Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Azerbaijan (Ratification: 1992)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 4 of the Convention. Bipartite negotiations. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had noted that the legislation made a distinction between a “collective agreement”, concluded at the enterprise level following bipartite negotiations between workers and employers, and a “collective accord”, concluded at industry, territorial or national levels following bipartite (between trade unions and the authorities) or tripartite (between trade unions, employers’ organizations and the authorities of the appropriate level) negotiations (section 36(1) of the Labour Code (1999)). In this respect, it had requested the Government to take measures, including of a legislative nature, in order to encourage and promote collective bargaining between trade unions and employers and their organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the participation of state bodies in the conclusion of collective accords meets the principle of tripartism, reflected in numerous ILO decisions and documents as well as in international labour standards. While understanding that the aim of the arrangement is to ensure that the obligations undertaken by all parties under collective accords signed following tripartite negotiations are respected, the Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention is aimed at promoting free and voluntary bargaining between workers’ organizations and employers or employers’ organizations. It considers that the principle of tripartism, which is particularly appropriate for the regulation of questions of a larger scope (drafting of legislation, formulating labour policies), should not replace the principle of autonomy of workers’ organizations and employers (or their organizations) in collective bargaining on conditions of employment. The Committee therefore once again invites the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take appropriate measures, including of a legislative nature, in order to encourage and promote collective bargaining between trade unions and employers and their organizations, without involvement of public authorities. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 4 of the Convention. Bipartite negotiations. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had noted that the legislation made a distinction between a “collective agreement”, concluded at the enterprise level following bipartite negotiations between workers and employers, and a “collective accord”, concluded at industry, territorial or national levels following bipartite (between trade unions and the authorities) or tripartite (between trade unions, employers’ organizations and the authorities of the appropriate level) negotiations (section 36(1) of the Labour Code (1999)). In this respect, it had requested the Government to take measures, including of a legislative nature, in order to encourage and promote collective bargaining between trade unions and employers and their organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the participation of state bodies in the conclusion of collective accords meets the principle of tripartism, reflected in numerous ILO decisions and documents as well as in international labour standards. While understanding that the aim of the arrangement is to ensure that the obligations undertaken by all parties under collective accords signed following tripartite negotiations are respected, the Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention is aimed at promoting free and voluntary bargaining between workers’ organizations and employers or employers’ organizations. It considers that the principle of tripartism, which is particularly appropriate for the regulation of questions of a larger scope (drafting of legislation, formulating labour policies), should not replace the principle of autonomy of workers’ organizations and employers (or their organizations) in collective bargaining on conditions of employment. The Committee therefore once again invites the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take appropriate measures, including of a legislative nature, in order to encourage and promote collective bargaining between trade unions and employers and their organizations, without involvement of public authorities. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this regard.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Bipartite negotiations. Observing that pursuant to section 36(1) of the Labour Code (1999), collective accords (general, sectoral (tariff) and territorial (regional)) are concluded between the relevant executive authorities and trade unions at the appropriate level, the Committee had previously requested the Government to take measures, including of a legislative nature, in order to encourage and promote collective bargaining between trade unions and employers and their organizations. While noting that the Government points out that pursuant to section 36(2) of the Labour Code, as well as the definition of the term “collective accord” set out in section 3(7) of the Code, employers can also be a party to a collective accord, the Committee regrets that no measures had been taken to amend section 36(1) of the Labour Code. The Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention is aimed at promoting free and voluntary bargaining between workers’ organizations and an employer or employers’ organization. The Committee is therefore bound to reiterate its previous request. It expresses the hope that the Government’s next report will contain information on the measures taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that technical assistance of the Office remains at its disposal.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide its observations on the comments submitted by the ITUC alleging that despite an adequate protection of trade union rights in law, trade union activities in multinational companies were often reprimanded in practice, that employers often delayed negotiations, unions rarely participated in determining wage levels and were often bypassed in the conclusion of bilateral agreements between the Government and multinational enterprises. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government indicates that as a result of the activity of the Confederation of Trade Unions of Azerbaijan (CTUA), trade unions have been established in more than half of the multinational companies operating in the oil and gas industry. The Government indicates that while under the legislation, the conclusion of collective agreements and accords shall be based on the principles of equality, independence and voluntariness, the CTUA initiatives to establish trade unions are often not sufficient. To address these issues, the Government organizes, on a periodic basis, seminars and conferences with the participation of multinational companies.

Article 4 of the Convention. Bipartite negotiations. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had noted that the legislation made a distinction between a “collective agreement”, concluded at the enterprise level following bipartite negotiations between workers and employers, and a “collective accord”, concluded at industry, territorial or national levels following bipartite (between trade unions and the authorities) or tripartite (between trade unions, employers’ organizations and the authorities of the appropriate level) negotiations. While understanding that the aim of this arrangement is to ensure that the obligations undertaken by all parties under collective accords signed following tripartite negotiations are respected, the Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention is aimed at promoting free and voluntary bargaining between workers’ organizations and an employer or employers’ organization. It considers that the principle of tripartism, which is particularly appropriate for the regulation of questions of a larger scope (drafting of legislation, formulating labour policies), should not replace the principle of autonomy of workers’ organizations and employers (or their organizations) in collective bargaining on conditions of employment. The Committee therefore invites the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take additional appropriate measures, including of a legislative nature, in order to encourage and promote collective bargaining between trade unions and employers and their organizations, without interference by the public authority. The Committee reminds the Government that ILO technical assistance remains at its disposal.

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

Articles 1 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 4 August 2011 alleging that despite an adequate protection of trade union rights in law, trade union activities in multinational companies are often reprimanded in practice. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted similar comments made by the ITUC in 2007, which also alleged that employers often delayed negotiations and unions rarely participated in determining wage levels and were often bypassed in the conclusion of bilateral agreements between the Government and multinational enterprises. The Committee regrets that the Government’s report contains no observations on the ITUC 2007 comments. Once again recalling that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure the application of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to initiate an investigation into the ITUC’s allegations and to provide information on the measures taken in this respect. It further requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC’s allegations.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains information on the protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and the collective bargaining procedure.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the legislation made a distinction between a “collective agreement”, concluded at the enterprise level following bipartite negotiations between workers and employers, and a “collective accord”, concluded at industry, territorial or national levels following bipartite (between trade unions and the authorities) or tripartite (between trade unions, employers’ organizations and the authorities of the appropriate level) negotiations. The Committee recalled that while tripartism was particularly appropriate for the regulation of questions of a larger scope (drafting of legislation, formulating labour policies), the principle of tripartism should not replace the principle of autonomy of workers’ organizations and employers (or their organizations) in collective bargaining on conditions of employment. The Committee also recalled that, according to Article 4 of the Convention, free and voluntary bargaining with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment should be conducted between workers’ organizations and an employer or employers’ organization and therefore requested the Government to take measures to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. It therefore reiterates its previous requests and reminds the Government that ILO technical assistance remains at its disposal on the abovementioned issues.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 1 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee had previously noted the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2007, which alleged in particular that despite the law, an effective system of collective bargaining between unions and enterprise managements had not yet been established: employers often delayed negotiations, and unions rarely participated in determining wage levels and were often bypassed in the conclusion of bilateral agreements between the Government and multinational enterprises. The ITUC further alleged cases of anti-union discrimination and interference that took place in multinational enterprises.

The Committee, recalling that it was the responsibility of the Government to ensure the application of the Convention, requested the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that multinational enterprises operating on its territory respect freedom of association norms and principles and to inform it of the measures taken in this respect. It further requested the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC’s previous allegation of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference that took place in multinational enterprises.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the legislation made a distinction between a “collective agreement”, concluded at the enterprise level following bipartite negotiations between workers and employers, and a “collective accord”, concluded at industry, territorial or national levels following tripartite negotiations between trade unions of the appropriate level, the National Confederation of Entrepreneurs’ (Employers’) Organization and the authorities. The Committee recalled that while tripartism was particularly appropriate for the regulation of questions of a larger scope (drafting of legislation, formulating labour policies), the principle of tripartism should not replace the principle of autonomy of workers’ organizations and employers (or their organizations) in collective bargaining on conditions of employment. The Committee also recalled that, according to Article 4 of the Convention, free and voluntary bargaining with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment should be conducted between workers’ organizations and an employer or employers’ organization and therefore requested the Government to take measures to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that steps are being taken to set up national and local collaborative committees comprising representatives of unions, employers’ associations, relevant executive bodies and public associations representing the interests of those especially in need of social protection, with a view to promoting employment.

The Committee reiterates its previous requests to the Government, as set out above, and reminds the Government that ILO technical assistance remains at its disposal on the abovementioned issues.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 28 August 2007, referring to the issues it had raised last year. In particular, the ITUC alleges that despite the law, an effective system of collective bargaining between unions and enterprise managements has not yet been established: employers often delay negotiations, unions rarely participate in determining wage levels and are often bypassed in the conclusion of bilateral agreements between the Government and multinational enterprises. The ITUC further alleges cases of anti-union discrimination and interference which take place in multinational enterprises. The Committee notes that the Government recognizes that multinational enterprises operating in the country often violate labour and trade union rights and that the conclusion of collective labour agreements or industrial collective accords with such enterprises is not widespread. The Committee recalls that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure the application of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that multinational enterprises operating on its territory respect freedom of association norms and principles. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect. It further requests the Government to provide its observations on the remaining issues raised by the ITUC.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the legislation made a distinction between a “collective agreement”, concluded at the enterprise level following bipartite negotiations between workers and employers, and a “collective accord”, concluded at industry, territorial or national levels following tripartite negotiations between trade unions of appropriate level, the National Confederation of Entrepreneurs’ (employers’) Organization and the authorities. The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that it considers that the participation of the state bodies in the conclusion of collective accords corresponds to the principle of tripartism. In that respect, the Committee recalls that while tripartism is particularly appropriate for the regulation of questions of a larger scope (drafting of legislation, formulating labour policies), the principle of tripartism should not replace the principle of autonomy of workers’ organizations and employers (or their organizations) in collective bargaining on conditions of employment. The Committee also recalls that, according to Article 4 of the Convention, free and voluntary bargaining with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment should be conducted between workers’ organizations and an employer or employers’ organizations and therefore, requests the Government to take measures to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee reminds the Government that ILO technical assistance remains at its disposal on the abovementioned issues.

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

1. Comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). The Committee notes the comments made by the ICFTU in a communication dated 10 August 2006 concerning: (1) the fact that, despite the law, an effective system of collective bargaining between unions and enterprise managements has not yet been established and that unions rarely participate in determining wage levels; and (2) serious obstacles to forming trade unions have been reported at joint ventures operating in the communication sector and in the oil sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the ICFTU.

2. The Committee will examine other points raised in its 2005 direct request next year in the framework of the regular examination of the Government’s reports.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

In its previous direct request, the Committee had noted that the legislation made a distinction between a “collective agreement”, concluded at the enterprise level following bipartite negotiations between workers and employers, and a “collective accord”, concluded at industry, territorial or national levels following tripartite negotiations between trade unions of appropriate level, the National Confederation of Entrepreneurs’ (employers’) organization and the authorities and requested the Government to indicate the reasons for the participation of the authorities in the conclusion of general, industrial and territorial collective accords. The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that, it considers that the participation of the state bodies in the conclusion of collective accords corresponds to the principle of tripartism. Recalling once again that free and voluntary bargaining with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment should be conducted between workers’ organizations and an employer or employers’ organizations, the Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 98. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee would like to point out that if the Government wishes, a tripartite body competent in the industrial relations field (and if necessary, for consultations during the preparation of labour legislation) could be established to facilitate collective bargaining by studying general problems, giving advice to the parties to help them solve particular problems they may encounter, as well as to ensure that the parties to collective bargaining take into consideration public interests regarding social and economic policy provided that, in all cases, the parties to collective bargaining, i.e. employers’ and workers’ organizations, keep the right to reach a final decision.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes that with the entry into force of the Labour Code of 1999, the law on collective contracts and agreements, the law on individual employment contracts and the law on the settlement of disputes are repealed.

In its previous direct request, the Committee observed that section 36 of the Labour Code stipulated that collective agreements, concluded at a higher level than the enterprise, would be executed between relevant authorities, trade unions and employers’ organizations and requested the Government to indicate the reasons for the participation of the authorities in the conclusion of general, industrial and territorial collective agreements and to supply further information on the application in practice of the current bargaining system. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in this respect, according to which, until recently, general collective agreements were concluded between the two parties (the Cabinet of Ministers and the Confederation of Trade Unions), since the representative bodies of the employers were not duly established and organized. However, since June 2001 the National Confederation of the Organizations of Entrepreneurs (Employers) is an equal partner in the process of conclusion of the general collective agreement. The Committee notes that the Labour Code makes a distinction between a "collective contract", concluded following bipartite negotiations between workers and employers, and a "collective agreement" which allows for bipartite negotiations between workers and authorities and tripartite negotiations in some cases. The Committee requests the Government to explain the difference between the two notions by clarifying the particular purpose and the objectives of each instrument and to indicate the reasons for the participation of the authorities in the conclusion of "collective agreements". The Committee recalls in this respect that, in line with the Convention, free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between workers’ organizations and an employer or an employers’ organization.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report.

1. Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee observes that the new Labour Code stipulates that collective agreements, concluded at a higher level than at the enterprise, will be executed between relevant authorities, trade unions and employers' organizations. The Committee recalls that, in line with the Convention's focus on free and voluntary collective bargaining, collective agreements are reached between a workers' organization and an employer or an employers' organization. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the reasons for the participation of the authorities in the conclusion of collective agreements and to supply further information on the application in practice of the current bargaining system.

2. The Committee takes notes of the adoption in June 1998 of the Law on Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes and requests the Government to supply a copy, if possible, in one of the working languages of the ILO.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the Government's report and in particular the promulgation of the Law on Collective Contracts and Agreements which entered into force on 25 September 1996 and was drafted with the technical assistance of the Office.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee had noted that Act No. 792 on trade unions, promulgated on 24 February 1994, prohibited any discrimination on the basis of membership of a trade union and had requested the Government to indicate what sanctions could be imposed in cases where acts of anti-union discrimination were committed and whether protection against such acts applied to both trade union leaders and members. The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied the information requested and asks it again to provide the relevant details and to indicate how the protection system operates in practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's report and, in particular, the promulgation of Act No. 792 of 24 February 1994 on trade unions. Similarly, the Committee notes the draft act on collective agreements which has been prepared with ILO technical assistance.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. While it notes that Act No. 792 on trade unions prohibits any discrimination on the basis of membership of a trade union, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report what sanctions can be imposed in cases where acts of anti-union discrimination are committed and whether protection against such acts applies to both trade union leaders and affiliated workers. Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how the system of protection functions in practice.

Article 4. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the provisions in section 14 of Act No. 792 on trade unions in regard to collective bargaining apply to enterprises in the private sector.

Finally, the Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report whether the draft act on collective agreements has been adopted and to keep it informed of any new legislative texts adopted as a result of the economic changes to which the Government refers in its report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that because of changing economic conditions many provisions of the legislation need to be revised and that work has begun on the new labour legislation in parallel with work to improve labour relations through the introduction of new legal frameworks for the establishment of collective agreements, sectoral wage accords and general accords between representatives of workers, employers and the State.

The Government is requested to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in its legislative reform and to supply copies of any newly adopted texts.