Definitive Report - Report No 357, June 2010

Case No 2738 (Russian Federation) - Complaint date: 22-APR-09 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges that its member organization, the Moscow Police Employees’ Trade Union, was subjected to an illegal search during which documents relating to trade union accounts and computers were confiscated, bringing the union’s activities almost completely to a halt

1. 1121. The complaint is contained in communications from the Russian Trade Union of Staff (and Students) of Educational and Cultural Institutions, State, Municipal and not-for-profit Organizations, Communal Services and Trade (RPRiU) dated 22 April and 17 July 2009.
2. 1122. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 1 February 2010.
3. 1123. The Russian Federation has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 1124. By its communications dated 22 April and 17 July 2009, the RPRiU submits a complaint against the Government of the Russian Federation on behalf of its affiliate, the Moscow Police Employees’ Union (PSM). The RPRiU explains that the PSM was established on 2 July 1991 to represent and protect the social and labour rights and interests of Moscow employees of the Moscow State Department of Internal Affairs (Moscow GUVD), responsible for the police.
2. 1125. The complainant alleges that since 2002, directors of various Moscow GUVD offices have been attempting to obtain personal information about members of the PSM. However, following the representation to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, these officials were given warnings and were informed that their activities in respect of the PSM were against the law. According to the complainant, notwithstanding these warnings, on 7 April 2009, agents of the Economic Crimes Division of the Moscow GUVD broke into the premises of the police trade union and prevented its employees from leaving their workstations and using land line or mobile telephones. The officers explained their actions by invoking an order dated 1 April 2009 of the acting head of the Division to conduct a search at the PSM premises. According to the officers, the search was ordered following allegations of improper use by the PSM leadership of trade union dues paid by its Moscow members. According to the document, the premises, safes and workstations of the union leaders and of the chief accountant should be made available for inspection. The complainant indicates that the agents of the Economic Crime Division categorically refused to produce a copy of that order, but produced an order signed by a senior official of that Division on 6 April 2009 instructing the union to submit a number of documents, including the list of the union’s members and accounts.
3. 1126. The complainant considers that the search of the PSM premises, during which a drawer in the desk of the chief accountant was broken into, six processors and one server removed and the original bookkeeping documents and accounts seized, was conducted without any adequate grounds and in contravention of the law. The complainant claims that particular attention was paid to the documents containing union members’ personal data. As a result of these actions by agents of the employer and the removal of virtually all working documents and material, the activities of the PSM in Moscow were blocked.
4. 1127. The complainant considers that the very issuance of the order in question is contrary to the following legislative provisions: section 7 of the Trade Unions Act, which stipulates that “trade unions and federations thereof shall independently formulate and adopt their own by-laws, regulations on primary union organizations and structures; and shall form union bodies and organize their activities, hold meetings, conferences, congresses and other such events”; sections 5(1) and 24(2) of the same Act, according to which the executive is not entitled to exercise any form of control, including financial control, over the activities of a trade union; section 86(5) of the Labour Code, which prohibits employers from obtaining and processing data on workers’ union membership; section 6 of the Act on Official Searches, which does not provide for search operations involving work stations being broken into and removal of original accounts and bookkeeping documents and computer equipment; as well as provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
5. 1128. The complainant also indicates that the annually renewable collective agreement concluded in 1992, has not been renewed due to the negative position of the Moscow GUVD directors.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1129. By its communication dated 1 February 2010, the Government explains that in accordance with a Presidential Decree concerning questions pertaining to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, that Ministry is responsible for carrying out operational investigations and preliminary inquires in criminal matters, in accordance with the legislation.
2. 1130. In the present case, following a submission of a collective statement by members of the PSM alleging contraventions of the legislation in respect of the distribution of funds by the chairperson of the PSM, forwarded by the prosecution service, the deputy chief of the Moscow GUVD, responsible for the economic security, ordered a search of the police union premises, buildings, equipment, etc. The order in question was issued in accordance with the federal Law on Criminal Investigations. On 7 April 2009, pursuant to this order, the search was carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation. The search established that the PSM has contravened certain financial procedures. In the light of the search findings, a report on these irregularities was drawn up. In accordance with the legislation on the criminal procedure, a decision was taken to refer the material to the investigations department of the Office of the Public Prosecutor. The Government explains that the action taken pursuant to the instructions of the Moscow Public Prosecutor cannot be construed as interference by the government or internal affairs authorities in the activities of trade unions.
3. 1131. Finally, the Government indicates that the sole representative body within the Moscow GUVD, under the terms of the 2008–11 collective agreement, is another union, the primary trade union organization of the Moscow GUVD.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1132. The Committee observes that the complainant organization alleges that its member organization for police employees, the PSM, was subjected to an illegal search during which documents relating to trade union accounts and computers were confiscated, bringing the union’s activities almost completely to a halt. The Committee notes the reply of the Government. According to the Government, the search was ordered following a representation from the members of the PSM and was carried out in conformity with the national legislation.
2. 1133. The Committee recalls that the Russian Federation has ratified Convention No. 87, Article 9 of which provides that, “The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations”.
3. 1134. In the light of this text, there is no doubt that the International Labour Conference intended to leave it up to each State to decide the extent to which it considered it appropriate to apply the rights envisaged in the Convention to members of the armed forces and the police, in other words, by implication, that States which have ratified the Convention are not obliged to recognize the rights set out therein for those categories of workers [see 145th Report, Case No. 778 (France), para. 19, and 332nd Report, Case No. 2240, para. 264]. Nevertheless, the Committee notes with interest that several member States have recognized the right to organize of the police and the armed forces in accordance with freedom of association principles.
4. 1135. In these circumstances and given the divergence of information provided by the complainant and the Government, the Committee believes that it is unable to take this matter further and recommends to the Governing Body that it should decide that the case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 1136. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.