Definitive Report - Report No 291, November 1993

Case No 1634 (Russian Federation) - Complaint date: 04-MAR-92 - Closed

1. 30. The Committee examined this case at its May 1993 meeting, when it presented its interim conclusions. (See 287th Report, paras. 417-437, approved by the Governing Body at its 256th Session.) Since then, the Government has sent further observations in a communication dated 30 June 1993. On the other hand, the complainant organization has failed to offer any new comments in this matter, despite a request from the Committee.
2. 31. The Russian Federation has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It has not ratified the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 32. The complaint presented by the International Union of Workers in the Food and Related Industries (IUF) on behalf of its affiliate the Unified Trade Union of Fishery Workers in the Commonwealth of Independent States (UTFW-CIS), concerned allegations arising from the closure of a trade union council's premises in an undertaking on the orders of the Managing Director of the said undertaking in October 1992 and allegations that the leaders of the complainant union had been threatened with anti-union reprisals.
2. 33. According to the complainants, the premises in question were closed because the trade union council had criticized several decisions taken unilaterally by the management, including the arbitrary dismissal of 50 fishery workers. According to the Government, on the other hand, it was apparent from a reply from the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation that although another trade union, accounting for over 60 per cent of the workers in the undertaking, had been established and registered on 14 July 1991 in accordance with the law, the union rights of the complainant trade union council had not been violated since the undertaking had allocated premises and other facilities to both trade union councils. The Government added that it was unaware of any other appeals being lodged by the complainant trade union council, but that it would endeavour to shed light on the circumstances of this matter.
3. 34. The Committee noted that both the rival trade union councils appeared, at least initially, to have had the use of premises within the undertaking Dalmoreprodukt. However, it also observed that more recent allegations indicated that threats of anti-union reprisals had been made by the management of the undertaking against the leaders of the complainant union, and that in October 1992 the complainant trade union council had been expelled from the premises that had been allocated to it.
4. 35. At its May 1993 Session, in the light of the Committee's interim conclusions, the Governing Body approved the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the complainant organization to submit its comments and observations on the statement of the Prosecutor concerning the representativity of the new trade union.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations on the most recent allegations to the effect that threats of anti-trade union discrimination were made against leaders of the complainant trade union and that the complainant trade union council was, in October 1992, expelled from the premises which had been allocated to it.

B. New developments

1. 36. In its communication dated 30 June 1993, the Government states that the Public Prosecutor's Department of the Russian Federation has examined the unlawful acts allegedly perpetrated by the management of the undertaking against the complainant trade union council, and noted the absence of any legal basis for prosecuting the undertaking's management for the threats which it is alleged to have made against the trade union council. The Government therefore states that it has no reliable information concerning these alleged threats.
2. 37. Moreover, the Government reiterates its previous observations concerning the establishment since 12 March 1991 of two trade union organizations within the undertaking, namely, the Trade Union Council of Fishery Workers and the Independent Trade Union. It points out that, on 14 March 1991, the management of the undertaking drew up two agreements granting both trade unions the free use of premises with similar facilities. The Chairman of the Independent Trade Union ratified that agreement, while the leader of the Trade Union Council of Fishery Workers initially refused to do so. Nevertheless, he subsequently occupied three rooms which had been placed at his disposal. The Government concedes that the management withdrew from the complainant trade union council the use of the undertaking's administration building which it had occupied until 1990, but gives its assurance that the law according to which trade union committees must be provided free of charge with premises and other facilities has been respected and that both trade union councils have the use of similar premises within the undertaking.
3. 38. The IUF has offered no observation in response to the request by the Committee to clarify its position with regard to the Public Prosecutor's claim that the new trade union is more representative than the complainant trade union.

C. C. The Committee's conclusions

• The Committee's conclusions
  39. 39 The Committee notes the comments and observations submitted by the Government in this matter, in particular that the Government has no reliable information at its disposal concerning the management's alleged threats against the complainant trade union council and that in accordance with its legal obligation, the management of the undertaking provided both trade union councils with similar premises within the undertaking.
  40. 40 Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that, despite the request made by the Committee, the complainant organization has submitted no further comments on the matter, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 41. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.