Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 321, June 2000

Case No 2018 (Ukraine) - Complaint date: 23-FEB-99 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 83. The Committee last examined this case at its November 1999 meeting [see 318th Report paras. 473-516], which concerned among other things allegations of anti-union harassment, violations of the right to strike and physical threats against the president of the union. On this occasion, it had formulated the following recommendations:
   • With regard to the allegations that pressure was brought to bear on members of the complainant union by their employer, the Ilyichevsk Maritime Commercial Port, to leave the union, the Committee, recalling that proof of such inducement by an employer to leave a union can be very difficult when workers fear losing their jobs, requested the Government to order a new inquiry by an independent body enjoying the trust of both parties, with a view to establishing the circumstances of the resignations from the union and assessing the reliability of the allegations; if it is found that pressure was brought to bear on the workers to leave the union, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that this does not recur and to keep it informed of the outcome of the inquiry.
   • As regards the allegation concerning the use of the employer's own funds to set up a young workers' association, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that the functions carried out by the association in question do not encroach on the normal activities of a trade union organization.
   • As regards the allegations concerning the workforce meeting, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that activities which naturally pertain to a trade union are carried out by independent trade union organizations, and in particular that workers' collectives do not encroach on the normal functions of trade unions, particularly in matters relating to strikes and collective bargaining.
   • As regards the court rulings that the strike planned for 7 September 1998 was illegal, the Committee, emphasizing that the ports do not constitute essential services in which strikes might be prohibited, although they are important public services in which a minimum service might be required in the event of a strike, requested the Government to amend section 18 of the Transport Act in order to ensure that it cannot be construed as allowing the prohibition of strikes in ports.
   • The Committee expressed its concern at the serious nature of the allegations concerning physical and legal threats against the president of the complainant union and against the union itself (seizure of financial records, closure of bank accounts, pressure on workers, infringements of freedom of movement, an attempt to abduct the president of the NPRP), and requested the Government to ensure that the inquiry which the State Prosecutor's Office had been ordered to conduct was carried out with diligence, and to keep it informed in this regard.
2. 84. In its communication dated 30 March 2000, the Government indicates firstly that, with regard to the allegations of pressure by management on the members of the complainant union with the aim of forcing them to leave the union, the Commission of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and the Ministry of Transport did not find a single instance of pressure on the said workers. The Government insists that the port workers only withdrew from the complainant organization in order to join other trade unions that were active in the port and which they considered more effective to defend their interests.
3. 85. While taking note of this information, the Committee regrets that the Government did not order a new inquiry by an independent body on this issue and reiterates its requests to the Government on this aspect of the case and asks it to keep it informed in this regard.
4. 86. Concerning the allegation regarding the use of the employer's own funds to set up a young workers' association supposedly signatory of a no-strike agreement, the Government explains that the members of this organization are young workers who are members of five different trade unions established in the port and that its aim is youth work, the development of sports and excursions and the organization of young people's leisure. The Committee, while taking note of this information, once again asks the Government to ensure that the functions carried out by the association in question do not encroach on the normal activities of a trade union organization.
5. 87. As regards the court rulings that the strike planned for 7 September 1998 was illegal, the Government emphasized that the strike was declared illegal primarily because it violated the provisions of the Act on the settlement of collective labour disputes and not for violating section 18 of the Act of Ukraine respecting transport, which prohibit strikes in the transport sector. However, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Transport is currently drafting provisions amending and supplementing the Transport Act, which will include changes relating to the holding of strikes in this sector.
6. 88. The Committee takes note of this information. It recalls once again that the ports do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term in which strikes might be completely prohibited and asks the Government to keep it informed of all relevant amendments to the Transport Act in this regard.
7. 89. As regards the criminal charges initiated against the president of the complainant organization, the Government indicates that the case and the charges have been referred to the Ilyichevsk municipal court.
8. 90. The Committee takes note of the information and, in view of the serious nature of the allegations, it urges the Government to ensure that the proceedings are carried out with diligence and requests it to keep it informed in this regard.