Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 327, March 2002

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

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

1. 113. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting when it requested the Government to reply to the observations submitted by the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine in its communications dated 12 July and 23 August 2001 and to the information provided by the Independent Trade Union of Workers of the Ilyichevsk Maritime Commercial Port (the NPRP) in communications dated 7 August and 19 October 2001 [see 326th Report, paras. 158-164].
2. 114. In its communications, the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine (to which the complainant is affiliated) took issue with the findings of the commission set up to investigate the complainants allegations in respect of anti-union discrimination at the Ilyichevsk Maritime Commercial Port. The Confederation submitted that the commission, despite the existence of documentary proof to the contrary, found that there had been no contraventions of labour or trade union law by the port management. It further alleged that the commission took into account only the port authorities’ views and disregarded the trade union’s views on the matter. The complainant organization (the NPRP) submitted further information concerning the violation of its collective bargaining rights. The NPRP, in a communication dated 7 August, alleges in particular that the management and the official trade union unilaterally drafted a new collective agreement, while at the same time, a conference of workers was convened by the order of the Director of the port in order to adopt the new draft. In its communication dated 19 October 2001, the NPRP further alleges that refusal by the Director of the port to conclude an agreement on the payment of trade union dues resulted in the freezing of the trade union bank account. Finally, it alleges that new criminal charges were brought against trade union leaders.
3. 115. In a communication dated 9 November 2001, the Government, responding to the complainant’s communication dated 7 August 2001, indicated that the matters raised there were examined by the Main Directorate for Labour and Social Protection of the Odessa regional administration, which carried out an on-site visit. Upon verification, it was found that negotiations on the extension of the current collective agreement for a new term had been opened at management’s initiative. The presidents of the five trade unions active in the port were informed in advance of the date of the opening of negotiations. The leaders of the Independent Trade Union did not respond to this proposal by management and did not designate representatives for further participation in the meetings of the port trade unions and in negotiations. The Independent Trade Union was allocated three seats on the joint representative body. After a new collective agreement had been drafted, assemblies were held in the different units of the port to discuss the draft collective agreement. The commission set up to prepare the conference of workers included a representative of the Independent Trade Union, but he did not take part in its work. As concerns the information provided by the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine, the Government indicated that due to the absence of evidence confirming the Confederation’s allegations, it cannot reply to the communications in question.
4. 116. In communications dated 25 January and 5 February 2002, the Government indicated that in May 2001, the Ilyichevsk transport prosecutor concluded that an agreement between the port administration and the NPRP showed some signs of falsification, and that criminal proceedings in connection with this infringement were initiated against responsible officials of the trade union. The Government also indicated that the administration of the port assures that the question concerning the resumption of trade union dues will be decided after the court’s decision on the mentioned criminal proceedings.
5. 117. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the allegations of the violation of collective bargaining rights. Noting that these allegations concern the bringing of new criminal cases against the president of the NPRP, the Committee once again recalls the importance it attaches to the principle that allegations of criminal conduct should not be used to harass trade unionists by reason of their union membership or activities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 43]. It also wishes to recall that trade unions leaders, like anyone else, should benefit from normal judiciary proceedings and that respect for due process of the law should not preclude the possibility of a fair and rapid trial. The Committee therefore urges the Government, once again, to ensure that the criminal proceedings against the president of the NPRP carried out with diligence and requests to be kept informed of developments.