑governing bodies, respectively, and provide for heavy sanctions, including fines and imprisonment. Finally, the Committee notes sections 5.28–5.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences, providing for punishment in the form of a fine from five to 50 minimum wages for violation of labour laws, generally, and for: (1) avoidance of participation in collective bargaining; (2) refusal to provide information; (3) unreasonable refusal to conclude a collective agreement; (4) violations of collective agreement; (5) avoidance of receiving employees’ demands and participating in conciliatory procedures; and (6) dismissal of employees in connection with a collective labour dispute or a strike, in particular. The Government indicates that cases related to administrative offences are considered by the officials of the Federal Service on Labour and Employment and the bodies of the Federal Labour Inspection subordinated to it (section 23.12 of the Code). It further indicates that according to section 353 of the Labour Code, the Federal Labour Inspection ensures the supervision and control over the compliance with the labour legislation and other rules and regulations containing labour law provisions by all employers in the territory. While noting this information, the Committee refers to the allegations of ineffective mechanisms of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by employers in trade union internal affairs, as well as numerous violations of this nature in practice submitted by ITUC. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the abovementioned legislative provisions in practice and, in particular, on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference submitted, investigated and prosecuted within the last two years, as well as on the number of persons punished and the concrete sanctions imposed.

Article 4. Parties to collective bargaining. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 31 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that it is clear that it is only in the event where there are no trade unions at the workplace that an authorization to bargain collectively can be conferred to other representative bodies. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this issue will be discussed with the social partners at the October 2010 conference on the improvement of labour legislation. The Committee expresses the hope that section 31 of the Code will be soon amended and requests the Government to provide a copy of the amended text once it has been adopted.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that with the adoption of amendments to the Labour Code in 2006, the Law on collective labour disputes is no longer in force. The Committee further notes the Government’s explanation that pursuant to sections 402–404 of the Labour Code, labour arbitration can only be established by the consent of the parties to the dispute, who also elect the arbitrators. The Government points out that it is impossible to establish an arbitration board at the will of only one of the parties to the dispute, except in cases provided for by Part 7 of section 404 of the Labour Code. The Committee notes that this provision refers to section 413, Parts 1 and 2, of the Labour Code and thereby imposes compulsory arbitration not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in other services determined by federal laws. The Committee recalls that recourse to compulsory arbitration in cases where the parties do not reach an agreement is generally permissible only in the context of essential services in the strict sense of the term or in the case of civil servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the relevant sections of the Labour Code so as to ensure the application of the abovementioned principle and to indicate measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Level of collective bargaining. With regard to the Committee’s previous request to ensure that the legislation provides for a possibility to conclude an agreement at the occupational or professional level, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 45 of the Labour Code provides that agreements may be concluded at the general, interregional, regional, industrial, inter-industrial, territorial and other levels. The Government further explains that the legislation does not contain any provision prohibiting a possibility of concluding agreements at the occupational level and that while their number is small, there have been agreements signed at the occupational level. Furthermore, the Government indicates that the federal bodies of the executive power had not received any complaint regarding the lack of possibility to conclude agreements at the occupational or professional levels. The Committee takes due note of this information.

The Committee notes examples of collective agreements applicable to civil servants and civil employees of the military service and the system of execution of penal sentences provided by the Government.

With regard to its previous comments on the Labour Code amendment, the Committee refers to its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), where it noted the information provided by the Government and, in particular its indication that the permanent tripartite working group of the State Duma Committee on Labour and Social Policy has resumed its work with a view to prepare proposals aimed at improving labour legislation, while taking into consideration proposals of the social partners. The Committee hopes that the work of the abovementioned working group will result in the near future in a legislative reform that will take into account the comments above and requests the Government to provide information on any further developments in this respect. The Committee once again reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical cooperation of the Office if it so wishes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Comments of the ITUC. The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 29 August 2008 alleging acts of interference by employers in trade union internal affairs and their refusal to bargain collectively. It requests the Government to provide its observations thereon, as well as on the 2006 comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC) raising the same issues.

Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s report and regrets that it does not provide a reply either to the previous comments of the ICFTU or to the Committee’s previous observation. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on all outstanding comments.

The Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to:

–      specify the concrete sanctions imposed on employers found guilty of anti-union discrimination and to mention the relevant provisions;

–      specify the sanctions imposed for acts of interference by workers’ or employers’ organizations or their agents in each other’s affairs, particularly in the establishing, functioning and administration of the organizations, and to indicate the relevant legislative provisions;

–      amend section 31 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that it is clear that it is only in the event where there are no trade unions at the workplace that an authorization to bargain collectively can be conferred to other representative bodies;

–      take the necessary measures so as to ensure that the legislation provides for a possibility to conclude an agreement at the occupational or professional level;

–      provide further information on the practical application of sections 402 and 403 of the Labour Code and 6(7) of the Law on collective labour disputes, which seem to impose compulsory arbitration in services which are neither essential in the strict sense of the term, nor involve civil servants exercising authority in the name of the State;

–      provide examples of collective agreements applicable to civil servants and civil employees of the military service and the system of execution of penal sentences.

The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the Ministry of Health and Social Development, together with the social partners, had engaged in work to amend specific legislative acts so as to bring them into conformity with the recommendations of the ILO and that a working group involving most representative social partners was created to that effect in 2008.

The Committee hopes that the Government’s next report will contain precise information on the above issues. It also hopes that the work of the abovementioned working group will result in the near future in legislative reform that will take into account its previous comments and requests the Government to indicate any further developments in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and regrets that it does not provide a reply either to the previous comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – International Trade Union Confederation) concerning several cases of anti-union discrimination, acts of interference by employers in trade union activities and violations of collective bargaining rights, or to the Committee’s previous observation.

The Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to:

–      specify the concrete sanctions imposed on employers found guilty of anti-union discrimination and to mention the relevant provisions;

–      specify the sanctions imposed for acts of interference by workers’ or employers’ organizations or their agents in each other’s affairs, particularly in the establishing, functioning and administration of the organizations, and to indicate the relevant legislative provisions;

–      amend section 31 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that it is clear that it is only in the event where there are no trade unions at the workplace that an authorization to bargain collectively can be conferred to other representative bodies;

–      take the necessary measures so as to ensure that the legislation provides for a possibility to conclude an agreement at the occupational or professional level;

–      provide further information on the practical application of sections 402 and 403 of the Labour Code and 6(7) of the Law on collective labour disputes, which seem to impose compulsory arbitration;

–      provide examples of collective agreements applicable to civil servants and civil employees of the military service and the system of execution of penal sentences.

The Committee hopes that the Government’s next report will contain precise information on the above issues. Hoping that further legislative reform will take into account the previous requests of the Committee, it asks the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It further notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 2216 and 2251 (see 340th Report, March 2006).

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in its communication dated 10 August 2006, which concern several cases of anti-union discrimination, acts of interference by employers in trade union activities and violations of collective bargaining rights. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government:

–         to specify the concrete sanctions imposed on employers found guilty of anti-union discrimination and to mention the relevant provisions;

–         to specify the sanctions imposed on those found guilty of acts of interference by workers’ or employers’ organizations or their agents in each other’s affairs, particularly their establishing, functioning and administration of their organizations, and to indicate the relevant legislative provisions;

–         to amend section 31 so as to ensure that it is clear that it is only in the event where there are no trade unions at the workplace that an authorization to bargain collectively can be conferred to other representative bodies;

–         to take the necessary measures so as to ensure that the legislation provides for a possibility to conclude an agreement at the occupational or professional level;

–         to provide further information on the practical application of sections 402 and 403 of the Labour Code and 6(7) of the Law on Collective Labour Disputes, which seem to impose compulsory arbitration;

–         to provide examples of collective agreements applicable to civil servants and civil employees of military service and the system of execution of penal sentences.

The Committee hopes that the Government’s next report will contain precise information on the above issues.

The Committee regrets that section 31 of the Labour Code, according to which when the trade union represents less than half of the workers at the enterprise, other representatives could represent workers’ interests in collective bargaining, was not amended under the Federal Act. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the Federal Act amending the Labour Code. Hoping that further legislative reform will take into account previous requests of the Committee, it asks the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 31 August 2005 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the comments relate to several cases of anti-union discrimination and violations of collective bargaining rights. The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report its observations on the comments thereon.

The Committee will examine the issues raised in Cases Nos. 2216 and 2251 dealt with by the Committee on Freedom of Association, as well as other matters raised in its previous direct request (see direct request 2004, 75th Session) in respect of the application of the Convention during the regular reporting cycle of 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the adoption of the new Labour Code and of the Act on Employers’ Associations of 27 November 2002. In addition, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2216 (332nd Report, November 2003).

Scope of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information about the trade union rights of the persons under a civil law contract with an employer, who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code, and to indicate any restriction concerning trade union rights imposed by the federal law on persons mentioned in section 11 of the Code (in particular, managers of organizations, personnel combining jobs, women, persons bearing family responsibilities, youth, state employees and "other persons").

Article 1. While noting with interest that the Labour Code provides for prohibition of acts of anti-union discrimination and that section 419 states that persons found guilty of violation of laws and other instruments containing standards of labour law bear disciplinary responsibility in the procedure stipulated by the Code, other federal laws, as well as civil law, and also bear administrative and criminal responsibility in the procedure provided for by federal law, the Committee requests the Government to specify the sanctions imposed on employers found guilty of anti-union discrimination and indicate the relevant legislative provisions.

Article 2. While noting the legislative provisions prohibiting acts of interference contained in the Labour Code, the Act on Employers’ Associations and the Act on Trade Unions, the Committee requests the Government to specify the sanctions imposed on those found guilty of acts of interference, and indicate the relevant legislative provisions.

Article 4. The Committee notes that section 28 of the Labour Code provides that peculiarities of application of the norms contained in section II on social partnership (including collective bargaining), with respect to civil servants and employees engaged in military service (bodies and organizations) and bodies of the execution of penal sentences system, are established by federal laws. The Committee recalls that while Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope, other categories should enjoy the guarantees of the Convention and therefore be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of employment. The Committee also recalls that civilians working in military installations or in the service of the army or police should enjoy the rights provided for in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether the abovementioned categories of workers are granted collective bargaining rights and to specify the relevant legislative provisions.

The Committee notes that there would appear to be a contradiction between sections 31 and 37 concerning workers’ representatives authorized to undertake collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether there are cases in which representatives of non-unionized workers can negotiate even if a trade union exists at the enterprise.

The Committee further notes that section 45 of the Labour Code does not provide for a possibility to conclude an agreement at the occupational or professional level. The Committee considers that workers’ organizations and employers and their organizations should be free in determining the level of bargaining, including the possibility of concluding agreements at the occupational or professional level and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to that end. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Taking into account the content of sections 29(2), 30, 37 and 372 of the Labour Code, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether primary trade unions could be assisted by higher-level workers’ organizations during collective bargaining.

Finally, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the legislation imposes compulsory arbitration in the event where the dispute is not settled with the help of a mediator (sections 402 and 403 of the Labour Code and 6(7) of the Law on Collective Labour Disputes).

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report as well as the different legislative texts, Presidential Decrees and government resolutions transmitted with the Government's report.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that sections 5 and 6 of the Federal Act respecting trade unions promulgated on 12 January 1996 (No. 10-FZ), which provides basic protection in respect of acts of interference, does not specify the sanctions imposed in the event that these provisions are violated. The Committee recalls the importance of ensuring that protection against acts of interference is accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive and effective sanctions and requests the Government to indicate the measures applicable in the event of non-observance of these provisions.

Articles 5 and 6. The Committee notes that section 1 of the Act amending collective agreements and accords (Act No. 2490-I of 11 March 1992 as amended on 20 October 1995) provides, in particular, that this Act establishes the legal criteria to elaborate, conclude and apply collective agreements and accords, in order to contribute to concerted regulations in respect of industrial/social relations. Moreover, paragraph 2 of section 1 specifies that the Act applies to all enterprises, institutions and organizations irrespective of their ownership, their sector of activity or their employees. The Committee also notes that, under section 4 of the Federal Act (No. 10-FZ) respecting trade unions, the appropriate federal legislation must determine to what extent this Act shall apply to the armed forces, the personnel of institutions responsible for national affairs of State, the security services, customs officials, the fiscal authorities, judges and prosecutors. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would transmit copies of the above legislative texts.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government in its report that as a result of the profound social and economic changes taking place, new needs have emerged with regard to legislation on collective bargaining. To this end, a Bill on collective agreements and conventions was sent to the ILO for examination and was submitted, in September 1990, to the special commission of the Council of the Union. It is to be given priority examination at the next session of the USSR Supreme Soviet.

The Committee asks the Government to provide the text of the new law or the most recent version of the Bill, as appropriate, with its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous request. It requests the Government to continue supplying any new information concerning the application of the Convention.